Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Final Thoughts?

[Paul Gray]

There's something very good going on when a guy can design a course which is apparently such a juxtaposition to my usual tastes and yet get me feeling like I'd love to jump on a plane to get to it.

[Ronald Montesano]

At the one-third point, my regret from my round at PDGC is that I played it from the tips. I battled to get within approach distance all day and was coming in way too low with clubs with way too little loft. I've got game, but not that game.

[Matt Kardash]

Also, that greenside bunker might be the most intimidating bunker in the game. Is there any other bunker that is next to a green yet has a stream between itself and the green?

[Ronald Montesano]

Also, that greenside bunker might be the most intimidating bunker in the game. Is there any other bunker that is next to a green yet has a stream between itself and the green?

If you're in that one, well, you stink.

Des Muirhead was before his time with Clashing Rocks at Stone Harbor in NJ: http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead

[Jason Thurman]

There's not much to say about 5 that hasn't already been said. It's one of the finest par 5s I've ever played, and it strikes me that Dye once again uses a stream beautifully to create temptation on a par 5 hole, as he does on a few occasions at Blackwolf Run. He has a knack for finding gentle curves in streams and rivers and finding a way to perch a green in a spot that begs the golfer to take on a near impossible shot. I love the 6th at Pebble Beach, but it definitely lacks the element of temptation that the 5th at Pete Dye GC has. On the second shot at Pebble I'm just trying my best to get to the top of the hill. The second shot on 5 at  Pete Dye GC presents a much more significant decision.

6 is a tough hole to really figure out. The yardage makes it look drivable, but it plays uphill and the accuracy required around the green makes swinging for it a foolish play even for guys long enough to reach. For me, the principal concern off the tee is distance control. The fattest and flattest section of the fairway comes some 220 yards off the tee. Once again, I don't see a true universal position A. The green opens up more from the right, but the hillside can influence a pull, as noted by Kevin earlier. Drive it up the left and the approach becomes more a question of distance control than directional accuracy, as you'll need to carry the hazard with a precise yardage to hold the green which shallows from that side. I really just try to hit it down the middle and stay out of trouble.

Regardless of the strategy used, it's a short par 4 with plenty of peril and yet, the primary hazard is one that can inflict penalty strokes but is unlikely to cost you your golf ball.

[Kevin Lynch]

Also, that greenside bunker might be the most intimidating bunker in the game. Is there any other bunker that is next to a green yet has a stream between itself and the green?

If you're in that one, well, you stink.

Des Muirhead was before his time with Clashing Rocks at Stone Harbor in NJ: http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead

I'd have to say that's a little harsh (or I'm just afraid to admit I stink)   .  If you look at the aerial and mentally erase the sliver of creek, I don't think it's that unreasonable you may end up in this bunker (especially with the hanging lies on the right). 

[Ronald Montesano]

Were you really in that bunker? I don't recall that at all, although I may have been doubled over in laughter at the time.

[Kevin Lynch]

#7.  After emerging from the mine shaft, you're faced with an aesthetically pleasing downhill par 3.





A view from the farthest back deck...



Moving up a little closer..


A shot from the back right towards the tee gives an idea of the greenside bunker depth and heaving of the "fairway" short of the green.


A look back from the back left.


Looking across the green from the back right.



Another glimpse of the entire green from near the 8th tee.


**********************

While there were a few bail-out / lay-up areas on the long 4th, this hole pretty much asks you to hit the green or be ready to do some scrambling from the rough or sand.  A "fairway" exists, but doesn't appear to be a strategic option like on the 4th.

I'm going to defer to Charlie and others with more experience to share their thoughts on the best places to miss and the types of recovery options available.  Given the drop-offs around the greens, it appears that the lower trajectory recovery options are limited (unless coming from the front).  I'd have to miss this green many more times to see if hitting into the bank is an option (depending on thickness of rough / firmness of banks).

Overall, I enjoyed this hole for the aesthetics and variety of angles available from the various tee decks. 

[Jason Thurman]

In the photos above, the tree left of the fairway looks like it was on its last limbs. This photo I took back in the spring shows it has been removed:



This hole is an absolute stunner, and it begins with the journey away from the 6th green. If you take the stairs up the hill, a panorama overlooking the river and much of the middle of the front nine reveals itself. If you take the route through the mineshaft, the big reveal comes as you step out into the light before a quick climb up to your tee. Regardless of the route taken, I find it to be one of the most dazzling green-to-tee transitions in the game, at least among holes that don't involve arriving at an ocean.

While the shot plays downhill, I wouldn't call it a true drop-shot par 3. The grass bunker faces and engineered elements of the hole reflect Dye's Raynor influence and juxtapose strikingly against the wonderfully rumbling surroundings of the hole. Dye adorns the hole with commanding, man-made features and shaping, but the visual effect of the hole works because of how he preserved gentle natural rumbles and undulations in the fairway and green and the surrounding hillocks. Those same rumbles and undulations also add great variety to recovery shots on this hole. One of Dye's most unsung strengths might be the way he uses macro-contours to distract the player from equally challenging micro-contours. Dye is no minimalist, but he still clearly recognizes the value of subtle shapes that add less obvious challenge to the game. On this occasion, those same subtle shapes also add a stunning aesthetic.

As Kevin mentioned, if you miss the green you'll need to scramble. This could be roughly described as a bit of a modern "short" template, with a fairly large green divided by a spine that bears a faint but discernible resemblance to a classic thumbprint. 196 seems like a ridiculous yardage for a hole like this until I stand on the range next to college golfers at my club who are smashing their 8 irons out to 190. It plays at least a club downhill and the target from 147 or even 173 feels reasonable, albeit challenging. With the tee more elevated the further back a player ventures, the back bunkers lurk for any strong player who fails to properly adjust for the downhill shot.

It's a simple concept - a beautiful par 3 that with a tee shot that will lead to either tremendous joy or some seriously difficult scrambling. The result is brilliant.

[George Pazin]

Really liked #5 a lot. Struck me as the type of hole I'd play a bunch of times, differently each time, which is about as big a compliment as I give.

Didn't get 6 or 7. Not sure why, just felt awkward on both. I will admit, I really really don't like drop shot par 3s, so that probably came into play on #7.

[George Pazin]

In the photos above, the tree left of the fairway looks like it was on its last limbs. This photo I took back in the spring shows it has been removed:



This hole is an absolute stunner, and it begins with the journey away from the 6th green.

...

It's a simple concept - a beautiful par 3 that with a tee shot that will lead to either tremendous joy or some seriously difficult scrambling. The result is brilliant.

Hard to imagine we could be more different in our views of this.

Stunner? Yikes. Sensory overload to a hideous degree to me. It's like a beautiful woman who chose to have 30 too many plastic surgeries - when in fact 1 was too many.

I kinda get your summary line, though to me, that is simply hit and hope, as most drop shot par 3s are (even if this isn't really a drop shot par 3).

I'm definitely getting old, I can't even remember how I played most of these holes, or even what the result was. I have a lot of respect for Charlie, both the guy and his game, so his thoughts make a lot of sense to me, but I still don't get 6 & 7.

The mine was pretty cool, though....

[Ronald Montesano]

The first time I saw a photo of this hole, a tee beyond 150 yards didn't occur to me. When I got there and saw 190 from the tips, I spasmed.

I absolutely flushed a five iron from up top and watched the ball come to rest short of the green. I could not believe it didn't reach the green, so my experience opposite the ones described above (dropping a club due to downward plunge of tee ball.)

Even though there is a lot going on visually, as George points out, this hole makes more sense to me than #4. There is no lost ball here, which is critical for me.

[Jason Thurman]

And after #4 this is my second least favorite hole on the front nine.  I guess it is because there are really no decisions here other than pick the right club and execute.

I don't disagree with the fact that there aren't any real decisions, but I think what I'm looking for in a par 3 is different from other holes. Par 3s only occasionally present meaningful options, so I'm more interested in whether the challenge is a fun one, the aesthetic value of the hole, and whether the recovery situations add variety. 7 presents a pretty tough shot, but the satisfaction of watching a ball well-struck ball fly and land on the green might be higher than at any other hole on the course. There are also all kinds of recovery situations that can rear their head. For me, that's where the real variety in a par 3 can be found.

[Ronald Montesano]

I don't mind an uphill pitch, a sidehill pitch, a long, medium or short bunker shot, or a bowl of porridge. #7 gives you these different possibilities, along with a putt, for your second shot. #4 gives you very little on misses short and left.

[Matt Kardash]

#7 is one of the most beautiful par 3's I have ever seen. How anyone can say this hole is ugly is beyond me. Also, i don't see what is so wrong with a par 3 that asks you to hit the green or face a tough up and down.

[Ronald Montesano]

#7 is one of the most beautiful par 3's I have ever seen. How anyone can say this hole is ugly is beyond me. Also, i don't see what is so wrong with a par 3 that asks you to hit the green or face a tough up and down.

Word. Preach. Represent.

[Jason Thurman]

Fair enough.  I guess what I was trying to express was at No. 4 for have to decide if you are going to take on the water whereas here I am just using my shot shape to hit the green.  

I agree, and I'm with you. 4 is one of those rare par 3s that presents meaningful options, which is part of why I think it's a bit underrated. Granted, all the options are fairly tough to execute, but it does offer legitimate risk/reward decisions in a way that few par 3s can claim.

I just don't hold the lack of options against 7, as I don't think it has any fewer options than the vast majority of par 3s. I very rarely do anything on any par 3 under 190 yards aside from firing directly at the green. As a good ballstriker with a terrible short game, holes like the 7th with compelling targets and plenty of greenside treachery get my full attention.

[Tom Kelly]

I can see all the great ideas Pete Dye has put into his courses; the clever strategy, psychological tricks, great contours etc but I just can't get over the man-made over the top look, sheer number of superfluous features and in my opinion poor visuals I see on his courses time and time again.
I've only seen one in person but nothing I've seen from photos or TV make me want to seek any of them out.

Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?

To me there has to be more than an element of both to be a great golf course.

[Matt Kardash]

Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?

I think the PDGC is one of the most beautiful courses around. I love the look of the course.

[Tom Kelly]

Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?

I think the PDGC is one of the most beautiful courses around. I love the look of the course.

Fair enough.

I Guess this quote sums up my view pretty well;

Stunner? Yikes. Sensory overload to a hideous degree to me. It's like a beautiful woman who chose to have 30 too many plastic surgeries - when in fact 1 was too many.

[Kevin Lynch]

I can see all the great ideas Pete Dye has put into his courses; the clever strategy, psychological tricks, great contours etc but I just can't get over the man-made over the top look, sheer number of superfluous features and in my opinion poor visuals I see on his courses time and time again.
I've only seen one in person but nothing I've seen from photos or TV make me want to seek any of them out.

Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?

To me there has to be more than an element of both to be a great golf course.

I've never thought the visuals are poor, but that is simply a matter of taste and I wouldn't be one to say your opinion is right or wrong.  And I don't have a fixed preference either.  I've seen man-made features that look horrible and others that work.  From my perspective, Dye's features don't pretend to be natural, but at the same time, they still work for me.  

For example, on this course, there are many examples of a sharper-edged fairway raised on the inside of a dogleg.  It obscures the landing zone ever so slightly, and adds some psychological discomfort.  But that visual works for me, mostly because of the purpose it serves and the way that it still tends to flow with the overall visual.


As for the superfluous features, I'm not sure what to make of that.  What makes them superfluous?  That they're added in areas that are out-of-play?  Or that there's just too many items in play to consider?

If it's the former, I've never understood that criticism.  For example, some criticize the sheer number of bunkers at Whistling Straits, especially in areas not in play.  To me, if it's not in play, why does it matter?  In WS's case, I think continuing the sandscape motif throughout the entire property works,

If it's the latter case, I'm not sure where to draw the line on the proper level of features to consider.  If it's still playable and there's a reasonable way to avoid the most penal features, I'm OK with it.

But in the end, it's the first half of your first sentence that matters most to me, and if the clever strategy is there, the aesthetics are a secondary consideration.  However, without the clever strategy and deceptive purposes, then you're simply talking about eye-candy.  I don't think Dye ever falls into the latter.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I thought the run from 4-7 to be a special run of holes. The two par threes are different enough from each other to be interesting and fun to take on the pin.  The par five is a stunner.  Kevin is right, the second shot, unlike many par fives, is no gimme.  Stay on your toes.
PDGC strikes a good balance between fun and difficulty.

[Tom Kelly]

I can see all the great ideas Pete Dye has put into his courses; the clever strategy, psychological tricks, great contours etc but I just can't get over the man-made over the top look, sheer number of superfluous features and in my opinion poor visuals I see on his courses time and time again.
I've only seen one in person but nothing I've seen from photos or TV make me want to seek any of them out.

Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?

To me there has to be more than an element of both to be a great golf course.

As for the superfluous features, I'm not sure what to make of that.  What makes them superfluous?  That they're added in areas that are out-of-play?  Or that there's just too many items in play to consider?

If it's the former, I've never understood that criticism.  For example, some criticize the sheer number of bunkers at Whistling Straits, especially in areas not in play.  To me, if it's not in play, why does it matter?  In WS's case, I think continuing the sandscape motif throughout the entire property works,

If it's the latter case, I'm not sure where to draw the line on the proper level of features to consider.  If it's still playable and there's a reasonable way to avoid the most penal features, I'm OK with it.

But in the end, it's the first half of your first sentence that matters most to me, and if the clever strategy is there, the aesthetics are a secondary consideration.  However, without the clever strategy and deceptive purposes, then you're simply talking about eye-candy.  I don't think Dye ever falls into the latter.

The superfluous problem is to me a sustainability issue. If it is out of play what is the point of it? Eye candy? But in my mind it's ugly eye candy. Every bunker or huge mound on the periphery of the hole just feels like money, man power and often water falling through someones fingers both in construction and maintenance. I believe if in the UK these features would have been abandoned to save money a long time ago and to me it just lives a symbol of why golf in the US is so expensive.

Why have two huge bunkers when one small one will do the same job?

I do applaud some of the features Dye builds though and just from reading tours of his courses like this one I have definitely learnt alot from him, the raised fairway edge to obscure the landing zone you mention is one of them. He is clearly a clever guy but as I stated before for me the visual side of a golf experience is so important and his courses just don't seem to stimulate that part of me which is a shame.

[Jason Thurman]

Tom, where do you see the use of "two huge bunkers where one small one would do the same job" on Dye's courses? Do you also dislike the presentation of Raynor, Macdonald, and Langford courses?

Aesthetic tastes, of course, are inherently subjective. I love the look of most Dye courses, as many golfers do. I also think, though, that an evaluation of his work must differentiate between "aesthetics" and "visuals." The aesthetic qualities of a course relate to whether or not it's pleasant to look at - Dye's courses have a compelling aesthetic presentation that I enjoy, though others will disagree. Meanwhile, the VISUAL qualities of a course relate to how it uses the sense of sight to affect the player trying to shoot a good score. A course with great visual qualities will tempt, deceive, obscure, and falsely comfort the player throughout the round. The perceptive golfer who can resist the temptation, overcome the deception, execute when blinded, and keep his defenses up when comforted will enjoy a huge advantage on such courses. Dye is an absolute master of the visual element of design, and he displays that mastery throughout the round at Pete Dye GC.

We spend a lot of time talking about aesthetics on this site with our love of minimalism and naturalism. To look at Dye's courses through that same lens does a disservice to the extraordinary qualities of how they are presented visually. Pete Dye GC doesn't remotely have the aesthetics of a links course, but it invokes the visual qualities of a links as strongly as any course I know of.

[Kevin Lynch]

Tom -

Thanks for clarifying your meaning.  I can certainly understand the concern over costs and sustainability - I just wouldn't judge an individual design (micro level) because of a macro level concern.  It wouldn't be Pete's fault for giving a private club what they're looking for. 


Jason -

Thanks for making a distinction between visuals and aesthetics. I hadn't really thought of that before (at least consciously), so it gives me something to consider going forward.