[Peter Pallotta]

Mr Dye seems unique to me, as an architect. His courses don't 'play' like they 'look', and they don't 'look' like they 'read'. They don't fit into any 'theory', and he didn't seem interested in defending or promoting his 'philosophy'. He kept his own counsel, and assumed golfers would keep theirs.

[Tom_Doak]

Mr Dye seems unique to me, as an architect. His courses don't 'play' like they 'look', and they don't 'look' like they 'read'. They don't fit into any 'theory', and he didn't seem interested in defending or promoting his 'philosophy'. He kept his own counsel, and assumed golfers would keep theirs.

Oh, he absolutely had some strong theories and philosophies, which he incorporated into nearly every course he built.  But he also had a bit of a contrarian streak.  At one point, he mentioned to me that he hadn't put a railroad tie on a golf course in 5 years, because he was sick of hearing about them . . . and no one had even noticed.


I have incorporated many of the same theories into my own work.


The only thing I didn't like about Pete's work was that he had such strong ideas about certain things that they started to feel redundant after seeing 30-40 of his courses.  [Partly, that was the result of starting with nothing so much of the time; he would occasionally express frustration about that, and tell us just to "go over there and *&#! it up" so he had something to work with.] 


Pete was never afraid to try out a new feature or a new idea, or something that looked crazy, but they all sort of fit into the same box.  As a result, I became determined not to do that -- for example, not to have a strong opinion on what was the ideal finish, for fear that it would cause me to miss a better solution for a particular piece of ground.

[Matt Kardash]

I would argue Pete Dye was probably the most unique designer in golf history. I am not saying that makes him the best, but just that he was the most unique. He is perhaps the only designer where you can say he truly did his own thing and created courses that looked like nothing we ever saw before. He is almost like Picasso, who invented Cubism. TPC at Sawgrass is the ultimate Cubist design. It's like a design that was created by a somehow who mastered design in the traditional sense and out of boredom came up with an entire new style of course design.

[Matt Kardash]

Mr Dye seems unique to me, as an architect. His courses don't 'play' like they 'look', and they don't 'look' like they 'read'. They don't fit into any 'theory', and he didn't seem interested in defending or promoting his 'philosophy'. He kept his own counsel, and assumed golfers would keep theirs.

Oh, he absolutely had some strong theories and philosophies, which he incorporated into nearly every course he built.  But he also had a bit of a contrarian streak.  At one point, he mentioned to me that he hadn't put a railroad tie on a golf course in 5 years, because he was sick of hearing about them . . . and no one had even noticed.


I have incorporated many of the same theories into my own work.


The only thing I didn't like about Pete's work was that he had such strong ideas about certain things that they started to feel redundant after seeing 30-40 of his courses.  [Partly, that was the result of starting with nothing so much of the time; he would occasionally express frustration about that, and tell us just to "go over there and *&#! it up" so he had something to work with.] 


Pete was never afraid to try out a new feature or a new idea, or something that looked crazy, but they all sort of fit into the same box.  As a result, I became determined not to do that -- for example, not to have a strong opinion on what was the ideal finish, for fear that it would cause me to miss a better solution for a particular piece of ground.

Tom, out of all the great architects did Pete Dye get the worst land to design on? Even his best piece of property (Teeth of the Dog) was a flat site. It would have been cool if he had a couple of sites like Pacific Dunes, or Cabot Cliffs to work with, just to see what that might have been like. His career was basically over when developers started to realize that great properties yield great courses.
(I know Pete Dye was his own worst enemy in this regard, as he got typecast as the guy who could build a good course on a nothing site)

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, out of all the great architects did Pete Dye get the worst land to design on? Even his best piece of property (Teeth of the Dog) was a flat site. It would have been cool if he had a couple of sites like Pacific Dunes, or Cabot Cliffs to work with, just to see what that might have been like. His career was basically over when developers started to realize that great properties yield great courses.
(I know Pete Dye was his own worst enemy in this regard, as he got typecast as the guy who could build a good course on a nothing site)

I don't think too many architects would complain about the site for Teeth of the Dog, unless they're allergic to salt water or coral.


He had a few other very nice sites:  The Golf Club [also pretty flat], Long Cove, Pete Dye Golf Club in WV.  And Kiawah and Whistling Straits had great raw material to work with.  It is sad that he never got the chance to build that last course for Mr. Kohler, right down at lake level, that is a beautiful site but the permits are all held up in court.


I would loved to have seen a Pete Dye course in the sand hills, just to see what he would have done.  I even tried to convince someone years ago to let him do a course out there, as part of a big project that never got off the ground.  Everyone assumes he would have bulldozed it all around, and maybe he would have, but I bet it would have been way different than they thought.


One thing I admired about Pete was that he was happy just to be out there working in the dirt, it didn't really matter what the site was like as long as he had something to do.  I would like to think I could have been like that, too, but I grew up dreaming of great courses.  I realized early on that meant having great sites, so I steered toward a niche that almost everyone else had abandoned.  And luckily I found a few clients who thought the same way!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I have a bit of experience playing, caddying, coaching, etc. on Pete Dye courses.

I think one of the things you can say about Pete Dye courses is that they're not just one thing.

For example, the two I might know best are the course in French Lick and Avalon Lakes in Warren, OH. The course in French Lick was difficult, and often in ways I thought were kinda silly. For example, on the par five third, the fairway maxes out at 25 yards wide with a 45° huge slope on the left and bunkers right, and at driver distances the fairway is under 15 yards wide, sloped at about 20° to the huge hill on the left, and… it just feels unfair. You can hit a drive up the right-hand side and roll it three yards into the left rough with the ball 18 inches above your feet.

And yet, Avalon Lakes is very playable. It's the kind of course where you can take on a lot more than you should and wreck your card in a hurry, or if you're on, really separate yourself from the field by pulling the shots off.

Kiawah Island isn't "too tough" unless the wind is just hammering you all day: solid strikes get through the wind okay and even if you stray a bit, the ball is often playable. Like Avalon Lakes, IMO, if you take on more than you're capable you can wreck your card, but if you're on top of your game you can separate yourself and score quite well. Like Rory at the PGA.

Sawgrass, we've seen some good scores. Great scores. We've also seen some train wrecks.

I don't think Pete Dye courses fit into one box.

But I'm still new to all this, so what do I know?

[Mike_Trenham]

Tour pros effectively banned the Stadium course from its rota for close to 30 years because of its difficulty.  At the time, Roger Maltbie said, ''I don't like his targets, those specific places you have to play the ball.  There are far too many undulations in fairways.  I think bunkers on many holes are far too penalizing, certainly for the length of the holes.  The sheer walls of bunkers are too steep and water running adjacent to fairways hole after hole is bad.  You might as well have out of bounds one foot off every one of those fairways.'' 

I love the fact that Pete didn't change anything about the course so they would come back.   

Even considering this, I don't think his courses are or were too hard.  There was a period where he was hired to build courses that focused on a high degree of difficulty and what I think he did well is he made that challenge interesting, engaging and different.  Tour pros apparently didn't like the challenge presented at some of his courses yet they seem to have come around and realized there's a lot more going on than difficulty for the sheer sake of it.

"far too many undulations in fairways" This is one of the things I most admire about his courses!

[Tom_Doak]

"far too many undulations in fairways" This is one of the things I most admire about his courses!

Agreed.  So many other designers would build flat fairways and do all their contouring at the margins to make the course more "fair" [and unnatural].  Pete would contour it from wall to wall, like Nature would.  He wanted the players to deal with uneven stances.


There are a couple of holes at PGA West where you get a choice:  you can have a flat lie and a partially blind approach, or a full sight of the green but from an undulating part of the fairway.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am curious about his portfolio. His website doesn't list either the Pete Dye Course at VA Tech or what many consider his last course the Links at Perry Cabin. The latter must have been designed when he was in the throes of Alzheimer though.

[Ira Fishman]

The River Course at Blackwolf Run is overlooked and under appreciated. It is a true mix of heroic, strategic, and penal. Plus it is strikingly beautiful. Number 5 is one of the best looking and best designed holes anywhere. There is a lot of water and sand, but when actually studied carefully, very few forced carries. Number 13 pushes beyond the edge of the envelope, but is a brilliantly diabolical hole for the elite (not me) player.


My guess is that as the pendulum swings back to the middle, the River Course will re-emerge as a central topic of conversation.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think Pete Dye courses fit into one box.

It could just be that I worked for Pete for enough time and talked with him enough that I see all of his little trademarks immediately -- kind of like you seeing a swing flaw that you've been seeing for years.  [And I don't mean the word "flaw" that way in regard to Pete's work, just that it's something that repeats.]


It would be stretching it too far to say ALL his courses fit in a box, but it is not too hard to identify a Pete Dye course.  Even though he was the most creative person I've known, his core beliefs about design were so strong that we didn't see nearly the range of golf holes that he could have produced.  [I did not get to know Jack Nicklaus nearly as well from our limited time together at Sebonack, but I would venture the same about his work -- it's not all about the high fade, but there certainly isn't much ground game in there.]


For Pete, you'll nearly always find:


- a bunch of S-shaped holes with a hazard inside left [or right] off the tee and inside right [or left] on the approach.  Sure, that's basic strategy, but he built hundreds of those and they are less nuanced than George Thomas's version of the same thing, because the lines are so clean and because Pete built hazards that covered the entire landing area, instead of just a bunker here and there. 


- his "design line" of a water hazard or waste bunker very gently curving, at a 15- or 20-degree angle to the line of play.  It is only hard to be sure it's Pete's because so many other guys started copying it in the 1980's and 1990's.  Even when I build a pond, I struggle to avoid the same look because it is so ingrained in me, which is why I try to avoid building ponds.


 - his idealized tournament finish is also very easy to spot, on tournament courses at least.

[Tom_Doak]

I am curious about his portfolio. His website doesn't list either the Pete Dye Course at VA Tech or what many consider his last course the Links at Perry Cabin. The latter must have been designed when he was in the throes of Alzheimer though.

Don't know about this, but if Pete Dye had a web site, you can be sure he wasn't the one running it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I remember Pete telling me he put the hazard on the inside of doglegs and then again on the inside side of the green on very long par 4 holes to make them play longer. 


I really like easily stated and grasped design principles like that.  A similar one would be Thomas putting "fairgreen" beyond greens on long par 4 holes, because going long was a better shot that missed than coming up short.


I am always suspicious of gca's who use a lot of words and long sentences to describe their philosophies.  I have no idea what they are talking about, and I half suspect even they don't really know what they are thinking. 


That was never a problem with Pete.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()