[Tommy Williamsen]

Following up some of the discussions of greens and architects, I don't remember a discussion of PD's greens. They do have slope and interior movement, but they don't seem to stand out. I have played a bunch of his courses and of all the things that stand out, it isn't his greens. In fact I don't remember thinking after I played one of his courses, "Wow, those were great greens."


Am I missing something?

[Tom_Doak]

Following up some of the discussions of greens and architects, I don't remember a discussion of PD's greens. They do have slope and interior movement, but they don't seem to stand out. I have played a bunch of his courses and of all the things that stand out, it isn't his greens. In fact I don't remember thinking after I played one of his courses, "Wow, those were great greens."


Am I missing something?

Crooked Stick had a great set of greens, but Pete toned them down in the 1985 renovation in order to seek a major tournament, and he pretty much stopped using tilt thereafter.


At Old Marsh, the front of the green and the back of the green are level for all 18 greens, with only internal rolls!

[Phil Burr]

TD,

Is theresomething about the Old Marsh site that led to this?  Drainage/proximity to water table?  Cost of claiming enough land from the swamp in the first place?  I’m wondering if there’s a practical lesson a professional might share with the rest of us know-it-alls.

[Wade Whitehead]

Following up some of the discussions of greens and architects, I don't remember a discussion of PD's greens. They do have slope and interior movement, but they don't seem to stand out. I have played a bunch of his courses and of all the things that stand out, it isn't his greens. In fact I don't remember thinking after I played one of his courses, "Wow, those were great greens."


Am I missing something?

I've noticed that, too, but I think it's because there are so many other things that do stand out on most of his courses.  Angles, bunkering, routing, and his other trademark features always seems to grab the player's attention.  Maybe it shows some restraint that he generally kept putting surfaces [at least relatively] calm.

I think that's one reason various people are overwhelmed by some of Mike Strantz's work.

WW

[jeffwarne]

Following up some of the discussions of greens and architects, I don't remember a discussion of PD's greens. They do have slope and interior movement, but they don't seem to stand out. I have played a bunch of his courses and of all the things that stand out, it isn't his greens. In fact I don't remember thinking after I played one of his courses, "Wow, those were great greens."


Am I missing something?

Long Cove has/had a great set of greens!

[Anthony_Nysse]

At Old Marsh, the front of the green and the back of the green are level for all 18 greens, with only internal rolls!

Tom,
  This is not a factual statement. #8, #15 & #18 have large swales in the middle of them, splitting the front & back sections in a pronounced manor. When we renovated in 2016, Scott Pool scanned all the greens. Other than the greens mentioned, all greens feature no more that 2.5% movement at any one place, certainly not level front to back.


  As for why the greens at OM are so flat-Pete has stated that he wanted the greens at OM to be extensions of the fairways, a seamless transition. During the planning process of the renovation, we already knew that we were raising the fairways & surrounds 2-2.5' to aid with drainage, but the intention was to keep the existing greens. (OM has over 750 fairway drains) We needed Pete to come in & speak with the committee in regards to how his design would change, how you would effectively be hitting down in the greens & how the intent of the design was to have the greens mimic the fairways & just be extentions.

[Brett Meyer]

Following up some of the discussions of greens and architects, I don't remember a discussion of PD's greens. They do have slope and interior movement, but they don't seem to stand out. I have played a bunch of his courses and of all the things that stand out, it isn't his greens. In fact I don't remember thinking after I played one of his courses, "Wow, those were great greens."


Am I missing something?

Long Cove has/had a great set of greens!

The River Course at Blackwolf Run also has an excellent set. It's the first thing that struck me about the course. First hole--not that interesting tee to green...amazing green. They save other holes too. Thirteenth hole; kind-of bizarre tee shot over trees, great green.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
I wonder if it is because there is usually so much else going on with a Pete Dye golf course that we sometimes overlook the green surfaces.  But I wouldn’t say they are boring.  I recall The Honours Course being relatively tame for Pete but maybe I overlooked the green surfaces. 

[Troy Miller]

At Old Marsh, the front of the green and the back of the green are level for all 18 greens, with only internal rolls!

Tom,
  This is not a factual statement. #8, #15 & #18 have large swales in the middle of them, splitting the front & back sections in a pronounced manor. When we renovated in 2016, Scott Pool scanned all the greens. Other than the greens mentioned, all greens feature no more that 2.5% movement at any one place, certainly not level front to back.


  As for why the greens at OM are so flat-Pete has stated that he wanted the greens at OM to be extensions of the fairways, a seamless transition. During the planning process of the renovation, we already knew that we were raising the fairways & surrounds 2-2.5' to aid with drainage, but the intention was to keep the existing greens. (OM has over 750 fairway drains) We needed Pete to come in & speak with the committee in regards to how his design would change, how you would effectively be hitting down in the greens & how the intent of the design was to have the greens mimic the fairways & just be extentions.

I think what Tom said was that the elevation of the front and back were the same, meaning there is not an overall tilt to the greens, but rather internal contour that creates the movement. 


That's pretty noteworthy and unique and provides equal opportunities for the "proper miss" to exist for 360 degrees around each green complex. 


On most of Pete's greens, I've often noticed a 'tucked' location that requires serious aerial precision, where the contours may tip back into the green from the tucked corner, not allowing for the ball to feed into that location.  Sawgrass has many examples of this, as does PGA West. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Wade and Mark, I had similar thoughts about why some of his greens are overlooked. There is indeed much going on in the fairways and around the greens that he didn't need to have a bunch of slope or undulating. There are, however, exceptions. Jeff mentioned Long Cove and Brett mentioned the River Course at Blackwolf Run. Looking back over some of his courses he seems to make the greens the par threes and short par fours more interesting. Sawgrass is a good example of this.

[Kalen Braley]

Whistling Straits looked to have a few very interesting greens like 12 and 18...

P.S.  I've only played one PD course and it was years ago.  I remember lots about the course but nothing about the greens, not sure what that means thou...

[Brad Steven]

Add a vote for his green seeming understated only because of what's going on tee to green.  I love the greens complexes at the Ocean course as well as some of the others mentioned.  Not oversized nor needlessly dramatic - just befitting the tee to green game you're being asked to execute. 

Following up some of the discussions of greens and architects, I don't remember a discussion of PD's greens. They do have slope and interior movement, but they don't seem to stand out. I have played a bunch of his courses and of all the things that stand out, it isn't his greens. In fact I don't remember thinking after I played one of his courses, "Wow, those were great greens."


Am I missing something?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Add a vote for his green seeming understated only because of what's going on tee to green.  I love the greens complexes at the Ocean course as well as some of the others mentioned.  Not oversized nor needlessly dramatic - just befitting the tee to green game you're being asked to execute. 

Following up some of the discussions of greens and architects, I don't remember a discussion of PD's greens. They do have slope and interior movement, but they don't seem to stand out. I have played a bunch of his courses and of all the things that stand out, it isn't his greens. In fact I don't remember thinking after I played one of his courses, "Wow, those were great greens."


Am I missing something?

So that begs the question, how much difficulty and where should it be? I played Oakland Hills South this September. It is  difficult both [/size][size=78%]tee to green and on the greens. I am not the world's best putter but even with my caddie reading the greens there were some putts that just made me look silly. I played Bloomfield Hills the day after. Tee to green it was almost as varied and good as OH. The greens were more playable for me. I guess the great courses have found a way to balance where it demands good shot making. [/size]

[Brad Steven]

I think the word is balance and I think the size and sloping of his greens often matches the challenge of the hole .. seems only reasonable.  Oakland Hills is quite similar to Oakmont I've found in that the greens are often segmented which is what presents a lot of the putting challenge for the majority of golfers - after having hit the ball to the wrong part of the green.  As you mention, even with a good read, if you're on the "wrong level" at OH or Oakmont, you just can't two putt.  That puts a lot of pressure on the iron game too. 

I think Sawgrass 17 has three distinct levels (or segments) - back, right (Sunday pin) and front.  I wonder if PD did that to force the good players to not aim at the middle of the green.  At 140 yards long, the hole isn't that tough for the good player if they're aiming at the middle of the green (unless there are 5,000 people watching) but if they're forced to go at a section of the green and closer to the edges, that brings the water into play.  This pressure seems fair at 140 yards ...at Oakland Hills it's all day. 

Add a vote for his green seeming understated only because of what's going on tee to green.  I love the greens complexes at the Ocean course as well as some of the others mentioned.  Not oversized nor needlessly dramatic - just befitting the tee to green game you're being asked to execute. 

Following up some of the discussions of greens and architects, I don't remember a discussion of PD's greens. They do have slope and interior movement, but they don't seem to stand out. I have played a bunch of his courses and of all the things that stand out, it isn't his greens. In fact I don't remember thinking after I played one of his courses, "Wow, those were great greens."


Am I missing something?

So that begs the question, how much difficulty and where should it be? I played Oakland Hills South this September. It is  difficult both [size=78%]tee to green and on the greens. I am not the world's best putter but even with my caddie reading the greens there were some putts that just made me look silly. I played Bloomfield Hills the day after. Tee to green it was almost as varied and good as OH. The greens were more playable for me. I guess the great courses have found a way to balance where it demands good shot making. [/size]

[Matt Kardash]

I get the feeling that in Dye's era (1950s thru 2000) it wasn't the style to have huge undulating greens. In the last 15 years greens have seemingly become wilder and wilder.That being said, his greens are never boring and always have plenty of slopes and rolls.
The 17th at Pete Dye golf club is probably the wildest green in the modern era. You could hit a bucket of balls from 100 yards and not keep a ball on the green.

[Jason Thurman]

That "balance" word comes to mind for me too.


Dye's work shows certain hallmarks. Function dictates form. Visually, deception and tension take priority. He presents clear strategic decisions. And his greens feel like an extension of those principles. Without fail, they have slope. Without it, they wouldn't drain, and Dye would never build a surface that didn't drain.


I've played plenty of Dye courses, often with GCAers, and I know they're not easy to read. I've watched us botch a whole ton of putts out there! They function strategically - if you miss on the wrong side, you'll pay for it. And fallaway slopes, ridges, and funky shapes all combine to create lots of tension, especially when trying to access certain pins.


But they're part of a balanced and proportional test too. He built difficult courses, but he spread that difficulty across all the shots. That might help explain why his designs seem more immune to the "horses for courses" phenomenon than others. Dye didn't build mundane greens, but he also didn't build mundane tee shots or approaches, and my general feeling is that he challenges every facet of the game fairly evenly, including the mental parts.


Some guys build bolder contour, and some guys build greens that I find more attractive from a shaping standpoint, but I think Dye builds damn good greens that fit the holes they conclude.


Two final notes:

• I really don't like using past-tense when talking about Pete Dye
• This article is interesting, and also sorta clunkily written, but examines winning performances at Sawgrass statistically. And an interesting takeaway is that it sorta confirms the idea that the course doesn't really favor a certain type of player over others, although the sample size examined is really small: https://www.thestatszone.com/archive/the-players-championship-13996

[Tom_Doak]

At Old Marsh, the front of the green and the back of the green are level for all 18 greens, with only internal rolls!

Tom,
  This is not a factual statement. #8, #15 & #18 have large swales in the middle of them, splitting the front & back sections in a pronounced manor. When we renovated in 2016, Scott Pool scanned all the greens. Other than the greens mentioned, all greens feature no more that 2.5% movement at any one place, certainly not level front to back.


  As for why the greens at OM are so flat-Pete has stated that he wanted the greens at OM to be extensions of the fairways, a seamless transition. During the planning process of the renovation, we already knew that we were raising the fairways & surrounds 2-2.5' to aid with drainage, but the intention was to keep the existing greens. (OM has over 750 fairway drains) We needed Pete to come in & speak with the committee in regards to how his design would change, how you would effectively be hitting down in the greens & how the intent of the design was to have the greens mimic the fairways & just be extentions.

Anthony:


I’m sorry to hear that is not true.  My source on it was Mr Dye himself, who said it as part of a story he was telling about being out there with Jack Nicklaus.  But Pete would occasionally embellish things.

[Anthony_Nysse]

At Old Marsh, the front of the green and the back of the green are level for all 18 greens, with only internal rolls!

Tom,
  This is not a factual statement. #8, #15 & #18 have large swales in the middle of them, splitting the front & back sections in a pronounced manor. When we renovated in 2016, Scott Pool scanned all the greens. Other than the greens mentioned, all greens feature no more that 2.5% movement at any one place, certainly not level front to back.


  As for why the greens at OM are so flat-Pete has stated that he wanted the greens at OM to be extensions of the fairways, a seamless transition. During the planning process of the renovation, we already knew that we were raising the fairways & surrounds 2-2.5' to aid with drainage, but the intention was to keep the existing greens. (OM has over 750 fairway drains) We needed Pete to come in & speak with the committee in regards to how his design would change, how you would effectively be hitting down in the greens & how the intent of the design was to have the greens mimic the fairways & just be extentions.

Anthony:


I’m sorry to hear that is not true.  My source on it was Mr Dye himself, who said it as part of a story he was telling about being out there with Jack Nicklaus.  But Pete would occasionally embellish things.

Theyre still flat, trust me. I would suspect that when the bentgrass was installed in 1997, removed in 2005, there was sublte changes. We unearthed several surprises that we completed from the 2005 renovation. Also with bentgrass & it difficulties in south Florida, couple that with trying to grow it in a nature preserve with very little room for water movement, we found greens had shrunk 8-13' in some places.

[Matt Kardash]

Unless I am mistaken I feel like Tom is talking overall slope, meaning the front and back are at the same level, whereas Anthony is talking about internal contouring.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()