[Ted Sturges]

I got to play The Golf Club in New Albany, OH for the first time in the late 1980's. At that time, the course was about 20 years old, and I was thoroughly impressed with it from start to finish.  It had strategic design elements, was built on a great piece of property, and had a terrific set of putting greens.  Add to that, it was a wonderful club, and the end result was one of the best inland courses in the US.  Pete built The Golf Club in 1967, which was probably the first major project he took on after Crooked Stick.  In the 50+ years since Crooked Stick and The Golf Club, Pete and Alice Dye have built more than 100 golf courses.  Few architects have had a bigger impact on golf course design than the Dyes. 
 
For anyone who has been to the Dye Course at French Lick, it is obvious that this is a big statement course.  It is also one of the last major projects of this prolific design career (Mr. Dye turned 90 in the last year).  I find it an interesting exercise to study the French Lick project and juxtapose it to the early work of Mr. Dye (The Golf Club may be a better example than Crooked Stick due to the many renovations that have occurred at Crooked Stick).  How do the courses differ?  How are they the same?  In examining the differences between the two, what does this tell us about how Mr. Dye's design style and philosophy evolved over those 50 years?  I realize that my invitation for comment will only be applicable to those who have seen both of these courses, but I'd love to hear comments.  To me, the courses are quite a bit different and have caused me to consider what Mr. Dye learned from the 1960's until today about how he wanted to build golf courses.  What do you think he learned in the last 60 years?
 
TS

[Tom_Doak]

Ted:


I've not seen the course at French Lick, so if that is the entire basis for your question, then I shouldn't respond.  However, I know enough about Pete to have an opinion on the title to the thread.


Honestly, I don't think Mr. Dye has changed his thinking much in 60 years.  And that's not meant to be derogatory, in any way.  I don't think I have changed my thinking too much in 30 years, and don't expect to change it much in the next 30, as far as what I'm trying to do in golf course architecture.


Mr. Dye has always believed in challenging the best players, but has always tailored that to whether he is trying to challenge the best amateurs, or the Tour professionals.  Crooked Stick was more of a club for Pete's peers [scratch-level amateurs], but at The Golf Club, he had Jack Nicklaus and Tom Weiskopf out there in their 20's, telling him how long it needed to be.  I believe the course was built at 7300 yards back in 1967!


From all that I've heard, French Lick is just an extension of that.  Why that client would want a course fit for Tour pros, I don't know, but Pete is completely right to think that it would have to be as long as it is, to challenge the pros the same way that The Golf Club challenged them 50 years ago.


By the same token, while many of Mr. Dye's clients ask him for a tournament-tough course, he doesn't always operate that way.  Long Cove is a great example of a course for a housing community, tailored to the people that are going to play it.  That new course you described recently, outside of Indianapolis, is perhaps another.  Pete is not at all incapable of building courses at the scale of mortals -- as some of our immortal players - turned - designers are.  But if that's what you want from him, you have to ask clearly.  If you say anything about testing good players, then it's going to be tough as nails, because Pete knows how to test good players.

[Ted Sturges]

Tom,
 
Thanks for your thoughts.  I agree with your notion that Pete was (when asked) designing to challenge the best players in the world.  What I think is interesting however, is how he went about doing that.  Though Crooked Stick has changed a great deal over the years, it still has generally wide driving corridors, and there are advantages to getting the ball to a certain portion of the fairway to best approach certain hole locations.  I think the same is true at The Golf Club.  You haven't seen French Lick, but this feature simply does not exist there.  The fairways are perhaps the most narrow Pete Dye fairways I have ever seen.  In essence, the driving strategy there is to simply hit the fairway (which isn't easy due to the fact that they are very narrow).  The course at French Lick is also extremely long, so that is consistent with how he went about challenging Nicklaus and Weiskopf at TGC.  His bunkering plan also seems significantly different from what he did in the 60's.  It makes me question what he believes about those strategic elements and how his view may have evolved.  You need to come visit me and we'll go down there and see it.  I'd also love to take you to his new Westfield, Indiana course you referred to, which is called Chatham Hills.  It just opened and I played it last week. 
 
TS

[Josh Tarble]

Ted,

It's an interesting question..especially with French Lick set to cast a shadow over his entire life's work.  I personally think French Lick is as far away from his top tier courses as anything he's ever built.  It's a mad house of a course and as you mention, there is literally no strategy throughout the round.  If judged by French Lick, I think you'd have to say that he believes golfers only want beautiful views, insane difficulty and the opportunity to hit "career" shots throughout the round. 

Of those, I do think Pete has placed more value on those do-or-die, "one out of a hundred" type shots.  From the 17th at Sawgrass and Kiawah, to the drives on the 8th or 13th at Whistling Straits or the cape-style par 5s at Blackwolf Run, Pete has realized (or believes) that most golfers want that one shot they can always remember.  It doesn't matter if they shoot 130 or 87 or 75, if they pull of that "one shot" they'll talk about it and the course forever. They want their "big fish story." I think French Lick demonstrates this on nearly every hole, and almost entirely to the detriment of the course.   

[Steve Lang]

   Certainly to listen to Alice...

[Anthony_Nysse]

After being part of a renovation from one of Pete's 1980's courses this summer and hearing how the thinking is now, I think the "bones" of his architecture remains, but he has certainly change some of his thinking and thought process. Its not difficult to see that there was a change or additions to his architecture 15-20 years ago, right after the time of Whistling Straits.
  So many subtle things we changed here at Old Marsh this summer are because of different way of thinking or making the golfer think. Maybe that's a way to describe Pete and his subtle additions. (in the little bit I know about him) Hes trying to out think the golfer by thinking one step ahead.

[Peter Pallotta]

Both the original question and Tom's comment ("....I don't think Mr. Dye has changed his thinking much in 60 years.... I don't think I have changed my thinking too much in 30 years...as far as what I'm trying to do in golf course architecture...") seem excellent launching points for discussion.  Unfortunately I'm the last person who could start that discussion or meaningfully contribute to it.  It does seem though that Tom has created a very diverse body of work  - from Pac to Common Ground, from Rock Creek to the Loop etc. Something is changing over the years (yes, I know, different sites, but still). The "what" may be the same, but the "hows" and "whys" of it....

Again, I can't add anything to this, but another question: I wonder if Mr Dye simply comes from a time and a generation when the whats, hows, and whys simply did not change very much, whether in architecture or in life

Peter
 

[BCrosby]

I would like to hear Tom talk about how he sees The Loop fitting in with his earlier work. I don't think it is a departure from design ideas he has used in other courses, even though the look and feel of the course(s) there are sometimes quite unique. (That happens when, among other things, you have to design greens that will be approached from opposite sides.) But the basic approach seems to be similar to design ideas Tom uses on his other courses. By which I mean, The Loop is a recognizably Doak golf course, for all its uniqueness.


Bob

[JC Urbina]

Now Back to Pete as the original question was asked by Ted.




I think one of the evolutionary themes of Pete may have occured during the middle 80's at ASU.
 
This was back almost 30 years ago at ASU ( Arizona State Univ).  I remember Pete changing the IP or turning points as some would say to the  900 foot mark as compared to the standard 800 feet that was the normal survey pole setting of the day.  All the golf strategy was set up for  the 900 ft  distance, bunkers, angles of attack, slopes in the fairways, etc.  The greens were small and the hazards around the greens were compact.  The 16th hole from the back tee was 255 yards to a very small green with bunkers and water surrounding the putting surface, unthinkable for that era.  An even then Pete told me those young kids would tear this place up, score wise.  "You can't build this course long enough"


Today I wonder if Pete has changed the IP again.  I would like Tim Liddy to chime in if he still frequents this site and see if the IP is still an important part of the design theme and what they set it at now? 


Ted, Tim would be they one to pose the question to, he has certainly been around Pete the most.  Even Al MacCurrach a golf course contractor who has built a ton of Pete's stuff.  They would know if anyone what Pete Dye has changed or evolved into design wise.  I have not seen French Lick but hope to travel back to see someday.  Loved the original course, in fact I think we toured the course together back in the Quail Crossisng days, didn't we, I think you were with me when I surveyed the 7th green, the steepest back to front slope on the planet.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD and JU are better to answer, but a few thoughts...

At some point he had to learn that he had to top himself every time out, or nearly so, maintain a recognizable style while moving forward in design, etc.  At some point later, maybe he felt he had to go a different direction because he couldn't keep doing both of the above.

I am probably wrong on the latest stuff, but my guess is he (with age) had to leave more and more to design associates, partially accounting for any difference in style.  For that matter, the little of Pete I have seen in Asia was really Perry, Matt and others, and has slightly different look.

[Jason Topp]

I recall Pete saying in an interview that he at one time believed half wedge shots were a good way to challenge better players but that the teachings of short game coaches like Dave Pelz had taken the fear of such shots away.  I cannot find the interview.

[John Nixon]

Ted, off topic, but... as I live in Carmel down the road from the new Chatham Hills course in Westfield I'm interested in playing the course - is it a public or private endeavor?

[Matt Kardash]

  You haven't seen French Lick, but this feature simply does not exist there.  The fairways are perhaps the most narrow Pete Dye fairways I have ever seen.  In essence, the driving strategy there is to simply hit the fairway (which isn't easy due to the fact that they are very narrow).  The course at French Lick is also extremely long, so that is consistent with how he went about challenging Nicklaus and Weiskopf at TGC.  His bunkering plan also seems significantly different from what he did in the 60's.  It makes me question what he believes about those strategic elements and how his view may have evolved. 

Based off a few interviews I got the impression that Pete doesn't even personally believe in his design philiosophy at French Lick. It was an experiment for him. He has always been a big proponent of generous fairways. I get the feeling he tried designing a championship course with narrow fairways because he knew that during professional events they will narrow his fairways anyways. So why not design the course the way he wants that already has narrow fairways? At least it won't be tampered with. Just look at Whistling Straits. Those fairways got much narrower in preparation for the 2004 PGA. It has remained that way ever since. The 6th hole used to have a centre-line bunker...now that bunker is in the left rough!

[Ted Sturges]

I was out of town for a few days and just checked up on this topic.  Lots of great comments.  Thanks all.
 
Some follow up...
 
@ Josh Tarble-    Your opinion is an interesting take.  Thanks for your thoughts.
 
@ Jim Urbina-   I remember well taking you to see the infamous 8th green (not 7th) at the Donald Ross course at French Lick.  I think I won a bet that day as to how much elevation change was in that green.  You had to get out your surveying tools to settle our bet as I recall.  That green truly must be seen to be believed. 
 
@John Nixon-  Chatham Hills is located in Westfield, just north of the Grand Park soccer/baseball complex.  It is a whopper of a course on a tremendous piece of property.  It is private, but I think they are allowing some unaccompanied, public access.  The pro there is Kyle Cramer, the former first assistant at Crooked Stick.  He's a great guy.  I would call him and inquire.  If I were moving to Indy today, it would be a no-brainer to live and play at Chatham Hills.  With the modernization of Highway 31, you can breeze right into town coming down 31 south (zero stoplights all the way to 465).  I think you can join Chatham Hills for like 12k, which is a bargain compared to Crooked Stick.  I'm sure they won't ever have the maintenance budget CS has, but there is no doubt which course has the better piece of property (CS was built on cornfield land).  I urge you to go check it out.
 
@Matt K-  Your comment made a lot of sense to me.  Maybe he thought he'd cut to the chase with regard to the narrow fairways. 
 
 
TS

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()