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

[Josh Tarble]

George,
How many Dye courses have you played?  I ask because it seems to me that Dye is a love/hate designer.  I have experienced some friends that seem to "snap" from hating his designs to loving them after they've played a few - it seems like it takes some people a certain amount of plays to really figure him and his courses out.
 

[George Pazin]

George,
How many Dye courses have you played?  I ask because it seems to me that Dye is a love/hate designer.  I have experienced some friends that seem to "snap" from hating his designs to loving them after they've played a few - it seems like it takes some people a certain amount of plays to really figure him and his courses out.
 

Before I answer, let me say first that I am not at all attempting to draw some sort of conclusion or judgment about Pete Dye's career or his courses in totality. That's for better, far more experienced, minds than mine. I'm merely commenting on this course. (It's so rare that I can actually say I've played a course discussed on here, I hope I'm allowed to comment on this one!)

Having said that, I'm sitting on a grand total of 2, Pete Dye Golf Club and Mystic Rock. I've also been granted a tour of The Ocean Course, which was closed for play when I was there.

I don't doubt Pete's place in the pantheon of gca, and I will add that The Players is behind only The Masters and The Open in terms of courses that I actually take the time to watch the pros play (the US Open and PGA depend on the venue) on the tube. I just don't happen to agree with - and in fact from my experience, strongly DISAGREE with - the notion that anyone can love a Pete Dye course, as long as they play the right tees.

Fwiw, I believe I "get" what it is that Pete is trying to do; I don't agree that it's a worthy goal for casual golfers.

[Jason Thurman]

10 plays through a beautiful setting, but  at first glance it seems like a bit of a waste of a natural feature. The creek running down the right side practically begs for a "bite off as much as you can chew" tee shot that challenges the water to set up a shorter approach. Such a hole would be out of place here, though, as we already played something similar back at #2. The land for 10 may not be dissimilar to the land at 2, but the hole plays extremely differently.

The goal off the tee at 10 should not be to hug the water, as it is off the tee at 2. Instead, the fairway routes well to the left and the ideal angle of approach can be from the left side of the fairway as well, depending on a few factors. The challenge here is to resist the temptation to shorten this beefy par 4 by trying to cut off the hole's length by aiming further to the right than you can carry. Everything about this hole's presentation pulls the player to aim further right than they should. The line of charm is well to the right of the fairway. The bunkers in the depression right of the fairway seemingly beg to be challenged on the tee shot. The fairway, again, looks like it quickly runs out of room up the left side for bigger hitters. It takes a lot of discipline to confidently line up for a shot down the center left of the fairway.

While the scenery draws attention to the hole for most golfers, the final 50 yards hold the most architectural interest. With no bunkers near the green, the land allows for a ball struck with the proper trajectory to feed in toward the green from the left. The green features remarkable microundulations, particularly considering the story that it's almost completely manmade and built over the top of the stream leading out of the ground on the right side of the green.

As for the stream/waterfall itself, I like it. It existed prior to the course, if fits the mining theme, and it's fairly inconspicuous compared to the vast majority of artificial greenside waterfalls.

[Kevin Lynch]

Sorry for the hiatus while on the road -  I had a little less availability than I thought (and poorer internet connectivity).
I hope we can get the momentum back and continue this one.
**************************

#11.  A monstrously long par 5 (from the tips).

I'm going to admit right off the top that my recollection of this hole was lacking, as I really wasn't much of a fan (thought of it as a bit of a slog).  But, in looking at the photos and angles, there's more going on than my recollection gave it credit for.






The long road ahead of you from the tee, and trickery abounds.  The bunker left and green in the distance draws your view left.  

Also, the raised inside of the fairway usually conceals a landing area beyond (reinforced by the view of fairway well close to the layup area).  However, in this case, the rise conceals the fact that the fairway turns to the right over the hill.  If you anticipate a turn over the rise, you'll end up in the circled orange area from the aerial. Your line is actually well right, towards the portion of the right fairway bunker visible from the tee.




The view of your second shot from the landing zone.

Again, your Line of Instinct toward the green will only lead to trouble.  You're better off aiming directly towards the trees and bunker short and right of the green.  It's highly unlikely you'll reach either, but should give you the best approach angle (especially to a back left pin).






A little closer - roughly 200 yards out:




A few views from the 3rd shot area. As you can see, the positioning in this wide landing area will alter your view significantly:

Central:


Left:


Right:



A few looks back:





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

It's certainly a challenge to make a par 5 unreachable with today's technology.  It's even more difficult to make such a hole interesting, since the main factor is length.  But if you were to compare this 600 yarder to a similar length hole like Golden Horseshoe's 15th, PDGC is far superior.  The visual interest off the tee and angles to consider on the second shot here make this a much more enjoyable play (GH felt like being asked to hit your two longest clubs very straight or else - end of interest, end of story.)

I've always felt Pete Dye was one of the best designers of Par 5s - and providing interest on a 600 yard hole is a testament to that.

[George Pazin]

#11.  A monstrously long par 5 (from the tips).

I'm going to admit right off the top that my recollection of this hole was lacking, as I really wasn't much of a fan (thought of it as a bit of a slog).  But, in looking at the photos and angles, there's more going on than my recollection gave it credit for.

You (and others) probably won't be surprised to learn this was one of my favorite holes, given my contrarian bent. And it's not just because I had an eagle chip and birdie putt (which I missed, of course). Give me a wide field with a handful of features, no death penalty hazards, and an interesting green, and I am almost sated...

Your description above is almost a criterion for me for a good hole - not a lot apparent going on, but upon further reflection, more than you realized. I'm almost the anti-Mackenzie, in terms of desires: I prefer looks easy plays harder to looks hard plays easy.

Apparently I'm mostly a loner in this preference.

[Paul Gray]

Your description above is almost a criterion for me for a good hole - not a lot apparent going on, but upon further reflection, more than you realized. I'm almost the anti-Mackenzie, in terms of desires: I prefer looks easy plays harder to looks hard plays easy.

Apparently I'm mostly a loner in this preference.

Almost a loner but not quite. I have a fairly similar view.

[Jason Thurman]

I can't be the first person ever to step to the tee at 11 and boldly try to carry the left bunker on my first play. I hit a great drive and watched with great anticipation as it landed safely over the hazard and... ended up on the downslope in the rough not even close to the fairway.

Once again, the principal challenge is to play away from where your eyes tell you to play. It's worth noting, though, that flirting with the bunker off the tee opens up the layup area with a more preferred angle, particularly if you want to lay up to the right side of the fairway to open up the entrance to the green. The layup area itself is full of uneven terrain that makes distance control a little trickier for strong players hitting half wedges.

Still, this is probably the least compelling hole on the course for me. Maybe I'm just hung up on wishing that carrying the left bunker made sense - it sets up so well for that shot and it's a bit of a letdown to skip the exhilaration of carrying the sand and instead play the straight shot into the fairway.

[Kevin Lynch]

#11.  A monstrously long par 5 (from the tips).

I'm going to admit right off the top that my recollection of this hole was lacking, as I really wasn't much of a fan (thought of it as a bit of a slog).  But, in looking at the photos and angles, there's more going on than my recollection gave it credit for.

You (and others) probably won't be surprised to learn this was one of my favorite holes, given my contrarian bent. And it's not just because I had an eagle chip and birdie putt (which I missed, of course). Give me a wide field with a handful of features, no death penalty hazards, and an interesting green, and I am almost sated...

Your description above is almost a criterion for me for a good hole - not a lot apparent going on, but upon further reflection, more than you realized. I'm almost the anti-Mackenzie, in terms of desires: I prefer looks easy plays harder to looks hard plays easy.

Apparently I'm mostly a loner in this preference.

I thought you may like this hole, and it's not that I disliked it, it just didn't leave a strong impression on me from the first play.  It took some post-game review to fully appreciate it.  In a way, this comes down to the discussion of a "head vs heart" attraction to a course or hole.

For me, the Mackenzie thought isn't so much about the "play easy" part, it's really just the visual element that provides an additional layer of mental hazards.  For instance, an elevated, partially blind approach shot doesn't look "hard" - but the uncertainty certainly makes the shot more interesting to me.  In the Ballyhack thread, everyone talked about the significantly uphill approach on #1.  It gets in your head, but it's still just a 120 yard shot (perhaps with a 140 swing).  The shot's not really any easier or harder than a 140 yard flat approach, but I'd say the "look" is what makes it more thrilling to hit that green.

Of course, everything is about balance and most holes would fit somewhere on the continuum between the two professed schools of thought.  I suppose Pete Dye does provide a little bit of both in his designs, as there are certain holes that jump out at me and tug at my heart, while there are others that require some thought to fully appreciate.

[Kevin Lynch]

I can't be the first person ever to step to the tee at 11 and boldly try to carry the left bunker on my first play. I hit a great drive and watched with great anticipation as it landed safely over the hazard and... ended up on the downslope in the rough not even close to the fairway.

Once again, the principal challenge is to play away from where your eyes tell you to play. It's worth noting, though, that flirting with the bunker off the tee opens up the layup area with a more preferred angle, particularly if you want to lay up to the right side of the fairway to open up the entrance to the green. The layup area itself is full of uneven terrain that makes distance control a little trickier for strong players hitting half wedges.

Still, this is probably the least compelling hole on the course for me. Maybe I'm just hung up on wishing that carrying the left bunker made sense - it sets up so well for that shot and it's a bit of a letdown to skip the exhilaration of carrying the sand and instead play the straight shot into the fairway.

You must be a very long hitter or were playing up a little (295/279 carry from the last two decks).  I decided to play all the way back just to see what a 600 yard hole felt like, so those thoughts never entered my mind. 

As for the letdown, I guess I've just come to appreciate Dye's sense of humor and trickery, especially on the last two tee shots.  The fairway bunkers are nowhere near your optimal line, but we've just been wired to believe that you should hug a fairway bunker as tight as possible to get some advantage.

[Kevin Lynch]

#12.  Another short par 4.



My analysis is going mostly of the pics and aerial, since my play included a poorly hit driver that bounced perfectly off the trees and into the fairway, leaving a simple wedge in.  Doubt that was the design.  But from the aerial below, it looks like this hole accommodates the conservative play (yellow), a slice/fade (blue) and a draw (red). 



A view from all the way back.  I had no idea where to go here nor did I have any sense of the relative distances.  I don't recall if you can see the flag in certain locations or if the mound/FW bunker left completely obscures your view.

The encroaching tree right and sloped right hillside all push your aim left.  The fairway bunker left make this seem very narrow from the tee (the 25 yards you see) and tempts you to believe there's glory over the FW bunker.  Yet, as seen from the aerial above, there's plenty of room to the right and opens up to 50+ yards of width if you are bold enough to hit driver.



The carts in this shot help you get a sense that there's landing area more to the right.



A few looks from the fairway:

Just short of the fairway bunker (~110-120 yds):


Even with it (~85 yards)


A bit closer to the green:


Unfortunately, I didn't have any shots from the far right of the fairway.

A final look back reveals how big the left mound is.



A nice touch at the end of the hole:



**********************
I'll be interested to hear how this one plays after repeat visits. 

Is it really driveable or are you always left with an awkward pitch vs. a safe play of 110-120 yards? 

Is the pin ever visible from any the tees / certain pin positions?  Or does the mound always obscure your view?

How are the recovery opportunities for pulled tee shots?

[Matt Kardash]

The 12th is a variation of a Dye short par 4 template he used a lot in the 1980s. Off the top of my head I can think of Long Cove, Old Marsh, Brickyard Crossing, Whistling Straits, Colleton River, Sawgrass, all having some aspect of this hole. Short Par 4 with a blind green if you are not aggressive with the tee shot. I find this Dye template to be kind of neat, because it's cool to see the different ways he uses it on different courses. There are variations.
That being said, I think for today's good player this hole is pretty easy. Bomb it 300 yards into a 50 yard wide fairway, then pitch straight up the gut of the green. Back when the hole was built a good drive was 270, making the angle of the pitch much more difficult and awkward at 70 yards. However, I think for the average golfer this hole is plenty fun.

[Jason Thurman]

I just love the 12th, and I'm a notorious hater when it comes to short par 4s.

I've said before that I think this course has a very linksy feel even though it's obviously parkland/mountainous in terrain and presentation. I don't think the links-style element of the course ever comes into clearer focus than here at 12. The bunkered mound straight ahead off the tee makes the corridor feel tight and awkward, and yet it widens up substantially once you get past it.

While some players will certainly just bomb it at the green here, it sets up more as a drive-and-pitch hole with the contours of the fairway that bleed into the green creating some really dicey approach shots. From the right side of the fairway, a soft bump and run will funnel down onto the middle of the putting surface pretty easily. From the left side, a firm runner will take the slope up the front of the green and then feed off the front left mound down toward middle pin positions. The pitches that strong players will favor, meanwhile, require plenty of touch.

The green itself must be in the discussion of the best on the course - nothing too wild, but it bleeds and rumbles in every direction and double-breaking putts will be common for anyone who doesn't carefully control their approach. Everything about this hole is delightful - you have 3 or 4 real options off the tee with at least three different options for how to hit your approach from each of those positions. It would take a lot of plays to figure out if there's a single preferred method of playing the hole for me.

[George Pazin]

COMPLETELY forgot about this hole, and that's to my discredit, as I too liked it. I will admit to discomfort on the tee, as I didn't know where to hit it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's a hole I think I would enjoy all the time, could see play it differently each time, though likely not by choice...

[Kevin Lynch]

Following up on the comments from Matt & Jason, I'll ask for some insight from Charlie:

Ease for the Good Player - Not sure if Charlie was a member in the Nationwide Tour days, but I'm curious how most Tour Players attacked this hole during the event.  Were they trying to get all the way home and trusting their sand game?  Or did many just lay back and use their wedge skill to attack this aerially?  I'm thinking most pros would rather not trust the 40-50 yard partial shot and have enough confidence from 110 or so yards that there's no need to risk a Driver. 

Ground Approach Options - As has been my consistent question in this thread, are the running options mentioned by Jason a realistic option in terms of maintenance?  I didn't see the options Jason did, but I didn't get a very good look at this hole.  It seemed to me like the rough on the mounds surrounding the greens would hold up several ground options I'd like to see.  Perhaps I just need a few different angles of the green to envision them.

[Kevin Lynch]

COMPLETELY forgot about this hole, and that's to my discredit, as I too liked it. I will admit to discomfort on the tee, as I didn't know where to hit it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's a hole I think I would enjoy all the time, could see play it differently each time, though likely not by choice...

I had a little bit of the same reaction.  Since the drive zone appeared so tight, there was less sense of the overall hole from the tee to recall.  If this hole had committed a crime and I was the only witness, I wouldn't have given the sketch artist much to work with. 

With any short par 4, you usually need several rounds to experiment to fully appreciate it, so this is one that I regret not playing better.

[Matt Kardash]

Following up on the comments from Matt & Jason, I'll ask for some insight from Charlie:

Ease for the Good Player - Not sure if Charlie was a member in the Nationwide Tour days, but I'm curious how most Tour Players attacked this hole during the event.  Were they trying to get all the way home and trusting their sand game?  Or did many just lay back and use their wedge skill to attack this aerially?  I'm thinking most pros would rather not trust the 40-50 yard partial shot and have enough confidence from 110 or so yards that there's no need to risk a Driver. 

Ground Approach Options - As has been my consistent question in this thread, are the running options mentioned by Jason a realistic option in terms of maintenance?  I didn't see the options Jason did, but I didn't get a very good look at this hole.  It seemed to me like the rough on the mounds surrounding the greens would hold up several ground options I'd like to see.  Perhaps I just need a few different angles of the green to envision them.

I don't see why the Nationwide player would not hit it 300 yards and leave himself 30 or 40 yards to the flag. The fairway is 50 yards wide at this point. For a professional golfer that is an enormous fairway that they will hit 80% of the time. From there you have the best angle at pitching the ball close. These days pro golfers are pretty deadly from 40 yards with a lob weddge. They strike it clean, a couple bounces then it checks by the hole. In the long run, hitting driver on this hole will yield the better scores. I have no doubt.

[Jason Thurman]

To be clear, the run-up option I see from the left side of the fairway is only an option for a front pin. It is possible to feed the ball off the front left hump in the green toward a front right pin though, from a little further down the fairway on a line similar to the photo below:



Left of the line from this photo, and I agree the approach has to be aerial. Likewise, if the pin is anywhere other than that front right position from this angle, and an aerial shot is clearly the play.

[Kevin Lynch]

#13.  A very flexible par 3 ranging from 102-196 yards.  Add in 44 yards of green depth, and this one can require a wide range of clubs.





From the tips (back pin):



Zoomed in a little.  As with many Dye holes, notice how shallow the back part of the green appears and then compare to the final picture below:


A little closer, with a front right pin:



This shows what you face if you come up short left:



The view if you miss out to the right:



A look back reveals the amount of slope from back-to-front.


************************************
Overall, just a solid par 3, without too much drama.  Add in the interest of an angled green and some bigger contours, and this is an enjoyable hole.

Looking at some of the pictures from the tee, it almost appears like there may be a redan-type feeding slope in the right middle of the green.  But when you look at it from the rear, it seems like the overall slant of the green will push balls off to the right.  I'll wait for some of the local insight from Charlie and others for their experience with roll-outs on tee shots and chips.

Just based on the angle of the green and the set-up of the hazard, this setting appears to lend itself to a redan-type hole.  I wish it could have been more pronounced to allow that type of running, feeding shot.  At the same time, I wonder if Dye didn't raise the entire front of the green simply to allow for the "easy" front pin locations.

In general, have people seen a true redan design from Pete Dye? I'd have to pour over my recollection of holes. This location seemed to really lend itself to that template.

[George Pazin]

Really liked 13.

I'm realizing that I really like Pete Dye holes that lack death penalty hazards, don't particularly like the ones that have 'em ...

[Matt Kardash]

Kevin,

Dye has a ton of par 3's that are redan-esque. He usually puts his little twist on it, so none are 100% faithfull. Off the top of my head I can remember Whistling Straits, Kiawah, French Lick, Brickyard Crossing all having redan-like par 3's.

The 13th hole at PDGC is a beautiful looking hole. I think from an artisitc point of view I would prefer there to be no mounds on the leftside of the hole. That way there would be one long un-interupted slope from the high right to the low left. That background hillside just calls for a nice clean line, and those mounds break it up. Nit-picking.

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin,

Dye has a ton of par 3's that are redan-esque. He usually puts his little twist on it, so none are 100% faithfull. Off the top of my head I can remember Whistling Straits, Kiawah, French Lick, Brickyard Crossing all having redan-like par 3's.

The 13th hole at PDGC is a beautiful looking hole. I think from an artisitc point of view I wuld prefer there to be no mounds on the left of the hole. That way there would be one long un-interupted slope from the high right to the low left. That background hillside just calls for a nice clean line, and those mounds break it up. Nit-picking.

Just given his propensity for adding significant slopes in his greens, there will always be ways to move a ball around once it lands.  I guess I was asking if there was a pure redan (not that there's anything wrong with variations).  

I imagine you're referring to the 3rd at Whistling Straits, which seems to have a "false front" twist to it, but definitely will kick a ball sharply left to the back pins.  However, even in that case, Dye's video for that hole warns against hitting a draw because it will likely roll through the green, so I'm not sure what he intended. 


Aesthetically, I also enjoyed the setting with the natural hillside behind.  I didn't mind the mounding on the left to obscure the landing area, I just really think it would have been neat to see none of the green surface by raising the front of the green and sloping the entire green towards the back.

Regardless of what could have been, still a very enjoyable hole.

[Jason Thurman]

I also really enjoy 13.

I think sometimes we fall into a trap of wanting holes to fit a lauded template instead of evaluating what they are. I see this with some of the critique of 13 to this point. From the air, it looks like a Redan. From the tee, the fronting bunker and angled green invoke a Redan. A lot of us architecture nuts will look at a hole like that and lament if it doesn't also play like a Redan, but I think we have to avoid that and instead look at the hole as it is and decide whether it works or not.

13 draws some inspiration from a Redan, but it most decidedly is not one as it doesn't feature the most crucial features that have come to be associated with that template: a fronting kickplate and a green that will carry the ball from front right to back left. However, I think the Redan-esque presentation contributes a lot to how the hole actually works.

We know that Dye believes in asking players to work the ball by playing draws and fades and controlling trajectories, as he discusses in his writing. In that sense, he could be considered the first architect to design for the modern shotmaker who works the ball through the air as opposed to on the ground. Whereas Robert Trent Jones' courses required plenty of aerial play, they don't require working the ball from side to side nearly as much as Dye's courses do.

Applying that idea to 13, the hole looks like it demands a right-to-left shot all the way. The green wraps in that direction, and the Redan-esque presentation invokes the very idea of a ball running from right-to-left after it lands. However, I believe the right play on that tee in neutral wind conditions is a fade. If you start a fade at the left third of the green with a club that will fly to the front edge of that rear section, it takes a very bad shot to miss. If you hit it perfectly, the cut spin will trim a few yards off the shot and land it softly in the middle of the green. If you over-cut it, the shot will lose a bit more distance but have a reasonable chance of landing on the front right part of the green. Hang it straight and you'll land on the rear section of the green. The angling of the green essentially widens the margin of error for a cut shot. Meanwhile, if you play a draw to start at the right side of the green and hang it straight, you'll likely end up on the hillside right. Turn it too much and it's easy for it to get away and end up long or left, especially with the green sloping to the left in that rear section. It's obviously possible to screw up any shot shape, and maybe I'm full of crap, but I believe the hole offers more margin of error for a cut than a draw. I draw the ball on 75% of my shots or more, but I go to the fade at 13.

[Kevin Lynch]

I also really enjoy 13.

I think sometimes we fall into a trap of wanting holes to fit a lauded template instead of evaluating what they are. I see this with some of the critique of 13 to this point. From the air, it looks like a Redan. From the tee, the fronting bunker and angled green invoke a Redan. A lot of us architecture nuts will look at a hole like that and lament if it doesn't also play like a Redan, but I think we have to avoid that and instead look at the hole as it is and decide whether it works or not.

13 draws some inspiration from a Redan, but it most decidedly is not one as it doesn't feature the most crucial features that have come to be associated with that template: a fronting kickplate and a green that will carry the ball from front right to back left. However, I think the Redan-esque presentation contributes a lot to how the hole actually works.

We know that Dye believes in asking players to work the ball by playing draws and fades and controlling trajectories, as he discusses in his writing. In that sense, he could be considered the first architect to design for the modern shotmaker who works the ball through the air as opposed to on the ground. Whereas Robert Trent Jones' courses required plenty of aerial play, they don't require working the ball from side to side nearly as much as Dye's courses do.

Applying that idea to 13, the hole looks like it demands a right-to-left shot all the way. The green wraps in that direction, and the Redan-esque presentation invokes the very idea of a ball running from right-to-left after it lands. However, I believe the right play on that tee in neutral wind conditions is a fade. If you start a fade at the left third of the green with a club that will fly to the front edge of that rear section, it takes a very bad shot to miss. If you hit it perfectly, the cut spin will trim a few yards off the shot and land it softly in the middle of the green. If you over-cut it, the shot will lose a bit more distance but have a reasonable chance of landing on the front right part of the green. Hang it straight and you'll land on the rear section of the green. The angling of the green essentially widens the margin of error for a cut shot. Meanwhile, if you play a draw to start at the right side of the green and hang it straight, you'll likely end up on the hillside right. Turn it too much and it's easy for it to get away and end up long or left, especially with the green sloping to the left in that rear section. It's obviously possible to screw up any shot shape, and maybe I'm full of crap, but I believe the hole offers more margin of error for a cut than a draw. I draw the ball on 75% of my shots or more, but I go to the fade at 13.

I understand where you're coming from about judging what's there vs the expectation.  If you look at the Whistling Straits threads, I've been a fairly strong defender of the course, especially when people criticized it for playing more aerial when it looks like it should be a ground course.  In the case of #13, I wasn't necessarily making a criticism with the lack of a redan - just an observation that it could have been made a pretty good one fairly easily with the setting. 

What you noted about the play of #13 is somewhat similar to what I noted about #3 as Whistling Straits.  The significant rise in the green there will feed a ball from right to left, but if you play a draw running with the slope, it will be too hot and go through the left side of the green.  In a way, the slope on #3 at WS isn't something to be "utilized" as much as something to be "contended with."  Again, either is fine, it's just that Dye almost flips the expectation by providing a slope that you can use a fade to bank against but it's not a slope that you can run a draw with.

I like your point about him designing to demand more precision from the aerial game (trajectories & shapes).  As much as he may appreciate the pure ground game, he couldn't just ignore the reality of technology.

[Kevin Lynch]

#14.  Another very meaty par 4 (unless you don't feel like it).

When I played this hole, I was using the second to last deck (around 450), and was very happy to card a GIR with a long iron.  I just liked the overall feel of the hole, whether it was the wide open vista or the charm of the stone wall framing.

Until I started analyzing this hole, I didn't really appreciate the point of most of the bunkering.  Then I looked at the yardage guide and aerial again:





There are 7(!!) Tee Decks on this hole with ~190 yards of separation, which makes this one of the most flexible holes on the course.

From the back three decks, the tee shot plays somewhat similarly to #10 and #11, in that you really have no business looking at the inside of the dogleg (carries of 312/268/258).  Again, resist the Line of Instinct and look towards the far left fairway bunker, as it's not in range (it's 280 yards even from the 4th longest set of tees).  Thus, my initial impression was that all the additional sand really didn't have much of a purpose (except some deception).

But when you start moving up several decks, you can start seeing some of the fun risk/reward carries and diagonal landing areas provided by the second set of bunkers.  Even for good players, you could move the tees up 100+ yards and still provide a fun challenge.  

 
A few views from the tee.  The solitary left tree may scare you a little, but I think you want to flirt with that a little more than the sand inside the dogleg.  





Long view from near the 12th green shows the left side view.  Neat to see the pastoral vista of the hole with the coal-mined rock walls in the far background:




From the left side of the fairway:



Closer to center:



From the right side:



A few looks back at the hole:









*******************
Overall, I can't really put my finger on why I liked this hole as much as I did.  Relative to some of the other surfaces, the green and surrounds were fairly benign.  Perhaps it was just the change of pace, as there was nothing hidden at all from the tee.  I'd be interested to hear the impressions from others.

A few questions:

- Does the club ever avail itself of the upper tees for club events?  Is it played as a monstrous four on one day and then converted to a short 4 the next?  The 7th tee looks like it would make a ~285 yard par 4.  Or are these decks solely left for the higher handicappers / beginners?

- When playing at it's full length, is there much 'feeder" slope in the area short and left of the green?  It looks like there's a slight tilt, but curious how much run-up players can get from their fairway wood approaches.

- Is there something very subtle I may be missing about the green?  I don't recall much about it.

[Kevin Lynch]

Really liked 13.

I'm realizing that I really like Pete Dye holes that lack death penalty hazards, don't particularly like the ones that have 'em ...

That realization is a pretty nice result of this discussion, I would say. 

It's easy to muddle perceptions of a few hazards with an overall perception of an architect / course, but I've come to appreciate all the little things that Dye does over the years.  Many people think initially of his aesthetic presentation (big hazards, sharper slopes), but I've come to appreciate his strategy, visual deception and angles more than anything else.

As for not liking holes with death penalty hazards, it will be interesting to see if you characterize #17 green as a death penalty hazard or not.