[Jay Flemma]

I almost fell out of my chair when Pete said his greatest contribution to architecture was drainage!  I was totally not expecting that answer.  but now that think about it, maybe I wasn't looking for the correct answer.  I was thinking in terms of golf courses.  But now he has me thinking more broadly too.

So in terms of COURSES, I'll say Sawgrass, but because it's stood the test of time without needing ridiculous length.  In terms of concepts, I'll go with his broad style of bunkering from bunker to bunker and from hole to hole within the same course.  No two Pete HOLES look the same, let alone two courses (Sawgrass and PGA West aside)

What do you think are his greatest contributions?

His greatest courses?

Where does he fit in the Pantheon of greatest architects in history?  Can we speak of him in the same conversation as Mackenzie?  Macdonald? Ross?   How close is Tom Doak to Pete?  Has he surpassed his former employer?  is Pete in your top 5 architects?  Why or why not? Why hasn't someone, anyone given him sandy soil to work on?  Mike Keiser or Ran or any other developers out there?  How about giving Pete a shot and sandy soil?

[Ted Sturges]

Jay,

I enjoyed your article and I can't say I was surprised at how Pete answered that question you posed about his greatest contribution.  You never know what he's going to say.  I played a round of golf with him late last fall and it was an interesting 4 hours to say the least (and he shot his age at Crooked Stick on that day).  Heard some very interesting things that day.  Covered a bunch of topics that day for sure.

I would also say some of his greatest contributions would be who he has trained over the years.  I consider Mr. Coore and Mr. Doak to be perhaps the most talented architects in the world today, and I believe both have learned from Pete.

Where does he fit into history is a more difficult question.  You ask specifically if he can be mentioned among the old greats (you referenced MacKenzie, Macdonald and Ross).  I would say no.  Perhaps it is because for some reason which I don't understand, he was not given very many great sites to work with in his long career.  I don't think history will say his 5 best courses should be mentioned in the same class as the top courses of MacKenzie, Raynor, MacDonald, Ross or Tillinghast to name 5.

I think he will go down as an innovator, an architect that could turn a poor or average site into something truly special if not a course listed among the world's best, and one of the most unique characters in golf.

TS

[Matt Kardash]

Ted,

The Golf Club, Teeth of the Dog, Pete Dye Golf Club, Kiawah, Whistling Straits, Harbour Town, The Honors, Crooked Stick, Long Cove, BWR, TPC, and Oak Tree National are all in the world top 100 (some maybe just slightly out of it). Probably at least 3 or 4 are Top 50. I think he is holding his own quite nicely. Not bad for a guy who never got a great sandy site to play with.

I do think it is fascinating that he never got a GREAT site to work with. Teeth of the Dog is for sure the best site he ever got with all the ocean front property. But even then, it's not a site with a tremendous amount of movement, nor does it have sandy soil. Tom Doak has probably had a half dozen better sites to play with (in terms of soil and natural contour)...and he has been doing this a lot less time than Dye.

I think Dye was unfortunate in that he designed in an era when resort courses were in vogue, and developers did not think to design courses in very remote settings which had the best properties. At the same time, since he was so good at designing in a swamp developpers probably didn't feel the need to scout sites in remote locations.

[Ted Sturges]

The Golf Club, Teeth of the Dog, Pete Dye Golf Club, Kiawah, Whistling Straits, Harbour Town, The Honors, Crooked Stick, Long Cove, BWR, TPC, and Oak Tree National are all in the world top 100 (some maybe just slightly out of it). Probably at least 3 or 4 are Top 50. I think he is holding his own quite nicely.

We may have to agree to disagree.  I ask you to compare the list above with:

Dr. MacKenzie-  Cypress Point, Royal Melbourne, Crystal Downs, Augusta National, Pasatiempo
Mr. Ross-  Seminole, Pinehurst No. 2, Oakland Hills, Plainfield Country Club, Inverness, Wannamoisett
Mr. Tillinghast-  San Francisco Golf Club, Winged Foot (both), Baltusrol (both), Somerset, Quaker Ridge
Mr. Raynor-  Fishers Island, Camargo, Yeamans Hall, Shoreacres
Mr. Macdonald-  NGLA, Chicago Golf, Sleepy Hollow, St. Louis, Yale

I agree that you have listed Pete's top dozen or so courses.  I would ask you to break down the list to his top 5 and then thoughtfully consider who in the list above you would dismiss in favor of Mr. Dye.

TS

[Jay Flemma]

Is it possible that Pete is a top 5 architect in terms of the science of design? Like drainage and grasses and the building of courses?  Ted, why do you feel the courses you list are stronger than Dye courses?

[Matt Kardash]

To begin with, I don't believe just because your top 5 courses are better it makes you the better architect. There is more to an architect than his top 5 courses. Besides, like I said, Dye never got sites as good as many of these architects. Does that make him a lesser designer?

However, in terms of a Top 5 I wouldn't even hesitate to bump out McDonald and Raynor. I love their work, in fact, I'd rather play their courses more so than the other 3 you posted, however, I'd still put Dye ahead. I'd probably even bump Tilly.

Makes sense, since I have Dye as a Top 3. Maybe Doak or Coore will pass him one day. But Top 3 for now. We all got our tastes  

[Josh Tarble]

Not to mention his other contributions.  His drainage work, his work on swampy or uninteresting sites has been nothing short of extraordinary. 

His courses have routinely made other architects think completely outside of current protocol and his courses continually challenge the best in the world.  While generally (being the key word) remaining playable for the amateur.

It's mainly subjective but I think he at least deserves to be in the discussion of top 2 or 3 architects of all time. 

[cary lichtenstein]

Teeth of the Dog, a public resort course that was heroic and fun to play, lots of eye candy, 4 great vacation trips

[Andy Troeger]

For my tastes, Pete Dye is way up the list. I pretty well recognize at this point that I haven't played enough by some of the classic guys to really have a definitive listing. I'm not sure I'm in a place to say much beyond the courses themselves.

I think his top courses match up pretty well to anybody else's top courses. Pete's top four IMO are Pete Dye GC, The Golf Club, Sawgrass, and Blackwolf Run River. I haven't played Kiawah or Teeth of the Dog, and don't have Whistling Straits or Harbour Town as high as some others. I've played about half the courses on Ted's lists below and think Pete holds up with all of them except perhaps Dr. MacKenzie. But I do like his style and don't mind some of the manufactured elements. I think the only reason that some of his work isn't as high on the lists as the ODG's is time.

I wouldn't be surprised if Doak and Coore, when all is said and done, have just as good or better portfolios. I expect some would argue they already do! I just haven't seen enough of either to say for sure.

[Jay Flemma]

Andy, you raise an interesting question. Five of Doak's courses may rank higher on my list of faves than five of Pete's, but are they better? What makes them better? Possibly minimalism?  Possibly an older "look and feel?" Who has made more of a contribution to the craft?  Is it Pete with his nuts and bolts innovations of drainage and grasses? Is it Pete with his monumental success as a designer of well-received major venues and tournament sites?  Is it Pete for his appeal to the masses?  Is it Doak with his spearheading (with others) the move back to Golden Age concepts? Is it Doak with his epic designs?

I love Pete, but if I were to list my fave five Petes vs. my five fave Doaks, Tom might win on my personal criteria. Rather than asking "better" maybe we should ask "more influential?" Would the answer be different?  what percentage might prefer one to the other?  what demographic of golfer might prefer one to the other?

[Paul Jones]

I heard him say that Casa de Campo was what he is most proud of ...because of what it did for the community/economy.

[Tom_Doak]

To me, Pete Dye's greatest contribution to architecture is that he has told the unvarnished truth (in his eyes) for all of his 85 years.  He has stuck up for preserving the challenge of golf, and named names as to who doesn't.  He's drawn attention to golf architecture [and especially to professional golf course designers, as opposed to Tour pros who sideline in design] by being daring and unafraid and controversial.  And he's shared everything he knows with any of us who have asked -- which is funny, since he clearly doesn't like to share the same things with golf writers in interviews anymore.

I don't think there is any merit in trying to rank golf course architects or their careers.  You can only compare their courses individually, and even then, none of you really understand whether they got the most out of the sites they worked on.  Indeed, Pete Dye is the guy who made those comparisons impossible, because he made it clear that you could build ANYTHING if you wanted to ... so it was no longer relevant what you had to start with.

It is entirely true that I've had lots more great sites to work on than Pete Dye ever has, but that's because I started campaigning for them when I was 22 years old, to take my career in a different direction than Pete's -- because I understood that I would never compete with him at his own game.  And, by the same token, Pete was happy to take on difficult sites and has never (to my knowledge) lamented that he didn't get to work on the beautiful sites that I have.

[Ross Harmon]

Jay - that's interesting that you brought up the "science of design" and Pete's drainage comment.

Pete enjoys a challenge as much as anyone, maybe even more than anyone. I've had the fortune to talk with him several times about some of his most challenging engineering projects - specifically, Whistling Straits, Teeth of the Dog, TPC San Antonio, French Lick, TPC Sawgrass - and in each case he really enjoys telling the story of what the land was when he first saw it and how it got it to where it is today. I can't think of another architect who has gotten so much from really difficult sites, so I'd have to say in the "science of design" category, Pete is #1 IMO.

Perhaps this could be a focused interview in the future with Pete?

[Mark Saltzman]

I have always thought (based on absolutely nothing) that 13 at The Golf Club gave Pete Dye the confirmation that great holes could be engineered rather than found.

[Mike_Trenham]

In his prime Pete made the ball roll in to more difficult spots, the fairways were crowned or sloped.. his bunkers tilted toward the greens making an easy shot hard.  He got these details right by being on sight and his protégé picked up on it.

[Adam Clayman]

 No two Pete HOLES look the same, let alone two courses (Sawgrass and PGA West aside)

They may not be the same, but many of his holes look the same. Specifically his cape par 3's. Come to think of it, most all of his Cape holes "look" the same. Their greens are probably all different, and, that's why they aren't the same.

[Jud_T]

IMHO history will reflect on Pete as the Art Blakey of GCA; i.e. While important in the historical timeline of GCA for his own work, he'll end up better known as a great teacher and developer of top talent.  Would you rather play Pete's top 10 today or the Top 10 of all the people who worked for him at one time or another?  Can you even name all the interesting people who've worked for him?

[Scott Sander]

Pete was happy to take on difficult sites and has never (to my knowledge) lamented that he didn't get to work on the beautiful sites that I have.

I almost rebutted this, then realized I'd presumed something that's likely not true.

This fall, I had the chance to talk with Mr. Dye about the C-C Pinehurst overhaul and he said, without prompting, that he would have liked to have had more sandy sites to work with.  But, indeed, he said nothing about beautiful sites.  I think my mind immediately equated one to the other, though those two concepts are not at all necessarily true.  How much -if at all- do you think the pre-existing beauty of a site matters to him?

For what it's worth, he said Kiawah was the only sandy site he's had.  I said 'I don't believe you', and he said with that grin, "It's true.  But dig down 16 inches on that hill at French Lick.  You'll see that you can make a site sandy."



As for legacy... I don't see anyone even remotely ready or capable of assuming the mantle of cantankerous old Yoda who does not suffer fools or whiny pros. 
I wish I had a fraction of his audacity.

[Andy Troeger]

I love Pete, but if I were to list my fave five Petes vs. my five fave Doaks, Tom might win on my personal criteria. Rather than asking "better" maybe we should ask "more influential?" Would the answer be different?  what percentage might prefer one to the other?  what demographic of golfer might prefer one to the other?

In regards to this and Jud's comment, I don't think Pete will be remembered in comparison to Tom Doak, Bill Coore, or anyone else that worked for him. Do any of you really look at Pacific Dunes and Friar's Head and see much comparison to Pete Dye? Not to say there aren't any similarities, but the influences for Coore and Doak go far beyond Pete Dye. And the golf course world is better off for the variance in styles and themes.

In terms of his own work, one of the oddities with Pete Dye is that its hard to figure his top five. His style evolved so much over the years, from The Golf Club to Whisting Straits, that there is a lot of room for discussion as to determining his best work. I think his best courses will do just fine in the rankings over time, but I'm not really sure what courses will eventually end up being considered his "top five." I'm guessing The Golf Club and Whistling Straits, plus perhaps Pete Dye GC, Kiawah, and Sawgrass in the USA.

[Sean_A]

One can never underestimate the importance of drainage.  

So far as Mr Dye's legacy is concerned, I thought at least some people would credit him for the initial Renaissance push in architecture which has flowered into arguably a mini-second Golden Age.  Is there nobody out there who credits Dye just for doing things differently than Trent Jones and his post WWII style?  For that matter, can't Dye be credited for being impossible pigeon-hole?  So many of his courses are so visually different.  While I don't know if we can say Dye developed the features below, he certainly gave them a stamp of approval which made it easier for later archies to be more creative.  It isn't just a matter of training great archies then implying the training was terribly important. 

small greens
railroad tie bulkheads
all sorts of bunker shaping
island green
short par 4s

I am constantly amazed when golfers say Dye's work is mainly very similar.  He is probably the most diverse archie I know of.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

In regards to this and Jud's comment, I don't think Pete will be remembered in comparison to Tom Doak, Bill Coore, or anyone else that worked for him. Do any of you really look at Pacific Dunes and Friar's Head and see much comparison to Pete Dye? Not to say there aren't any similarities, but the influences for Coore and Doak go far beyond Pete Dye. And the golf course world is better off for the variance in styles and themes. 

Andy:

That's because you are looking at the wrong things.

Neither Bill nor I was going to follow Pete Dye's style, because we are different people, and because we both realized it would be stupid to try and compete with him by copying his style.  We weren't going to get jobs to design tournament courses with unlimited earthmoving budgets when we went out on our own.

But, look at how we work.  We work by putting together a good crew and going out and building the golf courses we put our names on, and doing a small number of projects at any one time.  Where do you think we learned to do that?  That is Mr. Dye's legacy ... getting golf course design out of the office and off of the plans, and back out in the dirt where it belongs.

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
All true and very good. But those are things that are important to those in the business and to GCA geeks like us. And perhaps that's where this thread was intented to go. I really believe architects in the long run are going to be remembered for their finished products (by most people), not as much by their methods. Anyone can go out and see the golf course, few of us get to see how they are built. From your own writings, it seemed like you picked up good practices from a large number of sources, not just Pete Dye. For most of us, its tough to distinguish between a MacDonald course and a Raynor course. There's no such difficulty with you and Pete Dye.

I think you'll all be remembered for quality work. I'm not denying the link you mentioned, but I don't think it defines any of your careers. The golf courses do that. And its pretty clear those methods are more effective than the mass production method that produced a lot of mediocre courses.

[Jason Topp]

I am not sure this idea is historically accurate but it is my working theory at the moment from the perspective of the customer (who does not care directly about the design process).

Pete Dye transformed the industry by changing the focus from courses that are difficult (RTJ) to ones that are interesting or pleasing to the golfer.

While there was a lot of focus on how difficult Dye's courses were in the 80's, his designs were also very interesting in the problems they presented.  This opened the door for acceptance of a variety of design approaches that followed including the strategic designs of the minimalists to the softer, more pleasing look of Fazio's courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

Andy, Tom - your exchange helped me formulate what I think might be Mr. Dye's greatest/most lasting legacy: the 'permission' his example gave to every architect working today to truly be him or herself.  I think his life and example and body of work is an expression of (and prod to) freedom, an example that others were emboldened and strengthened by. By the work he did (and how he did it) he gave the architects who followed him the permission to be themselves, i.e. the freedom to intepret the lessons from the great GB&I ccourses in whatever way they wanted/felt most deeply, the courage to follow their own convictions (knowing there would always be a seat at the table for a talented architect of unique vision), the encouragement to be bold and daring with new ideas (or with old ones, re-imagined), and a lesson in how to actually succeed in the business part of it, with all the moxie and showmanship and self-promotion this entails.  It seems to me -- not having met him and not even having read all that much about him -- that one of Mr. Dye's best qualities, both consciously and not, is the generosity of spirit to encourage others to succeed in their own ways just as much as he did in his.

Peter

[Jay Flemma]

Small greens - whoever said that above hit it on the head.  "Oversize" greens are just too big.  If you make the green smaller or narrower and make the hazards around the green tougher, you don't need 7700 yards.  Look at all the guys at Oly and fourteen at Pebble who bogeyed with wedges in their hands.

Also I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression - when we talk about Pete and Tom its double porterhouse and chateaubriand, or as Tom said, splitting hairs among the best.

Tom, great catch on Pete's telling it like it is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()