TPC, most important course in the last 50 years

[TEPaul]

"As a course for staging a tournament, the scrubby areas which yielded low maintenance were nearly impossible for a gallery to traverse..."

Steve L:

All in all this very reason may have been the single biggest deciding factor why a course such as Pine Valley was never particularly interested in hosting a major tournament.

And I just hate to say it but it could be another reason why a course like Shinnecock (when they do get to considering it as I think they will) may not restore some of Flynn's really neat scubby waste areas (designed) to just the way he wanted them and the way they once were. And I take what I say here directly from some who did marshalling long ago!  

[Norbert P]

Another step in the evolution of specialization of purpose.

 Heavy Horses move the land under me
 Behind the scraper gliding - slipping and sliding free
 Now you're down to the few
 And there's no work to do
 The dozer is on its way.       IA

 (slightly modified)

[RT]

While I agree that Harbour Town was a harbinger, I think you must include Muirfield Village too in the mid-70's.  Routing to accomodate housing development, wow factor, high-profile maintenance, design intent with pro tournament in mind, signature status, etc..  It was a sort of initial prototype to what we have found afterwards, very reflective, or least influential, of the last 50 years of golf.  Until the new wave of the last 7-8 years with likes of Tom, Gil Hanse, Mike DeVries, Bill Coore, etc..........

[Norbert P]

RT,  The Weather Report is saying Heavy Weather is imminent but outside my window is a serene and joyous Birdland.

[TEPaul]

"Until the new wave of the last 7-8 years with likes of Tom, Gil Hanse, Mike DeVries, Bill Coore, etc.........."

RT:

Yes, those thoughtful men seem to be trying to save us from all that importance, don't you think? Perhaps to take us back to that time and place where we don't have to take things quite so seriously.  

[Tim_Liddy]

Brad,

I won the bet. I told you Paul would get Doak's name in the thread al least twice.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I would frist like to say that I have never been to the TPC. I have been to PGA West way too many times to remember, and while I'll never compare the two, nor probably should anyone else, I do think that their is the possibility that the TPC is the better shot makers course, with fairness in mind, and not the extreme penal nature of the Stadium.

Now, here is where I would like to add my opinion to the topic of this thread. Call it a drop of a speculation, if you will, since I haven't been there.

There are so many features of this course that influenced current modern day standards to many architects who were trying to emulate a certain style influenced by this design, I think that the majority of them are negatives because of the TRANSLATION of those ideas. The first being containment mounding, which at the TPC was in the form of spectator mounds. I think modern golf architecture is literally cut off at the throat because the over-abundance of containment, where the architect is designing to control play in a very unatural sense. In fact, it's a horrible preceedence because it has choked-up playablity and disguised it as challenge from the tee.

All of it gave way to the notion that the best players--the Tiger's, are the ones who golf courses should be designed for, thus leaving out all of the genuine options and variety that can be acheived throughout the fairway for all. As a VERY astute individual conveyed it to me yesterday, the style of play--"throwing darts." The problem is that it occurs throughout the round. Ultimately it destroys variety and memorability.

Now, I don't no exactly how close these mounds come into play at the TPC, and that isn't my point. The point is that I feel that this is where the use of the containment really took foot in the early 1980's, and it led to some pretty horrendous stuff--Where Architects realized this enormormous popularity of the Dye style; his list of works grew enormously, and other architects were foreced to copy or be influenced by that style to remain or become competitive. Heck, even Pete couldn't handle all of the work. He had a force that would seemingly resemble a US Army convoy in Iraq, building and designing for him. Heck, even Perry, who has exhibited absolutely not one shred of his Father or Mother's abilities is still working.

While Harbor Town seems to possess the playing characteristics that eventually influenced the TPC, it doesn't seem to have the containment or "grassed specator stands" at least that are with-in play or with-in the eye of the lens.

Use of railroad ties also had a huge influence. How many courses designed and built just after the TPC became popular had to have them? Most every lake on a new course or remodel had to be bulkheaded with sleepers, which added to the cost, which of course was passed on to the user. Now I can see having to use them in a swamp. Great idea!, but what about at the Desert Springs Marriott or the Indian Wells Golf Resort where a certain architect not only was influenced by that idea for the aesthetic, but also the entire reasoning of water presentations. Ultimately, I think the dramatics of bulkheads and boulders and the overabundance of the very penal hazard of water--which has to be used at least 14 times during the round on the typical "inspired by Dye" golf course is not necessarily a good thing either.

While someday I do hope to experience the TPC, by at least seeing it, then I can reaffirm my thoughts and opinions.

Cheers.

BTW Tim, This is an excellent thread, and I too am a very big fan of Pete Dye. I can only hope that you know that. My critique of PGA West as being the best in the Coachella Valley as proof. At least for now!

[Steve_L.]

I don't necessarily agree with the notion that TPC initiated the containment mounding philosophy... But it did popularize the bulkheaded lakes, pot bunkers, and severely unnatural mounding in the years following...

There is actually little containment mounding as we typically think of it at TPC.  The mounding that is present is a little more like moguls with very severe deep rough - or the HUGE spectator mounds which are really out of play.  Transitions from the golf to natural forest are completely un-contained by mounding in most cases...  Examples - left of #5 green, right of #6 fairway, left of #9 fairway, right of #10 fairway, etc. have become very graceful.  I would say the severe (see unnatural) landforms which prevailed since the early '80's were probably unfortunately inspired by TPC...

[Tim Liddy]

Tommy,

Good to hear from you.

I agree about the many bad influences to the many bad architects that tried to copy the style with the study of the work. Much of it is due not only to lack of talent and commitment to a client’s project, but to the type of equipment used to build golf course.  Many modern greens and green complexes were built with large bull dozers (many still are), but Dye’s work is almost all hand crafted or the use of very small equipment.

I disagree strongly with the idea of throwing darts.  Except for the 17th green, and a small stream on another golf hole there are no forced carries for the average player.  Sure the pros throw darts (as they did at Riviera), but the member player has plenty of room to maneuver the golf ball away from hazards.  

The over-abundance of containment mounding is due more from housing development detention lakes needing a place to balance the earthwork than any TPC golf course.

If architects really looked at the TPC they would notice that many of the golf holes are down, below the tree elevations, and the spectator mounding is very structural looking (like a highway slope) It is not shaped to try and look natural. It is shaped to look structural, like bleachers.

[Steve_L.]

Tim...

Interesting evaluation - and on the mark I think...

I've found TPC to be super demanding - especially around the greens, but definately not unplayable even for a higher handicapper...  Some recovery shots around greens demand play which most players dont have...!  Doesn't mean they lose balls or finish in their pocket - they just get a challenge beyond their ability...

There are some forced carries off tees (depending on which tees one plays) - #5, 7, 10, 14, 15 - and approaches require forced carried over water (including par 3's) on #4, 11, 13 (sort of), 17...  It IS a little more of an aerial course - and once trouble is encountered, that trouble can compound if a heroic recovery goes bad...  

Tommy:

I hope you get the chance to play TPC soon - it's a real treat..!

[T_MacWood]

Tim
Do you think TPC was Pete Dye's most important design? Was it a turning point -- dividing his work between pre- and post-TPC?

[les_claytor]

The Stadium Course at the TPC @ Sawgrass is officially my home course, I've got the $50 handicap bill to prove it, although I haven't played there in 18 months. Actually, I had to cancel my trip to Ponte Vedra this weekend to work on a set of bridge specs, what fun.

Anyway, the Stadium course is in my unofficial top ten, I think I'm only up to 6 or 7.  I call it the think tank.  If you can just keep the ball in front of you, the Stadium course will let you pass like a stranger in the night.  However, when you start to hit it sideways, the spot lights beam on, and your weaknesses are quickly brought to light.

I've studied many of the Dye's courses, and I've come to the conclusion that the real genius of their design is that they keep to the same philosophy course after course.  Basically, he builds courses with golf holes that follow similar themes with an amazing level of variety but sameness over the years.  In design school they call it a diagram, or philosophy (hell I been in the dirt so long I forgot my buzzwords).  It's really quite amazing when you consider neither one had formal design trainaing, because their courses have the most architectural strengths and qualities I've experienced.

Although the Stadium course is the most visible, I find it hard to separate it from the Dye's total body of work.  

Take the short, half blind par four.  Colleton River outside of Hilton Head has a great one I saw when it was shaped before grassing.  It's actually a cape with the the bay on the right.  From the tee, the wetland edge lies directly on the beeline to the green and visually cuts through you like a knife.  Play away from the water left and your blind behind the hillock guarding the green.  Like I said, I saw it " in the sand", but it was diabolical.

I'm planning to follow Mr. Dye's on a site visit in the next couple of weeks.  I just want to be a fly on the wall, and listen to one of the greatest story tellers, and designers ever.

I better go work on my specs!

[Greg_Ramsay]

Tim, while i have never played TPC at Sawgrass, i have enjoyed several other Pete Dye gems and believe he somehow adds a level of intrigue to most of his golf holes that many other's don't offer.  I thought his course at PGA Village St.Lucie in Florida made the 2 Fazio courses seem mundane, and even the Dye course at Disneyworld had lots of great approach shots into greens, and interesting decisions off the tee.  

But i have to ask- with lush, manicured, target golf courses which Sawgrass certainly appears to be, with very little run in the approach to the green, does it really make any difference if the green has open approaches or forced carries?  The reality is that you can't run the ball in and must fly it to the pin.  The shot into all greens is the same, and the 2 dimensional 'strategy' is the same whether there are hazards in front or not.  Will I attack the pin? or play it safe to the centre of the green?  There is no option of using the open front to run it in, or use a slope to feed the ball a certain way, because the courses are just too soft.

Greg Ramsay
www.barnbougledunes.com

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Steve and Tim, (And great to see you posting too!)

My words on the containment weren't so much aimed at the TPC, but the architects that took it a step further. Thus the comment on "Throwing Darts," which, I have never really felt like I was throwing darts at PGA West Stadium--I felt like I was throwing clubs!:) (Just joking! I do in fact like the course's penal nature, just because you need a course like that once every great while. Otherwise we would never be able to totally embrace Oakmont correct?)

Another thing is that I don't fault Pete for using railroad sleepers, in fact, as un-natural as they maybe, and RT will back me up on this, I have this real affection for Northwood Golf Club's Death or Glory which featured sleepered-faced bunkering. It is unfortunate it has become a no-no to use it in the business because of safety issues. However, I feel when you step foot on a golf course, it should be the same as stepping into the ocean--you know there are sharks swimming in there!

I just think it was his idea. or move to reinstitute the use of sleepers. If there was a place where it was a neccessity other then a gimmick, then it would be OK. Not overdone, just where it is needed, and how it can be affordable, especially if they just eliminated a railroad line nearby! (On one paticular  job I was on in LA Harbor, I could have literally had WELL over a thousand of them, as long as I hauled them away! But they are quite heavy!)

At PGA West Stadium, there is actually containment I don't care for, and it is used for grass bleachers, but unfortunately it comes into play in many areas. Some of itOK, and other areas quite confining. More specifically #11 & 12 where the fairways aren't very wide, and they need them to be, especially for those holes, for even the best of golfers.

In truth, I have only played two "Real" Pete Dye courses. All the rest of them are cheap imitations by wither Schmidt and Curley or Perry. They are, PGA West-Stadium, and La Quinta Mountain. Even those two had Lee Schmidt as an associate. But like any Dye course, I do think you are going to have an associate architect that is someday going to be a name. I do think that Pete has probably influenced more the any other. At least in the Modern Age.

Les, you get finished with those specs, and answer your email next time so you could go play! We would have enjoyed having you out there last May at Rustic Canyon for its GCA debut!

[Matt Kardash]

Greg,
The TPC has plenty of run-up options...the course was designed to play firm, and it usually is for the Players Championship...However this year they had a ton of rain so that isn't an option. As Tim said, there are only a couple of holes where you have to fly it onto the green. So in that case, i think the course is quite "fair"

People seem to think that Pete builds aerial courses, but during that time he was probably the only one who kept the ground game a real option

[ForkaB]

Tom P

My recolection when playing the course fairly often in the 1980's was that the waste areas did have various bits of vegetation strewn amongst them.  That did not, however seem to deter the pros who would aim for the areas where the the vegetation was not, if trying to get a hard pan lie or better angle to the green.  I disagree with you adn Ian Andrew that high handicappers find hard pan easier to play than rough.  For one thing, outside of TPC week, the rough at Smawgrasss is not penal.  For another, my experience is that higher hadnicaps have a difficult time making clean contact from tight lies.  They might advance their foozles from the waste areas further than their recovery shots from the rough, but they'll end up someplace they dodn't want to be and more likely end up with a big number.

Tommy N

As others have said, most mounding at TPC is spectator oriented.  It is heavily tree lined with a natural transtion from fairway to forest.

I think the criticism of the 12th is unwarranted.  If you play conservative on your tee shot, you hit blind on the second.  If you play bold and longish right (to a narrow landing area) you are rewarded with a simple pitch down the throat of the green.

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

Pete Dye's use of wood in architecture (railroad ties, whatever) should be looked at as his tribute to the linksland. When he spent his year in Scotland the rudimentary old architectural work he noticed there clearly fascinated him as much as anything he saw. In retrospect that may seem sort of ironic as we today might think of the linksland and many of the Scottish courses as the architecture of natural golf (although clearly it wasn't only that!)---so in that way his use of the early rudimentary man-made look in architecture really is ironic.

I don't remember where Pete Dye first did that and certainly he kept doing it and it did become something he was well known for in his architecture so maybe one could call it a gimmick because of its constant use. But I think historically it should be looked at as the tribute to the old country's architecture that he originally meant it to be.

In that way it was probably a bit like what Coore & Crenshaw did with their bunkering at Hidden Creek as a tribute to early Heathland architecture. I don't know that they'll do it again as it seems it was just that New Jersey site and the look of it that inspired them to make that Heathland tribute.

[ChipOat]

Never played TPC with the original greens, but 2 trips around and it replaced Harbor Town and Teeth of the Dog at Casa de Campo as my favorite course by my favorite golf architect.

Hubert Green had a good line after his first look at Harbor Town and all the (then) unique railroad ties:  "This is the first course I've ever seen that could burn down".

[Tim Liddy]

Greg Ramsey

Great observation about the green contouring.  Typical Dye greens, if there is such a thing, generally allow for the bump and run ground contour feeding the golf shot towards the back pin.  I have been told the contours on many of the greens at the TPC were reversed, against the flow of the shot, to make the golf shot more difficult.


TE Paul

Your observation and reference to one of your fab five architects is, as always, right on the mark.  This consistent reference to these golf courses does tend to get tiring and I am afraid detrimental to the web site (see Brad Klein’s comments on another thread).

But maybe we should look at TPC being built under different goals.

It was not built under the ‘elite golf course goal’ that this web site promotes so well and that makes all us architects so jealous (I know I am jealous of these great sites and golf courses).  These golf courses start with a great site, with the great architect, with high maintenance, private membership, and no tee times.  They are planned for fun (which I admired), ultimate strategy and lots of great detail. These golf courses do not consider the lower level of tournament golf. Golf pros would not even typically be allowed to be members of these golf courses. They are above the standard golf course that the majority of golfers play.

The TPC goals are different:  poor site, tournament golf and public play –middle class.  That it surpasses these goals, and takes golf into a new design direction at the same time, makes it a much more important golf course than the other golf courses you reference.
Even if it is middle class, it provides a great example for many projects that can relate to these goals that are more common than the elite golf courses we also love.

We need affordable golf courses for the middle class that are built on poor sites.  Golf courses that contain strategy, great detail, and reasonable maintenance cost.  The TPC will continue to provide inspiration for this type of golf course.  I also think that future golf courses of these middle class goals will be better as web sites like this one help promote the finer art of golf course design.

[TEPaul]

Tim Liddy:

Very interesting post. How right you are about public golf and what it needs architecturally. A very interesting way of looking at TPC's influence. I'm sorry if I seem to reference and talk about the same set of courses all the time. Those are the ones I know best and should stick to if I analyze architecture closely. No sense in guessing on courses I don't know well.

But I'd just as soon talk about overall concepts in architecture as specific courses anyway.

The nice thing about this website is there're people from all over the place who bring a lot of different knowledge to the table in this discussion group. But no one knows it all--some more than others but no one I know on here can reference intelligently every course.