How was Pete Dye ever successful as an architect?

[John Kavanaugh]

Not all that many years ago before I knew who was who I recall saying out loud that I just didn't like Pete Dye courses. The ones I like now are not so much the course as it is memories or people who I associate with each visit. I as so many others do tend to appreciate what we are told is great or what we see influencers play but his longevity is clearly beyond that. Why?


With all due respect I believe Pete must have asked himself the same question a thousand times.

[Tom_Doak]

With all due respect I believe Pete must have asked himself the same question a thousand times.

I really doubt that.  I've not known another architect who worried less about what people thought of him or his work.  It only mattered what he and Alice thought of it.

[John Kavanaugh]

How can you get in a players mind without caring what they think?

[Ian Andrew]

How can you get in a players mind without caring what they think?

He didn't care what the "critics" think.
There are architects who will change their design philosophy to be on the side of critical opinion.


He understood the psychology of the "player" - what they thought about when they played.
Partially because he was also an accomplished player himself.

[SL_Solow]

Barney, I didn't know Mr. Dye although I admired much of his work.  There is a difference between calculating what an individual is thinking about when he/she is interacting with your work and caring about what they think about you or whether they value/appreciate the work.

[archie_struthers]

 




My one short personal meeting was as a caddie at Pine Valley, and I've postulated on his infatuation with the almost unknown bunker system left of the 6th fairway. He jumped around in there like a duck splashing around in a pond.  It was a seminal memory in my architectural evolution. Wish I had spent more time exploring in my youth.


Tom already said it and I suspected he was totally ok with his decisions on design. Not looking for praise or approval from the cognoscenti. He just knew his stuff was good!  In that small window of time I spent with him and from reading about his career it seems so obvious.

[John Kavanaugh]

Just because Dye built what he thought was good doesn't make it so. I eventually grew to respect his courses because I'm from Indiana and he was one of our very few heroes. What I don't understand is how that was enough for him to get hired time and time again to build courses that no one really loves to play. It almost leads me to believe that this explains the success of many of his students. You get the core of the Dye philosophy without the God awful execution.

[archie_struthers]

 


John, lots of great careers have been built on the emperor has no clothes mentality. Sometimes just believing is enough to lead the masses to slaughter. Not saying this about Dye in particular just part of human nature.

[Ted Sturges]

JK, 


I'm confused here...are you describing the work of Pete Dye or Tom Fazio?


TS

[John Kavanaugh]

No doubt that it takes a less talented architect to improve a Dye course when compared to improving a Fazio.

[Peter Pallotta]

I know nothing but what I read in the papers, but it does seem to me a great question.
How do I know that? 'Cause it's gotten barely any responses, and most of those totally dismissive. (If it was a silly question or a banal one or one with an obvious 'answer' it would've had a hundred responses by now).
All I know, and I do mean *all*, is that I've read here about a dozen architects (past and present) whose golf courses people absolutely *love* and love to *play*. Granted, not every single one by any given great architect, but at least one or two (and often many more) from every single one of those greats. But I can't honestly remember reading about a single PD course that folks actually love and love to play, and/or at least love to play *more* than any other course by any other great architect. And I can't remember either ever reading that any of PD's courses were among any poster's "Top Five" all time favourites.
To repeat: I really don't know anything. But I do think there's something to JK's question.
 

[JESII]

No doubt that it takes a less talented architect to improve a Dye course when compared to improving a Fazio.

This is classic Kavanaugh.


With this line you can go either direction...if you're thinking a course could use a tweak to improve it, would you rather it already has a distinct character already so you can stay on point? Or would you rather it lack any distinguishing personality to build off of?

[jeffwarne]

John, lots of great careers have been built on the emperor has no clothes mentality. Sometimes just believing is enough to lead the masses to slaughter. Not saying this about Dye in particular just part of human nature.

Having the USGA walk around naked in their shiny new threads certainly didn't hurt a few tailors...

[Kalen Braley]

I think Peter makes an interesting point. 

I've only played one Pete course which I've been told isn't very representative as its a mountain course.  But when I think of his famous courses only one makes my bucket list, Teeth of the Dog. (Although I wouldn't mind taking a crack at Sawgrass,  but only because of the history and iconic moments.)

But then again, at the risk of getting booted from GCA for heresy, I can't think of any Donald Ross courses that make my bucket list, and that includes Pinehurst #2.  Hopefully i'm just forgetting some of his other work..

On the flip side, Tobacco Road is easily in my top 5 bucket list along with a couple others.

Edit:  Based on Tom's following post, I forgot about TOC at Kiawa, so that's 2.   

[Tom_Doak]

I will take a crack at John's initial question.


Pete Dye was successful as an architect because his courses attracted attention, and in the end, that's what clients want most of all.  It's one thing to pay for advertising, but another thing entirely to have a baseline of credibility without advertising.


The other thing that attracted clients to him was that he was so engaged in the process -- being out there building their courses, instead of mailing it in.  That gave the clients a level of comfort.




So why didn't that produce more courses that John or Kalen want to play?  I'd guess it's because after the first few courses that made him famous -- Crooked Stick, The Golf Club, Harbour Town, and Teeth of the Dog -- Pete was continually asked to build courses on difficult sites.  He could do that better than anyone before or since; most of us would still be stuck in the mud on the first hole at the TPC or Old Marsh or Kiawah, if Pete Dye hadn't figured out how to get those sites to drain.  In the end, those courses were more compelling than what other designers were building in the 1980's, but it's hard to build a course in a swamp that compares to Ballybunion or Pine Valley.


When I worked for him, I heard him complain more than once that the standard for judging courses was too high now, that clients wanted 18 "postcard" holes.  I can only imagine what he'd think of clients who demanded a course that was top 50 in the world, or the project wasn't worth doing. 

[Adam Clayman]

He's the only modern, I know of, to use the HaHa, to great effect.

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, since Emerson said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", I'm doubly sure I shouldn't call out Tom D's inconsistency, i.e. the majority of his posts have always expressed his belief that we should 'judge/rate' the course and not the architect, and that we can't really 'assess' the architecture independent of the field of play. But (touchingly), when it comes to PD, Tom can flip that on its head and assess/judge/rate the architect instead of his body of work.       

And on that score: I can see in my mind's eye the top five and top ten lists of many esteemed posters around here, i.e. not lists of the best architects or the most sublime architecture, but of their favourite/best golf courses -- and I 'see' at or near the top or included in all those lists courses by CBM and Tom D and Thomas and C&C and Mackenzie and Crump and Colt and Ross etc -- but never a PD. That must say *something*. I don't know what, but something.

Here's my opinion: many of us are so fond of Tom D and have so much respect for him & his craft that when he in turn expresses so much fondness for PD and respect for his work, we all have followed his lead  (particularly those in the industry/media)       

[Mark_Fine]

Whether you like Pete Dye golf courses or not, there is one thing for certain about most all of them, they make golfers think.  Every shot requires thought and calculation. How many other architect’s designs can we say that about - few if any.  Pete was bold, he was daring, he took chances, he was different and being different is often what makes a golf course standout.  His design at Harbour Town was exactly that - different from what RT Jones was building at the time.  It put Pete on the map. 


I enjoy all of Pete’s courses and I just played one of his best designs last week that is very much underrated - The Dye course at Collenton River in Hilton Head.  No architect would build a course like that today (most wouldn’t have the vision or the guts to do it even if they could).  It is extremely well thought out (as you would expect from Pete) and is so much fun to play. At the same time, there are many times during a round there where you might be cursing Pete under your breathe.  I am sure he is up there smiling when you do. 

[Tim Martin]

Whether you like Pete Dye golf courses or not, there is one thing for certain about most all of them, they make golfers think.  Every shot requires thought and calculation. How many other architect’s designs can we say that about - few if any.  Pete was bold, he was daring, he took chances, he was different and being different is often what makes a golf course standout.  His design at Harbour Town was exactly that - different from what RT Jones was building at the time.  It put Pete on the map. 


I enjoy all of Pete’s courses and I just played one of his best designs last week that is very much underrated - The Dye course at Collenton River in Hilton Head.  No architect would build a course like that today (most wouldn’t have the vision or the guts to do it even if they could).  It is extremely well thought out (as you would expect from Pete) and is so much fun to play. At the same time, there are many times during a round there where you might be cursing Pete under your breathe.  I am sure he is up there smiling when you do.

Mark-Colleton River has a bunch of good holes but I thought some of the mounding seemed forced with the low country site.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, since Emerson said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", I'm doubly sure I shouldn't call out Tom D's inconsistency, i.e. the majority of his posts have always expressed his belief that we should 'judge/rate' the course and not the architect, and that we can't really 'assess' the architecture independent of the field of play. But (touchingly), when it comes to PD, Tom can flip that on its head and assess/judge/rate the architect instead of his body of work.       

And on that score: I can see in my mind's eye the top five and top ten lists of many esteemed posters around here, i.e. not lists of the best architects or the most sublime architecture, but of their favourite/best golf courses -- and I 'see' at or near the top or included in all those lists courses by CBM and Tom D and Thomas and C&C and Mackenzie and Crump and Colt and Ross etc -- but never a PD. That must say *something*. I don't know what, but something.

Here's my opinion: many of us are so fond of Tom D and have so much respect for him & his craft that when he in turn expresses so much fondness for PD and respect for his work, we all have followed his lead  (particularly those in the industry/media)     

Peter:


With respect, you and John keep moving the bar here, and changing the question after I've answered it.


John's question was, How was Pete Dye ever successful as an architect?  I thought I addressed that question pretty thoroughly, by talking about what made him attractive to clients.


Neither of you has asked me to judge his courses, though if you wanted to, you could look up my reviews for dozens of them.  And, as I pointed out, building courses in swamps is not likely to yield many top-10 courses, but if you were the best guy at that in an age where that was the primary assignment, you still did well.


It's pretty silly of you to be judging his success [or questioning his success] based on current views of what makes a great course, which were not in operation for most of Pete's career.  He only got to build one course on a site like Bandon Dunes, and none of his contemporaries got to build any.  He never lost any sleep over that, he just loved to build golf courses.


As to your last point, well, maybe that's your own perspective but it's not widely shared.  Most of those in industry and media got to know Pete and Alice Dye quite well on their own merits, without my endorsement.  There has been a real outpouring of emotion over their passing throughout the industry, because there were a lot of people who knew them as well as I did.  Pete was a dream interview for golf writers [with the exception of whomever tried to interview him for GCA] because he wasn't afraid to say controversial things and because he would give you all the time and conversation you wanted; he loved to talk about golf, and everyone else who loved to talk about golf misses him dearly.

[Edward Glidewell]

JK, 


I'm confused here...are you describing the work of Pete Dye or Tom Fazio?


TS

I've definitely never played any of Pete Dye's best work (and probably not Fazio's either), but if you told me I had to play any random Fazio course or any random Dye course I'd take Fazio. The Fazios I've played have all been fine courses. Nothing spectacularly great, but enjoyable and places I'd return to play. Some of the Dyes I've played are just brutally hard (lost balls, etc.) to the point that I would rather not play there again.


With that said, I'm sure a significant part of that is some combination of sites and the fact that Dye was often directed to build hard course (it's what the client wanted) -- there's also the issue of Perry and P.B., who I believe were sometimes responsible for the design of courses that ended up credited to their father. And there are Dye courses I'd love to play (like Long Cove) that I've only seen in photos, but look excellent.

[Mark Pritchett]

Pete Dye was the best at using angles to get into a golfer's head. 

[jeffwarne]

Whether you like Pete Dye golf courses or not, there is one thing for certain about most all of them, they make golfers think.  Every shot requires thought and calculation. How many other architect’s designs can we say that about - few if any.  Pete was bold, he was daring, he took chances, he was different and being different is often what makes a golf course standout.  His design at Harbour Town was exactly that - different from what RT Jones was building at the time.  It put Pete on the map. 


I enjoy all of Pete’s courses and I just played one of his best designs last week that is very much underrated - The Dye course at Collenton River in Hilton Head.  No architect would build a course like that today (most wouldn’t have the vision or the guts to do it even if they could).  It is extremely well thought out (as you would expect from Pete) and is so much fun to play. At the same time, there are many times during a round there where you might be cursing Pete under your breathe.  I am sure he is up there smiling when you do.

I always liked that course at Colleton River-long before I knew what GCA was.
I did know who Pete Dye was from my plays at TPC and Harbor Town and my working at Long Cove.He visited somewhat frequently (and also did a few tweaks) as he was highly engaging and entertaining to speak with(listen to).

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,


Thank you for answering my original question. I had not considered Dye as an engineer. That goes a long way explaining why his eye found those shapes so pleasing.

[Tom_Doak]

Thank you for answering my original question. I had not considered Dye as an engineer. That goes a long way explaining why his eye found those shapes so pleasing.

He would not have wanted you to call him that, but Pete Dye was the best seat-of-the-pants engineer I have ever met.