[John Morrissett]

Ted:I know I promised you a Great Golf Hole from TPC, but I'm lazy.  Will my description of the 11th from our write-up do?I am very curious as to why you seem to dislike the course so much.  I have my supsicions but will await your critique before responding.Also, what were your thoughts on Whistling Straits?  Are you anti-Dye or just anti-TPC?John

[Ted_Sturges]

John,1.  I never said I didn't like the course, I simply think it is not a top 100 in the US golf course.  2.  The 11th is a great example for us to debate.  You make several comments about the interesting features of this golf hole, and I don't disagree with any of them.  The tee shot is interesting, with width to play to the area of the fairway that provides the most opportunity.  The risk/reward profile of the hole is interesting, as there are several different ways to attack/lay up on this golf hole.  Finally, the putting green is very interesting and, as you point out, will actually dictate where the expert player will position his 2nd shot.  Having said that, I find the hole visually unappealing.  Yes, the hole looks tremendously hard (Dye is a master at making the hole look harder than it really is, and the 11th is an example of this-although it's pretty damn hard),  I just don't find the hole aesthetically appealing.  Desmond Muirhead designed some stuff that I think we'd all agree is butt-ugly, and the 11th (and many other holes at TPC), look more like Muirhead holes than classical beautiful golf holes.  What value do aesthetics have in assessing good and bad golf holes?  For me, it means alot.  What would Dr. MacKenzie say about the 11th? (or the 17th, or the 18th, or the "bleachers"?)  I agree that the course is very strong strategically, and that Pete knows how to confound and challenge the best players in the world.  But I think to be a great golf course, there's more to it than that.3.  I'm not "anti-Pete", as I love The Golf Club.  I also loved Crooked Stick before the changes he made for the 91 PGA. (Did you ever see it "before"?)  I also like the Ocean Course at Kiawah fairly well.  I thought Whistling Straits was neat, and I'm going to post some comments on all the Kohler stuff so Ran will get off my back. (See separate post).

[John Morrissett]

Ted:I will give you my experience with TPC.One year in college a friend and I saw a great rate for playing TPC and staying at the Marriott just after Christmas.  We drove the 640 miles to play it with the mindset that it wouldn't be right for us to criticize it (which we fully expected to do) without having at least played the course a couple of times. Were we surprised.  The course was much more playable than we expected (e.g., very generous fairways; it's almost impossible to lose a ball other than in the water) and we actually found it to be much more aesthetically pleasing that expected (e.g., other than the houses left of ten and the marriott behind 13, there are no houses, condos, roads, etc.).  So I have to admit that part of my favorable feelings toward the course might be due to low expectations.  However, several years later I returned for The players Championship, wondering if I might have overrated the course.  I had not.Some additional comments:(1) It is very solid.  What are the three weakest/most indifferent holes? (2, 8 and 12?) I'll put those three up against almost any other coure's.(2) It is quite well-paced in terms of spreading out the long and/or difficult holes.(3) Well-balanced set of par threes and par fives (and par fours!).(4) It is grossly misleading to let the 17th characterize the course (as most seem wont to do).(5) Remember that the course was built out of a swamp -- by necessity it must be artificial.(6) Don't criticize the course just because of what it stands for.  Agree or disagree, Dye did give his clients what they wanted (spectator mounding, etc.).  The mountain between 16 and 18 is awfully silly looking for a former swamp.

[John Morrissett]

Ted: I hope you are sitting down for this one.Is the work of Seth Raynor and Pete Dye that different?  Think about some of the similarities:(1) Both architects' courses often have an "engineered" look to them with sharp edges and lines (unlike, say, MacKenzie).  Examples would include square greens by Macdonald and Raynor.(2) Both have certain holes they reproduce on several courses.  Raynor: all his short holes and a couple of the two-shotters (punchbowl, road).   Dye: Short par fours with a blind second shot; the formulaic 5-3-4 finish; a long par four 18th around water; a straightawat medium-short opening hole.Often I wonder what Macdonald and Raynor would have done if they had had today's equipment at their disposal.  Would they have moved as much earth as Pete?  What would Dye have done in the 20s with that equipment to use?    

[Ted_Sturges]

John,A couple of comments.  1.  To say that "it's almost impossible to lose a golf ball (at TPC), other than in the water", seems an oxymoron.  If memory serves me right, water is in play on like 11 of 18 holes.  We can make that statement about Yeamans Hall and Pinehurst No. 2,(which is one of the things that makes me love both places) but using it here seems a stretch.2.  I absolutely agree that Pete gave his customers what they asked for.  But, to say that we can't criticize the place because of what it stands for seems off base.  I criticize The Brickyard because it's a golf course/theme park in and around a racetrack.  Do you suggest that we look at a course like that and say "yes, but if it wasn't in a speedway, it would be a good golf course?"  It is what it is.  And TPC is what it is, as well.

[Ted_Sturges]

John,Very intersting comments about Raynor/Dye comparisons (I was actually hoping you wouldn't bring that up).  I don't have an answer for why I like Raynor so much more than Dye in spite of these similarities, other than to say that I find his use of replica holes "charming" (because they're old?)Tom Doak wrote in one of his books that if we had an architect today who used the same par 3's on so many of his courses that we would hate them and criticize the work.  I agree, and we seem hypocritical for loving the Raynor 1 shot holes so much.  I don't have a good answer here.

[John Morrissett]

Ted:(1) I agree that TPC is a far cry from YHC and Pinehurst No.2.  My point was that the areas under the trees, etc. has been cleared out extensively.  I just don't like wasting time looking for balls.  The black and white aspect of water hazards doesn't completely bother me.(2) I suppose my comments about satisfying the client was more in defence of Mr. Dye that of the course.  If someone else had been given the same piece of property and the same marching orders, could he have produced a better course?  Unlikely.I often think what the course would be like as a small, private club that never wants to host anything larger than the club championship.  The fact that it was made as a tournament course does detract from the daily play.

[Ran Morrissett]

Both of you make good points. Ted is correct when he says it will always be artifical (how good can any course  be with bleechers) and John is correct when he says it is hard imagining a better job being done, given the marching orders (and thus how bad can it really be).I wish Geoff in The Good Doctor Returns had had MacKenzie go critique TPC - that would be interesting indeed.

[Tony Dowling]

I imagine TPC Stadium, more so than any other course, can reasonably divide sane men's opinions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()