[Mike Hendren]

On the  Dye London thread a poster made, shall we say, less than favorable comments.  I happen to like his work immensely, but more importantly I think his role cannot be understated in the transition of golf course architecture from the relatively dark ages of the 50's through 70's into what is now regarded as a second golden age.  Simply put, Dye almost single-handedly bridged the two era's.

If not among the best, I'd certainly place him among the most important/influential.

Thoughts?

Bogey

[Jason Thurman]

We discussed Pete for a few minutes during Clovernook's architecture night this week. A member asked me what I thought of his work. My answer was along the lines of the following:

Fundamental mastery lies at the core of greatness in every craft. A writer has to master grammar and syntax. A guitarist has to master rhythm and staying in key. Likewise, a great architect has to master shaping, routing, and incorporation of strategy (among many other things).

Mastering fundamentals alone, though, is not enough. To reach true greatness, you have to figure out how to push the boundaries of what can be done while keeping the fundamentals alive. In fact, true greatness DEFINES fundamentals by identifying what a practitioner of a craft MUST do and what is really just a rule of thumb that can be broken under the right circumstances. For a writer, it means understanding when to deviate from tone to make a point, or when to start a sentence with a conjunction. For a guitarist, it means knowing when to go modal or play behind the beat to convey a certain emotion. And for an architect, it means knowing when to move a ton of dirt to create something memorable and a sense of juxtaposition.

Pete does that better than anyone. He's a master of strategy. He uses scale better than anyone since 1940. His courses generally drain nicely, and his routings tend to be exceptionally walkable. But he also has no fear of breaking all the rules and even redefining them when it makes sense. When you take so many chances, you'll probably inevitably whiff from time to time. But I really think he succeeds more often than almost anyone.

[Jason Thurman]

I just went to the London thread and read the post that spawned this one, where Dye was accused of building a constant barrage of island holes.

The 17th at Sawgrass might be the best example of Dye understanding when to break the rules. Faced with an engineering dilemma, Pete figures out a way to put the final link in the chain of building a course in a swamp and creates one of the most iconic holes of all time in the process. When people on this forum suggest that the world's most recognizable par 3 isn't a great hole, I get visions of Prius drivers on South Park flashing through my head.

Of course, criticism of the hole is always based on its "lack of playability," despite the fact that it's a wedge shot to a fairly large green and physically possible for virtually every golfer. It scares the hell out of pros and gets amateurs excited to take a shot. Isn't that what great architecture is supposed to do? Don't we love holes that feature compelling shots that encourage us to steady our nerves and make a good swing? Don't we love architecture that challenges the elite while still allowing amateurs to dream? So many people I know who have played Sawgrass tell a proud story of hitting the 17th green and surviving. A steady diet of such a hole would be a nightmare. But once? It creates one of the most memorable playing experiences in golf for anyone who succeeds, and a huge number of people do because the shot simply isn't overly difficult and also because it beckons a player's focus so compellingly.

The problem with 17 at Sawgrass isn't 17 at Sawgrass. Pete broke all the right rules in building that hole. The problem with 17 at Sawgrass is every shitty copy of 17 at Sawgrass that's been built since, most of which were constructed by course owners who designed their own course without an architect and had no clue what they were doing. It's not all that different from a guitarist with a Fuzz Box and a Wah pedal who loves feedback. The fact that a pimply 15 year old sounds like a train wreck when he rocks out in his parents' basement doesn't mean that Hendrix sucks.

[Mac Plumart]

In my opinion, Pete Dye is one of the best and most important golf course architects ever.

His courses are among the best and most influential (Sawgrass, Kiawah, The Golf Club, etc, etc).

And his style has constantly evolved.

His influence on future generations of architects and his willingness to embrace those with true passion for the game takes him to an elite level

[Matthew Petersen]

I just went to the London thread and read the post that spawned this one, where Dye was accused of building a constant barrage of island holes.

The 17th at Sawgrass might be the best example of Dye understanding when to break the rules. Faced with an engineering dilemma, Pete figures out a way to put the final link in the chain of building a course in a swamp and creates one of the most iconic holes of all time in the process. When people on this forum suggest that the world's most recognizable par 3 isn't a great hole, I get visions of Prius drivers on South Park flashing through my head.

Of course, criticism of the hole is always based on its "lack of playability," despite the fact that it's a wedge shot to a fairly large green and physically possible for virtually every golfer. It scares the hell out of pros and gets amateurs excited to take a shot. Isn't that what great architecture is supposed to do? Don't we love holes that feature compelling shots that encourage us to steady our nerves and make a good swing? Don't we love architecture that challenges the elite while still allowing amateurs to dream? So many people I know who have played Sawgrass tell a proud story of hitting the 17th green and surviving. A steady diet of such a hole would be a nightmare. But once? It creates one of the most memorable playing experiences in golf for anyone who succeeds, and a huge number of people do because the shot simply isn't overly difficult and also because it beckons a player's focus so compellingly.

The problem with 17 at Sawgrass isn't 17 at Sawgrass. Pete broke all the right rules in building that hole. The problem with 17 at Sawgrass is every shitty copy of 17 at Sawgrass that's been built since, most of which were constructed by course owners who designed their own course without an architect and had no clue what they were doing. It's not all that different from a guitarist with a Fuzz Box and a Wah pedal who loves feedback. The fact that a pimply 15 year old sounds like a train wreck when he rocks out in his parents' basement doesn't mean that Hendrix sucks.

Jason, I fully agree with your thoughts on Pete Dye as one of GCA's true artists.

The post above made me wonder ... how many island greens has Pete actually built? Sawgrass and PGA West come immediately to mind. I suppose there are others, but I can't think of any others on any of his high profile courses.

Anyone know how many others he built?

[Ross Harmon]

The post above made me wonder ... how many island greens has Pete actually built? Sawgrass and PGA West come immediately to mind. I suppose there are others, but I can't think of any others on any of his high profile courses.

Anyone know how many others he built?

Those are the only two done by Pete. Others have been done by Perry and other family members.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good posts, Jason.

Bogey - to me, Pete Dye's importance and influence can be summarized in three words: "It's Show Time".

He learned, he borrowed from, and most importantly he transmuted classic architectural designs/principles so as to adapt them to a modern-day American ethos and style: to the bold, big-time, big-money, brawny and brashy world of televised championship golf, and to the changing appetites of generations of American golfers who grew up watching -- and having their tastes shaped and influenced by -- that uniquely American brand of golf and golf course architecture.  

I don't know for sure, but I don't believe any/many of the current day architects who once worked for and learned from Mr. Dye have carved niches for themselves serving the professional game; but I think that each of them in their own way learned from him the value of being bold, big time and brashy. It's a very "American" approach, and like most things American in the late 20th and early 21st century, it has caught on all over the world.

Peter

[David Stewart]

When people on this forum suggest that the world's most recognizable par 3 isn't a great hole, I get visions of Prius drivers on South Park flashing through my head.

LOL. Own fart lovers...

[Will Lozier]

We discussed Pete for a few minutes during Clovernook's architecture night this week. A member asked me what I thought of his work. My answer was along the lines of the following:

Fundamental mastery lies at the core of greatness in every craft. A writer has to master grammar and syntax. A guitarist has to master rhythm and staying in key. Likewise, a great architect has to master shaping, routing, and incorporation of strategy (among many other things).

Mastering fundamentals alone, though, is not enough. To reach true greatness, you have to figure out how to push the boundaries of what can be done while keeping the fundamentals alive. In fact, true greatness DEFINES fundamentals by identifying what a practitioner of a craft MUST do and what is really just a rule of thumb that can be broken under the right circumstances. For a writer, it means understanding when to deviate from tone to make a point, or when to start a sentence with a conjunction. For a guitarist, it means knowing when to go modal or play behind the beat to convey a certain emotion. And for an architect, it means knowing when to move a ton of dirt to create something memorable and a sense of juxtaposition.

Pete does that better than anyone. He's a master of strategy. He uses scale better than anyone since 1940. His courses generally drain nicely, and his routings tend to be exceptionally walkable. But he also has no fear of breaking all the rules and even redefining them when it makes sense. When you take so many chances, you'll probably inevitably whiff from time to time. But I really think he succeeds more often than almost anyone.

So, Jason, would you say Pete is the Jerry Garcia (perhaps Miles Davis) of GCA?  I think you make some excellent points here.

Cheers

[Jason Thurman]

Will, I'd probably compare him to Hendrix for a few reasons:

1. Maybe he's not at the top of everyone's list, but it's hard to find someone who loves the medium and doesn't place him in the top 10.

2. He's loud and bombastic. Sawgrass is his Electric Ladyland. And surely Hendrix would have recorded a Whistling Straits and a French Lick of his own if he had stuck around a little longer.

3. He's been accused of being all style and no substance, and yet his substance has probably inspired more fresh practitioners of his craft than that of anyone else.

4. His work reflects the style of the US while feeling like a tribute to the UK.

5. When you strip out the production elements and that which is heavily stylized, you end up with the pure dirt fundamentals that make the work of both timeless. Hendrix's sound may not always be in vogue, and Dye's courses may also sometimes look a bit out of style. Those aesthetic preferences come and go though, and in the decades that lie between the time when each artist is in fashion, their work still manages to influence and function extremely well while giving a lot of people a lot of joy.

6. Other guys may have more touch and versatility, but no one has ever had a better "attack" than Hendrix or Dye.

7. Little Wing = The Golf Club. It's the exception that proves the rule.

Miles Davis is another good comparison though. So is Ralph Ellison. I have a harder time figuring out which film director best mirrors Dye. It's either Fellini or Robert Altman, but I can't figure out which one.

[Ken Fry]

The post above made me wonder ... how many island greens has Pete actually built? Sawgrass and PGA West come immediately to mind. I suppose there are others, but I can't think of any others on any of his high profile courses.

Anyone know how many others he built?

Those are the only two done by Pete. Others have been done by Perry and other family members.

The other green I can think of is the 15th hole on Las Vegas' Paiute Wolf Course.  I'm sure it was egged on by the tribe that built the facility but an island green in the middle of the Vegas desert looks hokey.  It's unfortunate because the rest of the course is a blast in a "Purple Haze" kind of way IMHO.

Ken

[Joel Zuckerman]

Pete's importance?  Let's start here:


   Yet another reason for Pete Dye’s architectural preeminence is the fact that his golf courses have so often served or will eventually be serving as the site of major competitions.  Bear in mind that in addition to the extensive list below, The Players Championship, considered one of professional golf’s most prestigious titles, has been contested at the Dye –designed Stadium Course at TPC Sawgrass every spring since 1982.  Furthermore, The Heritage, one of the preeminent Invitational tournaments on the PGA Tour, has been contested at Harbour Town Golf Links annually since 1969.

•   1974—US Senior Amateur—Harbour Town---South Carolina
•   1974—Men’s World Amateur Team Championship---Teeth of the Dog---Dominican Republic
•   1974—Women’s World Amateur Team Championship—Teeth of the Dog—Dominican Republic
•   1983---US Senior Amateur---Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   1984—US Amateur—Oak Tree GC--Oklahoma
•   1988---PGA Championship---Oak Tree GC---Oklahoma
•   1989---US Mid-Amateur---Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   1989---NCAA Championships—Oak Tree GC--Oklahoma
•   1991—PGA Championship—Crooked Stick GC—Indiana
•   1991---Ryder Cup Matches---Ocean Course—South Carolina
•   1991---US Amateur---Honors Course---Tennessee
•   1991---US Mid-Amateur---Long Cove---South Carolina
•   1992---US Women’s Mid-Amateur---Old Marsh---Florida
•   1993---US Women’s Open---Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   1994---US Amateur----TPC Sawgrass---Stadium---Florida
•   1994----Curtis Cup Matches---Honors Course—Tennessee
•   1996—NCAA Golf Championship---Honors Course—Tennessee
•   1996—US Women’s Amateur ---Firethorn---Nebraska
•   1997—US Amateur Public Links—Kearney Hill—Kentucky
•   1997---World Cup---Ocean Course—South Carolina
•   1998---US Women’s Open---Blackwolf Run---Wisconsin
•   1999---US Senior Open—Des Moines CC---Iowa
•   2003---US Women’s Mid-Amateur---Long Cove—South Carolina
•   2003—World Cup—Ocean Course—South Carolina
•   2004—PGA Championship---Whistling Straits---Wisconsin
•   2005—US Mid-Amateur --Honors Course---Tennessee
•   2005—LPGA Championship---Bulle Rock---Maryland
•   2005—Solheim Cup—Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   2006—LPGA Championship---Bulle Rock---Maryland
•   2006—Senior PGA Championship---Oak Tree GC---Oklahoma
•   2007---Senior PGA Championship---Ocean Course---South Carolina
•   2007---LPGA Championship—Bulle Rock--Maryland
•   2007---US Senior Open—Whistling Straits---Wisconsin
•   2007--US Women’s Amateur Public Links---Kearney Hill---Kentucky
•   2007---US Women’s Amateur —Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   2008—NCAA Golf Championship—Kampen Course---Indiana
•   2008---LPGA Championship---Bulle Rock---Maryland
•   2009—US Mid-Amateur—Ocean Course—South Carolina
•   2009---US Senior Open---Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   2009----LPGA Championship---Bulle Rock---Maryland
•   2010---NCAA Golf Championship—Honors Course--Tennessee
•   2010—PGA Championship—Whistling Straits—Wisconsin
•   2012—US Women’s Open—Blackwolf Run---Wisconsin
•   2012—PGA Championship---Ocean Course---South Carolina
•   2015---PGA Championship—Whistling Straits—Wisconsin
•   2020—Ryder Cup Matches---Whistling Straits---Wisconsin

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:

Why is hosting tournaments on your courses important, exactly?

I can see how it attracts a lot of publicity, but why is it important?

When I worked for him, Mr. Dye did not place any importance on his courses having hosted big events.  When someone would compliment him on having such-and-such tournament on one of his courses, he would respond, "Those fellows would play in a parking lot, if they were playing for a three million dollar purse."

[Garland Bayley]

Joel:

Why is hosting tournaments on your courses important, exactly?

I can see how it attracts a lot of publicity, but why is it important?

When I worked for him, Mr. Dye did not place any importance on his courses having hosted big events.  When someone would compliment him on having such-and-such tournament on one of his courses, he would respond, "Those fellows would play in a parking lot, if they were playing for a three million dollar purse."

That may be true Tom, but we all know that Pete just loves making them sweat.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I just played my first Pete Dye course yesterday, and it's not one of his "big" ones.  Riverdale Dunes in the Denver area.  I was somewhat blown away.  Really fun, challenging, and playable, even though the wind was blowing about a billion.  It makes me really want to take on his more renowned courses.  

[Phil Lipper]

I recenty played the Pete Dye Club and although typically not a fan of his work I was really impressed. There was nothing strange or really unnatural about the golf course, Its a course that is routed beautifully thru the valleys of a west Virginia mountain range. I realize with Dye that there is no surprise when you get to 18, you know your going to find a hard par 4,but for the most part I thought it was a great golf course.

[Ross Harmon]

So, Jason, would you say Pete is the Jerry Garcia (perhaps Miles Davis) of GCA? 

The always colorful Jay Flemma took on this assignment earlier this year. His answer: Pink Floyd.

http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=5014

[Pat Burke]

It would seem that Pete Dye has had some influence
on a few talented architects that have created their own
place in this arena???
IF he has helped develop some other great designers, that in some ways
is as important as his own designs IMO

[Ian Andrew]

Just going a little out of the box ....

We credit Pete for doing the opposite to emerge out of Trent Jones shadow and change the direction of architecture
We also credit his earliest work as a key influence on the Minimalist Movement.

Now for arguments sake, let's call the last few decades of his work "Maximalism".
I think golfers eventually grew tired of all the complexity and aggressive shaping.
I think Golf architecture reacted to the apex of his popularity with the emergence of minimalism.

I think the Minimalist's - to a degree - reacted and did the opposite of what he was doing - like he did with Trent all those years before
That's an influence too.

Food for thought

[Tom_Doak]

Just going a little out of the box ....

We credit Pete for doing the opposite to emerge out of Trent Jones shadow and change the direction of architecture
We also credit his earliest work as a key influence on the Minimalist Movement.

Now for arguments sake, let's call the last few decades of his work "Maximalism".
I think golfers eventually grew tired of all the complexity and aggressive shaping.
I think Golf architecture reacted to the apex of his popularity with the emergence of minimalism.

I think the Minimalist's - to a degree - reacted and did the opposite of what he was doing - like he did with Trent all those years before
That's an influence too.

Food for thought

It wasn't just Pete's work that golfers grew tired of.  It was all of the knockoffs.

There is no question that I reacted and did something different than Pete was doing.  And I did it because I thought Mr. Dye would respect that more than copy-catting.  I got the impression that he did not believe imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.

[Brad Isaacs]

I think he is misunderstood by the casual golfer. While often visually intimidating, his courses can be decoded. He is father of modern golf architecture for good or bad. Alice and Pete Dye have been amazing.

[David_Elvins]

Joel:

Why is hosting tournaments on your courses important, exactly?

I can see how it attracts a lot of publicity, but why is it important?

The more that is on the line, the more strategy and options matter.  

The best architectural features are on the edge of playability.  They present a range of options on shots from the very possible to the almost impossible. If you can design a course that provides these options, strategies and playability options for the best players in the world with all the shots in the bag, then you have achieved something that not many architects have done.  

When the golden age architects talked about designing for the 'scratch golfer' they were talking about top level tournaments.  Top level tournaments should be as relevant to good architecture today as it was then.  Watching top level tournaments on great courses is a magnificent spectacle.  Top level tournaments should be a vital ingredient to a course being declared great.  

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:

Why is hosting tournaments on your courses important, exactly?

I can see how it attracts a lot of publicity, but why is it important?

The more that is on the line, the more strategy and options matter.  

The best architectural features are on the edge of playability.  They present a range of options on shots from the very possible to the almost impossible. If you can design a course that provides these options, strategies and playability options for the best players in the world with all the shots in the bag, then you have achieved something that not many architects have done.  

When the golden age architects talked about designing for the 'scratch golfer' they were talking about top level tournaments.  Top level tournaments should be as relevant to good architecture today as it was then.  Watching top level tournaments on great courses is a magnificent spectacle.  Top level tournaments should be a vital ingredient to a course being declared great.  

I was just on a panel discussion for Brad Klein's GOLFWEEK group down in Pinehurst, with Rees Jones and Tom Fazio.  We did not agree on much, but we did agree that too many courses are built much too long, even though few have any chance of ever hosting a "top level tournament".  [We also agreed strongly when Tom Fazio volunteered that one of the main drivers of over-building and making golf expensive and slow was ... rankings, and especially the GOLF DIGEST Best New rankings, from which no one benefitted more than Tom Fazio.]

So, I disagree with what you've said above.  I think that you can design all the elements you mentioned into a golf course for everyday play, without aspiring to host tournaments.  High Pointe had shots that even a Tour pro would be hard-pressed to take on, but as far as I know, only two Tour pros ever played there.

[Bill Crane]

Yes, rankings are just an opinion based upon a methodology for a publication trying to sell copies...................but:


The highest ranked course on Golf Magazines best in US list BUILT BETWEEN 1940 and 1970 is .................

The Golf Club - New Albany, Ohio.

To me that is significant.


Wm Flynnfan

[Pat Burke]

Joel:

Why is hosting tournaments on your courses important, exactly?

I can see how it attracts a lot of publicity, but why is it important?

The more that is on the line, the more strategy and options matter.  

The best architectural features are on the edge of playability.  They present a range of options on shots from the very possible to the almost impossible. If you can design a course that provides these options, strategies and playability options for the best players in the world with all the shots in the bag, then you have achieved something that not many architects have done.  

When the golden age architects talked about designing for the 'scratch golfer' they were talking about top level tournaments.  Top level tournaments should be as relevant to good architecture today as it was then.  Watching top level tournaments on great courses is a magnificent spectacle.  Top level tournaments should be a vital ingredient to a course being declared great.  

I was just on a panel discussion for Brad Klein's GOLFWEEK group down in Pinehurst, with Rees Jones and Tom Fazio.  We did not agree on much, but we did agree that too many courses are built much too long, even though few have any chance of ever hosting a "top level tournament".  [We also agreed strongly when Tom Fazio volunteered that one of the main drivers of over-building and making golf expensive and slow was ... rankings, and especially the GOLF DIGEST Best New rankings, from which no one benefitted more than Tom Fazio.]

So, I disagree with what you've said above.  I think that you can design all the elements you mentioned into a golf course for everyday play, without aspiring to host tournaments.  High Pointe had shots that even a Tour pro would be hard-pressed to take on, but as far as I know, only two Tour pros ever played there.

Tom, couldn't agree more.  I can still play a bit at 51 years old.
 Even at our club, we have 2 courses.  The South is short and tight, the North is long and difficult, with very severe greens.
I do not play the back tees on the North.  It is too long, and really no fun.  I carry my driver 260-265.
The South is shorter, and playing back gives me more variety in approach shots.
Too many courses being built with an eye towards tour guys, and not the actual customers

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()