[Kevin Lynch]

#8.  A beautiful short par 5 that cascades downhilll.  Visual deception abounds from any place on the hole.  One of my favorite holes anywhere.  





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.




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.



What lies beyond the fall off?  The anticipation builds.



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.




A few shots getting closer start to reveal a little more:






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.



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.  
  



From the left side:



This gives you a clearer view of what lies right of the green:



A few final shots looking back gives you a sense of the overall movement.





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

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.

[Erik Mosley]

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 .

[George Pazin]

#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.

[Tommy Williamsen]

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.

[Kevin Lynch]

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.

[Joe Bausch]

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.   

[Kevin Lynch]

#9.  A 462 yard par 4.





A split fairway with a centerline hazard.  Going to have to think your way through this tee shot.



Zoomed in a little more.



Looking back from the fairway - that's just pretty.



A general idea of the view from the right fairway:


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):



Getting a little closer to the green:



This shows some of the challenges for your chips from just short of the green. 



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.



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

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." 

[Andy Troeger]

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  

[Paul Gray]

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?

[Matt Kardash]

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.

[Matt Kardash]

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 

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.

[Morgan Clawson]

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.

[Kevin Lynch]

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).



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.

[Mark Steffey]

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.

[Paul Carey]

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.

[Tom Kelly]

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 Kelly]

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!

[John Percival]

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!  

[Matt Kardash]

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!

[Tom Kelly]

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

[Jason Thurman]

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



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.

[George Pazin]

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 

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.

[Kevin Lynch]

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.

[Kevin Lynch]

#10.  Another stout par 4 to start the inward 9.





From the tee:




What lurks if you miss right.  This is far off line, but acts as a little bit of a safety bunker:



A view from the right side (a bit closer).  This appears to be after the path crossing, so likely inside of 100 yards.




From the left side, well back in the fairway:


The next few shots will give you just a little appreciation of the contours on this green:







Looking back from just left of the green.


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.


A little before the 18th green (what a preview!):


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

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.

[George Pazin]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()