[Peter Pallotta]

John Paul Newport talks to Pete Dye (in the weekend Wall Street Journal) about Pound Ridge.  Asked why his courses are so hard, Pete says:

"You might as well ask why people who are members of perfectly good golf clubs fly to Scotland and Ireland to play golf in the rain for a week and never come close to breaking 90".

Referencing the fact that many of his courses are at destination resorts the people will play only a handful of times a year, he suggests that "difficulty" seems to be what the golfers are after. Pete says:

"I don't understand golfers one lick. Personally, if I couldn't break 90 on a course, I'd probably never want to play it again".

I have to meet Pete Dye some day. I'd like to ask him the secret of doing fine work and building a wonderful career in the golfing industry while not understanding golfers one lick. I don't know what it is yet, but I'm sure that's a fantastic "life lesson" in there someplace.

Peter

Actually, it just occurred to me that, while he might not understand golfers, he probably understands his "clients", the owners/developers, very well. But maybe not even that...which would make him a Mid-Western Genius.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

I've known Pete almost all my life and believe me he understands both golfers and clients as well or better than anyone. Some of the things Pete says are just Pete being Pete.

The fact that golfers somewhere in their hearts and minds like the prospect of severe difficulty and are drawn to it is definitely no mystery. Precisely why they like it may be somewhat mysterious but not that they are drawn to it as most are to the prospect of danger or the ultimate test in golf or anything else.

In my opinion, it's the nature of humankind. Probably has something to do with the primal love/hate relationship to the danger as well as the beauty and majesty of the raw natural world.

It can be glorious and overwhelming to look at in a primal sense and it never was a snap to survive in either. Just to survive in the wilds has got to be some form of a feeling of victory for human beings primally and for that reason they are probably drawn to the challenge in some mysterious way.

I guess they may be drawn to the challenge becasue back in the day there wasn't a lot you could do to avoid it anyway---except die.

[paul cowley]

Tom .....you know thats maybe why I don't play this game as much any more. The old thrill has been dimmed by the newer challenge of trying to make a living in this jungle of a business.

Lions and TIGERS and BEARS, oh my.......

[Ken Moum]

Tom .....you know thats maybe why I don't play this game as much any more. The old thrill has been dimmed by the newer challenge of trying to make a living in this jungle of a business.

Lions and TIGERS and BEARS, oh my.......

Not to mention sharks, black knights, The King, et.al.

Ken

[Mike Sweeney]

I have seen the Pound Ridge construction site from the road and halfway up the driveway. It was the lowest of low key 9 hole courses before the new 18 hole course was built.

One thing is for sure, based on what you can see from the road, there is no minimalism now at Pound Ridge, and from a layman's perspective who played the old course a few times, there could have been.

That said it should do well as it is surrounded by private golf clubs and crowded munis in a wealthy area that can support a higher green fee for a daily fee.

I thought the same owner owned it now, but it appears that Vera Wang's brother is at least pat owner?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - yes, the article mentions Ken Wang as the owner, who describes Pete as a "crazy uncle on the surface, but Dr. No behind the scenes."

Also interesting is that, while in the article Pete mentions designing "by feel" (the way the ODGs did), Mr. Wang says there's a "mathematical rigour to his work that really appeals to me; nothing is left to chance".  I guess those two approaches aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive, but they did strike me that way (superfically at least).

Tom - thanks, good post and funny. Yeah, I guess living was a tough racket back in the day. Your only alternative was dying, whereas today we can chose a course "that's playable for all levels of golfers"...which does seem like decent enough trade-off  

Peter  

[Rick Shefchik]

There's a line somewhere between too easy/boring and too tough/exasperating. None of us would play golf if the game were as simple as teeing it up on a driving range with no obstacles or hazards, and eventually knocking the ball into a cup on a flat green with no contour. Pete Dye is just looking for that line, knowing he's better off if he goes a little too far in the difficult direction than the easy direction.

I guess that's also an answer to Patrick's question about why club members want to make their courses harder, and even to Mike Nuzzo's question about why anyone would want to build a course without using a professional architect. It's all about testing yourself against nature, and seeing what you've got when the going gets tough.

[RJ_Daley]

I wonder what the process really is when some developer has Pete Dye & company come in and give a proposal to build the owner's "dream course".   Take the ongoing Kohler relationship.  From the begining at BWR River and Meadow some 20 years ago now, Dye was brought in and given marching instructions by Kohler to build a world class course that would be tough, could hole any tournament... and yet would be the original showcase for the American Club Resort.   Then, some 10 years later, as the old quote goes, given an unlimitted budget to do Whistling, by Kohler, and is jokingly observed to have exceeded that budget.   Guys like Kohler seek out Dye, I think mostly because he has gotten the reputation as the Dyablolical one for having previously built some hard courses...  

Yet, the part I wonder about, is when Dye meets with these large sized ego developers who are seeking to build the "hardest most Dyabolical" course yet... if he don't try to tone them down.  I sensed from Dye's remarks along with his wife and son's when attending some of their presentations at GCSAA conventions, that they are of the mind set to build a challenging course for everyone, with out going over the top.  Yet, I wonder if he doesn't have to compromise with his own reputation of Dyabolical and build them harder than he in his own heart would like.  

Obviously we have guys on the GCA.com group like Doak and Farris and Liddy (lurker) who have been in the room during these sort of pre-project conceptual meetings  when they were working in the Dye organization.  I'd like to know if Dye tries to reign in some of these grandiose desires to build the hardest meanest courses possible, and when the final goals are set, allows his associates to come forth with the feature designs that become Dyabolical trademarks, with old Pete aquiessing...to some extent?  

[George Pazin]

"I don't understand golfers one lick. Personally, if I couldn't break 90 on a course, I'd probably never want to play it again".

The difference is that the vast vast majority of us don't prioritize golf in the way someone like Pete does, so when we get out a half dozen times a year, we're content to live with the scores we shoot.

Having said that, there's probably plenty of Pete Dye courses that are too hard for me and I have no great desire to play. Maybe someday after I find the time to develop an adequate game, but not right now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()