[Ted Sturges]

Yesterday was my 4th visit to the Dye course at French Lick.  I've got to say...honestly, that I like the course less with each visit.  I know many on this site have been there.  I just don't understand the golf course.  The site is among the highest points in southern Indiana, so sitting up that high, it is a wind swept site.  Though you can choose any set of tees that are appropriate, the course tips out at over 8,000 yards.  In analyzing the fairway landing areas yesterday, I paced off several of them, and they average just over 20 yards wide.  So...the only strategy in hitting the tee shots is to simply try to hit the 20 yard wide strip of short grass.  Many bunkers are placed well beyong the corridors of the "fairways", so most have zero strategic merit.  For a course so penal off the tee, and built on a windy site, you'd think the greens would be larger than average. They are not.  Many are extremely small.  When I add to this mix a collection of volcano bunkers that rise out of the ground and some I'm sure have never had a ball in them...I'm left wondering what Mr. Dye was thinking about as he built this place.  If this is the culmination of a 60 year design career, what are we to believe is Mr. Dye's design philosophy as he nears the conclusion of his prolific design career?

[Jason Thurman]

Ted, how penal was the rough? I've not played the Dye course yet, but I've always heard the rough is kept very manageable and the course was designed with that maintenance meld in mind.

[John Kavanaugh]

Ted,

I personally enjoy the course but have never cared for any of Pete Dye's designs.  He is the emperor with no clothes.  Amateur golfers playing Pete Dye courses is like the poor living in a Frank Gehry designed home.  Hard to believe either is a reality.

http://www.designboom.com/architecture/frank-gehry-house-for-the-make-it-right-foundation/

[John Kavanaugh]

Ted, how penal was the rough? I've not played the Dye course yet, but I've always heard the rough is kept very manageable and the course was designed with that maintenance meld in mind.

The rough is a nonissue.  The ball rolls farther in the fairway is the only real difference.  The course is rather easy if you play the way up tees, the problem is that at the high cost of a round it is difficult to convince anyone to do.

[Scott Sander]

Ted-

I've thought about this a lot actually, prompted by an similar lamentation you shared here some time ago.  In reading those earlier comments, I sensed a deepening disappointment -your sails going slack, your heartbeat growing sluggish and sad- regarding Dye's work as a whole.

Here's where I am as of this moment on French Lick:
I don't think it's reflective of much other than the execution of his client's hope of having a spectacle capable of hosting noteworthy golf tournaments and encouraging high rollers to play.

You know and have likely played other autumn-years Dye courses very near you (Woodland, Bridgewater) that have some of the widest modern fairways one can find.  Those are member-driven courses that are extremely playable for all levels but also have conventional ways of resisting scoring sufficient to test 99.5% of us.

French Lick feels like an experiment.  Everything from the clear-cutting of the hilltop to the string-straight lines of the fairways look... weird, frankly.   But the fairways and what look like impossible-to-hold green sections (I've walked it twice but have not played it) seem like specific attempts to resist scoring for the other .5%.  A corollary to that is that courses like that also attract the segment of the golfing tourist that chooses places to play largely on how tough a course is or if they've seen it on teevee.  And whether there's a casino nearby.

All that would worry me if I thought for a moment that Dye viewed French Lick as some kind of capstone or representative example of the whatever he feels is ideal.  
But I don't think he does.  I think it, like some other things he's done, is a one-off.  And I doubt he'll build the likes of it again.

All of that may be wrong, of course.  But it's where I am on the question until I see his next 'big' project.

[Jason Thurman]

John, that's what I've always heard. I know Pete Dye suggested that a lot of higher handicappers would be more comfortable hitting from the rough than the fairways, and that was part of why he made them as narrow as he did.

With that in mind, and going back to the original post, is hitting the fairway really the only strategy out there? Or are there holes where it could make sense to ignore the fairway and hit the ball to a spot in the rough from which an approach angle might be more ideal?

As for people playing it from way back, I know quite a few guys who just can't resist 8000 yard tees. Make a course with a ridiculous set of "way back" markers, and they'll happily drive two hours or more to torture themselves. They've done the tips at Purgatory and the Dye as part of "getting their money's worth" and "testing their game," despite the fact that they're 15 handicappers who get tested plenty just trying to two-putt from 15 feet. There's probably a certain liberation that comes with knowing you can shoot 115 and none of your friends will judge you since you took on such a bold task. It's similar to the guy in my volleyball league who tries to hit an Olympic-style jump serve despite the fact that he can't clear the net and keep it in bounds on the same swing. Sure it's a train wreck, but the display of ambition sort of puts his failure beyond reproach.

[ward peyronnin]

A slight miss doesn't necessarily mean benign rough. The slopes where one is of the fairway or green make for recovery form severe stances disorientingly blind and/ or gymnastic if not to say even dangerous to attempt. Not fun for a high handicapper or moderately athletic person and really pointless for a true test of golf rather than trick shots.

I agree with Ted.

[Doug Ralston]

I think Dye just loves to be brutal. Can you say PGA West Stadium? Or for those in my neighborhood try the Purdue Kampen when the rough is deep.

I am afraid that, though I would be forced to try from the forward tees, this is just the type of golf I love. I am a golf masochist, who always wants to try heroic shots. There are a few of us among the high handicappers. Score simple isn't a part of my thinking.

Doug

[John Kavanaugh]

How is Whistling Straits any better?  What is so wrong with paying for a Dye and getting a Dye?

[Josh Tarble]

Here's where I am as of this moment on French Lick:
I don't think it's reflective of much other than the execution of his client's hope of having a spectacle capable of hosting noteworthy golf tournaments and encouraging high rollers to play.

I think this hits it perfectly.  They already have a nice fun resort course in Sultan's Run and a wild and crazily fun course in the Ross.  They needed something exclusive, hard and immaculately prepared.  If they did it for any other reason they wouldn't be charging $400 a pop in French Lick.

[Mike Hendren]

I personally enjoy the course but have never cared for any of Pete Dye's designs.  He is the emperor with no clothes.  http://www.designboom.com/architecture/frank-gehry-house-for-the-make-it-right-foundation/

John, please elaborate.  I hold Dye in very high regard as I think his asethetics, playability, punishment, placement and style of hazards and micro-shaping (particularly around the greens) are idllyic and well-balanced. 

Also, if we are indeed in a second golden age, arguably Dye is the man who gave it birth - not the so-called minimalists.

I think he's a genius.

Mike

[Ted Sturges]

To Ward:   We had 4 single digit handicappers in our group yesterday, and there was quite a bit of "gymnastics" (never heard that term used in a golf context before your post, but it is actually a fairly accurate description of some of the shots played in our group yesterday). A true wordsmith you have always been.

To Scott S:  You may be right about the course being an "experiment".  I have a feeling you are correct in that the owner was likely driving a specific agenda at FL.  I just wonder how this experiment will be viewed as more time passes.  For me, it is just a course that I don't understand.  I do wish to comment on one of the points you made.  I actually think you may also be correct in thinking that they were building this course for that "other .5%" of golfers (the tour player).  With as little play as they get at FL, and with the logistics of lodging, site access etc. all but eliminating the possiblilty of a tour type event...seems they spent $25 million for 3 or 4 visiting tour player rounds per year.  I know the guy was a billionaire, but it's hard to make financial sense of that model.

To Doug R:  You mention Purdue, and it is almost the antithesis of the FL course.  Kampen was built on a fairly non-dramatic site, so Pete built really good golf holes.  That course is loaded with strategy, playing angles etc.  FL is just the opposite.  We talked about Kampen yesterday as we were playing, and all 4 in our group agreed that we'd rather play there than FL.

To John K:  I'm trying to understand what you are saying in your post John.  It sounds like you do not like Pete's previous courses, some of which are considered among the best in the US, with tons of strategy that are also fun to play (see:  The Ocean Course, The Golf Club, TPC Sawgrass, Long Cove, Harbour Town, Crooked Stick), and that you like this latest course that includes no driving strategy, very small green complex targets and requires some "golf gymnastics" (credit:  W. Peyronnin).  You and I obviously have different tastes in golf courses.

To:  Jason T:  In regards to your comment about your golf buddies who are 15 handicaps who want to play a course from 8,000 yards...I just hope I don't have to play in the group or groups behind them.  I'll look for something else to do during that 6 hours.  Also...did you really mean to say that you think the FL course advocates playing to "strategic" places in the rough?

Final thought-  I always thought truly great golf courses were designed in a way to provide a complete examination of a golfer's skill.  The test should include the ability to assess one's driving accuracy, provide an examination of mid, and long irons...present the golfer with holes that will require him or her to shape shots in both directions to achieve the best results, as well as provide opportunity for the golfer to pull off recovery shots....and examine one's putting skill.  I accept that some will disagree with my view on this.  If however, one would accept that view, a review of the FL course suggests it is designed more for a player who will try to hit it as far as he or she can on most tee shots, regardless of whether or not it ends up on the prepared surface...so, their ball will end up in a fairway lie if they are able to hit a 300 yard shot onto a 20 yard wide spot...the course would require an examination of mid and long iron shots, but seems to accept that many will be played from the rough...to very small greens.  It is an examination of one's game that I would suggest would not identify the best player in the field.

TS

[John Kavanaugh]

When I was a child I remember saying that I didn't like Pete Dye courses. I want to enjoy the game with childlike enthusiasm again.

That being said, the French Lick course is one of my all time favorites.

[Paul Stephenson]

The posts above have led me to this question.  If the French Lick course was the only Dye course I've played (which it is), have I really played a "Dye" course?

[Doug Ralston]

To Doug R:  You mention Purdue, and it is almost the antithesis of the FL course.  Kampen was built on a fairly non-dramatic site, so Pete built really good golf holes.  That course is loaded with strategy, playing angles etc.  FL is just the opposite.  We talked about Kampen yesterday as we were playing, and all 4 in our group agreed that we'd rather play there than FL.

TS

Ted;

Did you ever play Kampen when the rough is really thick and high? It become a 'steel wool' hack through it, and with some many hazards, very hard to leave one accurately enough to avoid others.

OTOH, when the rough is cut pretty down, it is a good course.

I would love to hear what Dye would say about his intentions there.

Doug

[David Stewart]

To Doug R:  You mention Purdue, and it is almost the antithesis of the FL course.  Kampen was built on a fairly non-dramatic site, so Pete built really good golf holes.  That course is loaded with strategy, playing angles etc.  FL is just the opposite.  We talked about Kampen yesterday as we were playing, and all 4 in our group agreed that we'd rather play there than FL.

TS

Ted;

Did you ever play Kampen when the rough is really thick and high? It become a 'steel wool' hack through it, and with some many hazards, very hard to leave one accurately enough to avoid others.

OTOH, when the rough is cut pretty down, it is a good course.

I would love to hear what Dye would say about his intentions there.

Doug

Doug,

I did my undergraduate and graduate work at Purdue and was a season pass holder at Kampen for 3 years. I wrote an "In My Opinion" piece on it that is posted here. You are correct that the rough there can be very penal when they let it grow, but I think Ted is talking about design features, not maintenance practices. The difference in the courses is there are wider fairways and more options off the tee at Kampen. And at Kampen Dye gives you a side to miss on. You may be in the rough, but the ball won't be 12 inches above your feet. Almost every driving hole at FL feels like you have a bunker complex on one side and a huge slope down the mountain on the other separated by a 20 yard strip of short grass. The playing angles for which Dye is so well known seem to be missing off the tee.

[Jason Thurman]

To:  Jason T:  In regards to your comment about your golf buddies who are 15 handicaps who want to play a course from 8,000 yards...I just hope I don't have to play in the group or groups behind them.  I'll look for something else to do during that 6 hours.  Also...did you really mean to say that you think the FL course advocates playing to "strategic" places in the rough?

It sounds like you didn’t read my posts very closely.

I said “I know quite a few guys” who are 15 handicaps and like to play from 8000 yards. They’re not “golf buddies” of mine. I don’t want to be on a course at the same time as them either.

More importantly, I was very clear that I haven’t played the course. I simply asked if the fairways are really that important to hit at French Lick. My understanding has always been that the rough is maintained at a very playable height, almost like a “first cut” through most of the course. The idea, as expressed by Dye, is that it looks really intimidating for low handicappers when they try to hit those narrow fairways. High handicappers, on the other hand, are actually more comfortable hitting from a lie in light rough as opposed to tight fairway. Think of it as a larger scale version of surrounding a green with short grass. Low handicappers have a hard time because they struggle to choose the correct option, while high handicappers appreciate being able to putt or hit low-risk shots from way off the green.

The key word in all that is that I “asked.” Unlike many posters on this forum, when I ask a question, I actually mean it as a question as opposed to an implied conclusion that I want someone to dispute. Are you saying that the fairways are so narrow and the rough so penal that the course is unplayable and without strategy beyond "hit the fairway or else"? Or were the fairways just visually intimidating in their narrowness while the rough was in fact quite playable?

And I think it’s fair to ask if there are times when hitting the fairway might not be a priority. I’ve played several holes in my golfing life where that’s the case. Here’s one (the photo is not mine). The green is elevated way up on the hill left, while the fairway is in the valley below off the tee. There are two legitimate options on the tee shot: hit an iron to the fairway and leave a 50 foot uphill approach, or bang a driver toward the green and have a level approach from the rough and a potentially awkward lie. I always choose option 2 and rarely fail to make par. It’s not a great hole or anything, but it’s an example of what I’m asking about at the Dye course. Is there really only one strategy on every hole (hit the tiny fairway)? Or are there places where being in the rough might actually be advantageous?

[David Stewart]

Are you saying that the fairways are so narrow and the rough so penal that the course is unplayable and without strategy beyond "hit the fairway or else"? Or were the fairways just visually intimidating in their narrowness while the rough was in fact quite playable?

Jason,

The rough isn't overly long but consistently thick. You can hit out of it but you definitely aren't guaranteed a great lie. The more important point is your recovery from off the fairway will be difficult even if you lie is okay due to the severe terrain. Ward summed it up well with his gymnastics reference. I can't think of a driving hole where I would say, "I'm going to aim down a particular side of the fairway because if I miss it on that side I will still have a decent recovery shot." Unless you get lucky and end up in a flat spot between bunkers, you are usually in a trap or on a sidehill in the rough if you miss the fairway.

[Matt Kardash]

I would bet that Dye's client was hoping at landing a big time tournament at French Lick and Dye was tired of his fairways constantly being narrowed for tournaments and the course not playing as designed. So Dye went ahead and designed a course that was already at PGA tour fairways widths so nothing would have to be changed except maybe grow the rough a little longer. I think I am on to something because Dye has always built generous fairways.

Whistling straits is a prime example of how his fairways got narrowed severely due to tournament golf being played there. I have ever seen interviews with Dye where he said he hates that they narrow his fairways and wishes they were kept wide. I think at french Lick he had enough and beat them to it. So he started with the premise of a narrow fairways golf course and tried to figure out how to make it manageable for everyone else. Maybe it is backwards thinking, but I think that was the logic. I think it was an experiment.

[Tom_Doak]

I know Pete Dye suggested that a lot of higher handicappers would be more comfortable hitting from the rough than the fairways, and that was part of why he made them as narrow as he did.

When I was building Riverdale Dunes for Mr. Dye, in 1984-85, I built a short par-4 hole [#10] that was somewhat based on the 10th at Riviera ... wide fairway, angled green, best angle if you played away from the green toward the outside of the dogleg.  When he came to look at it, Pete asked me why it was so wide on the left, and after I explained it, he said sure, that was ok, but the average guy would have an easier time hitting it out of the rough than the fairway so why make the fairway so wide?

I had a hard time reconciling the idea that anybody would play the hole by aiming for the rough.  Pete does not have that problem.  I remember him telling Tom Weiskopf on the 11th at the TPC that he should playing for position in the waste bunker next to the green as his best percentage play to make 4 there!  So, maybe French Lick is the place where he's finally implemented that idea in full.  I really ought to go see it, but none of the reviews I've seen so far have made it sound appealing at all.

[Nigel Islam]

How is Whistling Straits any better?  What is so wrong with paying for a Dye and getting a Dye?

For me Whistling Straits was a far superior golf course. Ive only played each once, but after I played Straits I had a pretty good idea of what I could do better. At Dye, Ive studied the course, and I am still clueless where I went wrong. I hit so many shots exactly like I wanted, only to wind up dead. I'm still not sure what is going on with the par five 14th.

JK do you prefer FL to Victoria?

[Matt Kardash]

I know Pete Dye suggested that a lot of higher handicappers would be more comfortable hitting from the rough than the fairways, and that was part of why he made them as narrow as he did.

When I was building Riverdale Dunes for Mr. Dye, in 1984-85, I built a short par-4 hole [#10] that was somewhat based on the 10th at Riviera ... wide fairway, angled green, best angle if you played away from the green toward the outside of the dogleg.  When he came to look at it, Pete asked me why it was so wide on the left, and after I explained it, he said sure, that was ok, but the average guy would have an easier time hitting it out of the rough than the fairway so why make the fairway so wide?

I had a hard time reconciling the idea that anybody would play the hole by aiming for the rough.  Pete does not have that problem.  I remember him telling Tom Weiskopf on the 11th at the TPC that he should playing for position in the waste bunker next to the green as his best percentage play to make 4 there!  So, maybe French Lick is the place where he's finally implemented that idea in full.  I really ought to go see it, but none of the reviews I've seen so far have made it sound appealing at all.

Ran seemed to enjoy it in his review.

[Keith Kirkendall]

I figured I'd bump this thread, as the Senior PGA Championship is being played there this week.  The views from the course look incredible, and the course is quite photogenic for TV.  Some of the green sites look impossible to recover from if you miss on the wrong side, and I could believe the "circus" comments above.

[Matt Kardash]

I haven't seen any of the coverage but I did see the average score was 77.8 during the first round!! And as far as I could tell from a couple highlights I saw the rough is not even long.

[JReese]

What purpose do the volcano bunkers serve?  After watching some of the telecast, if anything they look very much out of place to my untrained eye. 

Reading through Ran's write up of the course, the bunkers to the right of the fairway on the 2nd really stand out.  They look completely unnatural (in contrast to the rest of the course) and don't seem to be in play at all.....Ran stated that the one benefit is to hide the cart path. 

Also, is there a reason that it looks like a different type of sand is used in the volcano bunkers compared to the others?  Maybe I'm missing something since I have not been on site, but to me it really seems like they take away from an otherwise great course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()