[Ted Sturges]

Watching the pros bring CS to its knees, I wonder what Pete learned from this.  Lengthening the course to 7500 yards, and having them play it in wet (no roll) conditions made the course play as long as it could this week.  Result?...you can't make the courses long enough for these guys.  I watched the longer hitters routinely carry the ball 300+ yards in the air.  Had they played firm and fast conditions this week, the longer guys would have hit wedge into (1,2,5,7,8,9,10,11,15,16 and 18).  That's a lot of wedges!  Is ripping up these courses and lengthening them really the answer?  Should the answer be in hiding the holes?  Making the greens more severe?  Dialing back the golf ball (that is the answer IMHO).

Was all the work Pete has done to the course the last decade pointless?

What did Pete Dye learn this week?

TS

[Chris Clouser]

I don't know that he learned anything he didn't already know.  My guess is it will reinforce his opinion that a severe course like French Lick is the answer unless they do something about the B & I.  Extreme conditions are the only way to combat the extreme length and accuracy of the pros today.

[Adam Clayman]

Ted, he called it straightforward. Isn't that code for not getting them to think? Since Pete's well known for wanting to get the boys to think, because then he's got them, this setup likely taught him nothing he doesn't already know.

If the course had played firmer, and with less rough, the scores would've been higher. Everyone of those balls stopped by the lush rough, would've travelled to parts unknown and less predictable. Those that hit the fairway, may not have held the fairway.

The saddest quote I heard over the weekend by Johnny Miller was how Phil was trying to get into the green side bunker on the par 5. It truly was the easiest way to attack the hole.

[John Kavanaugh]

After seeing Tiger move the ball on the fringe his full club length to get a better putting angle I realized all is lost.  You can't judge the architecture of a course if you let the best players in the world move their ball three feet.  Three feet matters.

[Ben Sims]

Pete saw what he already knew.  He is also smart enough to forget wind, rough, skinny fairways, etc.  There are only really three things that stop these guys from dismantling golf courses.

1) Extreme length.  Ridiculous length.  And even then it is no sure bet they won't score well.  See French Lick Dye.

2) Dial back the ball.  Hitting knuckle balls with a driver and having 8000rpm's off the wedge is just stupid.  But Pete knows the ball will never be dailed back.  Pandora's box is open.

3) Firm up the greens considerably.  Nothing confounds and dupes these guys like very firm greens.  Once you stop having 200-250 yd shots hold the green like we all hold with wedges, you'll see scores come back inline.  The Masters and US Open (this year at OC) are fantastic case studies in how green firmness can thwart all but the best approaches.

When greens are even just a bit receptive, these guys attack.  I think that's what Pete will take out of the weekend.

[George Pazin]

No course on earth can withstand the onslaught of pros playing lift clean and place. Pete didn't learn anything he didn't already know.

[Tim Gavrich]

After seeing Tiger move the ball on the fringe his full club length to get a better putting angle I realized all is lost.  You can't judge the architecture of a course if you let the best players in the world move their ball three feet.  Three feet matters.

Absolutely true. You can make a golf course 8,500 yards if you want; if the conditions are so soft that the pros can lift, clean and place, then any golf course is defenseless.

Crummy weather, not the ball.

[Tom_Doak]

I will admit to not having watched one minute of this weekend's golf tournament at Crooked Stick.  However, I looked at the leaderboard this morning, and it looked like they had most of the best players in the world right at the top.  So, how exactly was the tournament lacking?

I can also report that anything postulated so far that Mr. Dye would have learned from this event, he already knew thirty years ago when I worked for him.  It's just worse now than it was then.  And he knew it would be, too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete is 87 now.  He probably learned how much prune juice he needs in the morning.  Not much else.

So look at the average score of the  top 80 in the world - it's 5 under or about 1 under a day.  The top players all played well and averaged 4-5 under per day.  All in all, not so bad, even for someone who really wants to defend par somewhat on a course designed more for tournament play than members play.

[Martin Toal]

He learned that Rory really likes his courses. A lot.







Apart from that one in Jacksonville with the silly island green, of course.

[RJ_Daley]

I also tend to agree and it is almost a given that an old wise architect like Dye didn't learn a darn thing he didn't already know.  

Perhaps, if one were to stretch an example or imagine a scenario where Mr. Dye was asked by a potential new client what he learned and how that motivated him to approach a design of a course they would plan to build or develop as a new project; Mr. Dye might be candid with that developer and tell him that if he wanted a successful golf course design that would have many enthusiastic customers or members, to forget any thought of building one that challenges the pros or very best players.  Perhaps he would tell any developer to forget any slogan of desiring a course that would challenge the pros and yet offer the regular golfer an enjoyable round of golf, if that developer were seeking out Mr Dye's services for all the traditional traits that Mr Dye is known for in his designs - "Dyebolical" .  

Golf is now played totally on two different levels on fields of play that are so vastly different that the twain will never meet (as life in our current society seems to be trending more and more); for the 1%ers- and the rest of us.  The average golfer or joe can kid themselves and go play on a field of play or strata of life that is now so specifically set up that hurdles to overcome are distances too far to compete, and playing in that arena is only for the fractional percentile at the top.  But most hackers or punters are never going to succeed except to shoot a ridiculous number and spend too much chasing that pipe dream of playing with the big boys - so to speak.

So, Mr. Dye knows the obvious, as we all should, that regulation of the most important factors of play have to be dialed back to make the fields of play relevant, in that the ball and implements have to be regulated, or the 1%ers are just going to keep being able to expand on their gifts and advantages, and make the average golf course an archaic relic that the rest of us won't even want to try to compete or play for enjoyment.  

If Mr. Dye didn't learn anything he already didn't know, is there anyone that did learn something they didn't already know, this week at CS?

[Ted Sturges]

Thanks for all the responses.  

I want to play devil's advocate on something however.  Pete clearly thought that lengthening the course would help the course in it's attempt to challenge the world's best players.  Don't you think he learned that spending so much effort (and money) doing that proved pointless?

Would they have shot -30 if the course was left at 7200?

TS

[RJ_Daley]

Ted, yes I think so.  With those conditions and at less length, I'd think it is reasonable to assume a field like that would produce some hot player that could go -30 or perhaps beyond that!

They say Mr Dye is always tinkering with that course.  But, how much recently?  Do you think he tinkers with it now (if he has recently) to keep himself busy in a sort of just trying to maintain sort of way; or do you believe he really thinks he can still toughen it to challenge the big boys? 

My questions to Pete Dye regarding the tinkering, is if he does the work and alterations for the members enjoyment, or just to toughen it for toughening its sake? 

I heard that as far as his fee goes, he doesn't really charge anything anymore for his design consulting or work supervision at CS.  I don't know if that is true.  As for the expense of actually doing the work from paying folks to do the work, and material costs, it seems that is up to the members to decide if all this tinkering is worth it, and if it doesn't become an exercise in futility that making it harder is making it less fun.  Maybe the members are generally very good players that enjoy the alterations.  I have no idea.... 

[Tom_Doak]

RJ:

I am pretty sure that Mr. Dye has not charged a dime to Crooked Stick for a design fee for many years; in fact he may never have made a dime in fees off the place, considering his role in founding it.  However, that same relationship has made it very difficult for the club to tell him they don't want him to tinker with the course ... and they pay for the construction work.

Ted:

I do not think the pros would have been -30 if the course hadn't been lengthened.  I don't know how much it was lengthened this last time, but I'd guess it would have made a difference of one shot per day, maximum.  If you asked Pete, I'm sure he would say that he just wants to make those professionals work a bit harder, regardless of the winning score.  And then he would tell you he thinks the ball should be rolled back.  Heck, he had me ghost-write an article for him on that very subject, 28 years ago.

[Howard Riefs]

....I don't know how much it was lengthened this last time

7,289 yards – 1991 PGA (John Daly, -12)
7,316 yards – 2009 U.S. Senior Open (Fred Funk, -20)
7,516 yards – 2012 BMW Championship (Rory McIlroy, -20)

[RJ_Daley]

hmm, two bombers and something of a tactician...  It would be interesting to know if the Funkster played his rounds in more firm and fast conditions, or soft and windless.  And, what were average or measured driving distances in those examples?  The 200 yard disparity between a 50+ year old Funk and 23 year old bomber like Rory, and each shot -20 has to say something.  Who is able to analyse this for us?

[Ted Sturges]

It was very firm the week Funk won.  I don't have the stats handy, but I recall reading where he was averaging close to 300 yds in the driving stats that week.  Also, for Funk, my pals who are members there say that the hole locations used that week were "easier than we use for the member guest" (not sure why).  Not sure about hole locations this week, but I can't recall any that I thought were super difficult.

TS

[Matt Kardash]

....I don't know how much it was lengthened this last time

7,289 yards – 1991 PGA (John Daly, -12)
7,316 yards – 2009 U.S. Senior Open (Fred Funk, -20)
7,516 yards – 2012 BMW Championship (Rory McIlroy, -20)

The course appears to have been lengthend 200 yards in the past 20 years. I hardly call that extreme. The 7300 yard course Daly played in 1991 was relatively a lot longer than the 7500 yard course in 2012.

[Tom_Doak]

....I don't know how much it was lengthened this last time

7,289 yards – 1991 PGA (John Daly, -12)
7,316 yards – 2009 U.S. Senior Open (Fred Funk, -20)
7,516 yards – 2012 BMW Championship (Rory McIlroy, -20)

The course appears to have been lengthend 200 yards in the past 20 years. I hardly call that extreme. The 7300 yard course Daly played in 1991 was relatively a lot longer than the 7500 yard course in 2012.

The yardage difference could be a bit more than is reflected by these numbers, because I know in 1991 they didn't have the tees all the way at the back on every hole -- I recall Pete arguing with them on a couple of holes for not using the back tee.  But, Matt is right, 7300 yards in 1991 would have meant significantly longer approach shots than 7500 yards yields today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ted,

In 1989 I was playing in one of the practice rounds for the USGA Mid-am at Crooked Stick when I spotted Pete on a bulldozer behind the 14th tee.

He came down off the dozer to say "hello" and we started chatting.
I asked him what he was doing.
I could see that he was building the footpad for a tee located back and further left of the current back tee.
This was in preparation for the 1991 PGA.

He said, "Pat, when you play at WFW, Baltusrol, # 2 and other courses, you use your 2 and 3-irons don't you ?"
I said, "yeah, all the time"
He said, "well so are those guys". Meaning the PGA Tour Pros.
He then launched into the reasons why he was lengthening and altering the angle of the tee (the hole is a sharp dogleg left with a creek following the dogleg and influencing the carry off the tee)
At the time I think that Pete and the PGA tour players were engaged in a love-hate relationship.
He went on to explain what he was trying to accomplish and what his views were with respect to testing the PGA Tour Pro.

I think his comments today would echo what they were 23 years ago, and that he'd lament the impact of high-tech on the game and older courses.

I also think he'd say that there isn't enough land at CS to present a test commensurate with the abilities of today's PGA Tour Pros.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think that the course played anywhere near 7,316 for the 2009 SR OPEN

That may have been the yardage from the back tees, but I'd be willing to bet that wasn't he yardage for any of the four days.

[Richard Choi]

I know everybody around here moans about the 300+ yard drives, but that does not worry me as much as 190+ yard 8 irons.

I know that these guys are using pretty much the same muscle back irons (as the yesteryears) and the fact that modern balls doesn't spin much with drivers is not the factor here. These guys just hit very very long. I really don't think rolling the ball back is going to help as much as people think.

[Kalen Braley]

Rich,

Rolling back the ball is the easy part.  They've been doing it in softball now and the physics is easy to limit how far they'll fly.

Dealing with the politics to roll it back, and the lawsuits, and all the player whining is the hard part.

[Dan_Callahan]

I think if Pete wants to make the pros work harder, he needs to dig a moat around every green, fill them with alligators and piranha, and then require the players to sport bacon underwear.

[Richard Choi]

Rich,

Rolling back the ball is the easy part.  They've been doing it in softball now and the physics is easy to limit how far they'll fly.

Dealing with the politics to roll it back, and the lawsuits, and all the player whining is the hard part.

I think you are GREATLY underestimating the technical difficulties of rolling back the balls.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()