[Paul Gray]

Re the 14th, would it be an over simplification to suggest that for all the well placed wing bunkering, simply aiming straight down the middle is actually the only real option?

[Matt Kardash]

I would be curious to know why Tom thought that the preliminary version of this hole was so boring. It's a surprising comment since this hole is one of the real beauties and one that I would assume fits a minimalists eye pretty well. This is one of the more restrained holes.

[Kevin Lynch]

Re the 14th, would it be an over simplification to suggest that for all the well placed wing bunkering, simply aiming straight down the middle is actually the only real option?

I suppose there can be the trade-off in choosing a better angle but longer distance on the left side of the fairway.  If you hug the right, you have a shorter approach, but the penalty for a heavier iron is a likely deposit in the sand.  From the left side, you're longer but have more room for error (or may even be able to bounce one on, depending how firm it's maintained).  

I haven't seen the hole from the further up tees, but it seems at that point it may not be as simple as "hit down the middle" since you may then be able to drive through the fairway into the bunkers on the left side.  But I can't really say for sure - it's possible that the hole may look very straight from there and you are just talking about splitting a set of flanking bunkers.

Looking at the last picture (backwards), it appears that there are several slopes on the right side of the fairway that may be targets to get some extra forward kick off the tee.  

[Kevin Lynch]

#15.  A potentially reachable par 5 with water all along:





Tee shot.  From the back 2 tees, it's 310/281 to the fairway bunker, so you should be able to fire away.  If you're up another deck and or want to get in easier range, you'll need to split the bunker and water.



Shorter Tee View.  



Landing area shows that Dye gave you a bit of a backstop if you err away from the water:



2nd Shot View.  The more you err away from the water on the tee shot, the less you see of the landing area and more you feel like you're firing back towards the water.  If you flirt with the water off the tee, it gives you a much more favorable look on the second.




3rd Shot - Right Side



3rd  Shot - Left Side view.  Again, you may be able to use this bank on your second shot.



Back view showing right layup area.  You see the many potential awkward lies if you chicken out from the water.  You can't see the 3 bunkers in this region that will leave you the awkward 30-60 yard sand shot:




Right of green looking back


All view of the hole looking back:


**************************************
Generally, water-lined par 5s are near the bottom of my list for hole designs.  Throw in that this is the flattest hole on the property, and I wouldn't miss this hole if it were removed.

However, as far as this style of hole goes, I don't mind this one compared to many others I have played.  The main factor for me is that there aren't penalty stroke hazards on both sides of the fairway.  The entire left side is sloped to help contain the inevitable overcompensated shots left.

If you want to play this conservatively, the tee shot landing area is very wide, and you can reach with two irons from that point forward.

If you want to be aggressive, the there's a definite reward for flirting with water off the tee (better view / angle).  If you miss left with an aggressive approach, I like the proportionate potential hazard that can result (but also potential for recovery).  You could have a long sand shot towards the water, but you can play conservatively to short of the green if you wish.  You may have an awkward downhill lie in the rough as well, but plenty of green front to play a lower recovery.

I may not like the style of hole that much, but I can't argue with the strategy and quality of the design.

[Kevin Lynch]

#16.  A downhill par 3 with a wide range (136-246 yards).





Long View from 12th Tee Area:


Back Deck with back right pin.  About all you can handle from here:


Middle Tees with front pin:


View from halfway shows overall slopes:




Zoomed in shows green contours and severe fall-off right:



Look back shows amount of elevation change:


*************************
A big hole on a grand scale.  The contours and falloffs are huge, and fits well with the open space in this part of the course. 

Not sure I like the idea of this hole from 246, but no one's holding a gun to my head.  Interestingly, with the bold contours, this one could be enjoyed from the short-iron range just as well.

Thoughts for discussion:

- How much can you use the bank short left of the green to kick towards the hole? 

-  How much creativity can you use on chip shots?  Will shots just bend, or is there enough slope to have chips curl around and come back to you? 

-  Is the front pin actually one of the toughest locations because it sits highest?  The back right may be longest, but it seems like you have a nice bowl to get there.

[Carl Rogers]

This course looks like a best of Pete Dye golf course design template exercise, where holes or fragments of holes are lifted from other courses and dropped in in West Virginia.  It seems over shaped, forced and over-cooked.

I realize that is not a popular opinion here.

Is outside play here possible?

[Ronald Montesano]

This course looks like a best of Pete Dye golf course design template exercise, where holes or fragments of holes are lifted from other courses and dropped in in West Virginia.  It seems over shaped, forced and over-cooked.

I realize that is not a popular opinion here.

Is outside play here possible?

A) Trying to figure out if Carl has gone schizo here...don't like this, over-cooked there, can I get on as an outside?

B) This is a classic, first-play-clueless for me. Looking back three-four years after I shot some of these image, I realize how much of the course I missed while playing it! I think I was so tired by 16 that I didn't realize what great green area it had. I believe I held a gun to my own head and played it from 246...I'm a thinker like that. Didn't end well.

[Carl Rogers]

The thread was getting tired IMO ......... 
Of the Dye courses, I have played, they are only his lesser known.  River Course at Kingsmill at Williamsburg VA, Virginia Beach National at Virginia Beach, VA and Pete Dye's River Course (for VA Tech) in Radford, VA.  Have extensively walked Sawgrass once.

I only tentatively postulate my thesis, but I defend it slightly ... at lot of similarity and repetition of themes.

I would like to play the course to prove I am wrong.

[Anthony_Nysse]

This entire thread just shows off some of Pete's best work in an era where I think his design work was his strongest-PDGC, TPC, Long Cove, The Honors, Blackwolf Run and Kiawah, to name a few.

[Ronald Montesano]

Kevin and I had no idea that the 17th green was coming. We knew that a green on that hole was probably where the hole would be, but we didn't know that "the 17th green" was coming.

So, does knowing that play any part in how members play #15 and #16? Do they feel as though they need to gain a stroke or two, in anticipation of "it"?

[Paul Gray]

First impression suggests simple brilliance to me. Essentially a bland par 3 improved exponentially by:

1) Turning the green a few degrees
2) Making the golfet think about that bunker because of those few degrees.
3) Giving a little back to the golfer by way of the green slopes.

Is that fair?

[Kevin Lynch]

Carl -

I hope your call livens things up a little.    I try to strike a balance between going too slow or too fast in reviewing the holes, but the discussion is most what I'm interested in.  Besides, I'm sure #17 will generate plenty of discussion (one of the most controversial on the course).

When you say "similarity & repetition of themes," do you mean between this course and other Dye designs, or do you mean within the context of just this course?

If it's the former, I don't think you can necessarily hole Dye's prolific career against him.  But, even in that case, when you talk to people who have played numerous Dye designs, this one seems to have separated itself.  Look at many of the "Favorite Dye design" threads, and you'll see this one often near the top (with The Golf Club).  

Sure, there are a few templates here, but is that necessarily a bad thing?  Just because I've seen a similar variation of a hole before doesn't make it good or bad.  There are reasons people try to replicate certain templates.  On the Ballyhack thread, I mentioned I wasn't a big fan of #4 or #15 because I'd seen it before.  Ron questioned me, thinking I was dismissing it because of my prior experience with Dye designs.  But I clarified that I had seen that type of hole before (water-lined par 5 /3) and wasn't a big fan of the genre, whether it was done by Dye or anyone else.  It wasn't the repetition that I minded, it was the style.  But, as I noted during my more detailed analyses, these particular versions of those holes were actually well done.

As for Pete's aesthetic look, there will be similarity, but again, why is that necessarily bad?  Does it look more artificial than some of the minimalist work?  Sure, but as we've seen through the thread, there's a purpose for most of this (strategic angles, visual confusion).  Whether you personally like a rounded bank or an angled bank is up to you, but the playing features are generally the same.  I've never put much basis into a criticism of "overshaped" because that shaping may make a hole more interesting / thought-provoking (i.e. how to use those shapes for shotmaking), but recognize that sometimes that criticism is because it only adds eye-candy.  In Dye's case, his shaping is more of the former (IMO).


Now, if you were talking about a repetition of themes within this course, I can address that as well (but will have to do it later, since my wife is waiting for me to head out to watch the Browns play).  

Thanks for throwing in some spice!

[Carl Rogers]

some further thoughts and I will lurk for the remainder of the thread...
1. The visual mis-direction and the slight blindness just over the horizon (to me a common Dye theme) should diminish over multiple plays as the golfer will hit some shots here and there on a given hole and learn what will work for them or not work for them.
(very similar to TD's Riverfront in Suffolk, VA where I play.)
2. there always seems to me a modest, conservative approach to each shot and each hole.  this seems to me as a subtle psychological ploy that works on the golfer that takes the aggressive line and fails, knowing all the while the simple play was right in front of them.

[Kevin Lynch]

some further thoughts and I will lurk for the remainder of the thread...
1. The visual mis-direction and the slight blindness just over the horizon (to me a common Dye theme) should diminish over multiple plays as the golfer will hit some shots here and there on a given hole and learn what will work for them or not work for them.
(very similar to TD's Riverfront in Suffolk, VA where I play.)
2. there always seems to me a modest, conservative approach to each shot and each hole.  this seems to me as a subtle psychological ploy that works on the golfer that takes the aggressive line and fails, knowing all the while the simple play was right in front of them.

Carl,

1)  Just curious, is that a good or bad thing in your mind?  Sure the effect wears away, but compared to a hole without misdirection, is it better or worse (or indifferent)?  I initially had a similar impression about the raised inside fairway edge / partial blindness (used it on #1, #3, #8, #10, #11 and #17), but realized he actually flipped it on us at #10/11 (should not even mess with that area).  For myself, I like the little bit of visual uncertainty, but can respect that some may feel it may have been overdone here (perhaps that's why some people like the straightforward simplicity of #14).

2) From your comments on the Ballyhack thread, I'm assuming this is an aspect you prefer about Pete Dye designs.  You are right that this is often not realized with Dye, since his reputation gets widespread coverage based on the aggressive play of professionals.

[Kevin Lynch]

First impression suggests simple brilliance to me. Essentially a bland par 3 improved exponentially by:

1) Turning the green a few degrees
2) Making the golfet think about that bunker because of those few degrees.
3) Giving a little back to the golfer by way of the green slopes.

Is that fair?

I hadn't really been able to articulate why I like this one, but those reasons seem pretty good to me. 

From Charlie's comments, it seems that the back left collection area would get plenty of play because of people avoiding the bunker. 

[Kevin Lynch]

#17.  Probably the most polarizing hole on the course is this par 4 (399 yards).





The tee shot on this one gives you plenty of width for a very short hole.  When you see the green, you'll see why that matters so much:




The 17th is all about the green.  I'll just post the pics from various angles, as no words can encapsulate it:














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

I'm going to turn this one over to Charlie and others for their thoughts.

- I'm assuming there are many different preferred fairway spots for each pin location, but I don't know what they are (or if you just pray for the middle and go from there).

[Carl Rogers]

This entire thread just shows off some of Pete's best work in an era where I think his design work was his strongest-PDGC, TPC, Long Cove, The Honors, Blackwolf Run and Kiawah, to name a few.

Sir, back to my point ...
He did too too much work back then and it began to look too similar.

I acknowledge I am in the minority.

I have also, walked around the Honors Course at the NCAA's a couple of years back.

(if this was a Rees Jones course and that waterfall on 10 was there, the howls and cat-calls would be non-stop)

[Andy Troeger]

Carl,
It depends on whether you like the work and the look or not. Every designer has a look, to a certain extent. Dye's is one of the easiest to spot, but the MacDonald/Raynor style is also different from most others and those courses have endured pretty well over the years. PDGC, TPC, and Blackwolf are all among my favorites and if Pete had built another ten like them I'd be thrilled. The Honors and Long Cove are really good too, and Kiawah is near the top of my wish list. The Golf Club is about the only one of his very best that wasn't built during that era. I will say that the more recent stuff, including Whistling Straits and especially French Lick, don't do as much for me.

George,
I meant to reply when you actually wrote this, but I liked your comment about liking Dye's holes that don't have the water features. I think PDGC is incredibly thoughtful and holes like 11 and 13 are often overlooked but are much of the reason it is his best effort. I really like holes like #2, 10, and 18 as well, but it takes the ebb and flow between those holes and those that offer more recovery options to make the course.

[Jason Thurman]

I fell behind again, but there’s not much to add on 14. It’s a beautiful hole that sits gracefully on the land. The extended construction period at Pete Dye GC also led to a number of different styles being used on the site. 14 is as understated and natural as 6, and the flow over the first 5 holes of the back nine is something of a Tour de Dye.

15 is arguably the most indifferent hole on the course. It’s a hole that could have been anywhere. That’s not necessarily the worst thing in the world, as it’s a good hole that can be a lot of fun but also can extract a big penalty.  It just isn’t anything unusual or special.

16 seems like one of the more underrated holes on the course to me. One thing that doesn’t really show in the photos is the depth of the right bunker. I’ve been in it, and it’s at least 6 ½ or 7 feet deep and a very stout punishment for missing to the right. I tend to be a sucker for long par 3s, and this one is no exception. From the back tees, can it be played as a bit of a reverse Redan with the front left kickplate?

I like 17 and I think most of the criticisms of the green could also apply to any number of greens at Pinehurst No. 2, among other courses. If you pretend the left side of the green just doesn’t exist, then the remaining surface that can be held is more than adequate for such a short hole. If I ever get burned by it, I’ll probably complain. In the meantime though, I enjoy it and think it’s one of the ways that the course tests a player’s game so comprehensively. It should be noted that the slopes of the green will be far more troublesome for high approaches than for lower ones. It’s easy for a strong player to spin a ball off the front of the green or take a crazy bounce after landing on one of the moguls. For a weaker player, a lower shot that isn’t spinning too much can basically run up the tilt of the green and will feed much more gently off the moguls.

[Paul Carey]

I doesn't matter where you drive it on 17.  That green has no where to hit it.  

As I recall the rolls on the green are very close to each other which makes the distance control almost random because the precision required is so severe.  I have hit sots in that we're very close and spun all the way off the green.  If I was a few feet left of target it could spin left wher a two putt was virtually impossible.  If there was one area of the green like that it would be ok.  It is everywhere making the shot about extreme, precision. 

I love this golf course.  I want to like this hole.  I just can't. 

[Kevin Lynch]

I doesn't matter where you drive it on 17.  That green has no where to hit it it. 

I take it you're firmly on the negative side of the 17th hole ledger.  By your statement, angles become irrelevant and this is solely a one-dimensional test of distance control for irons.

I like 17 and I think most of the criticisms of the green could also apply to any number of greens at Pinehurst No. 2, among other courses. If you pretend the left side of the green just doesn’t exist, then the remaining surface that can be held is more than adequate for such a short hole. If I ever get burned by it, I’ll probably complain.

I didn't have too much problem with the design, and you pretty much echoed my thoughts.  Given the length of the hole and the disproportionately wide fairway Dye provides, one hole demanding such short iron precision is acceptable. 

I understand Charlie's concern about its position as the penultimate hole, but since I'm not much of a pencil & scorecard guy, it's easier for me to laugh off a 4 putt double.

*******************
As for the Pinehurst comment, I think Paul was touching on that with his statements above.   When I left #2 after my only play, I had the sense that all the discussion about angles was somewhat overstated, and that there was a greater premium placed on precise distance control than approach angle.  Of course, distance control vs angle isn't a binary choice, but I found the contouring of PH2 to be pushing a little more along the continuum towards the former.  At PDGC, it was more towards the latter (with #17 being a notable exception).

I've heard the tale of members wanting to change the green and Dye responding (paraphrasing), "if you do, you'll need to change the name of the course."  During the recounting of this tale, does anyone know if Dye considers the green to be a demanding test of distance control or does he believe it is a green that was designed to reward different angles?  I can't find my yardage book to see if Dye had any "strategy notes" for this hole.

[Kevin Lynch]

From the back tees, can it be played as a bit of a reverse Redan with the front left kickplate?

From Charlie's comment, I get the sense that it can be, but your speed need to be in control so as to avoid rolling through the slope and into the left collection area.  Looking at the green, if you can get headed towards the surface with any momentum, it will fight back to the back right corner.

[Kevin Lynch]

#18.  A Grand Sweeping Finale





It makes sense to start the review of this hole with a reverse look.  From the driving range and heading to the tenth tee, this exciting preview awaits.  You get a sense of the contours leading up to the green.




By the time you work your way around to the 18th tee, this gorgeous view awaits.  And you may need some aesthetic relief after your 4-putt on #17.

The fairway is very wide (~50 Yards), but the Line of Instinct and tempting little curve of land on the inside may draw you left of where you need.  I simply love the entire scale and shape of this hole.



From the extreme left of the fairway.  You can see the high banking of the mound that provides your visual impediment for many shots from the fairway (this is from ~150 yards of so):



View from high Right Side, with #10 in the background.  Of course, any lie from up here (or the right side in general) will tend to be above your feet - a harrowing proposition given the water left:


Approach from middle - but this view may not be available unless you really bomb one or play the shorter tees (this is roughly 125 yards per Joe's notes).  My recollection is that the landing area from back tees will provide a partially obscured green, which is why the earlier previews may have come in handy.  You can really see the amount of internal contour on the green, but the fairway slopes speak to me more.  I'm dreaming of running a ball in along the ground from this view. 

In a "no preset tee marker" format, I'd love to play this from the up tees and try to get a draw to crest the hill and trundle towards the green.  In fact, if the Nationwide Tour didn't play this at least once as a 325 yard short 4, they missed the boat (Mike Davis would have).




From Left Side past the huge knoll.  Looks like a running attempt will collect in the drain if not struck with enough conviction: 



From Behind Green:



A final Look:

[Kevin Lynch]

Charlie -

First off - "letting you participate?"  To the contrary, I want to thank you (and others) for choosing to participate.  A one-sided discussion isn't much fun, and I needed the perspective of someone who has seen the course over multiple plays and differing conditions.

************
Re: the 18th:
- I had the same thought as you in that I would have much preferred to see the final approach of the day rather than have it be a partially blind shot (especially given how cool the 18th/10th corridor and contours look from ~130 or so in).  But if you hit the green, that has to be a very satisfying walk.

- As for template finishes, my thought is that I'll judge a hole on its own merits, but recognize that a hole you've seen before may diminish the "Wow" reaction.  The one thing PDGC has going for it is the superior topography.  So while the 18th at Blackwolf Run (River), Sawgrass and Bulle Rock may all look the same in an aerial / yardage book, PDGC's 18th certainly elicits a more primal response from me (I suppose that may make me an "elevation whore" to borrow someone's term from the "Flat Sites" discussion).

However, since we've noted that Dye has pulled out a number of templates for this design, the fact is that it generally has separated itself is due to something.  As illustrated by #18, the topography has to have some effect (and a hole like #8 will never get confused with another hole). 

***********
Re: Front 9 / Back 9
As someone who was not aware of the construction timeframe, I didn't notice a stark difference in feel (other than natural topographic variations) at the time.  Whether that's due to a natural cohesiveness or my lack of observational skills is up for debate.  But after going through this detailed review, I do sense that the back 9 is a more subtle than the front.

A few random thoughts on the nines:
- The most stark comparison is the par 5s.  The front duo is full of drama, while the pair on the back are easy to overlook / dismiss (though I've come to give #11 a little more credit).
- Very Short 4 - #6 tends to resonate with me more just because it's more visible and tempting.  The tee shot visuals on #12 don't leave the same impression.
- Par 3s - I would have to give the nod to the back 9.  16 is better than 4 (my Pazin-esque aversion to water  ), and while 7 is more visually dramatic, I think #13 is a better hole.
- The rest of the 4s are hard to generalize as Dye built quite a variety. 

Looking at your hole rankings, it's easy to understand why you're less of a fan of the back. After playing your favorite hole (#14), the 4 closing holes are all in your bottom 5, so that may be a bit of an anti-climax.

************
re: Best is West Virginia.  I haven't played any others, so I can't judge, but was curious of your impressions of Pikewood (the other seeming contender along with Old White).  I just took a very brief look at the PW website, and when the front page proudly proclaims in bold letters, "USGA Slope Rating 155" and see the number of trees, I would think playability is a concern.  A cursory glimpse of the scorecard shows the shortest par 4 at 394 yards (PDGC has 5 < 400), so it gives an initial impression of "hard = good."

[Andy Troeger]

I've only played three courses in West Virginia; of those PDGC is the best, but Pikewood is also really good and if they had a set of tees shorter than 6900 yards I'd give it serious consideration. Old White is good too and certainly from a different era and style, but something has to be 3rd. I'd happily play any of them again.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()