Dye’s legacy is secure, and as expressive as the native Ohioan has been with a bulldozer, he is just as outspoken in person. Sitting down for a conversation at the Dye Preserve Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, Dye had plenty to say about the state of a game to which he and his wife, Alice, both accomplished amateur players, have devoted themselves for nearly 70 years.

You’ve been busy the last few years renovating your own courses. 
It’s an amazing thing. I’ve modified the Tournament Players Club [Sawgrass] three times. Long Cove twice. Harbour Town three times. Crooked Stick twice. The Ocean Course at Kiawah once. Teeth of the Dog in the Dominican Republic, done that twice now. 

It’s quite a racket. No, no! Frankly, it’s a disaster. They do not pay anything. But I have lived long enough to fortunately be asked to go back and improve things. This is why when everyone says that they are going to restore a Donald Ross course, it is the most disrespectful thing that they could ever say about the man. Because if he were alive today he would not do anything like he did, or what people think he did, 80 years ago.

If he saw Brandie Burton hit a driver and a short iron to the 1st hole at Pinehurst, he would put the tee back in the parking lot.

What else would he do? 
Greens and contours and bunkers. None of his bunkers are in play. He would not contour his greens the same because the speeds have changed. I do not think Ross would like to see somebody hit a shot to the 5th hole at Pinehurst and have the ball roll 75 feet off the green, down the hill. He never intended to. That is not part of the game.
 
Let’s say that 60 years from now, somebody looks at your courses and says, “The game has changed since Pete Dye’s day.” Sure. Change it. I hope they bring it to what is playable at the time.

Is a lot of this discussion due to the equipment changing rapidly? God bless the United States Golf Association. They have escalated the cost of maintenance, they have slowed down play, and they have completely lost control of the equipment. Outside of that, they have done a pretty good job.

The equipment does help the higher handicapper a certain amount. Compared to 15 years ago the ball might go two or three percent farther for him. But the ball is going 15 percent farther for the professionals who don’t need the help. 

It’s too bad that golf isn’t more like baseball, where at least they control the ball and bat. Jack Nicklaus could pick up a mule when he was a kid. When they say that the ball is going farther because the players are stronger, I would say look at John Daly who has not done a push-up since 1991 but is hitting the ball 30 yards farther. So it is equipment, no question about it. They really lost control back when Deane Beman tried to get control of the grooves and the USGA and the PGA of America did not jump on his bandwagon.

The other cost escalation the USGA has encouraged is with speed of greens. When Ben Hogan won the U.S. Open at Oakmont [in 1953], then considered the fastest greens in the history of the world, the Stimpmeter was maybe six or seven.
 
One of the things I’m doing in renovating my courses is reducing contour and slope to match today’s speeds. The other thing that used to be so great was the grain on most greens. That was a fun part of the equation. It made a tremendous difference that did not change the playability to the higher handicap golfer, but it greatly impacted the professional. 

Besides speed, pros are quite finicky about the consistency of greens now. They seem to get upset if all the greens are not at exactly the same speed and firmness. I guess they started that way with the sand in bunkers—they had to be uniform. Now they have tests so the sand has the same texture. Of course that has translated to the greens. As far as I am concerned, you would have the texture different in every bunker and the greens with different speeds.

Is it a better test when players have to figure all that out? Sure it is. And it is amazing to me that the professionals—God bless all their hearts and souls because there are a lot of fine young men out there—but they go to Augusta with things changing all the time and they will not complain. They go to the U.S. Open and have the rough so thick you cannot play out of it, and they do not complain about it. But if it’s a TPC or Tour stop and there’s one blade of grass that is out of place—my heavens that is just not right!

I’m building another TPC in San Antonio and I’m certainly going to take into consideration what they are going to complain about. But it’s very difficult to get them all on the same page. Vijay Singh wants all the holes straight away. Jim Furyk wants the holes offset a little. Jeff Sluman wants them offset a lot. Then my wife has her ideas. If I put a bunker in front of a green, I don’t get fed that night. But that’s the way golf is; it’s great that everyone has their views.

Would designing a course in Scotland interest you? We have to see. I have had a couple of close calls in Scotland but I’m not sure I could build what I want to there. I am not sure I could get there enough to do it the way I want. 

When I look at TPC Sawgrass in old photos, it looks so rugged and eye-catching. Now it is very clean with bright white sand and defined rough. How do you feel when you compare it to the original? The original has entirely changed. They took out a lot of the grasses and now they are starting to put them back in. The gallery mounds were rustic and they have smoothed them all out. The amazing thing is that at Whistling Straits, they have big galleries up there trouncing around in this rough stuff, but they still get around fine.

Anything different you’d like to see at Sawgrass?  ShotLink says the golf professional averages about three-tenths of a stroke higher chipping out of grass than from a bunker, so bunkers are not hazards anymore.

I think the best thing that came up a couple years ago was the furrowed bunkers Jack [Nicklaus] did [at Muirfield Village for the Memorial Tournament]. Because you can do that for a tournament and make bunkers at least a hazard again. The day the pros leave, they could smooth them over for John Q. Public. And it doesn’t cost anything.

What are your thoughts on drivable par 4s? I do not know what a drivable par 4 is anymore because they can all drive short par 4s, it seems. At the new course I’m doing at the French Lick resort, I’m trying something different. On the long par 4s, I have hazards out there at 300 yards so [if you lay up] you have 210 to 250 yards to the green. I’ve decided if they are going to have to make a decision about a lay-up, it’s going to be on a long par 4 rather than a short one.

Is rough part of your design palette? What I did at French Lick is something that I have never done. I brought the fairways in to 85 feet wide. I have always had them at about 120 feet for the landing areas. There’s a relatively new grass that can be cut down to an inch and a half, but also can be grown higher.

Rough cut at an inch to an inch and a half might even be easier for some high handicappers than hitting it out of the fairway. And the course has the option to grow it higher for a tournament.

I hate rough like what the USGA did at Oakmont, where it just might as well be out of bounds lining the fairways, but I do not disagree with having rough. There is nothing wrong with asking players to get out of two or three inches of rough near a green. But I also like to see it run off into short grass in other places to give some variety.

Your early work was vastly different from what others were doing at the time, and today you have inspired a new movement in architecture with Bill Coore, Tom Doak and other “minimalists.” What do you make of that? I think a lot of the newer guys are just going back to the way many of the old masters worked. There was a time right after the war when Mr. [Robert Trent] Jones, who was a great friend of mine, faced such a demand that he was about the only one out there. So he figured out a way to get courses built and this country really needed it.

What influence did he have on your style? At Harbour Town, I tried to do something different from what the norm had been. Of course it didn’t hurt that Arnold Palmer won in the first tournament there. But if you built that kind of golf course today, they would not pay you.

Harbour Town? But it’s loved by pros and high handicappers alike. When it was done it was so entirely different. But that type of golf course in today’s market where it has to look good in magazines and where you have to sell real estate...

You mean Harbour Town is not flashy enough? Absolutely.

Why is it that your public and resort courses are so popular even though they are so hard to play? Every time I have ever worked on a resort course and tried to make it like the guys say you are supposed to make it—easy—it’s been a disaster. You go to Whistling Straits and they are standing in line to play it. And look at Pine Valley. Have you ever played Pine Valley?

Yes, it’s tough. Sure it is. It has some greens out there you cannot just copy. It’s unbelievably tough. And it is the ambiance in part because of the sand. Any time you have sand, you are way out front. The sand and bushes give it a look like no other course. Even as hard as it is, if you open that to the public, they would be standing in line to play there.