Pete Dye Best Ever (?)

[tannyhoban]

Yet another PGA stop (ok, ok - the ahem - Fifth MAJOR) where his diabolical and seemingly prescient course tests those practitioners of the modern tour game.

 

Maybe he is the best ever.

[Vindog]

You'll need more supporting evidence.

Can they be played by the other 99.99% of golfers out there, not just tour pros? Do they allow for the wide variety of skill levels of the average golfer?

[buckeyefl]

Nope

[Hawkeye77]

Best ever at what?

 

Course design? That's just a silly assertion.

[jmck]

The man would be lost without a fleet of bulldozers. Wildly overrated, IMO.

[youraway2]

Nope, just a tricked up layout, trying to provide the ultimate test out of a swamp. It's just not what I call a good test of golf, maybe a good result of luck at times. The 17th is an example of tricked up. Yes it's a different and great hole for excitement on TV, but a good test, nope; at 28 yards wide and 22 yards deep (at the longest measurement), no bail out, bunker in front occupying much of the carry to the middle and right, wind; maybe at 148 yards some players might thing that's short, but I've played the hole more than three times and haven't missed the green, no wind at all each time.

 

I might add that every time I played the course it was muddy and the greens were very soft, made things much easier.

[Christosterone]

Jason Days second shot into number 2 Friday was perfectly struck and should've been an 8 foot eagle....

Instead it rolled 15 yards off the green because it rolled an inch too far on the ground...

 

No thanks Mr Dye.

 

-Chris

[TheYipS]

Have never played a pete Dye course just from watching on TV the Straits course looks amazing as does Harbour Town and Sawgrass. Tillinghast has to be up there Winged Foot, Bethpage black Baltusrol. Of courses I have played I would say Pat Ruddy. The European club and Druids Glen are the 2 most stunning courses I have ever seen and could not be more different. The Glen is mind blowing, known as the Augusta of europe and from the outset its a class apart but just gets better and better as you go around winding through leafy valleys in the middle of the course with elevation changes and natural water hazards in abundence building to the final 2 holes which are treacherous but very fair and manageable. The European club is just a beautiful monster of a links I think tiger holds the course record at -4 to give an idea of how tough it is, but just to walk around it and remember the holes you played well or the good shots is enough because you would need to be a seriously good player to keep it together for the entire round. He also designed Ballyliffen and Rosapenna which are regarded as 2 of the best links courses around fingers crossed can get around to playing them soon.

[shotmark]

I quite like Dye courses. I understand that a lot of people don't like them cos they're "artificial" and prefer the more natural looking Coore-Crenshaw type courses. For me however they both have a place and add variety. As for the best however i'd have to plump for Alister Mackenzie.

[bladehunter]

Nah ...... tricked up courses arent ever going to be top notch... the stadium course is great.. but venues like whistling straights and their crowd dwelling "bunkers" show his flawed thought process.. Give me a old Ross course anyday

[HighSpeedScene]

Nah ...... tricked up courses arent ever going to be top notch... the stadium course is great.. but venues like whistling straights and their crowd dwelling "bunkers" show his flawed thought process.. Give me a old Ross course anyday

 

While I agree on the Ross comment, straits is amazing and actually less tricked up than sawgrass. I love em both for very different reasons. BH, you have to let your hate go about the pga championship there. You're really shoehorning it in here.

 

But, yes, Ross or tilly classics before dye, for sure.

[bladehunter]

Nope, just a tricked up layout, trying to provide the ultimate test out of a swamp. It's just not what I call a good test of golf, maybe a good result of luck at times. The 17th is an example of tricked up. Yes it's a different and great hole for excitement on TV, but a good test, nope; at 28 yards wide and 22 yards deep (at the longest measurement), no bail out, bunker in front occupying much of the carry to the middle and right, wind; maybe at 148 yards some players might thing that's short, but I've played the hole more than three times and haven't missed the green, no wind at all each time.

 

I might add that every time I played the course it was muddy and the greens were very soft, made things much easier.

 

 

 

yep i ahve to agree... after watching phil and spieths wedges land pin high and one hop into the water i have to call foul.... a true par 3 has to be approachable... as in it has to be a pin that a wall struck shot will hold close for a chance at 2 putt..... the pin yesterday was a 3 putt waiting for a place to happen if you hit the green... no way two of the biggest spinners of a wedge shouldnt be able to hit a shot with a wedge pin high and have it at least stay on the green.... sure its the same for all.. But my point is tricked up crap like this doesnt identify the best players.. it identifies the luckiest ones that day...

[bladehunter]

Nah ...... tricked up courses arent ever going to be top notch... the stadium course is great.. but venues like whistling straights and their crowd dwelling "bunkers" show his flawed thought process.. Give me a old Ross course anyday

 

While I agree on the Ross comment, straits is amazing and actually less tricked up than sawgrass. I love em both for very different reasons. BH, you have to let your hate go about the pga championship there. You're really shoehorning it in here.

 

But, yes, Ross or tilly classics before dye, for sure.

 

 

 

Oh i know...lol But the fire burns bright on that one for me! ...... still say theh buck stops with him though .. no need for bunkers to be built that far out ... its like he had extra sand and didnt want to pay to haul it off ....

[shotmark]

The man would be lost without a fleet of bulldozers. Wildly overrated, IMO.

 

Don't think there are many course designers working today without a fleet of bulldozers. On most pieces of land you still need bulldozers to make it look like a natural course.

[shotmark]

Nope, just a tricked up layout, trying to provide the ultimate test out of a swamp. It's just not what I call a good test of golf, maybe a good result of luck at times. The 17th is an example of tricked up. Yes it's a different and great hole for excitement on TV, but a good test, nope; at 28 yards wide and 22 yards deep (at the longest measurement), no bail out, bunker in front occupying much of the carry to the middle and right, wind; maybe at 148 yards some players might thing that's short, but I've played the hole more than three times and haven't missed the green, no wind at all each time.

 

I might add that every time I played the course it was muddy and the greens were very soft, made things much easier.

 

 

 

yep i ahve to agree... after watching phil and spieths wedges land pin high and one hop into the water i have to call foul.... a true par 3 has to be approachable... as in it has to be a pin that a wall struck shot will hold close for a chance at 2 putt..... the pin yesterday was a 3 putt waiting for a place to happen if you hit the green... no way two of the biggest spinners of a wedge shouldnt be able to hit a shot with a wedge pin high and have it at least stay on the green.... sure its the same for all.. But my point is tricked up crap like this doesnt identify the best players.. it identifies the luckiest ones that day...

 

Sergio must be the luckiest player alive then. Career 15 under on that hole!

[Vindog]

The man would be lost without a fleet of bulldozers. Wildly overrated, IMO.

 

Don't think there are many course designers working today without a fleet of bulldozers. On most pieces of land you still need bulldozers to make it look like a natural course.

 

Probably true. But one reason why I hold the classic designers higher is that they worked more with what they got. Let's not go totally overboard on him though. One thing I do like about Dye designs is how he uses the visual layout of a hole. As far as tricked out gimmicks go even my favorite has his "gimmick"

[Santiago Golf]

Alister Mackenzie or Donald Ross

[golfdad907]

I like Pete Dye courses, sorry they went and jacked with TPC Sawgrass, as I found it, and the sister course there, very fun and challenging.

 

If you play the correct tees, Dye courses, though difficult can be thought your way through.

 

Pete's in my top 3 architects and when consider the visuals presented as well as challenges he presents (again have to think way around, not so much bomb and gouge) have to say some of my favorites of all time were his designs (with a little help from Alice).

[shotmark]

The man would be lost without a fleet of bulldozers. Wildly overrated, IMO.

 

Don't think there are many course designers working today without a fleet of bulldozers. On most pieces of land you still need bulldozers to make it look like a natural course.

 

Probably true. But one reason why I hold the classic designers higher is that they worked more with what they got. Let's not go totally overboard on him though. One thing I do like about Dye designs is how he uses the visual layout of a hole. As far as tricked out gimmicks go even my favorite has his "gimmick"

 

When you only had horses and plough's you were much more limited as to what you could do. My personal favourite architect is Dr Alister Mackenzie and living in Yorkshire i've been fortunate enough to play many of his courses. That said, I often wonder if they could have been better still with modern CAD programmes and earth moving equipment.

[imakaveli]

Go play some James Braid

[McCann1]

Teeth of the Dog is pretty fantastic and a Dye course

[warfelg]

I don't like Dye courses at all. Tricked up. A majority of them have the same tricks built into them too.

 

MacKensie (I know I misspelt that), Flynn, Tillinghast were some of the best IMO.

[elwhippy]

Nope again. Dye courses are flashy and simply too hard for anyone above a category 1.Tillinghast gets my vote.

[farmer]

How many times has Sawgrass been redone? They started the year after the first tournament was held there. Complete redo after last year.

[warfelg]

How many times has Sawgrass been redone? They started the year after the first tournament was held there. Complete redo after last year.

 

They redid the greens to something that would hold up better. The rest was tweaks outside of 12. Nothing else changed how to play the holes.

[PGArox]

The man would be lost without a fleet of bulldozers. Wildly overrated, IMO.

 

That's what architecture is. Pete Dye is a master at building supreme tests of golfing skills. He is easily the greatest modern day course architect.

 

I don't care how long a course has been around, or if it "fits" into the surrounding natural terrain, it's nothing without good holes.

[warfelg]

The man would be lost without a fleet of bulldozers. Wildly overrated, IMO.

 

That's what architecture is. Pete Dye is a master at building supreme tests of golfing skills. He is easily the greatest modern day course architect.

 

I don't care how long a course has been around, or if it "fits" into the surrounding natural terrain, it's nothing without good holes.

 

I respectfully disagree with the fitting a natural terrain, and it's why I don't like Pete Dye. He comes in, flattens the land, and enforces his will on it.

 

I rather play a course that a guy has toned the natural contours of the land any day. Those designers have to find the routing, they can't come up with it without ever seeing the land. They tend to come up with more interesting routings, holes, and create some truly visually stunning golf holes.

 

Guys that flatten it all then make what they want don't have as much skill IMO.

[McCann1]

The man would be lost without a fleet of bulldozers. Wildly overrated, IMO.

 

That's what architecture is. Pete Dye is a master at building supreme tests of golfing skills. He is easily the greatest modern day course architect.

 

I don't care how long a course has been around, or if it "fits" into the surrounding natural terrain, it's nothing without good holes.

 

I respectfully disagree with the fitting a natural terrain, and it's why I don't like Pete Dye. He comes in, flattens the land, and enforces his will on it.

 

I rather play a course that a guy has toned the natural contours of the land any day. Those designers have to find the routing, they can't come up with it without ever seeing the land. They tend to come up with more interesting routings, holes, and create some truly visually stunning golf holes.

 

Guys that flatten it all then make what they want don't have as much skill IMO.

I see what you mean but wouldn't that mean someone who uses the terrain has less skill? Since it's kinda already laid out? Someone who starts with a blank canvas has actually created everything, thus showing how much skill they have

[warfelg]

The man would be lost without a fleet of bulldozers. Wildly overrated, IMO.

 

That's what architecture is. Pete Dye is a master at building supreme tests of golfing skills. He is easily the greatest modern day course architect.

 

I don't care how long a course has been around, or if it "fits" into the surrounding natural terrain, it's nothing without good holes.

 

I respectfully disagree with the fitting a natural terrain, and it's why I don't like Pete Dye. He comes in, flattens the land, and enforces his will on it.

 

I rather play a course that a guy has toned the natural contours of the land any day. Those designers have to find the routing, they can't come up with it without ever seeing the land. They tend to come up with more interesting routings, holes, and create some truly visually stunning golf holes.

 

Guys that flatten it all then make what they want don't have as much skill IMO.

I see what you mean but wouldn't that mean someone who uses the terrain has less skill? Since it's kinda already laid out? Someone who starts with a blank canvas has actually created everything, thus showing how much skill they have

 

When I'm home I'll expand but IMO not really. The person who uses the terrain has to spot where to put tees, greens, hazards ect in a way that works. The guy with the blank canvas doesn't worry about that stuff.

[Nard_S]

My esteem for Pete Dye has gone way up in the last dozen years. He understood early on where the game was going with improvements in agronomy equipment and talent. PGA pros are at a level where a "tricked up" course is a near necessity to make tournament golf relevant and interesting. His designs are the few that challenge the Driver / Wedge mentality that all too often defies the spirit of older designs. I am thankful for his presence.