First Impressions of Pete Dye

[David_Elvins]

First, I'll echo the sentiment that PGA West Stadium is actually quite playable from the correct set of tees.

I will go further and say it is playable from the 'wrong' set of tees.  I had no trouble breaking my handicap from the back tees.  There is almost always room to play away from the hazards and there are probably 8 holes (4 par 5s and 4 par 4s) where the average golfer is a reasonable chance of having less than 9 iron in.  The only shot that I was really intimidated by was the tee shot on 13.  All the other difficult shots offered a bail out of some sort.  

I found it a really enjoyable course but you would want to have some control of the golf ball before going to play there. 

[Chris DeToro]

Pete Dye GC is one of my favorite Dye courses as well.  I think the flow and aesthetic of the course is what you would expect from West VA and I found it to be very difficult but without some of the over-the-top features that make PGA West very difficult, for example. 

[Josh Tarble]

I am a huge fan of Pete Dye.  I honestly think he is one of the top 2 or 3 architects of all time.  I think what Dye understands (maybe executes is a better word), better than almost anyone else is the line of charm/line of instinct.  On many of his courses, he visually tricks the player into aiming toward a bad spot or taking an extremely aggressive line...from there, the next shot will require a near perfect play or you are out of position again. 

And Jon and Brian have it right:

it's futile to draw blanket conclusions about any architect on the basis of one or two courses, and this probably applies to Pete Dye more than anyone else.

[Chris DeToro]

First, I'll echo the sentiment that PGA West Stadium is actually quite playable from the correct set of tees.

I will go further and say it is playable from the 'wrong' set of tees.  I had no trouble breaking my handicap from the back tees.  There is almost always room to play away from the hazards and there are probably 8 holes (4 par 5s and 4 par 4s) where the average golfer is a reasonable chance of having less than 9 iron in.  The only shot that I was really intimidated by was the tee shot on 13.  All the other difficult shots offered a bail out of some sort.  

I found it a really enjoyable course but you would want to have some control of the golf ball before going to play there.  

255 yard par 3 with a full carry over water from the back tee on number 6?  

[Jason Thurman]

The actual carry on number 6 is only about 220 yards from the back tees, and the course is 7300 yards from back there. It's one thing to play the wrong tees, and another thing entirely to play from 7300 when you can't carry it 220. You deserve to lose a ball if you make that bad a decision about which set to play.

[Matthew Petersen]

The actual carry on number 6 is only about 220 yards from the back tees, and the course is 7300 yards from back there. It's one thing to play the wrong tees, and another thing entirely to play from 7300 when you can't carry it 220. You deserve to lose a ball if you make that bad a decision about which set to play.

True, but it's still a very intimidating shot. Having played it, there's room to go for the green and miss left that's a good spot to miss, but it's not immediately apparent from the tee (why I stood on the tee being as concerned about having to play a chip from rough-covered dunes as I was about the water says a lot about the difficulty of recovery shots around that course). And the bailout to the left fairway demands a precise shot too, since there's water short, right, and left.

I agree the course is playable and there are places to avoid trouble. But you have to be able to hit shots even to get to those spots.

That said, playing two entirely created courses in the desert is really no way to judge any designer, Dye especially. Even the La Quinta Mountain course is more interesting from an actual design perspective, because there you have a course that interacts with the land to some extent.

[Matthew Lloyd]

A few responses, as these replies have been very helpful in understanding the broader reach of Dye courses and how PGA West is an extreme example of his work.  I clearly need to play more Dye courses, but will do more research on them before plunging in.  As a Columbus, OH native, I've always heard The Golf Club is one of the very best courses in the country, so I need to play there at some point when I'm home.

However, I still contend the following:

-- I don't think the context of how and why the course was built is important.  Using that as a defense of the course is analogous to citing tournaments played on a course to defend its merit. It shouldn't matter that Dye was given a certain mandate to create a course like that -- only the finished product should matter. If this weren't the case, thousands of horrible movies and pieces of art would suddenly be considered good.

-- I was not complaining about the difficulty level of the course. It was a great test of one's golf skill, which I stated in my original post.  And I enjoy every round of golf I play, I never keep score and as a slightly above-average golfer I expect to struggle on really hard courses, so I don't mind getting my ass handed to me.  For instance, I found Wolf Run even harder than PGA West but I loved every inch of that course.

-- there was simply NOTHING natural about that course.  Everything about it was artificial -- it's like you were playing in a CG-created environment.

Many thanks to those of you who sent me direct messages with ideas for articles and books to read on Dye and his work -- I will definitely try to get to those when I have the time.

[George Pazin]

First, I'll echo the sentiment that PGA West Stadium is actually quite playable from the correct set of tees.

I will go further and say it is playable from the 'wrong' set of tees.  I had no trouble breaking my handicap from the back tees.  There is almost always room to play away from the hazards and there are probably 8 holes (4 par 5s and 4 par 4s) where the average golfer is a reasonable chance of having less than 9 iron in.  The only shot that I was really intimidated by was the tee shot on 13.  All the other difficult shots offered a bail out of some sort.  

I found it a really enjoyable course but you would want to have some control of the golf ball before going to play there. 

Guess it depends on your definition of playable. I've only played two Pete Dye courses - Mystic Rock and Pete Dye Golf Club. While both were enjoyable days - very enjoyable at PDGC, in fact - his courses don't really fit my own idea of playable.

Maybe it's just me and my odd game, but I don't think there really is a correct set of tees for me, nor really a wrong set, either.

[Matthew Petersen]

A few responses, as these replies have been very helpful in understanding the broader reach of Dye courses and how PGA West is an extreme example of his work.  I clearly need to play more Dye courses, but will do more research on them before plunging in.  As a Columbus, OH native, I've always heard The Golf Club is one of the very best courses in the country, so I need to play there at some point when I'm home.

However, I still contend the following:

-- I don't think the context of how and why the course was built is important.  Using that as a defense of the course is analogous to citing tournaments played on a course to defend its merit. It shouldn't matter that Dye was given a certain mandate to create a course like that -- only the finished product should matter. If this weren't the case, thousands of horrible movies and pieces of art would suddenly be considered good.

-- I was not complaining about the difficulty level of the course. It was a great test of one's golf skill, which I stated in my original post.  And I enjoy every round of golf I play, I never keep score and as a slightly above-average golfer I expect to struggle on really hard courses, so I don't mind getting my ass handed to me.  For instance, I found Wolf Run even harder than PGA West but I loved every inch of that course.

-- there was simply NOTHING natural about that course.  Everything about it was artificial -- it's like you were playing in a CG-created environment.

Many thanks to those of you who sent me direct messages with ideas for articles and books to read on Dye and his work -- I will definitely try to get to those when I have the time.

Matthew,

I think the intent absolutely matters. Few set out to make a "bad" movie, but not many set out to make an Oscar winner, either. Recognizing the achievement of what someone sets out to do is important. Pete Dye was asked to create an extraordinarily difficult golf course and did so. Not every hole out there is great, but given the mandate, there's really a surprising amount of strategy and options to be had out there.

And of course the course is entirely created. It was dead flat desert previously, not unlike Shadow Creek. As I mentioned previously, you can get a much more interesting sense of what Dye does when he's got some terrain to consider at La Quinta's Mountain course. It's still got a very manufactured look--that's almost always something you get with Dye. If you want minimal he's not your man. But the characteristics of interesting, strategic golf are still there.

I'm curious about your thoughts on his Mission Hills course. That's also kind of built from a flat, nothing piece of desert and is still very definitely a Pete Dye creation, but is considerably toned down in terms of the moonscape dunes you see at PGA West, not to mention the relentless difficulty.

[Matthew Lloyd]

I'm curious about your thoughts on his Mission Hills course. That's also kind of built from a flat, nothing piece of desert and is still very definitely a Pete Dye creation, but is considerably toned down in terms of the moonscape dunes you see at PGA West, not to mention the relentless difficulty.

I definitely found the Mission Hills Dye course to be much less relentless, and definitely toned down. My main issue with that course is that it seemed like the holes were repeated again and again. It felt like every par 4 had a fake pond down the right or left side. There was just no variety, or at least that's what it felt like after playing PGA West and then this course in succession. I liked the par 5s on the Mission Hills course quite a bit, though.  At the end of the day I guess I'm just not a fan of that style of design, and think one could create a course of equal difficulty without all the fake features and enhanced topography. Some of the Dye green complexes with the sheer dropoffs around them -- I do think this looks bad but it's also not what I'm used to.  These courses also brought back bad memories of The Bear in Traverse City.

[JC Urbina]

M Petersen,

I remember Pete sending me to both PGA West and Mission Hills while I was the design associate at ASU.  Pete instructed me to  look at MH specifically, he really liked his version of the Redan.  I never spent more then a day wherever I traveled but tried to absorb as much as I could in a short period of time.

My initial thoughts  as a young impressionable kid was that PGA West was over the top difficult and the Mission Hills course much easier to negotiate the trouble spots. I remember him telling me that they were going to play the Dinah Shore on his new design but that never transpired.  Remember that PGA west was the perfect venue for the Skins Game  on Thanksgiving Weekend for those old enough to remember the made for TV golf show. It was a pseudo match play event.

Each served the purpose intended, for my money the mountain course at La Quinta was the perfect retail golfers paradise.

[Chris DeToro]

I've played the Mission Hills course as well and was not a huge fan.  I felt that there was quite a bit of repetition with water on the left and as one that doesn't have much trouble turning the ball over, I never quite got comfortable out there.  It's definitely softer than PGA West, but I'd rather play the Dinah Shore course when at MH.  I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on that course.

I don't doubt that PGA West fully delivered on the intent of the developers.  It's one of the more relentless courses I've ever played as you have to be on your game to even play safe--you really can't fall asleep on any shot, even the "easier" ones out there. 

Having played about a dozen of Pete's courses, these two certainly aren't my favorite, but I do think that to have a better appreciation of his work, one needs to play a broader cross-section of his courses

[Scott Wintersteen]

I would agree with a lot of what the people have said here is you can't judge Pete Dye by just PGA West of his Mission Hills course.  However after playing some of his earlier courses (Maple Creek, Eagle Creek and Crooked Stick) there is a difference between those courses and some of his more recent designs (Whistling Straights, Pete Dye Golf Club, PGA West, etc.).  I feel that the earlier designs were not quite as penal as some of the newer ones.  Probably just a combination of evolving as an architect and having a client who wants him to build a very tough course. 

[Matt Kardash]

1991 Skins Game at PGA West.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roTGStTIY0E

[Brad Isaacs]

While my first impression of Pete Dye was not favorable, I believe that was naive at best. He must be decoded. He tells you where to hit. He has difficult holes but his short par 4's are universally brilliant.

As for the 17th at "Pete Dye" it was meant tobe approached with a wedge. If not you are in trouble. Demanding wedge, yes. But guys it's just a wedge. Brilliant hole, and tough. Birdies there feel great!  Other holes on that course are much worse designed, say #11 for example.

[George Pazin]

I have no quibble with those who enjoy Pete's work. I can see how some would enjoy it.

I have a big problem with those who say his work is very playable from the correct set of tees. I personally believe the whole notion of a proper set of tees for virtually ANY course is completely invalid, in that it completely misunderstands how many - maybe even most - play the game.

What little I've seen of Pete's work seems to emphasize repetitive consistency over all other things. There is some room for error, but not a lot. And my limited exposure to lesser golfers like myself leads me to conclude that lack of consistency is the #1 problem. I personally don't have a problem with a 220 yard carry - most of the time. But that caveat creates a great big wide gulf between agreement and disagreement.

The courses I've seen - played, toured, watched on TV - all seem to emphasize stop and drop target golf. That's great, if that's what you enjoy. It doesn't happen to be what I enjoy. I don't mind duffing a shot and being left with something rather horrendous, but I don't like duffing a shot and trying to figure out where my drop is. And it has nothing to do with my score. If I attached my enjoyment to the game to that I'd have quit long ago.

Horses for courses, I guess. If you play a lot and have a relatively consistent game - at any level - I can see enjoying Pete's courses. For someone like me, who doesn't get out often, but enjoys the game immensely when he does, well, it's not a good fit.

I really don't see what an architect who designs courses for all levels of golfers to enjoy would have to learn from Pete Dye, but that's a conversation that will have to wait for an in-person opportunity, hopefully, someday.

[K Rafkin]

I've never understood how people can continuously criticize Pete Dye's courses as "unnatural".  While i appreciate the "natural/Minimalist approach (whatever that means), i just don't get how pete dye continues to get flak for simply building golf courses, many of which on sites with no good natural terrain).  Should he have not taken the project because the terrain wasn't optimal?  How many of you turn down work because the job doesn't do the work for you?  So its not natural looking, so what?  Correct me if i'm wrong but when did Pete Dye publicly state that the courses he builds are designed to meld into the natural environment and move as little earth as possible?  Thats simply is just not what kind of architect pete dye is.  Its like criticizing a reggae band for not playing rock music.  It seems to me there is a bunch of criticism directed towards Pete Dye simply because his courses aren't what you personally like, or don't represent whats popular right now.

My favorite part of most PD courses i've played is that they really bite you in the ass if you choose to play from the wrong tees, and rightly so.

That being said there still is plenty of fair criticism to go around.  Personally i enjoy a good ass kicking from time to time but i've let to encounter a PD course that id like to play everyday, but maybe thats just not the type of Architect he is.

[Tim Liddy]

Reminds me of the time i was roughing in a par 3 for his review in which I was trying hard to use the existing hill and adjoining steam. He hated it. I said, " Just trying to work with mother nature." He replied, "Sometimes mother nature needs a little help!" I laugh every time I remember it.

[Scott Sander]

Tim-

Every time I read that Pete Dye is an unrepentant sadist who cannot build courses that people want to play daily, I cry a little.  Then I walk out my front door and play all of Woodland CC (2000) with a putter.  Then I go to Sahm (1961), wait 4 groups deep on the tee, and do the same.  Then I go to Eagle Creek (1975/2001) and try to remember which are your holes and which are his while I play them all with a 5 iron (putter doesn't work well navigating those big hills that some other oft-cursed three-letter creator installed in the original original routing circa-? BC).

OK, no I don't do any of that. 

But still, I could.  Anyone could.

In fact, I think most of his courses in Central Indiana are extremely welcoming to shots of all sorts of shapes and flights.

I guess I shouldn't worry about all of this, since the man seems to relish his rep as soul-crusher.  But I can't help myself. Pete Dye courses have given me my biggest thrills, and as he's an adopted favorite son, I get defensive for him.

[Jason Thurman]

As for the 17th at "Pete Dye" it was meant tobe approached with a wedge. If not you are in trouble. Demanding wedge, yes. But guys it's just a wedge. Brilliant hole, and tough. Birdies there feel great!  Other holes on that course are much worse designed, say #11 for example.

I brought up the 17th green, so I'll offer that I really don't find it over the top myself. I only mentioned it because it's such a controversial and polarizing complex.

+1 to K Rafkin's whole post, by the way, with the exception that I really think I'd enjoy the Blackwolf Run courses every day, and I also think Pete Dye Golf Club would be really enjoyable to play frequently once you figured out some of the trickier driving lines. He also has built or helped build a lot of lower-key public courses that are really playable and fun. Kearney Hill in Lexington is a good example - it's probably more PB than Pete, but it's very playable while still being a legitimate USGA tournament course from the tips (it hosted the PubLinks and also held a Senior Tour event for a while).

I always wonder how much I'd grow to love Whistling Straits with multiple plays. There's a lot of subtlety out there underneath all the noise, but I'll never fork over the cash to play it enough times to really get a great feel for it.

[Chris DeToro]

That's interesting about Whistling Straits because I actually find that to be my favorite Dye course (along with PDGC).  Perhaps it's because I had a caddy who helped me better understand the visual tricks, but I felt once you got beyond the trickery, it was actually quite playable and there was a lot of room off the tee

[Ken Fry]

I'm in the camp that it took a while to warm up to and understand Dye's courses.  Now I appreciate them for the challenge they present, both physically and mentally.  I believe it's no coincidence my appreciation grew as my attention and understanding of course architecture has grown.

Living in Indiana, we have the good fortune of playing many of Dye's lesser known courses that span his career.  While characteristics like railroad ties or volcano bunkers come and go, challenging angles and visual intimidation are always present.

With all that said, I still don't understand why Whistling Straits is held in such high regard.  I know the explanation for hole #5, but #18 won't get a pass from me either.  Both are just bad holes.  Dye has done better courses than Straits.

Ken

[Chris DeToro]

Hey Ken, which of his courses in Indiana have you played?  I wish I was less lazy when I'm at my parents and got out to some of his earlier courses more, but I just haven't. 

I'll agree that 18 at Straits isn't one of the better holes out there, but why do you have that feeling about Straits?  What would make you hold it in higher regard?

[Ken Fry]

Hey Ken, which of his courses in Indiana have you played?  I wish I was less lazy when I'm at my parents and got out to some of his earlier courses more, but I just haven't. 

I'll agree that 18 at Straits isn't one of the better holes out there, but why do you have that feeling about Straits?  What would make you hold it in higher regard?

Off the top of my head, Indiana courses he either designed or remodeled:  Mystic Hills, Crooked Stick, Brickyard, The Fort, Eagle Creek, Plum Creek, Woodland CC, Kampen and CC of Indianapolis.

As far as Straits goes:  it's challenging, it's beautiful but just overrated.  The bunkering is overkill.  The site is not natural at all but better than what was apparently there before (it's a shocking view to be standing on the Irish course hole #13 tee and see flat farmland 60 feet below and only 200 yards away).  Bunkers once used to define and challenge fairway edges are now left out in areas of rough sometimes as far as 40-50 yards away.  That's a presentation decision but still something that stands out to me.

If you look at Golfweek's top 10 Modern courses, Straits stands out to me as the odd ball.  Frankly, I don't think Straits is even the best course at Kohler.  I'd take the River course over it.

I'll probably get beat up for this but I can't remove the cost as a factor in evaluating a course.  Straits cost is outrageous in my opinion.  Give me 10 plays between Straits and Arcadia Bluffs and it's 9-1.  It's funny to think $180 is a bargain but compared to Straits it becomes an easy decision for me.

Ken

[Chris DeToro]

I've only been to Brickyard and The Fort, both of which I enjoyed a lot--I just find them to be difficult yet less over the top penal as some of the others.  I definitely don't disagree with your points about the bunkering at Straits (or the price) but I still found the course to be very good overall. 

If you take cost out of the equation, would you still take Straits over Arcadia?