Did Pete Dye mail it in sometimes?

[Matt_Cohn]

Not at the Stadium Course at Sawgrass, obviously, or at many others. But I’ve played a couple of Pete Dye courses that look like they were designed in an afternoon. The Valley at Sawgrass…never heard much great about that. Maybe “inconsistent quality” is a possible description. Or were there just wildly differing goals, budgets, etc.?


I’m happy to be wrong; I’m not really trying to make this argument. But I’m wondering about it.

[Jeff Schley]

Matt If you have specific instances please mention them. Take a stance and back it up, but the statement is throwing the anchor in a negative light. I think it is a function of land and budget. One less than good piece of land for the routing of Dye's I've played is Ruffled Feathers in Lemont, Ill. as the routing I believe was limited and not a big fan of it at all. He certainly had a pretty good budget as it was originally private then went public.  Maybe another is the Dunes Course at La Quinta Resort. Very limited routing there going through drainage ravines.

So would he have been better off declining those jobs for his reputation perhaps, but it is a paycheck and he did the best he could I reckon.

[Matt_Cohn]

The ones that came to mind are La Quinta Dunes, the non-mountain holes on the Mountain Course, the resort course at Mission Hills a few miles away, and ASU Karsten.


Others I’ve played are Carmel Valley Ranch, Oak Tree National, one at Oak Tree CC, and PGA West Stadium.

[Jeff Schley]

Certainly agree on the Dunes Course.

PGA West Stadium I think is a phenomenal test, very unnecessary difficulty manufactured although I totally respect it for what it is. Really enjoyed playing there when I was a much better golfer.

Carmel Valley Ranch is limited by it's real estate routing as well. I guess architects that route courses through real estate developments are working with one arm tied behind their backs and a theme.

[Jim_Coleman]

   For the life of me, I don’t understand the motivation of starting a thread, the sole motivation of which is to trash one of the 10 greatest architects of all time who died relatively recently. Discussing the positives and negatives of a particular design is interesting and informative. This is not.

[John Kavanaugh]

What if the reason I avoided Pete Dye courses in my youth was more than just a reaction to my ego and skill level?


All this “napkin” talk doesn’t help.

[John Kavanaugh]

Should those of of who don’t recall everywhere we have played be excluded from the conversation? Growing up just south of Indy it feels like I have played 50 Dye courses. Probably closer to 10 but it’s impossible to know. As distasteful as it may sound Pete has to be held responsible for the work his family did before his death. That’s how a family business works in the real world.

[Jason Thurman]

Mr. Dye built a lot of courses. Inevitably he spent more time on some than on others. From my own observations, though:


* Some of his "mailed in" courses aren't really his. Kearney Hill is an example - it's well-known in its area, and golfers like that they're "playing a Pete Dye course." It features Dye hallmarks like angles we'd all recognize, bulkheads, and railroad ties. And it's a damn good course, and an amazing value. But it's not world class. Also... it's almost surely mostly PB's work. Dye seems to have given his associates a lot of freedom, and lent his name to projects he supported the success of even when he wasn't doing all the work himself, and the results are often damn good courses that boosted careers, but maybe not Pete's career. And I imagine that's something he was more proud of than upset by.


* I actually think, rather than "mailing it in," that Dye was more prone to getting in too deep. He tried some pretty wild stuff, and some of it gets pretty polarizing. I know a lot of golfers scratch their heads at some of the stuff going on at French Lick, for example. But it's hard to question the effort, willingness to experiment, and audacity of the work. A 90 year old man actively pushing boundaries on that level is pretty cool to me, even if it gets a little too far out in left field sometimes. The Irish Course is another example. It might just be a 5/10, but it takes too many risks to call it "mailed in" for me.


* I think it's fair to note that Dye was a bit of a "template architect." He used certain themes repeatedly. But I've never played a Dye that didn't drain, or that constantly struggled with conditioning, or with a detached routing. We get pretty hung up strategic design around here, and sometimes he probably overused some of the same principles on that front. But his courses almost always get the fundamentals right, in my experience. The engineering of a "golfable" work of architecture is pretty much always the outcome, even when given a site with major drawbacks on that front. Like a swamp. Or an abandoned military site. Or a beautiful seaside locale with very little soil.


He might've been a little more of an engineer and psychologist than starving artist. That might look like mailing it in to laymen like us who notice the art before the engineering, especially if you'd rather feel fun than fear on your next shot, but I think there are a lot of details he pretty much always got right.

[Matt_Cohn]

   For the life of me, I don’t understand the motivation of starting a thread, the sole motivation of which is to trash one of the 10 greatest architects of all time who died relatively recently. Discussing the positives and negatives of a particular design is interesting and informative. This is not.

So we can discuss particular golf courses, but not patterns to an architect’s work as a whole? Interesting. The motivation of starting this thread is that, for a top-10 architect of all time, some of his courses are pretty lame. I want to know why.


Perhaps you can help to answer my question rather than getting mad at me for asking it. Did he continue to take low-budget, low-potential projects throughout his career, something a guy like Fazio wouldn’t do? Was he a hit-or-miss architect? Did lose interest sometimes? Do you think there’s a quality to the courses that I’m not seeing? You tell me.

[Jason Thurman]

Matt, what you've said in this thread so far adds up to:

• Pete Dye mailed it in at courses.
• Names of three courses on your Bad Pete List

Cool premise. But you haven't made a case. Hot takes are fun if defended compellingly. But if you're just here to repeat a scorching thesis, well, others have already refuted it, I think. I probably should've just +1'd Jeff and JakaB myself, but I'm rooting for you to tap your inner Skip Bayless and go all in.

Just speaking as a dude who's gone full Bayless before. It's the reason my Twitter avatar is Lenny Wilkens lol.

[Kalen Braley]

I wonder if the perception is that because Pete templatized nearly everything and imposed it on the sites he worked on, even including how he routed courses, that he mailed it in?  I don't know if its true or not, but I think its an interesting question.

But he wouldn't be the first to criticized for it.  Jim Engh certainly uses templates a ton and safe to say won't be winning any popularity contests here.  But I've played several of his courses and absolutely loved them, I think they are a ton of fun.

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt, what you've said in this thread so far adds up to:

• Pete Dye mailed it in at courses.
• Names of three courses on your Bad Pete List

Cool premise. But you haven't made a case. Hot takes are fun if defended compellingly. But if you're just here to repeat a scorching thesis, well, others have already refuted it, I think. I probably should've just +1'd Jeff and JakaB myself, but I'm rooting for you to tap your inner Skip Bayless and go all in.

Just speaking as a dude who's gone full Bayless before. It's the reason my Twitter avatar is Lenny Wilkens lol.

Again I'm not really trying to make a case, and I'm 20x a Rick Bayless fan compared to Skip! I'm asking a question, albeit with a provocative title that made you look. Plenty of people have gotten shit on this website for talking about courses they haven't played, so I'm not doing that. I'm talking about the 8 PD courses I've played, which include 2 generally excellent ones (PGA West and Oak Tree National), 2.5 that are fine (Oak Tree CC, Carmel Valley Ranch, mountain holes at LQ-Mountain), and 3.5 that are quite blah (flat holes at LQ-Mountain, LQ Dunes, Westin Mission Hills, ASU Karsten). I would say that for a top-10 all-time architect, 25% generally excellent and 44% "blah" is not great.


By comparison, I can think of 10 Fazio courses I've played (Grand Del Mar, Vintage-Desert, Pelican Hill x2, Karsten Creek, Grayhawk, Preserve, Primm Valley x2, Conway Farms) and maybe 1.5 or "blah" if I were trying to be mean.

[Steve Lang]

   errrr, Matt,


I think your sample size is a little low, per https://www.dyedesigns.com/portfolio-2/


I think you need to get out to more Dye courses...

[Tommy Williamsen]

I’ve played some forty of his courses, many that had just opened. There are some courses that I don’t particularly like or enjoy but I never heard anyone complain that he hadn’t spent much time on the course. After playing one of his new courses years ago that I thought was less than stellar, I asked the pro what the owner wanted. What I had played was exactly the orders given to Pete. All architects have some mandate they more or less try to follow. That said I do tire of some of his templates, especially a dogleg left cape hole on 18.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,


My only objection would be using the snarky "mail it in" phrase instead of your alternative of "Maybe “inconsistent quality” as a possible description.


Of course of his hundreds of projects, there were wildly differing:


- Site quality
- Budgets
- Owner's goals, including later owners whose instructions were "I want it unique, as long as it looks just like the last three courses you did."
- Owners he got along with.   Difficult owners or project reps can dimish project quality for ego reasons.
- Like every other architect who had more than one project at a time, different associates directing from his general principles, and different people building it. 


- He could only be on site nearly full time up to TPC Sawgrass, rarely afterward.  Also, he got older like the rest of us.
- According to his late son Perry, Pete did end up with 21 template holes, just enough, he thought, so he wasn't using all 18 every time out.


I actually wonder about the different associates.  For any architect who gets to be a success, I wonder if they accept that their final product is 90% as good as their best, or could fool 90%+ of golfers that it was their style and design? 


In the end, it is not so unnerving that not every design is a top ten, unless you only have 9 or less designs to your credit.   So many factors go into making a design great, including ongoing maintenance, that you would never have every course rated a perfect 10 on the Doak scale, no matter how good the architect.


Speaking of ongoing maintenance, in watching the TPC, it seems to me it is one instance of great maintenance diminishing a great design.....it just looks too clean and neet to be a Pete Dye course.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Thank you Jeff. “Mail it in” is a pretty nasty term, implying to me, at least, and almost dishonest lack of effort.  Just discuss Pete’s work; don’t challenge his integrity.

[Matt Kardash]

In fairness though, in the latter part of his career, when he had his son's or associates, like Tim Liddy, design his courses based on perhaps 1 site visit, isn't that the definition of mailing it in? I am not hating, he mostly starting doing this when he was retirement age for everyone else. I think in the last 25 years of his career he got more choosy on the projects he decided to invest his time on.
This video is the definition of "mailing it in". I am not even sure he ever even stepped foot in Israel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soZEIsShImQ

[Jeff_Brauer]

The definition is, "To perform a given task, duty, or activity with little or no attention, effort, or interest; to do something perfunctorily."


If you put a system in place, have trained people in your philosophy and style, and then let them perform the work in your name (again, as nearly every architect has....did Frank Lloyd Wright personally supervise every square inch of every building that came from his firm?  Ross?  Doak?  Henry Ford? Steve Jobs?) did you mail it in?


Architecture is more than art.  I am not even sure Andy Warhol or other artists even make every brush stroke.  Certainly not in something as big as the Sistine Chapel way back when.....If something is a big project, chances are there is some system in place to get it done.


Not to mention, this was Isreal.  Sometimes in foreign countries, they want their own crews to build stuff for political reasons.  The few shots of that golf course (if it was that golf course) didn't seem to have the same detail as Pete's best, but then again, over there, it is possible he didn't have as much control over it for that reason or pure distance.  The few things I got built oversees sure didn't look much like my best work here.


Just random thoughts.

[Mike Bodo]

So we can discuss particular golf courses, but not patterns to an architect’s work as a whole? Interesting. The motivation of starting this thread is that, for a top-10 architect of all time, some of his courses are pretty lame. I want to know why.

Of the 400+ courses Donald Ross designed, renovated or reworked in his lifetime there are arguably a number of duds and forgettable tracks. In fact, the vast majority aren't in the conversation of Top 200 in U.S. Does that make him a less competent or accomplished architect? No! Not every project an esteemed architect takes on is going to be the next Pine Valley. Everyone has done work they're not overly proud of or courses they wish they had a redo on. There are projects some wish they wouldn't have taken on at all as a result of having to make compromises that worked against them doing their best work. Dye wasn't immune from this. No architect is. However, many of the reasons for this don't necessarily fall on the shoulders of said architect. There are a lot of factors that come into play, i.e. land limitations, topography, budget, the developers (sometimes ever changing) demands, clubs demands/expectations, etc. Thus, the term "mailing it in" isn't a fair assessment of why certain Pete Dye courses never caught on or weren't emblematic of the architects best work. Few, if any of us, would know the dynamics involved that led to a particular course falling short of the mark or failing to live up to expectations.


It's an impossible and unrealistic ask to expect every architects work to be worthy of a Top 100 ranking. The best any architect can hope to do is design and construct the best possible course within the confines and limitations of the land they have to work with, the expectations of the developer/owner(s) and the budget they have to work with. Unless an architect has an open checkbook given to them, there will be compromises made that work against what a course could have or should have been, which frequently isn't the architects fault. So, without being given more specifics on the Dye courses you feel fall short of his best work, it's impossible to comment on why this may be, let alone those here agreeing with your assessment of the Dye courses that don't measure up to his more noteworthy courses.

[Mike Hendren]

So which Ross courses are duds and forgettable?


Bogey

[Niall C]

So which Ross courses are duds and forgettable?


Bogey

He can't remember 


Niall

[Niall C]

To my knowledge I've never played a Pete Dye course so have nothing to add as to the question raised in the OP however I think it a valid question to ask as it addresses the architects work and design methods, and if we can't address that on here then where can we ? As to the phrase itself, I wonder if it only becomes insulting if you happened to know/knew the architect personally ? I can't imagine anyone getting too hot under the collar if the same question was asked in the same way of one of the ODG's.


Niall

[Anthony_Nysse]

Im a huge Pete Dye fan, so I write this cautiously.


Having worked at both Long Cove Club & Old Marsh Golf Club, there is a certain look, a certain feel to a course where Pete spent a lot of time on. I beg to wonder if Pete ever turned work down, as he had many associates & sons around him ready to handle jobs. Hampton Hall comes to mind as a course with Pete's name on it, yet there are many parts to HH that don't have that polished, Pete Dye look to them.

[JMEvensky]

To my knowledge I've never played a Pete Dye course so have nothing to add as to the question raised in the OP however I think it a valid question to ask as it addresses the architects work and design methods, and if we can't address that on here then where can we ? As to the phrase itself, I wonder if it only becomes insulting if you happened to know/knew the architect personally ? I can't imagine anyone getting too hot under the collar if the same question was asked in the same way of one of the ODG's.


Niall

I agree--seemed like a reasonable question from someone who wanted an answer (no agenda nor malicious subtext).


And Jeff Brauer (a real live GCA) provided some possible explanations.


Isn't that the way it's supposed to work here?

[Adam Lawrence]

Of the 400+ courses Donald Ross designed, renovated or reworked in his lifetime there are arguably a number of duds and forgettable tracks. In fact, the vast majority aren't in the conversation of Top 200 in U.S.

This has nothing to do with architecture and everything to do with mathematics

It's an impossible and unrealistic ask to expect every architects work to be worthy of a Top 100 ranking.

Especially if he designed more than 400 courses!