Pete Dye Golf Club - Hole-by-Hole Analysis / Photo Tour - Final Thoughts?

[Paul Carey]

As I recall the tight side of the fairway is a little flatter making a shot from there, although a short one, a bit easier.  Flatter lie but the angle is tougher but I always preferred the shot from the right side.  Regardless this is a nasty little green.  It is hard to hit, hard to get a miss up and down and a difficult two putt if coming over the ridge from the left side to a right hole location.

[Kevin Lynch]

As I recall the tight side of the fairway is a little flatter making a shot from there, although a short one, a bit easier.  Flatter lie but the angle is tougher but I always preferred the shot from the right side.  Regardless this is a nasty little green.  It is hard to hit, hard to get a miss up and down and a difficult two putt if coming over the ridge from the left side to a right hole location.

That's why I like these threads - it demonstrates how much preferences vary among golfers.  My distance control is not great among my higher lofted wedges (lots of heavy missed), so the right side looks much more frightening to me.  I like hitting the 3/4, lower trajectory wedge which reduces my risk of the heavy miss, so the approach from the left speaks to me.

[Kevin Lynch]

#4.  A very long par 3 with water.





A few views of the easier short right pin....





....and the more frightening back left position.  Again, notice how the slightest rise in the rock wall makes the back left section look smaller and more frightening.  You don't get any sense that there is a very large bail-out area to the back and left of the green.  Below, you'll better understand why it's not visible from the tee.



 
A view of the area long and left of the green - it drops off more than I ever anticipated. If you overclub to avoid the water, it's no easy up & down. 

 



These few pics give you an idea of the green contours and the angles you'll face if you bail right.





****************************
I'd have to admit that this was probably my least favorite hole on the front nine, as penal, water-lined par 3s are generally not my cup of tea (but at least the water is on the left, compared to the slice drowning pond on Blackwolf Run River's 4th hole).

However, as far as these holes go, there are a few things I appreciate.

- There is sufficient area to lay up short right beyond the fairway bunker.  This will leave some fun chips to watch rolling along the green swales.

- Again, the visual deception and hiding of your "safety net" area long & left.  From the tee, the back left area appears fairly shallow, so you may feel the need to dial into a precise number, whereas you should feel confident taking that extra 1/2 club to avoid the water.

A few items for discussion:

- Any thoughts on the purpose of the "fairway" bunker?  Distance deception for the front right pins?  Top shot bunker?

- Thoughts on the heavier rough surrounding the back center greenside bunker?  Is it intrusive considering the length of the required shot? Or does this area get little play?  Would this be more fun caroming recovery shots of short grass on this hillside?

- Thoughts regarding the collection area long/left.  From the photo above, the heavy dew did not really lend itself to a putter recovery option from this area, although that is a shot I love to play.  Is this area normally maintained to allow that option?  Or is this an area that normally stays wet?

[Greg Taylor]

Net that bunker has a negative impact...

I can't really see a depth/perception benefit and cost of maintaining and putting it puts it into negative territory... each hole up to here had some merit or interest over the norm... this hole, mewh... 200 yards over water... it doesn't need anything.

I'll wait for you on the next tee - I'm picking up.

[Kevin Lynch]

Charlie -

I had the same thoughts about the par 3s.  Individually, not bad, but they don't stack up to the rest of the course in terms of interest (although 7 is pretty cool).  If there was one weakness to me for PDGC, it's the lack of variety in the Par 3s, especially compared to the 5s and 4s.  On Par 5s, there't the very reachable 8th, the "not unless you're Bubba" 11th and a few in between.  On the 4s, you have several in the 460+ range, but also five < 400 yards.  The Par 3s (from the tips) are 227,198,196,246 (203,173,184,223 from the 2nd set).  I'd like to think there could have been a shortie mixed in to replace one of the two beasts (e.g. 160 from the tips). However, as my friend Ron pointed out, for casual players, nothing is stopping us from mixing up the decks and playing #7 as a short drop shot hole.

It's certainly not a debilitating weakness, but when you're making fine distinctions and picking nits to separate the upper echelon courses (which PDGC is among IMO), it sticks out.

Back to #4 - I thought the bunker was more for the right pins, since we subconsciously think "bunker on a par 3 must be greenside" so we may come up short.  Probably not an issue after 1 or 2 plays.  

As for the high grass, my sense is that if it is a penalty for not committing to an aggressive line, that may be a bit more than necessary.  It's already a downhill chip towards water from that area as it is, so a few inches of rough would seem more commensurate for a well- compressed, slight push.  But I didn't really look at the recoveries / proximity too closely when I was there, so it would be hard for me to assess for sure.

I suppose if I can accept a 1/2 par hole on par 4, I can accept one on a par 3 occasionally.  Do you suspect this hole was the owner's vision to challenge tour players?  

[Josh Tarble]

Kevin and Charlie,

Thanks for all your thoughts and efforts putting this together.  I am a big fan of Pete Dye so this tour and course is very interesting to me.  I've always thought that his weakness as a designer was the fact that his par 3s have always been very similar and almost formulaic.  I've always wondered why he has such an affinity for designing such similar holes at many of his courses.

[Jason Thurman]

I know this Dye "template" par 3 isn't very popular around here on account of its being too penal and too stale. I'll defend it on those two fronts though. The staleness is inevitable considering Dye's proclivity for building the hole and his tremendous success as an architect. Every Dye course I've played has some version of this same hole, and I have grown as tired of it as anyone. But when I think back to my first encounter with one of these Pete Dye long-par-3-with-water-encroaching-on-the-green-diagonally-from-the-front holes, I go back to undergrad in Lexington and playing Kearney Hill for the first time and I remember a hole that had all kinds of options and that filled me with suspense and nervous excitement on the tee. I can't hold Pete Dye's success in being able to build this hole at hundreds of courses against him, and if I'm going to judge him for lack of originality, I have to do the same to a guy like Seth Raynor. If Raynor had built hundreds of public courses, would we all be sick of Biarritz and Redan holes now too?

Which leads to the "too penal" criticism, as I find it completely misplaced. Very rarely do I play a par 3 where the strategy from the tee could reasonably be anything other than "hit the green." Rarely, I'll play a very good Redan hole that offers 2 or 3 strategies of play. 17 at Beverly allows a couple of options, and I could probably come up with five or six other examples of strategically compelling one-shotters. The bulk of par 3s, though, simply demand that you hit a target.

This Dye "template," though, allows for at least some strategic thinking on account of the fact that it doesn't require a forced carry. A player can bail out away from the water, and while he's not promised an easy up-and-down, he can at least avoid penalty strokes by playing a low-risk, low-reward game with a layup to the right off the tee. Meanwhile, the bold player who takes on a back pin aggressively has disaster in play if he doesn't pull the shot off - the runoff long, the water short, and the heavy rough and bunkers behind the green make for a pretty big mess if you get too aggressive on this hole.

I don't love the hole, nor do I love the template in general. I'm admittedly playing Devil's Advocate a bit here, but I do think it has playing merits, and I think the penal element of holes like this often gets overstated. A hole like this provides plenty of challenge to strong players while offering alternative avenues to weaker players, and it deserves credit for doing so as a par 3. Most one-shotters can't say the same.

That being said, the bunker fronting the fairway seems like overkill.

[Greg Taylor]

^ nothing wrong with penal so long as the balance is right IMHO...!

[George Pazin]

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. 

Yep, you are dead on with this statement. I don't mind facing a difficult shot if the prior shot was errant, I just really don't like death penalty hazards. I don't like determining where balls crossed hazards, drop areas, etc.

-----

Re: the 4th, I'm ok with it, think it's a decent par 3. I don't mind more exacting requirements on a par 3, where you are teeing up an iron shot.

[Kevin Lynch]

Jason -

Good thoughts, and I'll have to admit that I discovered more about this hole while preparing my pics and intro than I initially gave it credit for.  Like you said, this one has more going for it than your typical "watery par 3" (like the 4th at BR River), and does provide options.

I don't necessarily think any less of template holes just because they've been done before.  It's not really a negative, but they can struggle to keep up with the inherent positive vibes and memorability of a truly unique hole.  

Regarding templates, I think certain types lend themselves better to repeat viewings and / or variations.  A Redan or Biarritz has more staying power, IMO, because the dominant feature is something many of us like (e.g. watching a ball navigate the contours).  On the other hand, the dominant feature of a "watery par 3" template is the water (the penalty) - even though there may be other cool features going on, as well as the potential thrill of pulling it off.   Also, a landform template (e.g. Biarritz or Redan) tends to have more topographical interest and variety for me, whereas the flat nature of water tends to take away some of that.  

None of this is saying either is right or wrong or that this is a bad design.  It speaks to my head, but not as much to my heart.


Now that you have me thinking about it, this hole reiterates how much the nature of a hazard influences my perception.  If this water were replaced by nothing but sandy waste area (ala Tobacco Road), I'd probably enjoy it more (and might have noticed the other features more).  Looking at Ballyhack, I doubt I'd have the same affinity for #17 if it were played over a pond instead of the current gorge.

[Kevin Lynch]

The pond does have it merits.  I really enjoy feeding the fish from the 5th tee.  It helps me relax and get back to reality after my double bogey on the 4th.

Love it!!  Somewhere, there's an Eastern Mystic smiling about your positive attitude and going with the flow of the world.

(Plus, it's really only a One-and-a-Half Bogey).

[Ronald Montesano]

The 4th hole is the first at PDGC that I would need to play with a bucket of balls, from all the tees, to gain in understanding.

#1 I loved, never considered going left, but would do so from an up tee.

#2 I loved even more. I think I even played it well.

#3 I butchered, I recall, but it now makes sense.

#4 is nearly a lazy hole. I suspect that they built that pond for irrigation purposes and that the architect took an opportunity to get from the third green to the 5th tee. I think #5 is a terrific par five, so the question became how to get over to it. In my mind, this is the type of hole that keeps a course from raising itself in estimation.

It's weak because is it so penal. I think that the location of the third green handcuffed Dye, as he could not do much else with the tees beyond plant them adjacent to the water and force everyone to carry it. A shot into the woeful, first bunker leaves the dreaded long bunker shot, probably guaranteeing a skull or a chunk, leading to a 6 or worse. A shot into the second (side) or third (back) bunkers leave not much other hope for recovery. No one I know plays intentionally long on a hole, so the area beyond the green, especially playing back toward the water, is of no assistance. Therein lies the problem: the majority of second shots played from off the green need to reconsider the pond, which makes a hole too penal.

It should play no longer than 190 and the tees should be shifted to the right, to play over more land. They can't be moved, though, as green #3 is there.

[Jason Thurman]

I think that the location of the third green handcuffed Dye, as he could not do much else with the tees beyond plant them adjacent to the water and force everyone to carry it. A shot into the woeful, first bunker leaves the dreaded long bunker shot, probably guaranteeing a skull or a chunk, leading to a 6 or worse.

I would wager that you have this backwards. Dye builds a hole like the 4th on practically every course. I would bet that the location of the third green is more driven by the location of the fourth tee than vice versa, and it's hard to imagine that Dye would ever have considered moving the tees off the water if he could help it. It may or may not be a better hole if he did, but it just doesn't seem very "Dye" to have the tee in any location other than its current one.

Also, there's no forced carry over the water at 4. In fact, one could hit the right side of the green without their ball ever passing directly over the water at any point during its journey. And while I don't see the purpose of the first bunker either, I also don't think anyone who's bad enough to hit a shot into it was likely to make better than a 6 in the first place. It seems more useless than anything, and I doubt it sees much action.

Does anyone know the history of the lake itself? Was it built for irrigation? Was it created during the site's mining days?

Also, I understand there were several holes on the course that originally had black cinders instead of sand in the bunkers. Which holes were they, and when did they go to normal sand throughout?

[Ronald Montesano]

There is a turf farm green between four green and Whiteside Creek. I'd prefer to see the green there than where it is.

The architect might have moved the 3rd green toward Whiteside Creek, beyond the right-side fairway bump out, creating a more extreme, rightward dogleg. He might have put it up on the hillside left, adjacent to the 8th tee. There is a lot of room in that corridor, but the current location serves as a handcuff to the 4th tee.

For a guy who traveled the British Isles and knew the old courses and their strategy, the 4th with no kick plate and plenty of penal, strikes me as lazy, Golden Tee hole.

[Kevin Lynch]

#5.  We've finally come to our first Par 5.  Reachability depends on your tees: 580 / 525 / 508 / 489 / 435








Tee shot zoomed in a little:



The time for your decision. The Sirens song radiates from the (appropriately) rocky-lined green to the right.




A few looks from the lay-up area:





The collection area left of the green will get plenty of action as the gamblers may hedge their bets a little.  But even for the safe players, the left half of the green will repel any timid approaches.  Imagine this bunker shot - be bold enough to carry the false front (from this angle) but don't forget about the watery grave beyond.



Looking back:


******************************

I'll hold back on the detailed on this one since there was some construction being done on the green the day I played and I did not play it anything like the intended design.  I'm sure Jason, Charlie and others will cover it quite well.

The one thing I did notice is the same thing as any Pete Dye par 5 I've played.  There are no freebies on the second shot.  You always have to have a plan which is dictated by the angled landing areas.  I rarely see a situation where you can be 280-300 out and simply say, "well, I'll just hit it somewhere towards the green and see how close I can get."  The decision-making required on Par 5s was always an element of Dye's designs that stuck out to me, even in my early GCA appreciation days.

[Paul Gray]

The 5th interests me greatly. Seemingly thoroughly modern and yet the 3rd at Camberley Heath by a certain Mr Colt is more than just a little bit similar, conceptually I mean. Interesting stuff.

[Matthew Sander]

Kevin,

Good points about Dye par 5s. I have not played PDGC, but from these photos I recognize playing characteristics from others I have played. I assume from the typical tees (non tips) it is very tempting to have a go at the green. That decision is muddled even more by the green sitting there in full view while the lay up is blind, but I assume it is a much easier shot. Again he creates the illusion of possibility for the bold shot while blurring the conservative route.

[Eric Hammerbacher]

#5 reminds me of #15 at Bulle Rock, which always gives me trouble on the layup.  You're right about having to really think about your second shot on his par 5's, however it seems like the greens are often elevated and therefore the landing areas tend to lower-lying and overwatered.  Is this the case here?  I hate not being able to run up a second or third shot and being forced to hit a wedge from a soggy lie.

[Kevin Lynch]

The 5th interests me greatly. Seemingly thoroughly modern and yet the 3rd at Camberley Heath by a certain Mr Colt is more than just a little bit similar, conceptually I mean. Interesting stuff.

Given his early travels to Europe and overall experience / longevity, it wouldn't surprise me to see classic influence in his work. 

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin,

Good points about Dye par 5s. I have not played PDGC, but from these photos I recognize playing characteristics from others I have played. I assume from the typical tees (non tips) it is very tempting to have a go at the green. That decision is muddled even more by the green sitting there in full view while the lay up is blind, but I assume it is a much easier shot. Again he creates the illusion of possibility for the bold shot while blurring the conservative route.

You described it very well.  As Mark Saltzman and others have pointed out, Dye is a master using the Line of Instinct to seduce you into overly aggressive lines.  The last time I played a series of Dye courses, I hadn't really learned about the Line of Instinct / Line of Charm, so I wasn't cognitively aware of the influence (but probably was affected by it instinctively).  Reflecting back on his courses, especially in a photo tour like this, it is very clear.

Even on this one, he shows you the rocky wall, yet you're still drawn to it.  As you accurately noted, that's a result of anxiety over unseen in the safe area.

[Kevin Lynch]

#5 reminds me of #15 at Bulle Rock, which always gives me trouble on the layup.  You're right about having to really think about your second shot on his par 5's, however it seems like the greens are often elevated and therefore the landing areas tend to lower-lying and overwatered.  Is this the case here?  I hate not being able to run up a second or third shot and being forced to hit a wedge from a soggy lie.

On this one, I didn't get the sense that the landing area for the 2nd or 3rd would be soggy (since it's really the tee shot landing area that's lower-lying).  As Charlie pointed out, it's really the significant fall-off from left center and false front that push the aerial approach (not so much maintenance).  I didn't get to see the hole very well from my day, but looking at the photos, I'm thinking a run-up shot would work if you were able to get very far left in the lay up zone.

(PS That's actually the second comparison to Bulle Rock that I've heard re: PDGC.  On a separate thread, someone pointed out the similarity between Bulle Rock's 18th and the 18th at PDGC.)  

[Kevin Lynch]

No. 5 is a great and for me a truly unique hole.  I was trying to think of another par five like it, but was having trouble coming up with one.  I have not played Pebble Beach (yet) but I wonder if No. 6 at Pebble has similar playing characteristics.  

The approach to the green for me is an intimidating wedge shot.  The fall-off on the left middle front of the green comes into play on almost every pin position on the green, even if the pin is in the back because going right of or over the green is pretty much a lost ball.   I have also had it impact my putting on the green on occasion and have hit a putt that got to close to it and then went off the green.  My gut tells me this is one of those things that messes with your head the more times you play the hole.  In one or two plays you would see the feature and maybe or maybe not be affected by it.  It's almost like if you are too familiar with where the trouble is on a hole it is more difficult than if you are blind to it.

I agree that this is a wonderful hole.  This is one that would never get old, even after multiple plays (one of the benefits of blindness built into designs).  I haven't been to Pebble Beach, but I think the second shot is completely blind in that case, whereas you are seduced by the view of the green on this hole.

Given the difficulty of holding this green, even with a wedge, I wonder how much success people have finding the putting surface in two.  I could see many finding the surface for a few seconds, but ending up in the left collection area.  

Finally, I was curious if you ever see really big hitters challenge the left fairway bunkers and get a clear view of the green from that landing area.  Perhaps if they used the 2nd deck during the Nationwide Event or in Scramble events from the Dye tees?

[Kevin Lynch]

#6.  A very short par 4.



From the aerial, the yardage guide understates how much the creek encroaches on the green opening.  The circled area is one I'm very interested in.  How this area is maintained in terms of softness or rough length would change this hole significantly.



I didn't have a draw in my repertoire during my last visit.  Back then, the right side was a backstop only.  Now, I'm envisioning a hard draw propelling off the right slope (execution is another issue).



Tee shot zoomed in a little more.  The last curve in the creek short of the green makes its presence known.



A view from the fairway left...



... and right.  Can I bank a 7 iron from here off the right mound?  Maintenance would be a huge consideration here.


Just short and left.  You can see the steps directly up to the 7th tee or you can use the mine shaft route underneath.




A look back from the left rear of the green shows the kickslope route to the putting surface.  How much does the rough maintenance on this hillside vary?  There are so many neat ground options in this picture - I hope the maintenance supports them.



A final look back.  This picture undersells the delineation of the front right plateau.



**************************
One of my favorites on the course, the drive seems so non-threatening and inviting, with so much potential danger near the green.

As has been the theme, a higher handicap should be able to negotiate this hole fairly safely with ample room off the tee, and even a bank that can be used to keep from flirting with the creek on the approach.  However, the aggressive player can get in trouble if not precise enough.

Since Dye always has some sort of deception, what is it in this hole?  Is it the last curve in the creek that sweeps toward the green?  Or is it the entire right side of the hole?  The right side seems to say, "I'll keep you in play - swing away!!"  But, if you get loose and end up with a push or overslice, the hanging lie from the rough, combined with the tight hazard just off the left of the green, may lead to some unexpected doubles on a very short hole.

The small plateau in the front right quadrant is a neat green feature, demanding a bit more precision in exchange for the very short hole.

But this hole is one that goes back to something I noted on the 2nd hole.  There appear to be some very cool ground features built in around the course, and the last bit of mounding near the green is one that piques my interest.  This could be used as a path towards the green from the tee, a kickslope for a running shot from the right side of the fairway, or even an alternate way of reaching the green from the left FW to avoid a delicate carry over the creek.  I'm curious if the heavier rough starts sliding down the mound at times to avoid such usage.  Or if the areas just before or after the mounding accumulate so much water to negate the roll-out plans. 
 

[Matt Kardash]

I always thought this hole would not be out of place at The Golf Club.

[Ronald Montesano]

I always thought this hole would not be out of place at The Golf Club.

I know it's a hard "get," but it becomes more apparent with each Dye reference and thread that a trip 'round The Golf Club in Ohio is essential for an understanding of the architect's work. I would suspect that one whose Dye journey began serendipitously with this course would be at great advantage.