News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2014, 08:57:46 PM »
Regarding the "original" vs. " seen elsewhere" impact, I suppose that may have some effect, simply given Pete Dye's prolific portfolio.  I imagine some raters may have seen enough Pete Dye courses that certain of the great holes here may not have stuck out as being a "wow" moment or memorable, but obviously that didn't effect GolfWeek, so it's difficult to generalize.  I've always wondered how much raters consider the different needs / perspectives  of a "one-time visitor" vs. a "multiple round member."  I'll have some comments along these lines as we get to specific holes.  

This echoes a thought that I had as I played the 13th hole back in May. Holes like 4 and 13 are rather common in the Dye portfolio, and a well-traveled golfer who has seen a lot of Dye courses may eventually get tired of them. I'm reasonably well-traveled, and I don't even sniff the 50th percentile of well-traveled golfers who post on GCA. Raters see tons of courses and will no doubt be inclined to dock points from courses that they consider to repeating tired tropes.

But when I think about the average player at a Dye course, I don't think he seeks out courses the way we do. Most of the people who play Pete Dye Golf Club aren't going to also play dozens of other Dye courses in their lifetime. Even if they do, they likely won't object to seeing the Dye template par 3s any more than people at Rolling Stones concerts object to hearing "Tumbling Dice" when they play it some 100 nights a year, even if connoisseurs like us will tend to gravitate toward performers like Tom Waits who play one show every five years and feature a setlist comprised only of unheard deep cuts.

Pete Dye=The Rolling Stones of golf course architecture.

I suspect we'll get to that discussion by the 4th and 13th holes.  But I suspect there's a difference between a "themed hole" that is enjoyable in many different iterations vs. a repeat of a mediocre template.  When we get to those holes, we can have more discussion whether people feel it's the former or latter.

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2014, 09:21:37 PM »
I will chime on on conditions.  First let me start by saying I am a member at PDGC so I am probably a little biased as to the overall quality of the course.  My biggest complaint, if any, would be the overall firmness of the course.  It is always maintained in top shape in term of the greens rolling true, but the course is generally not firm.  I cannot speak to this on a technical level, but almost every course I play in the region plays much softer than you would like or expect it to, unless it is completely burned out and almost unplayable.  The green speeds are very good but it is primarily a course played in the air.  

In recent years I noticed that they have started to let the grass on the outside edges of the rough grow up some to create a sort of heather type look.  It looks great but difficult to find a ball if you hit it in those areas.  I have always found the greens to be as true as any I have played but also very difficult to make putts.  You don't get many lip ins here.  The Pacific Links group appears to be investing in the facilities and I think it seems to be on fairly stable (as best as can be in this day and age) ground.

Charlie - thanks for the "long term" insight on conditioning.  There are several holes going forward where I'll be asking "is this ground shot a realistic option?" and your experience from watching multiple plays will be helpful. 

In a way, it reminds me a little of my experience with the Irish Course at Whistling Straits.  There were many times when I could see that Dye had included some cool run up feature or kickslope and it was completely negated by soft turf. And it's not that I mind a course that may skew a little more towards demanding an aerial approach - that's just a matter of taste.  I'm just curious if there are features that were intended but are not supported by the maintenance.

As for the new "heather look" - how much of a factor is it becoming in terms of playability?  Does it take a pretty severe miss for this to become an issue, or is it encroaching on the playing corridors for marginal misses?  My recollection of PDGC was that the course was very playable and lost balls weren't really much of a concern.  The "unplayable" areas was a recurring topic of discussion during the Ballyhack thread, so I'd be interested to hear your impressions of the changes and how much it enters your mind.

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2014, 10:01:58 PM »

Contrast that with the first hole at Pete Dye Golf Club which presents two main options from the tee: right and left. If you drive right at PDGC, you face a longer, visually obscured, and awkward approach to a green that actually is fairly receptive to shots from that angle. If you drive left, you get a shorter approach but still have to clear a fronting bunker and control your spin and yardage very precisely. The approach from the right is probably easier for some players thanks to its more forgiving angle, while the approach from the left might be easier for other players since it's shorter. There's no right answer and I suspect that members of the course likely prefer different approach angles depending on their own skillset. This isn't necessarily better or worse than the "universal strategy" of a hole like Ballyhack's 4th, but it does provide an interesting ambiguity that makes one of the central elements to Dye's best courses.

It's worth noting that playing down the right side is practically mandatory for a shorter hitter who won't be able to clear the valley of bunkers up the left and, in turn, the approach from that side allows the ball to run onto the green while the approach for a longer hitter who can get to the lower fairway on the left side will need to be lofted and spun with precision. That balance helps the course accommodate weaker hitters while still challenging stronger players.

Jason,

I'd suggest that there may be even more options than you'd suggest from the left side, depending on where the pin is placed.

Look at the picture from the lower left fairway:



From here, I can visualize a lower lofted shot (or even run-up shot) to a pin in the front right corner of the green, whereas a back left pin would definitely require a delicate aerial approach.  This would tie in to your discussion of Dye providing different strategies depending on your individual skill set (and enough width / angles to do so).  I agree that this is a strength of PDGC.

However, I'm not so sure I'd used Ballyhack's 4th as an example of "universal strategy."  When we discussed that hole, I actually concluded that I'd much rather be approaching from the left side of that fairway as it allows me to shoot away from the "death miss" (bunker left) and use the slope of the green as a backstop.  Also, the right side of the fairway tends to have lies above my feet, promoting a pull.  I'd actually suggest that BH #4 tends to provide multiple targets depending on your length, preferred shot shape, trajectory, etc - with the main key being that there is enough room to accommodate these various options (like at PDGC).  But I don't want to bring BH into this too much.

I'll keep your theme about "no right answer" in mind as we're going through the remainder of the holes for other examples.  As Charlie mentioned, we've already seen a variance in preferred angles from #1 alone.



Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2014, 10:56:26 PM »
#2.  The No 1 handicap hole, a 435 yard par 4. (mixing in a few images courtesy of Ron Montesano, as well)



I discovered how deceptive this tee shot was by accident.  I pushed my tee shot over the edge of the trees only to discover that it still caught the right edge of the fairway, and not in bad shape at all (~175 out).  I didn't comprehend how much fairway there was beyond the trees.

I get the sense that the trees (and even the far fairway bunker) try to trick you into aiming more left than you should, especially if you play a draw.  You really don't need to challenge the water as much as you may think. I suspect most golfers could aim even a little right of the bunker and still leave a reasonable approach.







I really enjoy the movement of the fairway towards the green.  I wonder if many people attempt a low running shot using the right-to-left slope of the fairway to shape a ball to this pin. 




The area short right of the green appears to provide a safe landing area if you don't have your best drive or if you are afraid to challenge the vast greenside bunker.  This option leaves a reasonable pitch/chip opportunity for any pin. 





Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2014, 11:36:57 PM »
I wonder why Dye made the green open up from the right rather than the left.  It appears that the approach from the right side is the easier shot.  Maybe the length of the hole is sufficient that one chooses between yardage and angle.

Also - how much do the trees right of the tee come into play?  Should they be cut down?

Greg Taylor

Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2014, 08:28:16 AM »
I like the look of this thread and the course, based on the first two holes anyway.

Both holes prompt the golfer of any skill to make a choice off the tee... Thus far - very good - to my untrained eye at least.

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2014, 09:47:25 AM »
Not a great time for the network in my building at school to crap out.  Sorry 'bout that so any pics linking to my servers aren't going to appear until it is fixed.

And of course my computer techies simply suggested to reboot my computers (plural!) to solve the issue.  Gahd I sometimes love IT people.

 ;)
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2014, 10:22:15 AM »
I wonder why Dye made the green open up from the right rather than the left.  It appears that the approach from the right side is the easier shot.  Maybe the length of the hole is sufficient that one chooses between yardage and angle.

Also - how much do the trees right of the tee come into play?  Should they be cut down?

I don't think the trees right are very much in play at all. The photo from the tee above is from the tips, which are elevated and should only be played by people who want to play from 7400 yards. The ideal line from there is probably toward the far bunkers, as Charlie mentions, and a pushed shot hit toward the trees doesn't have to be hit very high to clear them.

From more forward tees, the angle opens up pretty considerably. I played one tee up from the back when I visited last May, and they weren't in play at all from there.

To your first point, and the question of why the green opens from the right, it's another example of my earlier suggestion that Pete Dye GC isn't a course that has a clearly spelled out "Position A" on most holes. The key consideration off the tee is the angle of the fairway and shortening the approach as much as possible without yanking one into the hazard. If you muster the nerves to hug the hazard off the tee, your approach may be 20 or 30 yards shorter than a drive of the same length that's pushed slightly. I think that's plenty of reward without also gaining a wide open green front.

Furthermore, while the green's opening is angled slightly to the right, it's still a pretty difficult target to approach from the right side. The trees on the outside of the hole encroach a bit from the right side, and the bunker on the far side of the fairway from the tee is pushed up a bit to obscure the view on the approach. There's a bit of a swale in the green opening that will trap a weakly struck approach, and a slight push on an approach from the right side of the fairway risks getting hung on the hillside right of the green. A pull, of course, risks going into the creek.

From the left, you have a clearer view of the target (again, we see a hole where setting up the ideal visual for your approach is as much a challenge as simply setting up the most receptive angle). You're able to hit your approach slightly away from the creek and that hillside right is effectively out of play unless you significantly overclub. If you bail out just a little, you end up fairly safe with a pitch coming down the length of the green. It's not an easy up and down, but the likelihood of pulling one into the creek or pushing one onto the hillside is less from the left side, and those are the real disaster misses on this hole.

Personally, I'd rather approach from the left but it's pretty tough to play courageously enough from the tee to set up that shot. I tend to think the angling of the green opening to the right is more to help the higher handicapper have a fighting chance. The green isn't easy to hit and there's trouble surrounding it for the strong player. For a weaker player, laying up just short and right of the green gives an ample landing area and a pitch that, while tough to get close, is quite receptive to a simple bump and run. For the weaker player getting a stroke, pulling off that difficult up-and-down will likely win the hole. Even a pitch and a two-putt can make things interesting on a hole as tough as this one.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Josh Tarble

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2014, 10:58:08 AM »
Wow!  Thanks for this photo tour, looks like a great place to play and hopefully I'll get down there one day. 

It seems like the first two show exactly why I think Dye can play such head games with good players and still allow lesser players to enjoy the course.  What seems like the most aggressive lines off the tee do give rewards for a shorter approach, but yet the smart play may be taking the more conservative line.  Plenty of room for the high handicap, but the over-aggressive low handicap is going to struggle most of the day.

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2014, 11:36:44 AM »
Not a great time for the network in my building at school to crap out.  Sorry 'bout that so any pics linking to my servers aren't going to appear until it is fixed.

And of course my computer techies simply suggested to reboot my computers (plural!) to solve the issue.  Gahd I sometimes love IT people.

 ;)

Network back up.  Resume normal activities!
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2014, 11:39:05 AM »
Not a great time for the network in my building at school to crap out.  Sorry 'bout that so any pics linking to my servers aren't going to appear until it is fixed.

And of course my computer techies simply suggested to reboot my computers (plural!) to solve the issue.  Gahd I sometimes love IT people.

 ;)

Network back up.  Resume normal activities!

Thanks, Joe! 

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2014, 12:39:30 PM »
Great analysis on #2 so far from Jason & Charlie - I think my role going forward may just be to tee them up by posting the pictures and setting up the basics.  I'm basing my comments on one playing and a significant amount of post-game photo / yardage book analysis.  This course was worthy of the detailed discussion, so I'll gladly set things up and learn what I can from everyone's contributions.

I like the way this is going, particularly the general "bigger picture" themes that are developing, including:
A) Visual deception / uncertainty (psychological hazards)
B) Use of angled landing areas
C) Jason's discussion regarding less clear cut "Position A" options
D) The playability / bail outs afforded to higher handicappers without being too easy for low handicaps
E)  The interaction (and possible negation) of ground features with conditioning.


A few thoughts:

Regarding C, I always enjoy the subtle hazards provided by uneven lies.  As Charlie & Jason mentioned, the trade-off for your various options aren't limited to the normal considerations of approach distance and angle.  This is especially true on #2 when the worse miss is left, so lie can be a much bigger concern.  However, I like that Dye designed a "safe area" which allows for the overcompensation push that can occur from hanging lies.  It's a balance between the less-than-perfect players who are happy enough just to avoid a double, while still providing a stiff challenge to the birdie/par seeker.


I have never seen anyone use the slopes to the right to run the ball unto the green unless they hit a really poor shot with overspin.  I cannot see the current conditions accepting a well struck shot like that and releasing all the way to the green.

A poor shot?  Low ball with overspin is called "shotmaking."    ;)

I don't know if I'd try the shot, but it definitely jumps out to me as an option (at least visually).  I am curious whether Dye intended it (perhaps for the shorter hitter who may have a hybrid or 3 wood still in hand).  Consider the shorter hitting low handicap.  I could imagine one playing close to the left off the tee (to shorten the overall distance), but still not be long enough to pull off a fully aerial approach.  But if they had enough trajectory control, they could utilize this option to catch the right side of the green (if maintenance would allow).


A general question to others with significant Pete Dye experience.  Do you think he regularly provides alternate ground options to the green (intentionally) or is the shaping simply an aesthetic feature?  Have you seen shaping like this one on other courses that may be maintained firmer?

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2014, 02:51:23 PM »

A) Visual deception / uncertainty (psychological hazards)
B) Use of angled landing areas

I've written several times about Dye's use and understanding of the Line of Instinct / Line of Charm.  Rather than re-write them, I'll just quote myself  :)

In my opinion, the key is creating the doubt/indecision/temptation in the golfer's mind.  He knows the line he should play on, and yet the temptation (the Line of Instinct) beckons.  I think this concept is an important and powerful one, and a key part to the greatness of many holes.  Pete Dye, I don't know if instinctively or by study, is a master of the concept.

and

Behr sometimes described the Line of Instinct as the straight line to the hole, at least on straightaway holes.  On dogleg holes I am not sure if  Behr would describe the Line of Instinct similarly as a straight line to the hole, but to me, it is the line the golfer instinctually (duh) or naturally wants to hit his tee shot on.  But, this temptation is often not the ideal line.  I think Pete Dye in his early work was as good as anyone in forcing the golfer's instinct towards the inside of the dogleg, while the smart play and indeed the ideal line was a good deal away from this line.  This ideal line is the Line of Charm.

Creating this contrast in the golfer's mind, this forcing of thought and indecision, is the key to the Line of Instinct / Line of Charm


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=54311.0

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=55589.20

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53642.msg1251676.html#msg1251676

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54074.msg1245925.html#msg1245925

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #1 Up
« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2014, 05:23:14 PM »
I wonder why Dye made the green open up from the right rather than the left.  It appears that the approach from the right side is the easier shot.  Maybe the length of the hole is sufficient that one chooses between yardage and angle.

Also - how much do the trees right of the tee come into play?  Should they be cut down?

I don't think the trees right are very much in play at all.

I ended up in them twice in two plays. I think we played from regular men's tees, certainly not the tips.

This hole illustrates what I don't particularly care for in modern golf: a premium on distance control over other factors. This is not a factor for anyone who plays golf fairly regularly, but it is a giant factor for those who are more erratic, both in frequency of play and ability.

I sure hope this isn't Pete's best course. It's very nice, one of the better courses I've played, but that's not saying much, given my lack of experience. I'd choose a course like Mountain Ridge over PDGC 10-0 in 10 plays. I'm willing to admit that might change if I played regularly (one of my best friends is a member at MR and has played PDGC many times and insists my opinion would indeed change), but there simply isn't a good set of tees for me at PDGC, whereas almost any set of tees at Mountain Ridge is good for me.

It's fascinating to me that Pete Dye loves Pinehurst #2. I'd love to know why, and if he feels his courses reflect that love in any way.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2014, 06:33:26 PM »
George, you were in the trees next to the bridge just off the tee? Did you shank your drives?

Or are you talking about the trees right of the fairway that you get into if you push your tee shot through it?
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #40 on: December 03, 2014, 08:22:29 PM »
George,

i find it incredible that you can trash this hole. i am sure there aren't many people around who would say they don't like the 2nd hole at PDGC. It's one of the best uses of a river i know of! Congrats on bucking the trend! Hipster!  :P
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #41 on: December 03, 2014, 09:22:20 PM »

I've written several times about Dye's use and understanding of the Line of Instinct / Line of Charm.  Rather than re-write them, I'll just quote myself  :)

In my opinion, the key is creating the doubt/indecision/temptation in the golfer's mind.  He knows the line he should play on, and yet the temptation (the Line of Instinct) beckons.  I think this concept is an important and powerful one, and a key part to the greatness of many holes.  Pete Dye, I don't know if instinctively or by study, is a master of the concept.

and

Behr sometimes described the Line of Instinct as the straight line to the hole, at least on straightaway holes.  On dogleg holes I am not sure if  Behr would describe the Line of Instinct similarly as a straight line to the hole, but to me, it is the line the golfer instinctually (duh) or naturally wants to hit his tee shot on.  But, this temptation is often not the ideal line.  I think Pete Dye in his early work was as good as anyone in forcing the golfer's instinct towards the inside of the dogleg, while the smart play and indeed the ideal line was a good deal away from this line.  This ideal line is the Line of Charm.

Creating this contrast in the golfer's mind, this forcing of thought and indecision, is the key to the Line of Instinct / Line of Charm




Thanks for the thoughts, Mark.  Since you seem to be so quotable, I'll bring up another from you:


Top 10 Dye [that I've played]...

1. The Golf Club
2. Pete Dye Golf Club
3. The Honors Course
4. Casa de Campo - Teeth of the Dog
5. Kiawah Island - Ocean
6. Promontory
7. TPC Sawgrass
8. Whistling Straits - Straits
9. Old Marsh
10. Crooked Stick
11. Oak Tree National

Would you care to discuss which elements earned PDGC the Silver medal among such an elite field?  Since Dye seemed to apply the Line of Instinct among many of his designs, what else made PDGC stand out to you?  Was it the specific holes or more macro elements (e.g. routing, aesthetics, etc)?

My exposure to Dye is relatively limited, so your perspective is at a premium.  In particular, I wonder of you had any thoughts on some of the earlier comments regarding "original" design features vs. the potential "dilution" of their effect for someone who has played multiple Dye Courses.  What may have stood out more to you at PDGC?
 

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2014, 10:16:43 PM »

I ended up in them twice in two plays. I think we played from regular men's tees, certainly not the tips.

This hole illustrates what I don't particularly care for in modern golf: a premium on distance control over other factors. This is not a factor for anyone who plays golf fairly regularly, but it is a giant factor for those who are more erratic, both in frequency of play and ability.


....there simply isn't a good set of tees for me at PDGC, whereas almost any set of tees at Mountain Ridge is good for me.


Hey George - welcome to the discussion.

Just wanted to clarify your comment above about distance control.  Are you referring to distance control off the tee or in your approaches?  I wasn't sure if your comment was tied into your first statement about the trees from the tee or if you were concerned about the aerial demand on the approach.  I know from some of our past interactions about drop-shot par 3s (e.g. Tobacco Road #17), you've made similar comments about distance control, so just wanted to make sure what you meant.


Also, I wanted to understand what you meant about not being able to find a proper set of tees at PDGC.  Are you saying that moving up a deck was causing you to drive through landing zones or took driver out of your hands?  Or was there just too much trouble around the landing zones, regardless of the tee you selected?

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #3 Up
« Reply #43 on: December 03, 2014, 11:26:47 PM »
#3.  A shorter par 4.  I decided to start adding some aerials since the illustrations may skew a few angles or scale.





Again, note how narrow the fairway appears compared to the yardage book / aerial.  The entire right half of the fairway beyond the bunker is obscured.





A view from the right side.  With the pin is on the right, it's a fairly shallow target.  The slight rise in the front center of the green makes it appear even more frightening (reminds me of a similar effect at Whistling Straits' 12th).



And a shot from the left side.  This angle shows how sharp the drop-off is just short of the green. 



Looking back




These last two images give you an idea of how small the right shelf is.  But the tier doesn't appear so severe that you can't two putt from the center to the lower right pin.






**************************
I'm not really sure of the advantage (if any) of the right section of fairway.  It seems to me that the preferable angle is always from the left side.  However, I suppose it may give a brief glimmer of hope to someone who slices a little more than intended and still finds their ball on short grass (sure beats the same shot from rough).  Of course, that glimmer fades when they look at the approach demand (this may be one of the "distance control" concerns George mentioned earlier). 

I would understand this hole a little more if Dye actually showed the golfer the extra width of the fairway from the tee.  That may trick someone into aiming a little more right than they should.  But since it's generally obscured, I'm a little confused as to the intended effect on play.  At the same time, the Line of Instinct takes you that direction, so revealing the fairway may not even be necessary to get people to miss right of where they should be.

I'll hang up and listen.....

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #3 Up
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2014, 10:07:26 AM »
When you look at a yardage guide or an aerial shot, the tee shot at 3 doesn't make a ton of sense. If anything, a green best approached from the left seems like it should feature hazards or other risks along the left side of the fairway, thus guarding the ideal position. That's the essence of strategic golf, and Dye himself has been one of the most vocal advocates of the merits of such "switchback" holes that ask the player to move the shot in one direction off the tee and the opposite direction on the approach. On the surface, the bunker to the right seems to push the player away from the worst angle of approach.

However, standing on the tee, I find it to be the opposite. Take a look at the photo of the tee shot and try to put yourself in that position, holding a club, and presented with that visual. For a reasonably aggressive and reasonably strong player who can carry the ball 250 yards or so, everything about that tee shot points you to the right. The brilliant ridge in the left side of the fairway makes it look like you'll quickly run out of room if you play down the middle of the visible fairway, even though there's plenty of space to the left once you get past that ridge. The almost comically large bunker just begs a player to try to carry it, and for a strong player the carry is far from arduous. Note also that the bunker is directly on the line of charm, with the pin tantalizing the player in the distance. Dye is using the hazard and the terrain here to tempt the strong golfer into playing aggressively to set up a poorer angle of approach. It's a brilliant use of subtle terrain and the line of charm.

Now, for a weaker player, the carry over the bunker is clearly too far and the fairway beckons with plenty of room out to the left, where a very approachable angle to the green awaits. Again, Dye is giving the higher handicap a way around the course. Pete Dye GC can extract a few pounds of flesh from any golfer, but there's certainly an avenue for the weak player who manages his game well.

The green itself makes a discerning target with a strong Raynor/Langford influence, and no miss here is really a good one. For the player whose distance control on the short approach is imprecise, the challenge of a two-putt from the wrong section is an appropriate penalty.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2014, 02:23:12 PM by Jason Thurman »
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2014, 02:15:40 PM »
George, you were in the trees next to the bridge just off the tee? Did you shank your drives?

Or are you talking about the trees right of the fairway that you get into if you push your tee shot through it?

That's my fault, Jason, I misread your post. It was the trees on the right of the fairway, not the trees right of the tee just off of the bridge.

matt kardash -

You may want to re-read my initial post. I did not trash this hole, I mentioned what I did not like and why I favored courses like Mountain Ridge. I specifically stated that PDGC is a nice course. I had an absolutely wonderful time there and would play there again in a heartbeat, given the opportunity. I just don't think it's as special as virtually everyone else on this thread seems to think it is.

If that qualifies as trashing in your book, well, best of luck to you in surviving the rest of my contributions, on this thread and any others.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2014, 02:27:14 PM »

I ended up in them twice in two plays. I think we played from regular men's tees, certainly not the tips.

This hole illustrates what I don't particularly care for in modern golf: a premium on distance control over other factors. This is not a factor for anyone who plays golf fairly regularly, but it is a giant factor for those who are more erratic, both in frequency of play and ability.


....there simply isn't a good set of tees for me at PDGC, whereas almost any set of tees at Mountain Ridge is good for me.


Hey George - welcome to the discussion.

Just wanted to clarify your comment above about distance control.  Are you referring to distance control off the tee or in your approaches?  I wasn't sure if your comment was tied into your first statement about the trees from the tee or if you were concerned about the aerial demand on the approach.  I know from some of our past interactions about drop-shot par 3s (e.g. Tobacco Road #17), you've made similar comments about distance control, so just wanted to make sure what you meant.


Also, I wanted to understand what you meant about not being able to find a proper set of tees at PDGC.  Are you saying that moving up a deck was causing you to drive through landing zones or took driver out of your hands?  Or was there just too much trouble around the landing zones, regardless of the tee you selected?


In this particular instance, I am referring to distance control off the tee. But I find an overemphasis on distance control throughout the course, and throughout most modern courses, Tobacco Road being a wonderful example.

Ironically enough, distance control is one of the better aspects of my game, at least with regard to approach shots, not tee shots. The problem I have - and I believe many high handicappers (which I'd read as casual golfers) have - is my misses tend to have a much much wider range of results than someone who plays better (and more importantly, I believe, more often). This is admittedly a big pet peeve of mine - I'd like to see courses where someone who plays casually, occasionally, isn't penalized to the degree that exists on many modern courses, imho. These penalties tend to lean toward figuring out drop areas, rather than allowing someone to find a ball and play it, even if the shot is rather difficult.

In regard to the tee question, in my limited experience with Pete Dye - and my greater experience with other modern courses - the choice seems to be, if I don't want to lose a bunch of balls and spend the day figuring out where I crossed into a hazard and where I am supposed to drop, I need to play the forward most tees and spend the day hitting 7 irons off the tee. Conversely, I can play MR at the absolute maximum yardage and I probably won't lose many - if any - more balls than I'd lose if I played from the forward most set of tees. Call me crazy (apparently matt kardash thinks I am...), but I believe that means a hat tip toward Donald Ross's approach, and not so much to Pete's.

And I'm well aware I seem to be the only poster on the site who doesn't love Pete's designs. Oh well, somehow I will sleep tonight...

I'll take the 3rd hole over the 2nd each and every day of the week, even if someone threw in a back tee that stretched it out.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #3 Up
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2014, 03:22:59 PM »
Kevin,

Thanks for the tour. As someone not usually drawn to Dye but nonetheless ultimately hugely respectful towards what he has done and how he thinks, I'm finding this fascinating.

Might the right portion of fairway on #3 be an intentional folly? In other words, might it not be there simply to get the golfer thinking that there might be some benefit to flying the bunker when, in reality, there never is?
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #2 Up
« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2014, 09:54:18 PM »

In this particular instance, I am referring to distance control off the tee. But I find an overemphasis on distance control throughout the course, and throughout most modern courses, Tobacco Road being a wonderful example.

Ironically enough, distance control is one of the better aspects of my game, at least with regard to approach shots, not tee shots. The problem I have - and I believe many high handicappers (which I'd read as casual golfers) have - is my misses tend to have a much much wider range of results than someone who plays better (and more importantly, I believe, more often). This is admittedly a big pet peeve of mine - I'd like to see courses where someone who plays casually, occasionally, isn't penalized to the degree that exists on many modern courses, imho. These penalties tend to lean toward figuring out drop areas, rather than allowing someone to find a ball and play it, even if the shot is rather difficult.

In regard to the tee question, in my limited experience with Pete Dye - and my greater experience with other modern courses - the choice seems to be, if I don't want to lose a bunch of balls and spend the day figuring out where I crossed into a hazard and where I am supposed to drop, I need to play the forward most tees and spend the day hitting 7 irons off the tee. Conversely, I can play MR at the absolute maximum yardage and I probably won't lose many - if any - more balls than I'd lose if I played from the forward most set of tees. Call me crazy (apparently matt kardash thinks I am...), but I believe that means a hat tip toward Donald Ross's approach, and not so much to Pete's.

And I'm well aware I seem to be the only poster on the site who doesn't love Pete's designs. Oh well, somehow I will sleep tonight...

I'll take the 3rd hole over the 2nd each and every day of the week, even if someone threw in a back tee that stretched it out.

I get the sense that you're commingling two separate issues.  One is the placement of hazards (placing the emphasis on distance control) and the other is the severity of those hazards when you don't succeed. 

Like you, I'm not a fan of absolute hazards which require a penalty stroke or re-teeing (water, OB, unplayable rough).  I have echoed your sentiment many times - let me find it and at least try something.  But I think that's a wholly separate issue vs placement, and it isn't really delineated by classical vs modern, either.  You could have knee high grass or water lining the sides of a straight hole (which emphasizes direction control) or on the far side / inside of an angled landing area (emphasizing distance control).  You can have a ball-eating classic (like Prairie Dunes) and a very playable modern (World Woods, Old Mac - the list can go on). 

The tolerance level will obviously vary for each person, and also depend on their particular skills.  If you're an iron "picker" and good from fairway sand, you'd still think Tobacco Road was extremely playable.  But I could understand that someone without that shot would find TR unbearable.  I'm fairly wild off the tee, but I didn't find Pete Dye to be a ball-eater of a course (with the few reservoir holes being the exception).

I don't know anything about Mountain Ridge, but looking at a few pics a few minutes ago, it looks like you have very wide playing corridors and would need to work very hard to lose a ball (which I enjoy), so I understand where you're coming from in a comparative sense.

But I don't think people here are drawn to Pete Dye's courses for the punishing aspects.  I think most enjoy the use of angled landing areas and visual deception, which adds layers of complexity to decision making process. 

Anyway, I'm sure we'll all be able to sleep at night allowing differences of opinions.  :)  I hope you keep the different perspectives coming just so others can view these holes through a different prism.

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Hole #3 Up
« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2014, 10:09:36 PM »
Kevin,

Thanks for the tour. As someone not usually drawn to Dye but nonetheless ultimately hugely respectful towards what he has done and how he thinks, I'm finding this fascinating.

Might the right portion of fairway on #3 be an intentional folly? In other words, might it not be there simply to get the golfer thinking that there might be some benefit to flying the bunker when, in reality, there never is?

Glad you're enjoying it so far.  The one thing I've found is that it's hard to assess Dye as a whole.  While there are definitely aesthetic features that remain similar, his creativity and adaptability to various terrains is fascinating.  Whether it be the swamps of Sawgrass or Harbour Town, the rivers and valleys of Blackwolf Run, a flat Army airbase at Whistling Straits, or abandoned, coal mined land at PDGC, Dye  finds a way to distinguish himself.

As for the intentional folly of the right fairway, I think Jason analyzed it pretty well.  I suspected the folly may be the case, even though you can't really see it from the tee.  However, as Jason pointed out, the rise of the land also tricks you into thinking you may run out of fairway on the left side, which is an ideal angle.  Combined with the Line of Instinct tempting you towards the green, it probably gets more play than would be ideal (even with the few situations noted by Charlie where it could be used).