[John Mayhugh]

Back in October, there was a post about Pete Dye's "latest" course opening in Port St. Lucie FL.  This wasn't actually a new course opening, but a so-called restoration.  Here's a link to that post.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=31543

I had played the course several times before and enjoyed it.  On Dec 26 I had a chance to play the restored course and was disappointed with the changes.  I should have been warned by the PGA's statement that the changes made the course more "player friendly."

Unfortunately, I don't have many photos of the course taken before the restoration.  But I do have one comparison that gives some idea of what they did.  Here's the tee shot on the par 5 fifth hole.  Note the fairway bunker just left of the cart in the distance.  It's probably 280 or so to get to that bunker from the regular tees.


This photo was taken near the bunker. This is supposed to be some sort of links style course and, in the past, played a little like one.  Can anyone explain what the deal is with the island of rough that surrounds the bunker?  The only way you're hitting in it is if you fly the ball in there off the tee.


I took this photo of the same bunker back in 2003.  Note how much shorter the rough is around the bunker and how much less of an island effect there is.  In addition to the rough, they also shrunk the bunker by more than 50%.  I don't have photos from the same angle, but the effect is dramatic.  This was my favorite bunker on the course.


Overall I still like the course, but the changes are TERRIBLE.  You can see the effect of their "player friendly" strategy on most of the other holes as well:

These bunkers protect the green on the long second hole.  Not as bad as the rough on the fifth, but still doesn't look right.


These bunkers protect the green on the par 5 seventh.

This awaits a miss left.


Here's another island in the fairway.


The 12th is a par 4 of about 300.  


Finally, here's a look at the par 4 fourth.


There's still a lot to recommend about the course.  It's not that expensive for this part of Florida (I think around $80).  Water doesn't come into play very often.  Fairways are generous.  No houses on top of the holes.  Pace of play is pretty good.  In fact, in a GCA feature interview in December 2000, Dye had this to say about the course: "I think the new course at the PGA Village in Port St. Lucie is one of my best. I have no idea how it will be rated or if it will even be rated!"

I so desperately want to believe he didn't take part in this "restoration."

[John Moore II]

Looks like quite the place. I have no idea about the changes, i just like the pictures. I'll be working there starting the end of this month...

[Ryan Farrow]

I thought someone posted a video of a press conference he had about the changes. I have only seen the most recent version and was pleasantly surprised with what I had seen. John, it looks like those changes might be more maintenance friendly? Either way, think of the kind of shot you will have if your ball gets caught up on the side of one of those bunkers. One of the things that struck me was just how tiny some of those bunkers were.

Did you like that par 4 fourth?

[Michael Powers]

Played the Dye many times and played it in December for the first time after the changes.  Seems to me that they just grassed over many of the areas which were waste areas and I found it more fun to play the original.

This course would be much more fun to play if they let the bermuda go dormant on the gees, fairways,a nd roughs. It would play hard and fast which would fit the design.But als...EVERYTHING must ALWAYS remain a lush green(with sticky rye grass overseeding of course).

[John Mayhugh]

I thought someone posted a video of a press conference he had about the changes. I have only seen the most recent version and was pleasantly surprised with what I had seen. John, it looks like those changes might be more maintenance friendly? Either way, think of the kind of shot you will have if your ball gets caught up on the side of one of those bunkers. One of the things that struck me was just how tiny some of those bunkers were.

Did you like that par 4 fourth?

The bunker islands are probably more maintenance friendly.  The problem is the rough does a lot to take the bunkers out of play.  Sure they're tiny and you're going to have a tough time getting out of them, but there is so much room on this course that the bunkers can mostly be avoided.  Growing the rough around them  doesn't seem like a good architectural decision.

The fourth hole is a good one even if I don't typically play it very well.  From what I remember the green is pretty wild.

I would still recommend the course, but think the changes are not for the better.

[Mike Mosely]

I always enjoy playing that course and yes, that bunker on 5 has always been one of my favorites.  did Dye totally remove the cross bunker that ran all the way across the fairway?  Is that "dumbed-down" now to just be some smaller pot bunkers?

[John Mayhugh]

I always enjoy playing that course and yes, that bunker on 5 has always been one of my favorites.  did Dye totally remove the cross bunker that ran all the way across the fairway?  Is that "dumbed-down" now to just be some smaller pot bunkers?

I didn't remember a bunker running all the way across that fairway.  There certainly isn't one now.

[Matt Kardash]

To me that is one neat looking course.  Looks like a good example of what you can do with a flat piece of land. This looks way more apealing to me than the pics of Doak's Riverfront course.

[Michael Powers]

I believe they did fill in part of the  bunker on 5.  Nothing substatial was changed, not that I noticed anyway.  The thing I noticed most was they filled in much of the waste area between the 9th and 12th holes, which makes the tee shot on 9 a little easier.  The hole I thought they were going to soften was 18.  It's like 465 from the back with a big forced carry from the tee, but, thankfully, it was the same.

[John Mayhugh]

I believe they did fill in part of the  bunker on 5.  Nothing substatial was changed, not that I noticed anyway.  The thing I noticed most was they filled in much of the waste area between the 9th and 12th holes, which makes the tee shot on 9 a little easier.  The hole I thought they were going to soften was 18.  It's like 465 from the back with a big forced carry from the tee, but, thankfully, it was the same.

The bunker on 5 is maybe 1/2 the size it was before.  I don't have photos from the same angle to prove it, but my buddy & I both had the same impression.

The rest of the changes aren't that remarkable other than all the islands of rough they have grown around the bunkers.  That's a big change to me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()