Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Kevin Lynch on December 01, 2014, 06:49:05 PM
-
During the recent Ballyhack thread, some interest was raised in having a similar in-depth discussion / detailed analysis about Pete Dye Golf Club. To that end, Jason Thurman & I decided to start something similar here to see if we can generate the same level of interest and discussion that arose from the BH thread.
Reviewing the GCA Forum history, there were several shorter threads dedicated to PDGC, but none seemed to move beyond 1 or 2 pages and didn't really seek to dig in at the individual hole level. Also, most discussions dated back 4-6 years, so I'm hoping the passage of time has allowed more people to experience the course and add more insight.
Joe Bausch published a fine photo tour several years ago (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44923.0.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44923.0.html)) and has generously given us permission to use those photos to guide this discussion. Ron Montesano has allowed me to poach from his PhotoBucket account as well, and I am grateful (Ron's pics generally are the dew-covered morning shots).
I hope people will be interested and also add their insights along the way. The success of the Ballyhack thread was due to the numerous contributors throughout, and any thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
-
Introduction:
I thought I would kick this off using Ron Montesano's introduction from his now frozen photo tour. Ron graciously put his photo tour on hold when he learned of the plans that were already in the works.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8069.jpg)
This was the first national golf club that I saw. Since my conversion to GCA, I was looking at different elements, but not to the degree that I do today. I haven't looked at these images in a while, so who knows what's in the hopper. Pete Dye GC certainly has an extended-build history. It is located in Bridgeport, West Virginia, very close to I-79 and quite accessible. The build began in 1978 and was finished in 1995. It didn't take that long to blast through the coal. There is a nice semi-local piece on the club here: http://www.huntingtonquarterly.com/articles/issue41/golf.html
The club was in the process of being sold when I was there around 2010. It now is part of the Pacific Links group of course (https://www.pacificlinks.com/petedye) with all the amenities that come with club membership. There are cabins on the course and a pretty cool clubhouse that we may or may not have had a beer in after the round.
All around the course are tributes to the areas mining history. Copper creek here, coal tunnel there, coal cars here, mining equipment there. Since it comes with an element of infrequency, it doesn't bother you in the manner it would if it were an every-hole, museum tour. As acknowledgements go, it's proper in my estimation.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7893.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7794.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7900.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7801.jpg)
And here is the routing, courtesy of Joe Bausch:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/PDGC_routing.jpg)
Scorecard:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/29vbeaa.jpg)
-
#1. A 390 yard par 4.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole1.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/1a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/1b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/1c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/1d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/1e.jpg)
-
Thanks for organizing this Kevin. Pete Dye Golf Club was the best surprise that I stumbled upon this year. I'll reprise some comments I made last week.
The photos above do a nice job of capturing everything going on at the first hole. The Dye courses I've played reveal a tendency toward shortish par 4 openers that present options from the tee that heavily influence the difficulty of the ensuing approach. The approach shot difficulty is not so much a question of execution - most Dye openers that I've seen feature a short iron approach to a large-enough and receptive green. However, a player's VISUAL comfort is greatly influenced by how aggressively he plays off the tee on such holes, as Dye uses blindness and doglegs to ensure that the man who plays it safe from the tee will face an awkward approach shot while the man who makes the more aggressive play can find a more welcoming visual for his second.
The first at Pete Dye Golf Club is perhaps the best of these shortish par 4 opening holes from Pete Dye. A simple long-iron or hybrid played straight down the middle of the fairway off the tee will set up a short iron approach, but the green will be largely obscured by the hillock that the fairway wraps around near the 100 yard mark. Meanwhile, a bold drive over the bunkers off to the left leaves a half-wedge approach that, at least for me, feels more inviting while still presenting an appropriate challenge. A simple flip over the fronting bunkers will land softly on a green with fallaway edges that make it feel smaller than its true size.
The opening hole at Pete Dye Golf Club is not a long hole, nor a difficult one, but it's a good introduction that really captures the psychological essence of the course. It's a subtle design on an electric property, and that juxtaposition creates some really unusual challenges. PDGC has some brawny holes and plenty of length, but its central battle is one of nerves and ability to handle visually uncomfortable shots. The fact that you won't likely see your first shot land is an omen of what's to come.
-
Jason -
Your first posts echos my overall impressions of PDGC, and so much of it is on display with the first hole. When I first played PDGC, I knew it was a great course as I was playing it, but my appreciation really escalated upon reflection a few days later.
Like studying a painting, the first impression is of the image as a whole. But when I look closer, I can see each brush stroke, and appreciate the thousands of subtle decisions that go into creating the overall image. Similarly, after I absorbed the overall feel for PDGC, I looked closer and realized all the subtle elements that contributed to my experience.
The slight rise in the land which slightly obscures the view of the landing area, adding that challenging element of the unknown to a shot. The mounding and undulation of landing areas that force me to think my way through the tee-shot routine, searching for the optimal risk/reward payoff. The beautifully complex challenge of angled landing areas, graduating beyond the “stick figure” simplicity of “bang it down the middle.” The strategic placement of bunkers. The contouring of greens that rewards a well-thought approach, and eliminates “routine two-putt” from my vocabulary.
The first tee shot at PDGC is one of those instances which lean me towards Melvyn Morrow's "No Yardage Aid" camp. In a way, I wish I hadn't been given the yardage to cut the dogleg and that I had to feel my way through the hole. The visual hints provide the sensation that the fairway dives left, and the thrill of hitting a draw into the unknown (or challenging the left side) would be escalated without the numerical confirmation from a yardage book. This hole simply resonated with me quite a bit.
-
I feel like this course is very underrated by many. I remember reading Tom Doak's review where he said he felt the course should be one of Dye's very best but by the time the course was done (due to a 15 year construction period) many of the innovations at this course were seen on other Dye courses. While that might have been a fair comment on opening, 20 years later no one cares or remembers which holes on this course are true originals and which were seen elsewhere first. Does anyone review a Raynor or a McKenzie course today and dock points because in 1926 Mackenzie implemented a concept or feature on a course that was seen first in 1924? It's a stupid argument today in 2014.
Dye's aesthetic totally works on this property. It's a perfect combination of a beautiful site and Dye's trademark style. Dye rarely if ever had a better canvas to work with.
-
i've played here twice (with a 7 yr gap). as already alluded to you have some options on the first tee if you don't know the distance. both times we played tips & the first time was right after a web.com tour event. we learned right off the bat that the course can play f a s t. i aimed for the fairway and when we finally found my ball it was through the fairway in that rough short of the bunker. the next time i tried more of a left line and caught the slope and fairway leaving a little flip (and i am NOT a long hitter). a very fun starting hole to get your into the round.
-
Not only is PDGC one of Pete Dye's best, I'd argue it might be his best overall course, although The Golf Club is also really good. I also agree it might be the best setting he had to work with.
The first hole is a good prelude for what lies ahead--strategic and a bit deceptive. It is not one of the harder holes on the course, but it cannot be taken lightly. It does not take long to realize who designed the course. And it gets you to #2!
-
Tom Doak's
Was Tom with Pete Dye during the 1978-1993 period of building? Did Tom do any work at PDGC?
-
Tom Doak's
Was Tom with Pete Dye during the 1978-1993 period of building? Did Tom do any work at PDGC?
I think I remember Tom saying he didn't do much at PDGC, but he did decide to build that stone wall that goes down the 14th hole. Hopefully Tom can confirm.
-
Was much land moved for this course? It's been probably 5-6 years since I've been to PDGC, but I really enjoyed it and it felt like it fit perfectly within the terrain and had some nice, natural features
-
Not only is PDGC one of Pete Dye's best, I'd argue it might be his best overall course, although The Golf Club is also really good. I also agree it might be the best setting he had to work with.
The first hole is a good prelude for what lies ahead--strategic and a bit deceptive. It is not one of the harder holes on the course, but it cannot be taken lightly. It does not take long to realize who designed the course. And it gets you to #2!
Andy,
Without trying to be reductive, "strategic and a bit deceptive" captures the essence fairly well. Pete Dye GC is my favorite Dye design that I've seen or played. I was a big fan of his work at Kohler, but I enjoyed this a bit more. Part of that may be that the West Virginia Mountains provide a canvas more in tune with me (I love elevation change), but upon more academic reflection, the strategies and design elements are better as well.
#1 is also reflective of the course in that it isn't overly long. For a course that can be stretched to nearly 7,400 yards, there's still 5 par fours measuring less than 400 yards, even from the tips. It definitely isn't a one dimensional test of length.
-
Tom Doak's
Was Tom with Pete Dye during the 1978-1993 period of building? Did Tom do any work at PDGC?
I think I remember Tom saying he didn't do much at PDGC, but he did decide to build that stone wall that goes down the 14th hole. Hopefully Tom can confirm.
In case Tom is too busy to chime in, here's a few snippets of what he wrote on an earlier thread:
Yes, I had something to do with the wall.
The original developer James D. LaRosa visited Pine Valley in the midst of building this course, and from that day forward he was somewhat obsessive about making this Pete's greatest course, and wondering where it would rank. When Pete sent me in there, he told James D. that I was in charge of the GOLF Magazine course rankings, so Mr. LaRosa wanted to know exactly what I thought of every hole, and put me in the somewhat awkward position of critiquing the work to date!
All of the holes had been rough shaped, although the front nine was quite a bit further along than the back -- Charlie's comment is not surprising, because the front nine was built mostly in the 80's and the back nine in the 90's. The only hole that I thought was really dull compared to the rest was #14, and Mr. LaRosa said he was thinking about building a stone wall through it, and assigned me to lay out the wall. I've never seen a photo of the finished hole, so I don't know if it's anything like I flagged. I am shocked to hear it was Charlie's absolute favorite!
-
Going further on what Kevin and Andy mention, one of the things that most appeals to me about Dye's best work is the lack of a "right answer" in how to play each hole. The best Pete Dye holes are strategic at the individual player level, as there will be several options presented that all have various pros and cons depending on the strength of a golfer's game. Unlike many other architects, though, Dye doesn't build as much "universal strategy" into his best courses. There's no obvious play that will lead to a universally advantageous angle, but instead a handful of options that all feel just a little bit uncomfortable.
To give an example from the sister thread to this one, the fourth hole at Ballyhack is a good, strategic par 4 that provides a nice example of what I would call "universal strategy." Off the tee, the risk becomes higher as the player's line moves further right. In turn, the player able to hit the right side of the fairway off the tee is rewarded with a more advantageous angle of approach. This strategy is universal in the sense that, for virtually any player regardless of his particular skillset, the drive up the right is more challenging while in turn the approach from the right is easier. The carry over the hazard from the right side is shorter, and the angle into the green is more straightforward. The further left you get, the more the bunkers and the ravine come into play. This is true for everyone, and thus the hole is fairly straightforward: Get as close to the right side as you can off the tee, but don't screw up and go too far right.
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q186/tomwilliamsen/P1040571_zpse02cd8f1.jpg)
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.
-
I feel like this course is very underrated by many. I remember reading Tom Doak's review where he said he felt the course should be one of Dye's very best but by the time the course was done (due to a 15 year construction period) many of the innovations at this course were seen on other Dye courses. While that might have been a fair comment on opening, 20 years later no one cares or remembers which holes on this course are true originals and which were seen elsewhere first. Does anyone review a Raynor or a McKenzie course today and dock points because in 1926 Mackenzie implemented a concept or feature on a course that was seen first in 1924? It's a stupid argument today in 2014.
Dye's aesthetic totally works on this property. It's a perfect combination of a beautiful site and Dye's trademark style. Dye rarely if ever had a better canvas to work with.
Matt,
By underrated, I'm assuming you mean by Golf Magazine? It still holds #9 Modern on Golfweek, and #45 in Golf Digest, but I didn't see it anywhere for Golf Magazine. That swing in variance is pretty astonishing to me, but I generally don't get too hung up on quantitiative rankings. I'm much more interested in hearing the qualitative comments about a course, so I can determine if the factors that one person uses to judge a course mean as much to me.
As Jason Thurman has mentioned to me, it may be one of the most under-discussed courses here, especially since I have heard generally high comments from the few people I know that have played it. And when Tom said he thought it may be one of Pete's best, that has to mean something. That qualitative discussion about the merits of the holes is what we're looking to generate here, particularly from people who feel strongly about the course, so I hope you'll keep adding as we move along.
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.
Is this the type of course that will blow away a first time visitor, or will it require more reflection and plays to appreciate the angles and options? I'm suspecting that as we go through the hole-by-hole analysis, I'll learn much more about the course that I didn't notice before.
-
i've played here twice (with a 7 yr gap). as already alluded to you have some options on the first tee if you don't know the distance. both times we played tips & the first time was right after a web.com tour event. we learned right off the bat that the course can play f a s t. i aimed for the fairway and when we finally found my ball it was through the fairway in that rough short of the bunker. the next time i tried more of a left line and caught the slope and fairway leaving a little flip (and i am NOT a long hitter). a very fun starting hole to get your into the round.
I'd be curious to hear about the general maintenance of the course during the year. Does the membership generally embrace firm & fast or is there a little bit of Augusta Syndrome influence? My limited experience was a softer course, but it's hard to tell from sporadic visits, as there can always be extenuating circumstances / weather.
The first tee shot provides all the things I love - visual uncertainty, vastly different options, diagonal landing zones, and enough contour that you need to consider the rollout, not just your initial line. I'm just curious if the final item is lessened a bit when / if the course gets lush. This will come into play even more when we get to discussion of some of the later holes.
-
Kevin,
Actually, Tom Doak was critical of the course when it opened because he didn't feel like it was original for Dye. Maybe re-read what I wrote. Though he did give it a 7, so I am sure he still thinks it is very solid. Based on Tom's quote above I don't think he ever saw the completed course. Anyways, I don't want to speak for him.
-
i've played here twice (with a 7 yr gap). as already alluded to you have some options on the first tee if you don't know the distance. both times we played tips & the first time was right after a web.com tour event. we learned right off the bat that the course can play f a s t. i aimed for the fairway and when we finally found my ball it was through the fairway in that rough short of the bunker. the next time i tried more of a left line and caught the slope and fairway leaving a little flip (and i am NOT a long hitter). a very fun starting hole to get your into the round.
I'd be curious to hear about the general maintenance of the course during the year. Does the membership generally embrace firm & fast or is there a little bit of Augusta Syndrome influence? My limited experience was a softer course, but it's hard to tell from sporadic visits, as there can always be extenuating circumstances / weather.
The first tee shot provides all the things I love - visual uncertainty, vastly different options, diagonal landing zones, and enough contour that you need to consider the rollout, not just your initial line. I'm just curious if the final item is lessened a bit when / if the course gets lush. This will come into play even more when we get to discussion of some of the later holes.
Pretty tough spot to grow any type of turf and keep it firm and fast. Part of the reason the Hogan/Nike/Web/Nationwide Tour lights it up so much are the soft conditions in mid to late summer that are inevitable if one wants turf come fall.
Optimal conditions may come and go but come mid-July through early September you are going to have some softer conditions.
Tough gig there for a super.
-
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.
-
Turf conditions?? relative firmness??
-
I have not played the course but that has never stopped me from commenting:
Without looking I guessed that the first hole would look like this. It appears to be the same template as exists at TPC Sawgrass, PGA West and The Ocean Course. The unique feature here is the hillside which appears to add interest.
-
Now my comments on the first hole. I think it plays the most straight forward with a fairway wood or long iron up the right side and then a short iron or wedge to the green. You can hit a driver down the left side but I think that is generally a more difficult shot. The approach from there is a little blind, uphill and the angle isn't as good. The green has some movement but it is not overly severe.
I find it interesting and maybe a good sign of the discussion to come that I prefer playing the hole down the right side, whereas everyone's comments before mine like the more aggressive line.
A good starting hole. You certainly can make a bogey with a sloppy second shot or bad drive but two reasonable shots should get you off to a good start. I have birdied it the last two times I played the course only to be humbled for the remainder of the round.
I'm not sure how anyone perceives an advantage in playing down the left side which leaves a less than full shot to a perched green. The best approach is from about 105-115 down the right center, leaving a full SW or whatever club one would need to a green in full view, unguarded in front and only slightly below the level from which you are playing.
On my last visit I got over the tee shot a bit and wound up in the middle of the transitional slope just behind where the 80 yard mark is indicated in the yardage guide rendering. Not the spot to be, doable but certainly made the approach more complicated than need be.
-
I find it interesting and maybe a good sign of the discussion to come that I prefer playing the hole down the right side, whereas everyone's comments before mine like the more aggressive line.
They like the aggressive line until they end up in the sand, from where they make double. I don't recall if I aimed right, faded it there or was so far back on the tee that right was all I could do, but I was in your position A.
-
Kevin,
Actually, Tom Doak was critical of the course when it opened because he didn't feel like it was original for Dye. Maybe re-read what I wrote. Though he did give it a 7, so I am sure he still thinks it is very solid. Based on Tom's quote above I don't think he ever saw the completed course. Anyways, I don't want to speak for him.
Matt -
I didn't see the final Confidential Guide write-up - I was basing my comment on some things Tom wrote back in the 2008 thread. When I read what you wrote, I wasn't sure if the time lag (re: originality) was Tom's commentary or yours. The extended construction period for this course is unusual with such a highly regarded course /architect.
Anyway, like you, I'll refrain from attributing any more comments to him.
-
Pretty tough spot to grow any type of turf and keep it firm and fast. Part of the reason the Hogan/Nike/Web/Nationwide Tour lights it up so much are the soft conditions in mid to late summer that are inevitable if one wants turf come fall.
Optimal conditions may come and go but come mid-July through early September you are going to have some softer conditions.
Tough gig there for a super.
I imagine you are correct. My experience was in August, so the need to keep it watered with the peak summer heat was probably in full effect.
Greg Boring (GCAer and current Super at CC of Scranton) indicated he used to work there. I reached out to him with a PM to let him know this thread was ongoing. Perhaps he'll be able to shed some light on the challenges.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/1c.jpg)
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.
-
#2. The No 1 handicap hole, a 435 yard par 4. (mixing in a few images courtesy of Ron Montesano, as well)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole2.jpg)
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.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/2a.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7724.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7724.jpg.html)
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.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/2b.jpg)
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.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7737.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7737.jpg.html)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/2c.jpg)
-
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 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.
-
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.
;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
#3. A shorter par 4. I decided to start adding some aerials since the illustrations may skew a few angles or scale.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole3.jpg)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/jhts89.jpg)
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.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/3a.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7747.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7747.jpg.html)
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).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/3b.jpg)
And a shot from the left side. This angle shows how sharp the drop-off is just short of the green.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7753.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7753.jpg.html)
Looking back
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/3c.jpg)
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.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7755.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7755.jpg.html)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/3e.jpg)
**************************
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.....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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,
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
#4. A very long par 3 with water.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole4.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2sah0ro.jpg)
A few views of the easier short right pin....
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/4a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/4b.jpg)
....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.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7760.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7760.jpg.html)
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.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7768.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7768.jpg.html)
These few pics give you an idea of the green contours and the angles you'll face if you bail right.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/4c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/4d.jpg)
****************************
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
^ nothing wrong with penal so long as the balance is right IMHO...!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
#5. We've finally come to our first Par 5. Reachability depends on your tees: 580 / 525 / 508 / 489 / 435
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole5.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/acerkw.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/5a.jpg)
Tee shot zoomed in a little:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7772.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7772.jpg.html)
The time for your decision. The Sirens song radiates from the (appropriately) rocky-lined green to the right.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/5b.jpg)
A few looks from the lay-up area:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/5c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/5d.jpg)
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.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/5f.jpg)
Looking back:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/5e.jpg)
******************************
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
#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.
-
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,
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.
-
#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.)
-
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?
-
#6. A very short par 4.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole6.jpg)
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.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2jag4rb.jpg)
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).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/6a.jpg)
Tee shot zoomed in a little more. The last curve in the creek short of the green makes its presence known.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7791.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7791.jpg.html)
A view from the fairway left...
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/6b.jpg)
... and right. Can I bank a 7 iron from here off the right mound? Maintenance would be a huge consideration here.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/6c.jpg)
Just short and left. You can see the steps directly up to the 7th tee or you can use the mine shaft route underneath.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7799.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7799.jpg.html)
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.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7802.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7802.jpg.html)
A final look back. This picture undersells the delineation of the front right plateau.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7804.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7804.jpg.html)
**************************
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.
-
I always thought this hole would not be out of place at The Golf Club.
-
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.
-
There's something very good going on when a guy can design a course which is apparently such a juxtaposition to my usual tastes and yet get me feeling like I'd love to jump on a plane to get to it.
-
At the one-third point, my regret from my round at PDGC is that I played it from the tips. I battled to get within approach distance all day and was coming in way too low with clubs with way too little loft. I've got game, but not that game.
-
Also, that greenside bunker might be the most intimidating bunker in the game. Is there any other bunker that is next to a green yet has a stream between itself and the green?
-
Also, that greenside bunker might be the most intimidating bunker in the game. Is there any other bunker that is next to a green yet has a stream between itself and the green?
If you're in that one, well, you stink.
Des Muirhead was before his time with Clashing Rocks at Stone Harbor in NJ: http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead
-
There's not much to say about 5 that hasn't already been said. It's one of the finest par 5s I've ever played, and it strikes me that Dye once again uses a stream beautifully to create temptation on a par 5 hole, as he does on a few occasions at Blackwolf Run. He has a knack for finding gentle curves in streams and rivers and finding a way to perch a green in a spot that begs the golfer to take on a near impossible shot. I love the 6th at Pebble Beach, but it definitely lacks the element of temptation that the 5th at Pete Dye GC has. On the second shot at Pebble I'm just trying my best to get to the top of the hill. The second shot on 5 at Pete Dye GC presents a much more significant decision.
6 is a tough hole to really figure out. The yardage makes it look drivable, but it plays uphill and the accuracy required around the green makes swinging for it a foolish play even for guys long enough to reach. For me, the principal concern off the tee is distance control. The fattest and flattest section of the fairway comes some 220 yards off the tee. Once again, I don't see a true universal position A. The green opens up more from the right, but the hillside can influence a pull, as noted by Kevin earlier. Drive it up the left and the approach becomes more a question of distance control than directional accuracy, as you'll need to carry the hazard with a precise yardage to hold the green which shallows from that side. I really just try to hit it down the middle and stay out of trouble.
Regardless of the strategy used, it's a short par 4 with plenty of peril and yet, the primary hazard is one that can inflict penalty strokes but is unlikely to cost you your golf ball.
-
Also, that greenside bunker might be the most intimidating bunker in the game. Is there any other bunker that is next to a green yet has a stream between itself and the green?
If you're in that one, well, you stink.
Des Muirhead was before his time with Clashing Rocks at Stone Harbor in NJ: http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead
I'd have to say that's a little harsh (or I'm just afraid to admit I stink) ;). If you look at the aerial and mentally erase the sliver of creek, I don't think it's that unreasonable you may end up in this bunker (especially with the hanging lies on the right).
-
Were you really in that bunker? I don't recall that at all, although I may have been doubled over in laughter at the time.
-
#7. After emerging from the mine shaft, you're faced with an aesthetically pleasing downhill par 3.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole7.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/11hff9z.jpg)
A view from the farthest back deck...
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7809.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7809.jpg.html)
Moving up a little closer..
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/7a.jpg)
A shot from the back right towards the tee gives an idea of the greenside bunker depth and heaving of the "fairway" short of the green.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7824.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7824.jpg.html)
A look back from the back left.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/7c.jpg)
Looking across the green from the back right.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/7b.jpg)
Another glimpse of the entire green from near the 8th tee.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7827.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7827.jpg.html)
**********************
While there were a few bail-out / lay-up areas on the long 4th, this hole pretty much asks you to hit the green or be ready to do some scrambling from the rough or sand. A "fairway" exists, but doesn't appear to be a strategic option like on the 4th.
I'm going to defer to Charlie and others with more experience to share their thoughts on the best places to miss and the types of recovery options available. Given the drop-offs around the greens, it appears that the lower trajectory recovery options are limited (unless coming from the front). I'd have to miss this green many more times to see if hitting into the bank is an option (depending on thickness of rough / firmness of banks).
Overall, I enjoyed this hole for the aesthetics and variety of angles available from the various tee decks.
-
In the photos above, the tree left of the fairway looks like it was on its last limbs. This photo I took back in the spring shows it has been removed:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5278/14222871923_772d866dbd_z.jpg)
This hole is an absolute stunner, and it begins with the journey away from the 6th green. If you take the stairs up the hill, a panorama overlooking the river and much of the middle of the front nine reveals itself. If you take the route through the mineshaft, the big reveal comes as you step out into the light before a quick climb up to your tee. Regardless of the route taken, I find it to be one of the most dazzling green-to-tee transitions in the game, at least among holes that don't involve arriving at an ocean.
While the shot plays downhill, I wouldn't call it a true drop-shot par 3. The grass bunker faces and engineered elements of the hole reflect Dye's Raynor influence and juxtapose strikingly against the wonderfully rumbling surroundings of the hole. Dye adorns the hole with commanding, man-made features and shaping, but the visual effect of the hole works because of how he preserved gentle natural rumbles and undulations in the fairway and green and the surrounding hillocks. Those same rumbles and undulations also add great variety to recovery shots on this hole. One of Dye's most unsung strengths might be the way he uses macro-contours to distract the player from equally challenging micro-contours. Dye is no minimalist, but he still clearly recognizes the value of subtle shapes that add less obvious challenge to the game. On this occasion, those same subtle shapes also add a stunning aesthetic.
As Kevin mentioned, if you miss the green you'll need to scramble. This could be roughly described as a bit of a modern "short" template, with a fairly large green divided by a spine that bears a faint but discernible resemblance to a classic thumbprint. 196 seems like a ridiculous yardage for a hole like this until I stand on the range next to college golfers at my club who are smashing their 8 irons out to 190. It plays at least a club downhill and the target from 147 or even 173 feels reasonable, albeit challenging. With the tee more elevated the further back a player ventures, the back bunkers lurk for any strong player who fails to properly adjust for the downhill shot.
It's a simple concept - a beautiful par 3 that with a tee shot that will lead to either tremendous joy or some seriously difficult scrambling. The result is brilliant.
-
Really liked #5 a lot. Struck me as the type of hole I'd play a bunch of times, differently each time, which is about as big a compliment as I give. :)
Didn't get 6 or 7. Not sure why, just felt awkward on both. I will admit, I really really don't like drop shot par 3s, so that probably came into play on #7.
-
In the photos above, the tree left of the fairway looks like it was on its last limbs. This photo I took back in the spring shows it has been removed:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5278/14222871923_772d866dbd_z.jpg)
This hole is an absolute stunner, and it begins with the journey away from the 6th green.
...
It's a simple concept - a beautiful par 3 that with a tee shot that will lead to either tremendous joy or some seriously difficult scrambling. The result is brilliant.
Hard to imagine we could be more different in our views of this.
Stunner? Yikes. Sensory overload to a hideous degree to me. It's like a beautiful woman who chose to have 30 too many plastic surgeries - when in fact 1 was too many.
I kinda get your summary line, though to me, that is simply hit and hope, as most drop shot par 3s are (even if this isn't really a drop shot par 3).
I'm definitely getting old, I can't even remember how I played most of these holes, or even what the result was. I have a lot of respect for Charlie, both the guy and his game, so his thoughts make a lot of sense to me, but I still don't get 6 & 7.
The mine was pretty cool, though....
-
The first time I saw a photo of this hole, a tee beyond 150 yards didn't occur to me. When I got there and saw 190 from the tips, I spasmed.
I absolutely flushed a five iron from up top and watched the ball come to rest short of the green. I could not believe it didn't reach the green, so my experience opposite the ones described above (dropping a club due to downward plunge of tee ball.)
Even though there is a lot going on visually, as George points out, this hole makes more sense to me than #4. There is no lost ball here, which is critical for me.
-
And after #4 this is my second least favorite hole on the front nine. I guess it is because there are really no decisions here other than pick the right club and execute.
I don't disagree with the fact that there aren't any real decisions, but I think what I'm looking for in a par 3 is different from other holes. Par 3s only occasionally present meaningful options, so I'm more interested in whether the challenge is a fun one, the aesthetic value of the hole, and whether the recovery situations add variety. 7 presents a pretty tough shot, but the satisfaction of watching a ball well-struck ball fly and land on the green might be higher than at any other hole on the course. There are also all kinds of recovery situations that can rear their head. For me, that's where the real variety in a par 3 can be found.
-
I don't mind an uphill pitch, a sidehill pitch, a long, medium or short bunker shot, or a bowl of porridge. #7 gives you these different possibilities, along with a putt, for your second shot. #4 gives you very little on misses short and left.
-
#7 is one of the most beautiful par 3's I have ever seen. How anyone can say this hole is ugly is beyond me. Also, i don't see what is so wrong with a par 3 that asks you to hit the green or face a tough up and down.
-
#7 is one of the most beautiful par 3's I have ever seen. How anyone can say this hole is ugly is beyond me. Also, i don't see what is so wrong with a par 3 that asks you to hit the green or face a tough up and down.
Word. Preach. Represent.
-
Fair enough. I guess what I was trying to express was at No. 4 for have to decide if you are going to take on the water whereas here I am just using my shot shape to hit the green.
I agree, and I'm with you. 4 is one of those rare par 3s that presents meaningful options, which is part of why I think it's a bit underrated. Granted, all the options are fairly tough to execute, but it does offer legitimate risk/reward decisions in a way that few par 3s can claim.
I just don't hold the lack of options against 7, as I don't think it has any fewer options than the vast majority of par 3s. I very rarely do anything on any par 3 under 190 yards aside from firing directly at the green. As a good ballstriker with a terrible short game, holes like the 7th with compelling targets and plenty of greenside treachery get my full attention.
-
I can see all the great ideas Pete Dye has put into his courses; the clever strategy, psychological tricks, great contours etc but I just can't get over the man-made over the top look, sheer number of superfluous features and in my opinion poor visuals I see on his courses time and time again.
I've only seen one in person but nothing I've seen from photos or TV make me want to seek any of them out.
Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?
To me there has to be more than an element of both to be a great golf course.
-
Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?
I think the PDGC is one of the most beautiful courses around. I love the look of the course.
-
Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?
I think the PDGC is one of the most beautiful courses around. I love the look of the course.
Fair enough.
I Guess this quote sums up my view pretty well;
Stunner? Yikes. Sensory overload to a hideous degree to me. It's like a beautiful woman who chose to have 30 too many plastic surgeries - when in fact 1 was too many.
-
I can see all the great ideas Pete Dye has put into his courses; the clever strategy, psychological tricks, great contours etc but I just can't get over the man-made over the top look, sheer number of superfluous features and in my opinion poor visuals I see on his courses time and time again.
I've only seen one in person but nothing I've seen from photos or TV make me want to seek any of them out.
Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?
To me there has to be more than an element of both to be a great golf course.
I've never thought the visuals are poor, but that is simply a matter of taste and I wouldn't be one to say your opinion is right or wrong. And I don't have a fixed preference either. I've seen man-made features that look horrible and others that work. From my perspective, Dye's features don't pretend to be natural, but at the same time, they still work for me.
For example, on this course, there are many examples of a sharper-edged fairway raised on the inside of a dogleg. It obscures the landing zone ever so slightly, and adds some psychological discomfort. But that visual works for me, mostly because of the purpose it serves and the way that it still tends to flow with the overall visual.
As for the superfluous features, I'm not sure what to make of that. What makes them superfluous? That they're added in areas that are out-of-play? Or that there's just too many items in play to consider?
If it's the former, I've never understood that criticism. For example, some criticize the sheer number of bunkers at Whistling Straits, especially in areas not in play. To me, if it's not in play, why does it matter? In WS's case, I think continuing the sandscape motif throughout the entire property works,
If it's the latter case, I'm not sure where to draw the line on the proper level of features to consider. If it's still playable and there's a reasonable way to avoid the most penal features, I'm OK with it.
But in the end, it's the first half of your first sentence that matters most to me, and if the clever strategy is there, the aesthetics are a secondary consideration. However, without the clever strategy and deceptive purposes, then you're simply talking about eye-candy. I don't think Dye ever falls into the latter.
-
I thought the run from 4-7 to be a special run of holes. The two par threes are different enough from each other to be interesting and fun to take on the pin. The par five is a stunner. Kevin is right, the second shot, unlike many par fives, is no gimme. Stay on your toes.
PDGC strikes a good balance between fun and difficulty.
-
I can see all the great ideas Pete Dye has put into his courses; the clever strategy, psychological tricks, great contours etc but I just can't get over the man-made over the top look, sheer number of superfluous features and in my opinion poor visuals I see on his courses time and time again.
I've only seen one in person but nothing I've seen from photos or TV make me want to seek any of them out.
Do people like the look of Pete Dye courses or is it all about the way they play?
To me there has to be more than an element of both to be a great golf course.
As for the superfluous features, I'm not sure what to make of that. What makes them superfluous? That they're added in areas that are out-of-play? Or that there's just too many items in play to consider?
If it's the former, I've never understood that criticism. For example, some criticize the sheer number of bunkers at Whistling Straits, especially in areas not in play. To me, if it's not in play, why does it matter? In WS's case, I think continuing the sandscape motif throughout the entire property works,
If it's the latter case, I'm not sure where to draw the line on the proper level of features to consider. If it's still playable and there's a reasonable way to avoid the most penal features, I'm OK with it.
But in the end, it's the first half of your first sentence that matters most to me, and if the clever strategy is there, the aesthetics are a secondary consideration. However, without the clever strategy and deceptive purposes, then you're simply talking about eye-candy. I don't think Dye ever falls into the latter.
The superfluous problem is to me a sustainability issue. If it is out of play what is the point of it? Eye candy? But in my mind it's ugly eye candy. Every bunker or huge mound on the periphery of the hole just feels like money, man power and often water falling through someones fingers both in construction and maintenance. I believe if in the UK these features would have been abandoned to save money a long time ago and to me it just lives a symbol of why golf in the US is so expensive.
Why have two huge bunkers when one small one will do the same job?
I do applaud some of the features Dye builds though and just from reading tours of his courses like this one I have definitely learnt alot from him, the raised fairway edge to obscure the landing zone you mention is one of them. He is clearly a clever guy but as I stated before for me the visual side of a golf experience is so important and his courses just don't seem to stimulate that part of me which is a shame.
-
Tom, where do you see the use of "two huge bunkers where one small one would do the same job" on Dye's courses? Do you also dislike the presentation of Raynor, Macdonald, and Langford courses?
Aesthetic tastes, of course, are inherently subjective. I love the look of most Dye courses, as many golfers do. I also think, though, that an evaluation of his work must differentiate between "aesthetics" and "visuals." The aesthetic qualities of a course relate to whether or not it's pleasant to look at - Dye's courses have a compelling aesthetic presentation that I enjoy, though others will disagree. Meanwhile, the VISUAL qualities of a course relate to how it uses the sense of sight to affect the player trying to shoot a good score. A course with great visual qualities will tempt, deceive, obscure, and falsely comfort the player throughout the round. The perceptive golfer who can resist the temptation, overcome the deception, execute when blinded, and keep his defenses up when comforted will enjoy a huge advantage on such courses. Dye is an absolute master of the visual element of design, and he displays that mastery throughout the round at Pete Dye GC.
We spend a lot of time talking about aesthetics on this site with our love of minimalism and naturalism. To look at Dye's courses through that same lens does a disservice to the extraordinary qualities of how they are presented visually. Pete Dye GC doesn't remotely have the aesthetics of a links course, but it invokes the visual qualities of a links as strongly as any course I know of.
-
Tom -
Thanks for clarifying your meaning. I can certainly understand the concern over costs and sustainability - I just wouldn't judge an individual design (micro level) because of a macro level concern. It wouldn't be Pete's fault for giving a private club what they're looking for.
Jason -
Thanks for making a distinction between visuals and aesthetics. I hadn't really thought of that before (at least consciously), so it gives me something to consider going forward.
-
#8. A beautiful short par 5 that cascades downhilll. Visual deception abounds from any place on the hole. One of my favorite holes anywhere.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole8.jpg)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2mfzs41.jpg)
This image lures you into believing you're seeing the intended drive zone. But looking at the aerial and yardage book, the ideal landing zone is hidden beyond the second set of bunkers (and far left of where you're drawn). If you can play a slinging hook, this is your dream tee shot.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/8a.jpg)
Once you're in the drive zone, the ideal line doesn't become any clearer. This also gives you an idea about the type of uneven laws you may draw.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/8b.jpg)
What lies beyond the fall off? The anticipation builds.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7832.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7832.jpg.html)
As with many holes before this, you are drawn towards the green, which looks so inviting in the valley below. But from this angle, a line directly at the pin is asking for trouble. The Line of Instinct is at work again. Until you see more of the hole below, you don't realize how to use the slopes short and left of the green.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7833.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7833.jpg.html)
A few shots getting closer start to reveal a little more:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/8d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/8e.jpg)
These two pictures just make me smile. I stand here and can't imagine why anyone would want to hit a shot more than 10 feet of the ground (or a putter). Looking at how small the green appears, the aerial approach seems very precise.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/8f.jpg)
The aerial attack seems even more difficult for this front pin position. I tried a few shots and the ball short of the green was the victim of the false fromt, while the ball a few feet left of the pin was the bump & run.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7842.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7842.jpg.html)
From the left side:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7850.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7850.jpg.html)
This gives you a clearer view of what lies right of the green:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7837.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7837.jpg.html)
A few final shots looking back gives you a sense of the overall movement.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7844.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7844.jpg.html)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/8h.jpg)
****************
I'm sure I showed a few more pics than necessary for this one, but I really enjoyed the overall movement of the hole.
Any time that the path to your target involves a bank shot, I am excited. Standing in the "go zone," I imagine the excitement of hitting a long iron / hybrid into the blind area short left of the green and than letting the anticipation build as I traverse down the fairway, waiting for that ultimate "reveal" of whether my ball has reacted as planned.
Maxing out at only 504 yards downhill, this hole is a dramatic birdie opportunity, but not so easy that you feel like you left one out there if you don't score. As has been the theme, a conservative player should have few problems navigating this, while the aggressive player can find trouble in their attempts at glory.
-
I've played this hole twice and hit the rock wall BOTH times on my second shot. Awful shots for sure, but I think it had something to do with the false visual from the fairway that everything hit in the valley (left or right) should feed towards the green (see the third picture for this view) so just grip it and rip it.
Despite the poor effort, I don't recall there being much of a reason to layup on this one - you can add the second shot at 8 as one of the "fun" shots on a course that has as many "fun" shots of any course I've played .
-
#7 is one of the most beautiful par 3's I have ever seen. How anyone can say this hole is ugly is beyond me. Also, i don't see what is so wrong with a par 3 that asks you to hit the green or face a tough up and down.
No problem at all with your last sentence, I agree with that wholeheartedly.
As for the first one, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, again. Although I will point out, I didn't say it was ugly, I said it was sensory overload. They're not really the same thing.
But it is kinda ugly, too... :)
I think what bothers me most about #7 is I feel it could be dropped into any desert course I've played and I wouldn't even notice the difference, nor would anyone, save matt, I guess!
P.S. on 8, I don't think my strategy would change much from play to play, but at least I would be presented with many different shots, due to the variations in the terrain. In the end, shot variety means much more to me than shot value, whatever that means.
-
The third shot and the greens complex stand out for me on #8. I just love this hole. I think good par fives are hard to make. Too many only rely on length. The fives at PDGC require thought and execution.
-
The third shot and the greens complex stand out for me on #8. I just love this hole. I think good par fives are hard to make. Too many only rely on length. The fives at PDGC require thought and execution.
Tommy - couldn't agree more. While I'm always hoping for a chip or putt for my third shot on a short Par 5, the third shot on this hole makes me waiver on my "never lay up with a wedge" rule. What I also like about this is the combination with the false front, If you try an aerial approach and come up 10 yards short, you won't "get away with it" with a higher trajectory. But, if you actually intend to use the ground, the false front actually serves as the backstop to control your speed. I think I love the last 100 or so yards of this hole more than any other segment of the course.
Charlie,
Does the little bowl before the green ever get so soft that aerial is the only approach option?
When you're playing to this green on a second shot, how much yardage do you typically take off your approach? Are you intending to land 30 yards short of the green? 40? 50? I imagine there's a point where the slope may be too hot that you'll propel through the green, but I'm just curious about the general mental adjustment you make. Perhaps there is no such standard answer, because it will completely depend on your trajectory, which makes it an even better feature.
I've played this hole twice and hit the rock wall BOTH times on my second shot. Awful shots for sure, but I think it had something to do with the false visual from the fairway that everything hit in the valley (left or right) should feed towards the green (see the third picture for this view) so just grip it and rip it.
Despite the poor effort, I don't recall there being much of a reason to layup on this one - you can add the second shot at 8 as one of the "fun" shots on a course that has as many "fun" shots of any course I've played .
False visuals abound on this course, so I'd imagine people often miss further right than they should. The other reason I suspect the gorge gets extra action is the over-compensation by players for the "above-the-feet" lies in most of the fairway.
-
On just a single play, I do remember the 8th hole quite vividly. Not exactly sure what made it so visually appealing to me. But I'd love to play it again, and maybe I still have that rock wall scuffed Titleist I was playing. ;)
-
#9. A 462 yard par 4.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole9.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/1ig2yr.jpg)
A split fairway with a centerline hazard. Going to have to think your way through this tee shot.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/9a.jpg)
Zoomed in a little more.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7848.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7848.jpg.html)
Looking back from the fairway - that's just pretty.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7855.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7855.jpg.html)
A general idea of the view from the right fairway:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7853.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7853.jpg.html)
A view from the left side. The raised bank just above the greenside bunker again instills fear of the unknown landing area.
Note also the slice-promoting, left-to-right slope of the fairway. However, the closer you flirt with the centerline hazard, the flatter the lie becomes. If you take the left side, you'll have a tougher angle & lie (if you want to get close). But, if you're the conservative player, a miss just short right of the green will leave the easiest chip available (in terms of an open front and angle):
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7858.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7858.jpg.html)
Getting a little closer to the green:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/9c.jpg)
This shows some of the challenges for your chips from just short of the green.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/9d.jpg)
A look back shows the two dominant humps on the left and right of the green that must be considered on your approach and chips.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7880.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7880.jpg.html)
***************
Overall, just a solid hole from beginning to end. There is so much width to use that options are plentiful. The contouring of the green places a premium on approach angle (or where to miss, if you're short).
Again, for the player chasing birdies/pars, a very stiff challenge. For the higher handicap, plenty of ways to navigate the hole without too much danger of putting up an "X."
-
I think what bothers me most about #7 is I feel it could be dropped into any desert course I've played and I wouldn't even notice the difference, nor would anyone, save matt, I guess!
I'm one who generally likes the look of most of Dye's courses, including this one. I can certainly see how it can be jarring if you're wanting something more natural in appearance. Aesthetics is a pretty personal thing in any case.
I'm curious where you get the desert analogy. Living in the desert, I don't see it. Most desert courses are far more penal than the 7th at PDGC, which creates tough up-and-downs but generally should allow you to find and play your ball. Many desert plants don't leave that luxury. I doubt that Matt and I are the only ones who would notice the difference :D
-
Just loving the break from my usual aesthetics comfort zone.
#9 though, whilst it looks a fantastic hole on paper, looks a bit too wide down the right hand side for the player to ever think seriously about taking the safe left option. Am I mistaken?
-
Just loving the break from my usual aesthetics comfort zone.
#9 though, whilst it looks a fantastic hole on paper, looks a bit too wide down the right hand side for the player to ever think seriously about taking the safe left option. Am I mistaken?
Wow, you must be a much more accurate than I if you feel the right side is very wide. I feel like I would aim it down the left side most times. Honestly, as a long hitter who can be erratic, I think I would aim slightly left of the centre bunker and if I pull or push it I might still have a decent chance at catching some fairway.
-
I think what bothers me most about #7 is I feel it could be dropped into any desert course I've played and I wouldn't even notice the difference, nor would anyone, save matt, I guess!
I'm one who generally likes the look of most of Dye's courses, including this one. I can certainly see how it can be jarring if you're wanting something more natural in appearance. Aesthetics is a pretty personal thing in any case.
I'm curious where you get the desert analogy. Living in the desert, I don't see it. Most desert courses are far more penal than the 7th at PDGC, which creates tough up-and-downs but generally should allow you to find and play your ball. Many desert plants don't leave that luxury. I doubt that Matt and I are the only ones who wouldn't notice the difference :D
I also admit to being lost at how George see's the par 3 7th as a type of hole that would be found on a desert course.
-
Very nice tour and discussion.
I haven't visited the course.
The fairway and rough mounding feels over the top to me. This appears to be a beautiful setting and a nice rolling piece of land. I don't think more rolls are needed. I think 7 would be more pleasing if Dye had let that nice rounded hill top in the distance be the visual hero for the hole. LESS bunkers and mounding in front of the green would have been MORE here.
That said, I like the repeated use of the stone walls. They tie the holes together and add some interesting visual challenges without feeling overdone.
-
Just loving the break from my usual aesthetics comfort zone.
#9 though, whilst it looks a fantastic hole on paper, looks a bit too wide down the right hand side for the player to ever think seriously about taking the safe left option. Am I mistaken?
Paul,
Well, as has been the theme, just because it "looks wide" doesn't mean it will play that way.
I pulled an older aerial from 2003 which shows the lines a little better (without shade).
(http://i58.tinypic.com/28mptnl.jpg)
First, the little tongue of fairway (circled in red) really doesn't provide much landing area, but when you look at the tee visual, it almost makes the right fairway look wider than it really is. I used to wonder what it was for, but I think the answer is deception, since it lines you up with the right fairway bunker.
Using Google Earth, the width of the respective areas are ~ 35 yds (L) and 22 yds (R), (plus bunkers on each side of the right landing zone). It is approx.70-75 yds across the entire width short of the hazard, but the orange line is still approx. 200 yds from the green.
Further, balls in the right landing area may kick off the side slope of the bunker, perhaps making it a little tougher to hold the area. While there is a slope on the left side, I think that would act more as a backstop for a pulled drive.
Combining the above items, the right play may not be as easy as it appears.
Also, it terms of the approach trade-off, some of the pictures above may have oversold the difficulty of hitting the green from the left side. The picture I showed was for a back left pin, so the impact will be magnified. However, if the pin is center, right or short, you won't necessarily need to carry greenside bunkers from the left side (although you may have to account for a below-the-feet lie).
Having said all that, I'll be interested for Charlie to chime in with his multiple play experience to comment on the relative usage of right vs left approaches.
-
first couple times around thoughts on the front.
unless you are playing up or really pound the ball, on the par 5s you don't get a really sense of just how much room is on the left if you look to lay up your 2nd shot. sure you see the river on #5, but the wall on #7 can lull you into thinking that there is more room on the right than there is, catching a lot of shot into that waste area.
the green on 3 is something else. lots of movement in there with the internal mounds and hill back left pushing balls.
that creek really comes into the fairway on #6. i've seen guys hit from the fairway shots that we thought were going at the pin when "BOING" the ball came up short and ricocheted off the rock wall. the picture in the yardage book doesn't do it justice.
it is a helluva carry on 9 to get over the grass ditch on the right. again requires that you play up or nut it. and the bunkers left off 9 green are well below the putting surface. good luck.
-
Just loving the break from my usual aesthetics comfort zone.
#9 though, whilst it looks a fantastic hole on paper, looks a bit too wide down the right hand side for the player to ever think seriously about taking the safe left option. Am I mistaken?
I don't know the distance to carry the rough down the right side but I you fail to tou will end up in rough on an upslope where you can't even think of advancing your shot near the green. It may not look it but the risk of taking the right side is fraught with peril (or at least a sure bogey) if you don't carry the tee shot far enough.
-
I just wouldn't judge an individual design (micro level) because of a macro level concern. It wouldn't be Pete's fault for giving a private club what they're looking for.
On a micro level (as much as I can see from the photos) it looks very interesting and probably worth seeing but the macro concerns make such an impact to me that they leave too much for the micro level design to claw back. It's like making a quadruple bogey on the first and then trying to drag it back over the rest of the round.
I'm not saying it's all bad, I admire Pete Dye courses but they just don't grab me.
Yes he may be giving the private club what they want but should he not be trying to give them the best value for money too?
-
Tom, where do you see the use of "two huge bunkers where one small one would do the same job" on Dye's courses? Do you also dislike the presentation of Raynor, Macdonald, and Langford courses?
Aesthetic tastes, of course, are inherently subjective. I love the look of most Dye courses, as many golfers do. I also think, though, that an evaluation of his work must differentiate between "aesthetics" and "visuals." The aesthetic qualities of a course relate to whether or not it's pleasant to look at - Dye's courses have a compelling aesthetic presentation that I enjoy, though others will disagree. Meanwhile, the VISUAL qualities of a course relate to how it uses the sense of sight to affect the player trying to shoot a good score. A course with great visual qualities will tempt, deceive, obscure, and falsely comfort the player throughout the round. The perceptive golfer who can resist the temptation, overcome the deception, execute when blinded, and keep his defenses up when comforted will enjoy a huge advantage on such courses. Dye is an absolute master of the visual element of design, and he displays that mastery throughout the round at Pete Dye GC.
We spend a lot of time talking about aesthetics on this site with our love of minimalism and naturalism. To look at Dye's courses through that same lens does a disservice to the extraordinary qualities of how they are presented visually. Pete Dye GC doesn't remotely have the aesthetics of a links course, but it invokes the visual qualities of a links as strongly as any course I know of.
I'm not a massive fan of the presentation at Raynor et al courses.
You're right about the visual/aesthetic thing and I've probably used the word visual confusingly mainly in the aesthetic sense you are referring too. I agree on his use of deception, it looks very clever at times though one visual aspect that Dye falls down on in my opinion is the bunkering style and sometimes lack of visibility. Surely when using five bunkers in a cluster around a driving zone they are meant to be intimidating yet sometimes you can't or can hardly see them or they are just a few flat round blobs, a few flashed faces or simply one larger bunker that is really in your face would work better.
....Getting to the superfluous bunker, it is not always just using two when one is plenty but the sheer size of some of them that gets me;
1st hole;
- Tee shot bunkers short left, do they really need 8?! Surely the last two would suffice? The others seem to only penalise weak players for whom the rough would be enough punishment.
4th hole;
- Does the fairway bunker really need to be 100 yards long? How long does that take to rake even on a sand pro?! How much sand to replenish?!
- Is the little pot by the big greenside still there, I can't see it in the photos? Is it really necessary?
5th hole;
- Does there need to be 6 bunkers in the fairway cluster on the right? I can't see half of them. Are they there to intimidate? One big flashed one would suffice?
- Does the bunker approaching the green need to be 50 yards long?
7th hole;
- Does the short front need to be there? I doubt it gets much play and the people who are in it could probably do with a break.
- The five at the back? Is the chip back up the bank not tough enough for most players?
8th hole;
- Short of the green on the left is the first and furthest left of the three needed? Does it affect play much? It doesn't look like it does to me.
- Does the bunker short right of the green need to be 100 yards long...again as with the 4th, maintenance costs vs value to the play of the course?!
It's not all complaints, the 6th looks like a cool hole!
-
The scorecard on page one shows the 9th tipping at 497.
The 9th hole ydg book shows the tips at 462.
Tacking on 35 yds.
That makes the carry shown on the book about 330 yds.
Just shows how far the bombers hit it.
And how technology is constantly stressing courses.
BRING BACK HICKORIES! ;)
-
I find it humourous how much Dye is a polarizing designer. I think in this day and age when minimalism and austerity are at the heart of design many people on this message board have a real hard time wrapping their head around Dye. At first I thought most people didn't get him because his courses weren't as "natural" looking. But Tom's post above makes me realize it is more than that, it is that many people are looking at his courses like accountants, wanting him to justify every feature as though he was spending their money. So be it, but I admit to finding this to be a puzzling way to analyze a course, especially one built in the 80s. It is like looking at Vanderbilt's mansion today and saying, "did he need to spend all this money on his house, we are in an economic depression today, it is so unfashionable."
Dye build this course in the 1980s, it was a different time in America. He built the course for maximum impact, he wasn't worried that by making a bunker bigger, or adding an extra one that he would be breaking the budget. The course took 15 years to build! Budget was not the issue!
-
Dye build this course in the 1980s, it was a different time in America. He built the course for maximum impact, he wasn't worried that by making a bunker bigger, or adding an extra one that he would be breaking the budget. The course took 15 years to build! Budget was not the issue!
Budget may not be an issue in the build but it almsot certainly will be at some point in it's life...
'The real test of a course: is it going to live'?
Harry Colt
-
I've fallen behind on the hole-by-hole breakdown again, but I don't have much to add about 8 or 9. They're one exceptional hole and one very good one that have been well covered here.
To address a few other things:
Shaping and mounding: Several people have suggested that the mounding is overkill, and Morgan specifically calls it out at the 7th hole. I don't get the same impression on the course, as the shaping ties together with the property very nicely. This is a rugged, rolling property that has also served as an active mining site for decades. In other words, it isn't dissimilar to the hole and course pictured below, famously discussed in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54785.0.html
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Streamsong%20Blue%2001-2013/IMG_2961.jpg)
It's hard to know which of the small hillocks on 7 and elsewhere were natural, which were created as part of the mining operation, and which were created by Dye. As such...
Cost of construction and maintenance: ... it's hard to know whether that shaping added a substantial amount of cost to the club's construction, or if flattening pre-existing mineral piles from the mining operation would have saved enough maintenance costs to justify the initial addition to construction cost. The bizarre circumstances of the course's construction make it an especially tough build budget to armchair analyze, and absent hard numbers, it's probably best to evaluate the course for how it looks and plays as opposed to how much it might have hypothetically cost to build or maintain.
Overbunkering: There are lots of bunkers at Pete Dye Golf Club. Perhaps they could have gone with 5 instead of 8 to the left of the first fairway and gotten the same effect, and maybe they could have taken 5 yards off the length of the one to the right of 3 and gotten basically the same effect, and maybe taking out the one way short on 7 wouldn't adversely affect the course. Then again, that cluster on 1 and the short bunker on 7 are both located in areas that will collect runoff, and the mining operations of the course likely affected its natural drainage. Maybe the easiest way to keep those areas maintained without letting them go to native/lost ball territory was to put in bunkers with plenty of drainage. Or maybe there were other practical considerations. The bottom line is that the bunkering gives the course an aesthetic character that many golfers really find striking, and most of the bunkers are in positions that make sense even if we might quibble about their size or shape. I guess I'm just uncomfortable with criticism based on perceived maintenance costs for a private course whose members are happy to pay those costs.
As I'm typing, I can see the picture of St. Enodoc on the cover of the new Confidential Guide. That bunker in the hillside looks pretty damn big and costly to maintain, and there are mounds everywhere. I don't know any more about the ratio of natural to manmade shaping on that hole than I do about the same ratio of natural to manmade shaping at Pete Dye Golf Club. I just know that they both look pretty fun to play.
-
I think what bothers me most about #7 is I feel it could be dropped into any desert course I've played and I wouldn't even notice the difference, nor would anyone, save matt, I guess!
I'm one who generally likes the look of most of Dye's courses, including this one. I can certainly see how it can be jarring if you're wanting something more natural in appearance. Aesthetics is a pretty personal thing in any case.
I'm curious where you get the desert analogy. Living in the desert, I don't see it. Most desert courses are far more penal than the 7th at PDGC, which creates tough up-and-downs but generally should allow you to find and play your ball. Many desert plants don't leave that luxury. I doubt that Matt and I are the only ones who wouldn't notice the difference :D
I also admit to being lost at how George see's the par 3 7th as a type of hole that would be found on a desert course.
I did not mean in a literal sense, with all of that green grass. I meant the design doesn't seem very different from the 8 or so desert courses I've played - short, bordering on out of play, bunkers, lots of mounding, just a lot of overkill with all of the things that are going on.
-----
One thing I will point out to anyone who hasn't played PDGC is that the mounding and shaping is not as jarring in real life as it appears in some of these photos. (That's not a criticism of the photographers, it's the shortcomings of a 2-D medium and the foreshortening effects of cameras.) I doubt I'd call it beautiful, but it does look better - much better, in fact - in person. Many places around the course are outright beautiful.
-
I'm on the road in Florida for a few days, so if I get a little behind, you'll know why. But, I'll try to keep things moving forward when I get some free time each day.
*****************************
Good stuff, guys. I've definitely picked up a few different perspectives to consider going forward in my GCA learning curve.
I appreciate Tom's specific examples he listed, and understand his feelings. However, I think Jason is right that you have to consider the time it was built. I guess I have to parse my feelings between how this individual course plays and how the golf economic landscape would look if all courses followed its lead. Put another way, if this was the only course you ever saw, how would you judge it?
Of course, that parsing is only my opinion. It's not that I don't consider value in choosing courses to play, but I like to separate the judgement of the design itself from the other considerations. It's not as if I look at a simpler golf course and think "that would be better if there was more going on." I just recognize that there are different styles and looks, but if they both hold my interest, are fun and provide some strategic thinking - I'm equally satisfied.
****************
Final front nine thoughts:
After hearing some of the horror stories about #9, I think I'm going to count my lucky stars that I parred it on my only play. Is this normally into the prevailing wind? I'm trying to remember other courses where I play two par 4.5s in a row.
When the Nationwide Tour played there, didn't they reverse the nines for tournament purposes? That would make for an interesting finish, trying to make a move on #8, and then hold on for dear life at #9. Is the 497 yard tee on #9 ( referenced by John) a remnant of the old tournament? I think the yardage book used for this tour dates back to 2008 or 2009.
-
#10. Another stout par 4 to start the inward 9.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole10.jpg)
(http://i61.tinypic.com/25f7jbd.jpg)
From the tee:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7882.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7882.jpg.html)
What lurks if you miss right. This is far off line, but acts as a little bit of a safety bunker:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7895.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7895.jpg.html)
A view from the right side (a bit closer). This appears to be after the path crossing, so likely inside of 100 yards.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/10c.jpg)
From the left side, well back in the fairway:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7899.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7899.jpg.html)
The next few shots will give you just a little appreciation of the contours on this green:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7905.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7905.jpg.html)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/10e.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7912.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7912.jpg.html)
Looking back from just left of the green.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7910.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7910.jpg.html)
A few final pics of this one from the 18th. The 18th / 10th vista is another of the many gorgeous views around PDGC:
This first pic taken from near the 18th green.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/10a.jpg)
A little before the 18th green (what a preview!):
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8047.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8047.jpg.html)
**********************
Line of Instinct alert!! From what I recall - when you stand on the tee and feel like you've picked your line, aim 15 yards left of that.
After Dye spent the entire front concealing the landing areas from the tee and making them appear narrower than they really are, I sense he was setting you up for this tee shot. The green, the bunkers, and the supposedly concealed shortcut route all pull your vision to the right. But from what I see from the aerial / yardage book, the entire realistic landing area is right there in front of you (and well to the left).
I suppose this may change if you move up a few decks or are a bigger hitter, but I see no reason to flirt with the inside of this dogleg for the average player. Is there a prevailing wind to consider off the tee? Hopefully Charlie will correct me if I'm missing something.
Once you find the fairway, you have a huge target to aim for (albeit very segmented). I recall my recovery shots ringing around the contours, and having a few backstop options (with balls running past the hole, and then falling back). This is one of those that I label a "Six-Pack Green" (i.e. the type that you & your buddies go to after the round with a few beers and have putting / chipping contests).
A few items for discussion:
- Is there any low running play off the mounds short left of the green? Given the length of this hole, I imagine many are in need of a non-aerial approach.
- How much does the ideal approach angle change as the pin positions shift? The severe contours look like they will always be a consideration.
- What's the general impression of the waterfall? Tom Doak referred to it as an "unfortunate tacky" feature on a previous thread. But I recall reading somewhere that this is the result of a natural spring running under the green, rather than a purely artificial feature (i.e. requiring the recycling / pumping of water). I found it to be an interesting change of pace that blended in with the mined look of the land, but was curious what others thought.
-
Budget was not the issue!
Curious, in that I think it's had several owners. They might disagree with you.
Or maybe not.
Didn't much care for 10, mostly for the same reasons I don't love #2.
-
George,
How many Dye courses have you played? I ask because it seems to me that Dye is a love/hate designer. I have experienced some friends that seem to "snap" from hating his designs to loving them after they've played a few - it seems like it takes some people a certain amount of plays to really figure him and his courses out.
-
George,
How many Dye courses have you played? I ask because it seems to me that Dye is a love/hate designer. I have experienced some friends that seem to "snap" from hating his designs to loving them after they've played a few - it seems like it takes some people a certain amount of plays to really figure him and his courses out.
Before I answer, let me say first that I am not at all attempting to draw some sort of conclusion or judgment about Pete Dye's career or his courses in totality. That's for better, far more experienced, minds than mine. I'm merely commenting on this course. (It's so rare that I can actually say I've played a course discussed on here, I hope I'm allowed to comment on this one!)
Having said that, I'm sitting on a grand total of 2, Pete Dye Golf Club and Mystic Rock. I've also been granted a tour of The Ocean Course, which was closed for play when I was there.
I don't doubt Pete's place in the pantheon of gca, and I will add that The Players is behind only The Masters and The Open in terms of courses that I actually take the time to watch the pros play (the US Open and PGA depend on the venue) on the tube. I just don't happen to agree with - and in fact from my experience, strongly DISAGREE with - the notion that anyone can love a Pete Dye course, as long as they play the right tees.
Fwiw, I believe I "get" what it is that Pete is trying to do; I don't agree that it's a worthy goal for casual golfers.
-
10 plays through a beautiful setting, but at first glance it seems like a bit of a waste of a natural feature. The creek running down the right side practically begs for a "bite off as much as you can chew" tee shot that challenges the water to set up a shorter approach. Such a hole would be out of place here, though, as we already played something similar back at #2. The land for 10 may not be dissimilar to the land at 2, but the hole plays extremely differently.
The goal off the tee at 10 should not be to hug the water, as it is off the tee at 2. Instead, the fairway routes well to the left and the ideal angle of approach can be from the left side of the fairway as well, depending on a few factors. The challenge here is to resist the temptation to shorten this beefy par 4 by trying to cut off the hole's length by aiming further to the right than you can carry. Everything about this hole's presentation pulls the player to aim further right than they should. The line of charm is well to the right of the fairway. The bunkers in the depression right of the fairway seemingly beg to be challenged on the tee shot. The fairway, again, looks like it quickly runs out of room up the left side for bigger hitters. It takes a lot of discipline to confidently line up for a shot down the center left of the fairway.
While the scenery draws attention to the hole for most golfers, the final 50 yards hold the most architectural interest. With no bunkers near the green, the land allows for a ball struck with the proper trajectory to feed in toward the green from the left. The green features remarkable microundulations, particularly considering the story that it's almost completely manmade and built over the top of the stream leading out of the ground on the right side of the green.
As for the stream/waterfall itself, I like it. It existed prior to the course, if fits the mining theme, and it's fairly inconspicuous compared to the vast majority of artificial greenside waterfalls.
-
Sorry for the hiatus while on the road - I had a little less availability than I thought (and poorer internet connectivity).
I hope we can get the momentum back and continue this one.
**************************
#11. A monstrously long par 5 (from the tips).
I'm going to admit right off the top that my recollection of this hole was lacking, as I really wasn't much of a fan (thought of it as a bit of a slog). But, in looking at the photos and angles, there's more going on than my recollection gave it credit for.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole11.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/28am8zq.jpg)
The long road ahead of you from the tee, and trickery abounds. The bunker left and green in the distance draws your view left.
Also, the raised inside of the fairway usually conceals a landing area beyond (reinforced by the view of fairway well close to the layup area). However, in this case, the rise conceals the fact that the fairway turns to the right over the hill. If you anticipate a turn over the rise, you'll end up in the circled orange area from the aerial. Your line is actually well right, towards the portion of the right fairway bunker visible from the tee.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/11a.jpg)
The view of your second shot from the landing zone.
Again, your Line of Instinct toward the green will only lead to trouble. You're better off aiming directly towards the trees and bunker short and right of the green. It's highly unlikely you'll reach either, but should give you the best approach angle (especially to a back left pin).
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7915.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7915.jpg.html)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7920.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7920.jpg.html)
A little closer - roughly 200 yards out:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7919.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7919.jpg.html)
A few views from the 3rd shot area. As you can see, the positioning in this wide landing area will alter your view significantly:
Central:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/11c.jpg)
Left:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7921.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7921.jpg.html)
Right:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7923.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7923.jpg.html)
A few looks back:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/11f.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7924.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7924.jpg.html)
********************
It's certainly a challenge to make a par 5 unreachable with today's technology. It's even more difficult to make such a hole interesting, since the main factor is length. But if you were to compare this 600 yarder to a similar length hole like Golden Horseshoe's 15th, PDGC is far superior. The visual interest off the tee and angles to consider on the second shot here make this a much more enjoyable play (GH felt like being asked to hit your two longest clubs very straight or else - end of interest, end of story.)
I've always felt Pete Dye was one of the best designers of Par 5s - and providing interest on a 600 yard hole is a testament to that.
-
#11. A monstrously long par 5 (from the tips).
I'm going to admit right off the top that my recollection of this hole was lacking, as I really wasn't much of a fan (thought of it as a bit of a slog). But, in looking at the photos and angles, there's more going on than my recollection gave it credit for.
You (and others) probably won't be surprised to learn this was one of my favorite holes, given my contrarian bent. And it's not just because I had an eagle chip and birdie putt (which I missed, of course). :) Give me a wide field with a handful of features, no death penalty hazards, and an interesting green, and I am almost sated...
Your description above is almost a criterion for me for a good hole - not a lot apparent going on, but upon further reflection, more than you realized. I'm almost the anti-Mackenzie, in terms of desires: I prefer looks easy plays harder to looks hard plays easy.
Apparently I'm mostly a loner in this preference.
-
Your description above is almost a criterion for me for a good hole - not a lot apparent going on, but upon further reflection, more than you realized. I'm almost the anti-Mackenzie, in terms of desires: I prefer looks easy plays harder to looks hard plays easy.
Apparently I'm mostly a loner in this preference.
Almost a loner but not quite. I have a fairly similar view.
-
I can't be the first person ever to step to the tee at 11 and boldly try to carry the left bunker on my first play. I hit a great drive and watched with great anticipation as it landed safely over the hazard and... ended up on the downslope in the rough not even close to the fairway.
Once again, the principal challenge is to play away from where your eyes tell you to play. It's worth noting, though, that flirting with the bunker off the tee opens up the layup area with a more preferred angle, particularly if you want to lay up to the right side of the fairway to open up the entrance to the green. The layup area itself is full of uneven terrain that makes distance control a little trickier for strong players hitting half wedges.
Still, this is probably the least compelling hole on the course for me. Maybe I'm just hung up on wishing that carrying the left bunker made sense - it sets up so well for that shot and it's a bit of a letdown to skip the exhilaration of carrying the sand and instead play the straight shot into the fairway.
-
#11. A monstrously long par 5 (from the tips).
I'm going to admit right off the top that my recollection of this hole was lacking, as I really wasn't much of a fan (thought of it as a bit of a slog). But, in looking at the photos and angles, there's more going on than my recollection gave it credit for.
You (and others) probably won't be surprised to learn this was one of my favorite holes, given my contrarian bent. And it's not just because I had an eagle chip and birdie putt (which I missed, of course). :) Give me a wide field with a handful of features, no death penalty hazards, and an interesting green, and I am almost sated...
Your description above is almost a criterion for me for a good hole - not a lot apparent going on, but upon further reflection, more than you realized. I'm almost the anti-Mackenzie, in terms of desires: I prefer looks easy plays harder to looks hard plays easy.
Apparently I'm mostly a loner in this preference.
I thought you may like this hole, and it's not that I disliked it, it just didn't leave a strong impression on me from the first play. It took some post-game review to fully appreciate it. In a way, this comes down to the discussion of a "head vs heart" attraction to a course or hole.
For me, the Mackenzie thought isn't so much about the "play easy" part, it's really just the visual element that provides an additional layer of mental hazards. For instance, an elevated, partially blind approach shot doesn't look "hard" - but the uncertainty certainly makes the shot more interesting to me. In the Ballyhack thread, everyone talked about the significantly uphill approach on #1. It gets in your head, but it's still just a 120 yard shot (perhaps with a 140 swing). The shot's not really any easier or harder than a 140 yard flat approach, but I'd say the "look" is what makes it more thrilling to hit that green.
Of course, everything is about balance and most holes would fit somewhere on the continuum between the two professed schools of thought. I suppose Pete Dye does provide a little bit of both in his designs, as there are certain holes that jump out at me and tug at my heart, while there are others that require some thought to fully appreciate.
-
I can't be the first person ever to step to the tee at 11 and boldly try to carry the left bunker on my first play. I hit a great drive and watched with great anticipation as it landed safely over the hazard and... ended up on the downslope in the rough not even close to the fairway.
Once again, the principal challenge is to play away from where your eyes tell you to play. It's worth noting, though, that flirting with the bunker off the tee opens up the layup area with a more preferred angle, particularly if you want to lay up to the right side of the fairway to open up the entrance to the green. The layup area itself is full of uneven terrain that makes distance control a little trickier for strong players hitting half wedges.
Still, this is probably the least compelling hole on the course for me. Maybe I'm just hung up on wishing that carrying the left bunker made sense - it sets up so well for that shot and it's a bit of a letdown to skip the exhilaration of carrying the sand and instead play the straight shot into the fairway.
You must be a very long hitter or were playing up a little (295/279 carry from the last two decks). I decided to play all the way back just to see what a 600 yard hole felt like, so those thoughts never entered my mind.
As for the letdown, I guess I've just come to appreciate Dye's sense of humor and trickery, especially on the last two tee shots. The fairway bunkers are nowhere near your optimal line, but we've just been wired to believe that you should hug a fairway bunker as tight as possible to get some advantage.
-
#12. Another short par 4.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole12.jpg)
My analysis is going mostly of the pics and aerial, since my play included a poorly hit driver that bounced perfectly off the trees and into the fairway, leaving a simple wedge in. Doubt that was the design. But from the aerial below, it looks like this hole accommodates the conservative play (yellow), a slice/fade (blue) and a draw (red).
(http://i59.tinypic.com/fxdr4p.jpg)
A view from all the way back. I had no idea where to go here nor did I have any sense of the relative distances. I don't recall if you can see the flag in certain locations or if the mound/FW bunker left completely obscures your view.
The encroaching tree right and sloped right hillside all push your aim left. The fairway bunker left make this seem very narrow from the tee (the 25 yards you see) and tempts you to believe there's glory over the FW bunker. Yet, as seen from the aerial above, there's plenty of room to the right and opens up to 50+ yards of width if you are bold enough to hit driver.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7930.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7930.jpg.html)
The carts in this shot help you get a sense that there's landing area more to the right.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/12a.jpg)
A few looks from the fairway:
Just short of the fairway bunker (~110-120 yds):
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7938.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7938.jpg.html)
Even with it (~85 yards)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/12b.jpg)
A bit closer to the green:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/12c.jpg)
Unfortunately, I didn't have any shots from the far right of the fairway.
A final look back reveals how big the left mound is.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/12d.jpg)
A nice touch at the end of the hole:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/352kq2q.jpg)
**********************
I'll be interested to hear how this one plays after repeat visits.
Is it really driveable or are you always left with an awkward pitch vs. a safe play of 110-120 yards?
Is the pin ever visible from any the tees / certain pin positions? Or does the mound always obscure your view?
How are the recovery opportunities for pulled tee shots?
-
The 12th is a variation of a Dye short par 4 template he used a lot in the 1980s. Off the top of my head I can think of Long Cove, Old Marsh, Brickyard Crossing, Whistling Straits, Colleton River, Sawgrass, all having some aspect of this hole. Short Par 4 with a blind green if you are not aggressive with the tee shot. I find this Dye template to be kind of neat, because it's cool to see the different ways he uses it on different courses. There are variations.
That being said, I think for today's good player this hole is pretty easy. Bomb it 300 yards into a 50 yard wide fairway, then pitch straight up the gut of the green. Back when the hole was built a good drive was 270, making the angle of the pitch much more difficult and awkward at 70 yards. However, I think for the average golfer this hole is plenty fun.
-
I just love the 12th, and I'm a notorious hater when it comes to short par 4s.
I've said before that I think this course has a very linksy feel even though it's obviously parkland/mountainous in terrain and presentation. I don't think the links-style element of the course ever comes into clearer focus than here at 12. The bunkered mound straight ahead off the tee makes the corridor feel tight and awkward, and yet it widens up substantially once you get past it.
While some players will certainly just bomb it at the green here, it sets up more as a drive-and-pitch hole with the contours of the fairway that bleed into the green creating some really dicey approach shots. From the right side of the fairway, a soft bump and run will funnel down onto the middle of the putting surface pretty easily. From the left side, a firm runner will take the slope up the front of the green and then feed off the front left mound down toward middle pin positions. The pitches that strong players will favor, meanwhile, require plenty of touch.
The green itself must be in the discussion of the best on the course - nothing too wild, but it bleeds and rumbles in every direction and double-breaking putts will be common for anyone who doesn't carefully control their approach. Everything about this hole is delightful - you have 3 or 4 real options off the tee with at least three different options for how to hit your approach from each of those positions. It would take a lot of plays to figure out if there's a single preferred method of playing the hole for me.
-
COMPLETELY forgot about this hole, and that's to my discredit, as I too liked it. I will admit to discomfort on the tee, as I didn't know where to hit it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's a hole I think I would enjoy all the time, could see play it differently each time, though likely not by choice... :)
-
Following up on the comments from Matt & Jason, I'll ask for some insight from Charlie:
Ease for the Good Player - Not sure if Charlie was a member in the Nationwide Tour days, but I'm curious how most Tour Players attacked this hole during the event. Were they trying to get all the way home and trusting their sand game? Or did many just lay back and use their wedge skill to attack this aerially? I'm thinking most pros would rather not trust the 40-50 yard partial shot and have enough confidence from 110 or so yards that there's no need to risk a Driver.
Ground Approach Options - As has been my consistent question in this thread, are the running options mentioned by Jason a realistic option in terms of maintenance? I didn't see the options Jason did, but I didn't get a very good look at this hole. It seemed to me like the rough on the mounds surrounding the greens would hold up several ground options I'd like to see. Perhaps I just need a few different angles of the green to envision them.
-
COMPLETELY forgot about this hole, and that's to my discredit, as I too liked it. I will admit to discomfort on the tee, as I didn't know where to hit it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's a hole I think I would enjoy all the time, could see play it differently each time, though likely not by choice... :)
I had a little bit of the same reaction. Since the drive zone appeared so tight, there was less sense of the overall hole from the tee to recall. If this hole had committed a crime and I was the only witness, I wouldn't have given the sketch artist much to work with.
With any short par 4, you usually need several rounds to experiment to fully appreciate it, so this is one that I regret not playing better.
-
Following up on the comments from Matt & Jason, I'll ask for some insight from Charlie:
Ease for the Good Player - Not sure if Charlie was a member in the Nationwide Tour days, but I'm curious how most Tour Players attacked this hole during the event. Were they trying to get all the way home and trusting their sand game? Or did many just lay back and use their wedge skill to attack this aerially? I'm thinking most pros would rather not trust the 40-50 yard partial shot and have enough confidence from 110 or so yards that there's no need to risk a Driver.
Ground Approach Options - As has been my consistent question in this thread, are the running options mentioned by Jason a realistic option in terms of maintenance? I didn't see the options Jason did, but I didn't get a very good look at this hole. It seemed to me like the rough on the mounds surrounding the greens would hold up several ground options I'd like to see. Perhaps I just need a few different angles of the green to envision them.
I don't see why the Nationwide player would not hit it 300 yards and leave himself 30 or 40 yards to the flag. The fairway is 50 yards wide at this point. For a professional golfer that is an enormous fairway that they will hit 80% of the time. From there you have the best angle at pitching the ball close. These days pro golfers are pretty deadly from 40 yards with a lob weddge. They strike it clean, a couple bounces then it checks by the hole. In the long run, hitting driver on this hole will yield the better scores. I have no doubt.
-
To be clear, the run-up option I see from the left side of the fairway is only an option for a front pin. It is possible to feed the ball off the front left hump in the green toward a front right pin though, from a little further down the fairway on a line similar to the photo below:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/12b.jpg)
Left of the line from this photo, and I agree the approach has to be aerial. Likewise, if the pin is anywhere other than that front right position from this angle, and an aerial shot is clearly the play.
-
#13. A very flexible par 3 ranging from 102-196 yards. Add in 44 yards of green depth, and this one can require a wide range of clubs.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole13.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/r9o48g.jpg)
From the tips (back pin):
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7952.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7952.jpg.html)
Zoomed in a little. As with many Dye holes, notice how shallow the back part of the green appears and then compare to the final picture below:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7946.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7946.jpg.html)
A little closer, with a front right pin:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/13a.jpg)
This shows what you face if you come up short left:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7954.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7954.jpg.html)
The view if you miss out to the right:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/13b.jpg)
A look back reveals the amount of slope from back-to-front.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7956.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7956.jpg.html)
************************************
Overall, just a solid par 3, without too much drama. Add in the interest of an angled green and some bigger contours, and this is an enjoyable hole.
Looking at some of the pictures from the tee, it almost appears like there may be a redan-type feeding slope in the right middle of the green. But when you look at it from the rear, it seems like the overall slant of the green will push balls off to the right. I'll wait for some of the local insight from Charlie and others for their experience with roll-outs on tee shots and chips.
Just based on the angle of the green and the set-up of the hazard, this setting appears to lend itself to a redan-type hole. I wish it could have been more pronounced to allow that type of running, feeding shot. At the same time, I wonder if Dye didn't raise the entire front of the green simply to allow for the "easy" front pin locations.
In general, have people seen a true redan design from Pete Dye? I'd have to pour over my recollection of holes. This location seemed to really lend itself to that template.
-
Really liked 13.
I'm realizing that I really like Pete Dye holes that lack death penalty hazards, don't particularly like the ones that have 'em ... :)
-
Kevin,
Dye has a ton of par 3's that are redan-esque. He usually puts his little twist on it, so none are 100% faithfull. Off the top of my head I can remember Whistling Straits, Kiawah, French Lick, Brickyard Crossing all having redan-like par 3's.
The 13th hole at PDGC is a beautiful looking hole. I think from an artisitc point of view I would prefer there to be no mounds on the leftside of the hole. That way there would be one long un-interupted slope from the high right to the low left. That background hillside just calls for a nice clean line, and those mounds break it up. Nit-picking.
-
Kevin,
Dye has a ton of par 3's that are redan-esque. He usually puts his little twist on it, so none are 100% faithfull. Off the top of my head I can remember Whistling Straits, Kiawah, French Lick, Brickyard Crossing all having redan-like par 3's.
The 13th hole at PDGC is a beautiful looking hole. I think from an artisitc point of view I wuld prefer there to be no mounds on the left of the hole. That way there would be one long un-interupted slope from the high right to the low left. That background hillside just calls for a nice clean line, and those mounds break it up. Nit-picking.
Just given his propensity for adding significant slopes in his greens, there will always be ways to move a ball around once it lands. I guess I was asking if there was a pure redan (not that there's anything wrong with variations).
I imagine you're referring to the 3rd at Whistling Straits, which seems to have a "false front" twist to it, but definitely will kick a ball sharply left to the back pins. However, even in that case, Dye's video for that hole warns against hitting a draw because it will likely roll through the green, so I'm not sure what he intended.
Aesthetically, I also enjoyed the setting with the natural hillside behind. I didn't mind the mounding on the left to obscure the landing area, I just really think it would have been neat to see none of the green surface by raising the front of the green and sloping the entire green towards the back.
Regardless of what could have been, still a very enjoyable hole.
-
I also really enjoy 13.
I think sometimes we fall into a trap of wanting holes to fit a lauded template instead of evaluating what they are. I see this with some of the critique of 13 to this point. From the air, it looks like a Redan. From the tee, the fronting bunker and angled green invoke a Redan. A lot of us architecture nuts will look at a hole like that and lament if it doesn't also play like a Redan, but I think we have to avoid that and instead look at the hole as it is and decide whether it works or not.
13 draws some inspiration from a Redan, but it most decidedly is not one as it doesn't feature the most crucial features that have come to be associated with that template: a fronting kickplate and a green that will carry the ball from front right to back left. However, I think the Redan-esque presentation contributes a lot to how the hole actually works.
We know that Dye believes in asking players to work the ball by playing draws and fades and controlling trajectories, as he discusses in his writing. In that sense, he could be considered the first architect to design for the modern shotmaker who works the ball through the air as opposed to on the ground. Whereas Robert Trent Jones' courses required plenty of aerial play, they don't require working the ball from side to side nearly as much as Dye's courses do.
Applying that idea to 13, the hole looks like it demands a right-to-left shot all the way. The green wraps in that direction, and the Redan-esque presentation invokes the very idea of a ball running from right-to-left after it lands. However, I believe the right play on that tee in neutral wind conditions is a fade. If you start a fade at the left third of the green with a club that will fly to the front edge of that rear section, it takes a very bad shot to miss. If you hit it perfectly, the cut spin will trim a few yards off the shot and land it softly in the middle of the green. If you over-cut it, the shot will lose a bit more distance but have a reasonable chance of landing on the front right part of the green. Hang it straight and you'll land on the rear section of the green. The angling of the green essentially widens the margin of error for a cut shot. Meanwhile, if you play a draw to start at the right side of the green and hang it straight, you'll likely end up on the hillside right. Turn it too much and it's easy for it to get away and end up long or left, especially with the green sloping to the left in that rear section. It's obviously possible to screw up any shot shape, and maybe I'm full of crap, but I believe the hole offers more margin of error for a cut than a draw. I draw the ball on 75% of my shots or more, but I go to the fade at 13.
-
I also really enjoy 13.
I think sometimes we fall into a trap of wanting holes to fit a lauded template instead of evaluating what they are. I see this with some of the critique of 13 to this point. From the air, it looks like a Redan. From the tee, the fronting bunker and angled green invoke a Redan. A lot of us architecture nuts will look at a hole like that and lament if it doesn't also play like a Redan, but I think we have to avoid that and instead look at the hole as it is and decide whether it works or not.
13 draws some inspiration from a Redan, but it most decidedly is not one as it doesn't feature the most crucial features that have come to be associated with that template: a fronting kickplate and a green that will carry the ball from front right to back left. However, I think the Redan-esque presentation contributes a lot to how the hole actually works.
We know that Dye believes in asking players to work the ball by playing draws and fades and controlling trajectories, as he discusses in his writing. In that sense, he could be considered the first architect to design for the modern shotmaker who works the ball through the air as opposed to on the ground. Whereas Robert Trent Jones' courses required plenty of aerial play, they don't require working the ball from side to side nearly as much as Dye's courses do.
Applying that idea to 13, the hole looks like it demands a right-to-left shot all the way. The green wraps in that direction, and the Redan-esque presentation invokes the very idea of a ball running from right-to-left after it lands. However, I believe the right play on that tee in neutral wind conditions is a fade. If you start a fade at the left third of the green with a club that will fly to the front edge of that rear section, it takes a very bad shot to miss. If you hit it perfectly, the cut spin will trim a few yards off the shot and land it softly in the middle of the green. If you over-cut it, the shot will lose a bit more distance but have a reasonable chance of landing on the front right part of the green. Hang it straight and you'll land on the rear section of the green. The angling of the green essentially widens the margin of error for a cut shot. Meanwhile, if you play a draw to start at the right side of the green and hang it straight, you'll likely end up on the hillside right. Turn it too much and it's easy for it to get away and end up long or left, especially with the green sloping to the left in that rear section. It's obviously possible to screw up any shot shape, and maybe I'm full of crap, but I believe the hole offers more margin of error for a cut than a draw. I draw the ball on 75% of my shots or more, but I go to the fade at 13.
I understand where you're coming from about judging what's there vs the expectation. If you look at the Whistling Straits threads, I've been a fairly strong defender of the course, especially when people criticized it for playing more aerial when it looks like it should be a ground course. In the case of #13, I wasn't necessarily making a criticism with the lack of a redan - just an observation that it could have been made a pretty good one fairly easily with the setting.
What you noted about the play of #13 is somewhat similar to what I noted about #3 as Whistling Straits. The significant rise in the green there will feed a ball from right to left, but if you play a draw running with the slope, it will be too hot and go through the left side of the green. In a way, the slope on #3 at WS isn't something to be "utilized" as much as something to be "contended with." Again, either is fine, it's just that Dye almost flips the expectation by providing a slope that you can use a fade to bank against but it's not a slope that you can run a draw with.
I like your point about him designing to demand more precision from the aerial game (trajectories & shapes). As much as he may appreciate the pure ground game, he couldn't just ignore the reality of technology.
-
#14. Another very meaty par 4 (unless you don't feel like it).
When I played this hole, I was using the second to last deck (around 450), and was very happy to card a GIR with a long iron. I just liked the overall feel of the hole, whether it was the wide open vista or the charm of the stone wall framing.
Until I started analyzing this hole, I didn't really appreciate the point of most of the bunkering. Then I looked at the yardage guide and aerial again:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole14.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/6dz6uh.jpg)
There are 7(!!) Tee Decks on this hole with ~190 yards of separation, which makes this one of the most flexible holes on the course.
From the back three decks, the tee shot plays somewhat similarly to #10 and #11, in that you really have no business looking at the inside of the dogleg (carries of 312/268/258). Again, resist the Line of Instinct and look towards the far left fairway bunker, as it's not in range (it's 280 yards even from the 4th longest set of tees). Thus, my initial impression was that all the additional sand really didn't have much of a purpose (except some deception).
But when you start moving up several decks, you can start seeing some of the fun risk/reward carries and diagonal landing areas provided by the second set of bunkers. Even for good players, you could move the tees up 100+ yards and still provide a fun challenge.
A few views from the tee. The solitary left tree may scare you a little, but I think you want to flirt with that a little more than the sand inside the dogleg.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7960.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7960.jpg.html)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/14a.jpg)
Long view from near the 12th green shows the left side view. Neat to see the pastoral vista of the hole with the coal-mined rock walls in the far background:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7953.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7953.jpg.html)
From the left side of the fairway:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7968.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7968.jpg.html)
Closer to center:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7966.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7966.jpg.html)
From the right side:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/14b.jpg)
A few looks back at the hole:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/14d.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7973.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7973.jpg.html)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7982.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7982.jpg.html)
*******************
Overall, I can't really put my finger on why I liked this hole as much as I did. Relative to some of the other surfaces, the green and surrounds were fairly benign. Perhaps it was just the change of pace, as there was nothing hidden at all from the tee. I'd be interested to hear the impressions from others.
A few questions:
- Does the club ever avail itself of the upper tees for club events? Is it played as a monstrous four on one day and then converted to a short 4 the next? The 7th tee looks like it would make a ~285 yard par 4. Or are these decks solely left for the higher handicappers / beginners?
- When playing at it's full length, is there much 'feeder" slope in the area short and left of the green? It looks like there's a slight tilt, but curious how much run-up players can get from their fairway wood approaches.
- Is there something very subtle I may be missing about the green? I don't recall much about it.
-
Really liked 13.
I'm realizing that I really like Pete Dye holes that lack death penalty hazards, don't particularly like the ones that have 'em ... :)
That realization is a pretty nice result of this discussion, I would say.
It's easy to muddle perceptions of a few hazards with an overall perception of an architect / course, but I've come to appreciate all the little things that Dye does over the years. Many people think initially of his aesthetic presentation (big hazards, sharper slopes), but I've come to appreciate his strategy, visual deception and angles more than anything else.
As for not liking holes with death penalty hazards, it will be interesting to see if you characterize #17 green as a death penalty hazard or not. :)
-
Re the 14th, would it be an over simplification to suggest that for all the well placed wing bunkering, simply aiming straight down the middle is actually the only real option?
-
I would be curious to know why Tom thought that the preliminary version of this hole was so boring. It's a surprising comment since this hole is one of the real beauties and one that I would assume fits a minimalists eye pretty well. This is one of the more restrained holes.
-
Re the 14th, would it be an over simplification to suggest that for all the well placed wing bunkering, simply aiming straight down the middle is actually the only real option?
I suppose there can be the trade-off in choosing a better angle but longer distance on the left side of the fairway. If you hug the right, you have a shorter approach, but the penalty for a heavier iron is a likely deposit in the sand. From the left side, you're longer but have more room for error (or may even be able to bounce one on, depending how firm it's maintained).
I haven't seen the hole from the further up tees, but it seems at that point it may not be as simple as "hit down the middle" since you may then be able to drive through the fairway into the bunkers on the left side. But I can't really say for sure - it's possible that the hole may look very straight from there and you are just talking about splitting a set of flanking bunkers.
Looking at the last picture (backwards), it appears that there are several slopes on the right side of the fairway that may be targets to get some extra forward kick off the tee.
-
#15. A potentially reachable par 5 with water all along:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole15.jpg)
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2zi6m85.jpg)
Tee shot. From the back 2 tees, it's 310/281 to the fairway bunker, so you should be able to fire away. If you're up another deck and or want to get in easier range, you'll need to split the bunker and water.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7975.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7975.jpg.html)
Shorter Tee View.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7985.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7985.jpg.html)
Landing area shows that Dye gave you a bit of a backstop if you err away from the water:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7987.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7987.jpg.html)
2nd Shot View. The more you err away from the water on the tee shot, the less you see of the landing area and more you feel like you're firing back towards the water. If you flirt with the water off the tee, it gives you a much more favorable look on the second.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7991.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7991.jpg.html)
3rd Shot - Right Side
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/15c.jpg)
3rd Shot - Left Side view. Again, you may be able to use this bank on your second shot.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7993.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7993.jpg.html)
Back view showing right layup area. You see the many potential awkward lies if you chicken out from the water. You can't see the 3 bunkers in this region that will leave you the awkward 30-60 yard sand shot:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8000.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8000.jpg.html)
Right of green looking back
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/15d.jpg)
All view of the hole looking back:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/15e.jpg)
**************************************
Generally, water-lined par 5s are near the bottom of my list for hole designs. Throw in that this is the flattest hole on the property, and I wouldn't miss this hole if it were removed.
However, as far as this style of hole goes, I don't mind this one compared to many others I have played. The main factor for me is that there aren't penalty stroke hazards on both sides of the fairway. The entire left side is sloped to help contain the inevitable overcompensated shots left.
If you want to play this conservatively, the tee shot landing area is very wide, and you can reach with two irons from that point forward.
If you want to be aggressive, the there's a definite reward for flirting with water off the tee (better view / angle). If you miss left with an aggressive approach, I like the proportionate potential hazard that can result (but also potential for recovery). You could have a long sand shot towards the water, but you can play conservatively to short of the green if you wish. You may have an awkward downhill lie in the rough as well, but plenty of green front to play a lower recovery.
I may not like the style of hole that much, but I can't argue with the strategy and quality of the design.
-
#16. A downhill par 3 with a wide range (136-246 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole16.jpg)
(http://i61.tinypic.com/28quipe.jpg)
Long View from 12th Tee Area:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7935.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_7935.jpg.html)
Back Deck with back right pin. About all you can handle from here:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8003.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8003.jpg.html)
Middle Tees with front pin:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/16a.jpg)
View from halfway shows overall slopes:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8009.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8009.jpg.html)
Zoomed in shows green contours and severe fall-off right:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8010.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8010.jpg.html)
Look back shows amount of elevation change:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8013.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8013.jpg.html)
*************************
A big hole on a grand scale. The contours and falloffs are huge, and fits well with the open space in this part of the course.
Not sure I like the idea of this hole from 246, but no one's holding a gun to my head. Interestingly, with the bold contours, this one could be enjoyed from the short-iron range just as well.
Thoughts for discussion:
- How much can you use the bank short left of the green to kick towards the hole?
- How much creativity can you use on chip shots? Will shots just bend, or is there enough slope to have chips curl around and come back to you?
- Is the front pin actually one of the toughest locations because it sits highest? The back right may be longest, but it seems like you have a nice bowl to get there.
-
This course looks like a best of Pete Dye golf course design template exercise, where holes or fragments of holes are lifted from other courses and dropped in in West Virginia. It seems over shaped, forced and over-cooked.
I realize that is not a popular opinion here.
Is outside play here possible?
-
This course looks like a best of Pete Dye golf course design template exercise, where holes or fragments of holes are lifted from other courses and dropped in in West Virginia. It seems over shaped, forced and over-cooked.
I realize that is not a popular opinion here.
Is outside play here possible?
A) Trying to figure out if Carl has gone schizo here...don't like this, over-cooked there, can I get on as an outside?
B) This is a classic, first-play-clueless for me. Looking back three-four years after I shot some of these image, I realize how much of the course I missed while playing it! I think I was so tired by 16 that I didn't realize what great green area it had. I believe I held a gun to my own head and played it from 246...I'm a thinker like that. Didn't end well.
-
The thread was getting tired IMO .........
Of the Dye courses, I have played, they are only his lesser known. River Course at Kingsmill at Williamsburg VA, Virginia Beach National at Virginia Beach, VA and Pete Dye's River Course (for VA Tech) in Radford, VA. Have extensively walked Sawgrass once.
I only tentatively postulate my thesis, but I defend it slightly ... at lot of similarity and repetition of themes.
I would like to play the course to prove I am wrong.
-
This entire thread just shows off some of Pete's best work in an era where I think his design work was his strongest-PDGC, TPC, Long Cove, The Honors, Blackwolf Run and Kiawah, to name a few.
-
Kevin and I had no idea that the 17th green was coming. We knew that a green on that hole was probably where the hole would be, but we didn't know that "the 17th green" was coming.
So, does knowing that play any part in how members play #15 and #16? Do they feel as though they need to gain a stroke or two, in anticipation of "it"?
-
First impression suggests simple brilliance to me. Essentially a bland par 3 improved exponentially by:
1) Turning the green a few degrees
2) Making the golfet think about that bunker because of those few degrees.
3) Giving a little back to the golfer by way of the green slopes.
Is that fair?
-
Carl -
I hope your call livens things up a little. :) I try to strike a balance between going too slow or too fast in reviewing the holes, but the discussion is most what I'm interested in. Besides, I'm sure #17 will generate plenty of discussion (one of the most controversial on the course).
When you say "similarity & repetition of themes," do you mean between this course and other Dye designs, or do you mean within the context of just this course?
If it's the former, I don't think you can necessarily hole Dye's prolific career against him. But, even in that case, when you talk to people who have played numerous Dye designs, this one seems to have separated itself. Look at many of the "Favorite Dye design" threads, and you'll see this one often near the top (with The Golf Club).
Sure, there are a few templates here, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Just because I've seen a similar variation of a hole before doesn't make it good or bad. There are reasons people try to replicate certain templates. On the Ballyhack thread, I mentioned I wasn't a big fan of #4 or #15 because I'd seen it before. Ron questioned me, thinking I was dismissing it because of my prior experience with Dye designs. But I clarified that I had seen that type of hole before (water-lined par 5 /3) and wasn't a big fan of the genre, whether it was done by Dye or anyone else. It wasn't the repetition that I minded, it was the style. But, as I noted during my more detailed analyses, these particular versions of those holes were actually well done.
As for Pete's aesthetic look, there will be similarity, but again, why is that necessarily bad? Does it look more artificial than some of the minimalist work? Sure, but as we've seen through the thread, there's a purpose for most of this (strategic angles, visual confusion). Whether you personally like a rounded bank or an angled bank is up to you, but the playing features are generally the same. I've never put much basis into a criticism of "overshaped" because that shaping may make a hole more interesting / thought-provoking (i.e. how to use those shapes for shotmaking), but recognize that sometimes that criticism is because it only adds eye-candy. In Dye's case, his shaping is more of the former (IMO).
Now, if you were talking about a repetition of themes within this course, I can address that as well (but will have to do it later, since my wife is waiting for me to head out to watch the Browns play).
Thanks for throwing in some spice!
-
some further thoughts and I will lurk for the remainder of the thread...
1. The visual mis-direction and the slight blindness just over the horizon (to me a common Dye theme) should diminish over multiple plays as the golfer will hit some shots here and there on a given hole and learn what will work for them or not work for them.
(very similar to TD's Riverfront in Suffolk, VA where I play.)
2. there always seems to me a modest, conservative approach to each shot and each hole. this seems to me as a subtle psychological ploy that works on the golfer that takes the aggressive line and fails, knowing all the while the simple play was right in front of them.
-
some further thoughts and I will lurk for the remainder of the thread...
1. The visual mis-direction and the slight blindness just over the horizon (to me a common Dye theme) should diminish over multiple plays as the golfer will hit some shots here and there on a given hole and learn what will work for them or not work for them.
(very similar to TD's Riverfront in Suffolk, VA where I play.)
2. there always seems to me a modest, conservative approach to each shot and each hole. this seems to me as a subtle psychological ploy that works on the golfer that takes the aggressive line and fails, knowing all the while the simple play was right in front of them.
Carl,
1) Just curious, is that a good or bad thing in your mind? Sure the effect wears away, but compared to a hole without misdirection, is it better or worse (or indifferent)? I initially had a similar impression about the raised inside fairway edge / partial blindness (used it on #1, #3, #8, #10, #11 and #17), but realized he actually flipped it on us at #10/11 (should not even mess with that area). For myself, I like the little bit of visual uncertainty, but can respect that some may feel it may have been overdone here (perhaps that's why some people like the straightforward simplicity of #14).
2) From your comments on the Ballyhack thread, I'm assuming this is an aspect you prefer about Pete Dye designs. You are right that this is often not realized with Dye, since his reputation gets widespread coverage based on the aggressive play of professionals.
-
First impression suggests simple brilliance to me. Essentially a bland par 3 improved exponentially by:
1) Turning the green a few degrees
2) Making the golfet think about that bunker because of those few degrees.
3) Giving a little back to the golfer by way of the green slopes.
Is that fair?
I hadn't really been able to articulate why I like this one, but those reasons seem pretty good to me.
From Charlie's comments, it seems that the back left collection area would get plenty of play because of people avoiding the bunker.
-
#17. Probably the most polarizing hole on the course is this par 4 (399 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole17.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/29vcb9e.jpg)
The tee shot on this one gives you plenty of width for a very short hole. When you see the green, you'll see why that matters so much:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/17a.jpg)
The 17th is all about the green. I'll just post the pics from various angles, as no words can encapsulate it:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8027.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8027.jpg.html)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/17b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/17d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/17e.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/17f.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/17g.jpg)
********************************
I'm going to turn this one over to Charlie and others for their thoughts.
- I'm assuming there are many different preferred fairway spots for each pin location, but I don't know what they are (or if you just pray for the middle and go from there).
-
This entire thread just shows off some of Pete's best work in an era where I think his design work was his strongest-PDGC, TPC, Long Cove, The Honors, Blackwolf Run and Kiawah, to name a few.
Sir, back to my point ...
He did too too much work back then and it began to look too similar.
I acknowledge I am in the minority.
I have also, walked around the Honors Course at the NCAA's a couple of years back.
(if this was a Rees Jones course and that waterfall on 10 was there, the howls and cat-calls would be non-stop)
-
Carl,
It depends on whether you like the work and the look or not. Every designer has a look, to a certain extent. Dye's is one of the easiest to spot, but the MacDonald/Raynor style is also different from most others and those courses have endured pretty well over the years. PDGC, TPC, and Blackwolf are all among my favorites and if Pete had built another ten like them I'd be thrilled. The Honors and Long Cove are really good too, and Kiawah is near the top of my wish list. The Golf Club is about the only one of his very best that wasn't built during that era. I will say that the more recent stuff, including Whistling Straits and especially French Lick, don't do as much for me.
George,
I meant to reply when you actually wrote this, but I liked your comment about liking Dye's holes that don't have the water features. I think PDGC is incredibly thoughtful and holes like 11 and 13 are often overlooked but are much of the reason it is his best effort. I really like holes like #2, 10, and 18 as well, but it takes the ebb and flow between those holes and those that offer more recovery options to make the course.
-
I fell behind again, but there’s not much to add on 14. It’s a beautiful hole that sits gracefully on the land. The extended construction period at Pete Dye GC also led to a number of different styles being used on the site. 14 is as understated and natural as 6, and the flow over the first 5 holes of the back nine is something of a Tour de Dye.
15 is arguably the most indifferent hole on the course. It’s a hole that could have been anywhere. That’s not necessarily the worst thing in the world, as it’s a good hole that can be a lot of fun but also can extract a big penalty. It just isn’t anything unusual or special.
16 seems like one of the more underrated holes on the course to me. One thing that doesn’t really show in the photos is the depth of the right bunker. I’ve been in it, and it’s at least 6 ½ or 7 feet deep and a very stout punishment for missing to the right. I tend to be a sucker for long par 3s, and this one is no exception. From the back tees, can it be played as a bit of a reverse Redan with the front left kickplate?
I like 17 and I think most of the criticisms of the green could also apply to any number of greens at Pinehurst No. 2, among other courses. If you pretend the left side of the green just doesn’t exist, then the remaining surface that can be held is more than adequate for such a short hole. If I ever get burned by it, I’ll probably complain. In the meantime though, I enjoy it and think it’s one of the ways that the course tests a player’s game so comprehensively. It should be noted that the slopes of the green will be far more troublesome for high approaches than for lower ones. It’s easy for a strong player to spin a ball off the front of the green or take a crazy bounce after landing on one of the moguls. For a weaker player, a lower shot that isn’t spinning too much can basically run up the tilt of the green and will feed much more gently off the moguls.
-
I doesn't matter where you drive it on 17. That green has no where to hit it.
As I recall the rolls on the green are very close to each other which makes the distance control almost random because the precision required is so severe. I have hit sots in that we're very close and spun all the way off the green. If I was a few feet left of target it could spin left wher a two putt was virtually impossible. If there was one area of the green like that it would be ok. It is everywhere making the shot about extreme, precision.
I love this golf course. I want to like this hole. I just can't.
-
I doesn't matter where you drive it on 17. That green has no where to hit it it.
I take it you're firmly on the negative side of the 17th hole ledger. By your statement, angles become irrelevant and this is solely a one-dimensional test of distance control for irons.
I like 17 and I think most of the criticisms of the green could also apply to any number of greens at Pinehurst No. 2, among other courses. If you pretend the left side of the green just doesn’t exist, then the remaining surface that can be held is more than adequate for such a short hole. If I ever get burned by it, I’ll probably complain.
I didn't have too much problem with the design, and you pretty much echoed my thoughts. Given the length of the hole and the disproportionately wide fairway Dye provides, one hole demanding such short iron precision is acceptable.
I understand Charlie's concern about its position as the penultimate hole, but since I'm not much of a pencil & scorecard guy, it's easier for me to laugh off a 4 putt double.
*******************
As for the Pinehurst comment, I think Paul was touching on that with his statements above. When I left #2 after my only play, I had the sense that all the discussion about angles was somewhat overstated, and that there was a greater premium placed on precise distance control than approach angle. Of course, distance control vs angle isn't a binary choice, but I found the contouring of PH2 to be pushing a little more along the continuum towards the former. At PDGC, it was more towards the latter (with #17 being a notable exception).
I've heard the tale of members wanting to change the green and Dye responding (paraphrasing), "if you do, you'll need to change the name of the course." During the recounting of this tale, does anyone know if Dye considers the green to be a demanding test of distance control or does he believe it is a green that was designed to reward different angles? I can't find my yardage book to see if Dye had any "strategy notes" for this hole.
-
From the back tees, can it be played as a bit of a reverse Redan with the front left kickplate?
From Charlie's comment, I get the sense that it can be, but your speed need to be in control so as to avoid rolling through the slope and into the left collection area. Looking at the green, if you can get headed towards the surface with any momentum, it will fight back to the back right corner.
-
#18. A Grand Sweeping Finale
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/hole18.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2itk4md.jpg)
It makes sense to start the review of this hole with a reverse look. From the driving range and heading to the tenth tee, this exciting preview awaits. You get a sense of the contours leading up to the green.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/18h.jpg)
By the time you work your way around to the 18th tee, this gorgeous view awaits. And you may need some aesthetic relief after your 4-putt on #17.
The fairway is very wide (~50 Yards), but the Line of Instinct and tempting little curve of land on the inside may draw you left of where you need. I simply love the entire scale and shape of this hole.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8037.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8037.jpg.html)
From the extreme left of the fairway. You can see the high banking of the mound that provides your visual impediment for many shots from the fairway (this is from ~150 yards of so):
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/18b.jpg)
View from high Right Side, with #10 in the background. Of course, any lie from up here (or the right side in general) will tend to be above your feet - a harrowing proposition given the water left:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8050.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC%202/IMG_8050.jpg.html)
Approach from middle - but this view may not be available unless you really bomb one or play the shorter tees (this is roughly 125 yards per Joe's notes). My recollection is that the landing area from back tees will provide a partially obscured green, which is why the earlier previews may have come in handy. You can really see the amount of internal contour on the green, but the fairway slopes speak to me more. I'm dreaming of running a ball in along the ground from this view.
In a "no preset tee marker" format, I'd love to play this from the up tees and try to get a draw to crest the hill and trundle towards the green. In fact, if the Nationwide Tour didn't play this at least once as a 325 yard short 4, they missed the boat (Mike Davis would have).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/18d.jpg)
From Left Side past the huge knoll. Looks like a running attempt will collect in the drain if not struck with enough conviction:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/18e.jpg)
From Behind Green:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/pdgc/18g.jpg)
A final Look:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7688.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/user/buffalogolfer/media/Pete%20Dye%20GC/IMG_7688.jpg.html)
-
Charlie -
First off - "letting you participate?" To the contrary, I want to thank you (and others) for choosing to participate. A one-sided discussion isn't much fun, and I needed the perspective of someone who has seen the course over multiple plays and differing conditions.
************
Re: the 18th:
- I had the same thought as you in that I would have much preferred to see the final approach of the day rather than have it be a partially blind shot (especially given how cool the 18th/10th corridor and contours look from ~130 or so in). But if you hit the green, that has to be a very satisfying walk.
- As for template finishes, my thought is that I'll judge a hole on its own merits, but recognize that a hole you've seen before may diminish the "Wow" reaction. The one thing PDGC has going for it is the superior topography. So while the 18th at Blackwolf Run (River), Sawgrass and Bulle Rock may all look the same in an aerial / yardage book, PDGC's 18th certainly elicits a more primal response from me (I suppose that may make me an "elevation whore" to borrow someone's term from the "Flat Sites" discussion).
However, since we've noted that Dye has pulled out a number of templates for this design, the fact is that it generally has separated itself is due to something. As illustrated by #18, the topography has to have some effect (and a hole like #8 will never get confused with another hole).
***********
Re: Front 9 / Back 9
As someone who was not aware of the construction timeframe, I didn't notice a stark difference in feel (other than natural topographic variations) at the time. Whether that's due to a natural cohesiveness or my lack of observational skills is up for debate. But after going through this detailed review, I do sense that the back 9 is a more subtle than the front.
A few random thoughts on the nines:
- The most stark comparison is the par 5s. The front duo is full of drama, while the pair on the back are easy to overlook / dismiss (though I've come to give #11 a little more credit).
- Very Short 4 - #6 tends to resonate with me more just because it's more visible and tempting. The tee shot visuals on #12 don't leave the same impression.
- Par 3s - I would have to give the nod to the back 9. 16 is better than 4 (my Pazin-esque aversion to water :D), and while 7 is more visually dramatic, I think #13 is a better hole.
- The rest of the 4s are hard to generalize as Dye built quite a variety.
Looking at your hole rankings, it's easy to understand why you're less of a fan of the back. After playing your favorite hole (#14), the 4 closing holes are all in your bottom 5, so that may be a bit of an anti-climax.
************
re: Best is West Virginia. I haven't played any others, so I can't judge, but was curious of your impressions of Pikewood (the other seeming contender along with Old White). I just took a very brief look at the PW website, and when the front page proudly proclaims in bold letters, "USGA Slope Rating 155" and see the number of trees, I would think playability is a concern. A cursory glimpse of the scorecard shows the shortest par 4 at 394 yards (PDGC has 5 < 400), so it gives an initial impression of "hard = good."
-
I've only played three courses in West Virginia; of those PDGC is the best, but Pikewood is also really good and if they had a set of tees shorter than 6900 yards I'd give it serious consideration. Old White is good too and certainly from a different era and style, but something has to be 3rd. I'd happily play any of them again.
-
I really liked 14. No one will be surprised that I didn't particularly care for 15, but it was more what Jason said ("15 is arguably the most indifferent hole on the course. It’s a hole that could have been anywhere.") than the water. For me, this hole is just bunt 7 irons down the fairway, ho hum. The green is solid, as are all Dye greens, so it has that.
Didn't much care for 16 either, but as I've said ad nauseum, I don't particularly like drop shot par 3s.
I like 17, don't love it. Not entirely sure why, I'd have to play it again to say for sure. I don't have a problem with a crazy green, but it does seem a bit haphazardly crazy, not thoughtful crazy, if there is such a thing...
No surprise again I don't love 18, although I did kind of feel like the approach shot was the closest I'll probably ever get to playing the 18th at Kapalua. :)
-----
The only thing I'll add is that my feelings toward PDGC and PD in general probably come off sounding more harsh than intended. I think it's only because PD is held up as highly as he is, plus everything that I've read about him, that I expected more from the courses I've played. I guess that's the ultimate backhanded compliment, in a way. I would gladly play his courses every day over many other courses I've played - but I'd still choose a course like Mountain Ridge every time as well.
Nice tour, Kevin, thanks, brought back a lot of good memories! Hopefully Charlie won't feel the need to drive up here and kick my butt... :)
-
Thanks Kevin for doing this. I enjoy PDGC. It is a grand course. I just wish Pete did not create so make cape type holes as an 18th. They are all a little different from each other but it does get repetitive.
-
Thanks Kevin for doing this. I enjoy PDGC. It is a grand course. I just wish Pete did not create so make cape type holes as an 18th. They are all a little different from each other but it does get repetitive.
Tom,
I imagine that, once the location for the clubhouse was decided, there was little Paul Dye could do with that hole. Running along the Whiteday creek as it does, it had to play that way. It is unique in that the green is located a measurable distance beneath fairway level. Unlike #2, it lessens the assault a bit by locating two of the six tee spaces on the fairway side of the water.
-
I've only played three courses in West Virginia; of those PDGC is the best, but Pikewood is also really good and if they had a set of tees shorter than 6900 yards I'd give it serious consideration. Old White is good too and certainly from a different era and style, but something has to be 3rd. I'd happily play any of them again.
Surprised to hear that the shortest set of tees is 6,900. Doesn't seem very inclusive, but then again, it's private and they don't need to be.
Interesting to see the various opinions of both via the major rankings:
Golfweek: PDGC #9 Modern, PN - Not even in Top 200
Golf Digest: PDGC (#45) PN (#44)
Golf: Neither Ranked
-
Thanks Kevin for doing this. I enjoy PDGC. It is a grand course. I just wish Pete did not create so make cape type holes as an 18th. They are all a little different from each other but it does get repetitive.
Tommy,
Given your portfolio, I'll definitely trust your impressions. I guess I should be impressed that he only used the Cape finisher once in his four Kohler courses (River). I suppose I would have taken a Cape over that awkward 18th at the Irish, but he already used up his Cape allotment on #17.
Spinning it around a little, what's your favorite Pete Dye Closing Hole?
(Deep down, I'm secretly hoping some will name a Cape hole).
-
I've only played three courses in West Virginia; of those PDGC is the best, but Pikewood is also really good and if they had a set of tees shorter than 6900 yards I'd give it serious consideration. Old White is good too and certainly from a different era and style, but something has to be 3rd. I'd happily play any of them again.
Surprised to hear that the shortest set of tees is 6,900. Doesn't seem very inclusive, but then again, it's private and they don't need to be.
Haven't had the pleasure myself, but I am under the impression that the hilliness of the site mitigates some of the distance.
Then again, the two people I know best who've played there are both very good golfers, so maybe the yardage didn't mean much to them.
-
I've only played three courses in West Virginia; of those PDGC is the best, but Pikewood is also really good and if they had a set of tees shorter than 6900 yards I'd give it serious consideration. Old White is good too and certainly from a different era and style, but something has to be 3rd. I'd happily play any of them again.
Surprised to hear that the shortest set of tees is 6,900. Doesn't seem very inclusive, but then again, it's private and they don't need to be.
Interesting to see the various opinions of both via the major rankings:
Golfweek: PDGC #9 Modern, PN - Not even in Top 200
Golf Digest: PDGC (#45) PN (#44)
Golf: Neither Ranked
I don't think that means much in this case. Pikewood is very private and exists for the pleasure of the owners and those they choose to invite. I would assume GOLF Magazine can manage to get guys on to see it if it is a priority, but GolfWeek may not have the necessary ballots. They are very receptive to Golf Digest visits--the course is designed for good golfers so there's some logic there.
The hills may knock off a little yardage at Pikewood, but there are some uphill holes/shots too. I'm long enough to handle the yardage, but it is a long and difficult golf course. The biggest weakness of the design IMO is the lack of a short hole of any kind--nothing close to a drive and pitch hole and the shortest par three is still approaching mid-length. That said, it is a great walk and the holes themselves are fantastic. If I had to play a really hard golf course regularly, I'd either play Pikewood or Wolf Run.
On second thought, I'd play Pine Valley...but Pikewood and Wolf Run are #2/3! ;D
-
Andy, I like Pikewood, but I was hitting three woods and hybrids into greens all day long. There is no way the average woman can play the course. When I was looking at clubs to join it was between Pikewood and Ballyhack. As difficult as Ballyhack is my wife loves it and she can barely carry the ball 150 yards anymore.
-
Pikewood would be the perfect host facility for the "Play It Forward" campaign.
-
Andy -
I think Pikewood did have enough Golfweek ballots (had a score on 2009 Best New list), but it was fairly low vs others like Ballyhack from the same year. I could see the difficulty being a polarizing factor, as is the notion that it's geared towards a small subset of golfers.
It seems to me that PDGC would appeal to a much wider range of players, which may explain the huge Golfweek variance.
Tommy,
So you're saying that if Pikewood had added a couple more decks, we may not have ever met via Ballyhack? Well, then I'm glad they didn't. But if you run away with the next two George Cups, I may have to reach out to the folks at Pikewood to see if they can help you out.
Any thoughts on your favorite Pete Dye finishing hole?
-
I love PDGC - Obviously part of my passion stems from something so good being in my home state.
Only drawbacks to PDGC for me are 4 and 15. Quite frankly 4 was simply unnecessary and could have yielded a fine hole without use of a lake... could have been a great site for a longish redan par 3, still could be.
As for 15 the distaste is purely from a conceptual standpoint, water hazard guarding the entire length of the hole. That said in playing the hole I appreciate the strategy Dye employed here. Those steering clear of the lake from the tee are left with a rather difficult angle to get to the best layup position with the hillside protruding into your line of comfort and forcing you, or at least your eyes, toward the lake.
5 is among my favorite par 5s I have ever played
6 makes me uncomfortable and I generally hit the ball very straight
17 is just good fun
18 is a great finishing hole, even if you have seen it from Dye before you have not seen one this natural and dramatic.
Like Charlie, I prefer the front nine where 4 is the only hole I have any quibble with.
-
Andy, I like Pikewood, but I was hitting three woods and hybrids into greens all day long. There is no way the average woman can play the course. When I was looking at clubs to join it was between Pikewood and Ballyhack. As difficult as Ballyhack is my wife loves it and she can barely carry the ball 150 yards anymore.
True. Pikewood requires length to get around. It was fun for me, but it is not for everyone. Perhaps that includes that GolfWeek panel!
To get back to Pete Dye, I really like the 18th. It may not be my favorite hole on the course, but it is one of my two favorite Dye closers, with the other being the 18th at Blackwolf Run Meadow Valleys (aka the original Blackwolf Run course). Harbour Town is probably 3rd. A lot of the others are perhaps a little too similar to distinguish--Sawgrass, Crooked Stick, etc. I'm not a fan of #18 at Whistling Straits, and while I don't dislike #18 at The Golf Club, I don't think it is one of the better holes on the course.
-
I had a beautiful reply written out and then deleted it when I got distracted. You'll have to settle for this one instead.
As others do, I really enjoy the 18th. Like others, I would probably call it the best Dye closing hole that I've played. It might look similar to some of his other holes, but I think it clearly establishes its own character. As Ron mentioned, it's hard to fault him for employing the "cape" concept here (and it is a TRUE cape, with the hazard very much in play on the approach as well). Can anyone genuinely imagine a better hole on this section of the property that fits the terrain and routing better?
The setting is wonderful and the hole sits on the land beautifully. Again, we see a hole that visually flusters the strong player while allowing the weaker player to use the terrain to keep hope alive. It's funny to me that Kevin thinks this would be a fun hole to run a ball toward from a drivable distance. If you really want the thrill of hitting a long approach with a wood that trundles down the slope to the green, all you have to do is tee off from the tips and hit a really good second shot...
Pete Dye has often talked about the influence that the links of GB&I had on his designs. Part of the reason I love Pete Dye GC so much is that I think it reflects that influence so well. "Links" is a word that, in America, takes on many different meanings for golf. We say "It's a links-style course" when we really mean "It doesn't have as many trees as some of the other courses in town. We say "It plays like a links!" when we really mean "They keep the fairways firm." Well, Pete Dye GC WORKS like a links. In a decidedly parkland setting where climate makes firm and fast conditions difficult to achieve regularly, he built a course that offers a constant stream of blind shots, funny lies and stances, deep and terrifying bunkers, bumpy fairways, quirky mounds that obscure targets from certain positions, greens tucked in dells, and a steady procession of engaging holes with lots of options and few clear answers. Pete Dye GC comes closer to the spirit of links golf than any other Dye course that I've seen, and it's for that reason more than any other that I think it's his best work that I've seen.
-
I would say that the 18th at PDGC is my favourite Pete Dye closer. It is the cpe hole in his arsenal that plays the best nd fits the land the best. It totally makes sense here.
I would also go one step further and say it is one of the best closing holes in all of golf. It is a tremendous, epic finishing hole. If I had to make an eclectic 18 this hole would be a contender as an 18th hole.
-
I had a beautiful reply written out and then deleted it when I got distracted. You'll have to settle for this one instead.
I think that's a pretty decent settlement. Nicely said!
It's funny to me that Kevin thinks this would be a fun hole to run a ball toward from a drivable distance. If you really want the thrill of hitting a long approach with a wood that trundles down the slope to the green, all you have to do is tee off from the tips and hit a really good second shot...
I guess that just illustrates the pervasive power of par. It's more exciting if it's trundling to get on in less than regulation. :) Of course you are correct, but the thought of willingly electing to play the tips never even entered my mind. It really should have, because I like mixing up tees when I have multiple plays at a course.
-
Thanks for all the thoughts on Pete Dye's closing holes.
For me, my choice comes down to PDGC and Whistling Straits. WS has the massive scale, tumbling topography and beautiful green location. At PDGC, the potential for the ground approach is better, but as Charlie alluded earlier, not being able to see the green is a detriment (at least for a grand finale approach). It truly is a coin flip for me.
But I think you all generally reinforced one of the themes of this thread. Yes, they may be templates and have some similar qualities, but when you add in the spectacular topography, you get something that is special and memorable.
-
Well, now that we've been through the entire course, I'd like to open things for any general macro thoughts / summaries / ideas for further discussion, etc. We've had some macro level observations throughout, but if anyone has been saving any thoughts for the conclusion, please chime in (Jason & Greg did a nice job kicking this off).
Possible items to consider could be:
- Discussion of the ancillary aspects of the club (lodging / clubhouse / range facilities etc.)
- What things you may have learned (or reinforced) during this analysis
- How the course holds up against the elite courses you've played. What courses do you hold in the same esteem? This thread was motivated somewhat by a question about how PDGC compares to Ballyhack, so it may be interesting to hear some other comparisons.
- Suggestions for improvement for this thread (for future use). For example, I'm thinking of modifying my initial post to include a link to some of the other PDGC threads. While they didn't go into this level of detail, there were many interesting observations from past GCA members who didn't take part here. That way, this thread may serve as a comprehensive reference for discussions about PDGC. Good idea? Bad idea?
- Anything else you can think of
-
Not looking for judgement as these are just my personal preferences but I think it gives a good illustration of what company I hold it in. I often wonder if I either regard it too highly because of being a member and the pride in something from West Virginia (anyone from here will understand that comment), or if I take it a little for granted because of familiarity. I think this thread has shown me that it may be a little of both.
Perfectly said - that's exactly what I had in mind.