“The problem is the architects" - Jason Day

[V_Halyard]

The bottom line here is that the relentless road toward distance, from technological and professional advancements, have conspired to shrink the game. More eyeballs may be drawn to the tube to watch the pros make the ball disappear but fewer bodies will show up at the local muni, knowing they could never get that good.

That's a very good point.  If everyone is so enamored with long drives, why is the game LESS popular than it was 20 years ago?

Presentation? Because it’s louder and more obvious than the shaped shot the same way a home Run is “louder than a Sac Fly?

[Peter Pallotta]

I wonder if the main ruling-governing bodies would ever have the interest (or is that, the courage) to create an Architectural Advisory Panel to bring forward recommendations on golf course architecture in general and 'championship' designs in particular -- essentially, as the other angle/framework (along with the current technology angle) in a comprehensive discussion & strategic planning exercise re: distance-sustainability-growing the game issues. The Advisory Panel would be a funded but independent/arm's length enterprise, with its Chair selected by the Panel members themselves (and with a non-majority of those members appointed by the governing bodies); but the Panel's reports & recommendations, while made public, would be understood by all as being non-binding. Perhaps only ever remotely possible, such an Advisory Panel, and even then only if the R&A and the USGA and the PGA & Euro Tours saw the  marketing and branding (along with the due diligence) opportunities & benefits of establishing it.   
Peter

[Mark_Fine]

The game is less popular because of the time it takes to play and the cost.  Pretty simple.  Trying to design for the pros only compounds both these reasons. 

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder if the main ruling-governing bodies would ever have the interest (or is that, the courage) to create an Architectural Advisory Panel to bring forward recommendations on golf course architecture in general and 'championship' designs in particular -- essentially, as the other angle/framework (along with the current technology angle) in a comprehensive discussion & strategic planning exercise re: distance-sustainability-growing the game issues. The Advisory Panel would be a funded but independent/arm's length enterprise, with its Chair selected by the Panel members themselves (and with a non-majority of those members appointed by the governing bodies); but the Panel's reports & recommendations, while made public, would be understood by all as being non-binding. Perhaps only ever remotely possible, such an Advisory Panel, and even then only if the R&A and the USGA and the PGA & Euro Tours saw the  marketing and branding (along with the due diligence) opportunities & benefits of establishing it.   
Peter

That was a good one.  It really cracked me up.

It would work exactly the opposite of what you expect.  The last thing they'd do is have an advisory panel that didn't tell them what they want to hear.  You'd wind up with a bunch of captured architects learning to toe the line, in hopes of being recommended for the big consulting jobs that would make them successful.  Which is about how it works now. 

Most prominently, Steve Smyers was chosen for the USGA Executive Committee, precisely because they knew he'd be a reliable advocate for lengthening and strengthening championship courses to preserve the challenge of the game.

[jeffwarne]

The bottom line here is that the relentless road toward distance, from technological and professional advancements, have conspired to shrink the game. More eyeballs may be drawn to the tube to watch the pros make the ball disappear but fewer bodies will show up at the local muni, knowing they could never get that good. The pros and single digit handicappers can piss on the architects all they want, but technology and physical training have combined to shrink the amateur game.

plus 1

[James Bennett]

Re DJ and the 300 yard drive.
I can't stand at the tee to see DJ drive and then watch the ball land 300 yards away.My eyes aren't that good.It is pretty boring seeing a ball hit 'out of sight'.
James B

[Thomas Dai]

Re DJ and the 300 yard drive.
I can't stand at the tee to see DJ drive and then watch the ball land 300 yards away.My eyes aren't that good.It is pretty boring seeing a ball hit 'out of sight'.
James B

+1
And when it comes from 'out of sight' and you can't see it coming and it hits you.........
atb

[Kalen Braley]

If I had to guess why people tune-in or attend golf tournaments I would order it like this (by importance/interest):


1)  Players - Whether its your favorite player or just seeing the best ones do what they do.
2)  Tournament - This is a major, or its a popular regular event.
3)  Drama - A close finish with lots of movement at the top until the final hole involving some big names.
4)  Amazing shots - Yes this could include some select jaw dropping drives, but mostly consists of difficult to execute shots or the "No f'ing way" recovery shots Tiger and Phil used to hit.
5)  The golf course aka Pebble Beach or Torrey Pines
6)  The Long ball whether off the tee or 240 yard 4 irons.
7)  Bored on Sunday afternoon.

[jeffwarne]

Re DJ and the 300 yard drive.
I can't stand at the tee to see DJ drive and then watch the ball land 300 yards away.My eyes aren't that good.It is pretty boring seeing a ball hit 'out of sight'.
James B

this....


it's only impressive because someone (or shot tracer) tells us it went 300 in the air

[MClutterbuck]

As Tom said, DJ carrying a ball 300 over water yards is no more impressive than JN carrying it 260 over the same hazard in 1965-maybe even less so as distance gains on Tour have been so normalized lately that a 300 yard carry probably sounds pedestrian to most fans nowadays-besides "MASHED POTATOS" is yelled at impact not upon clearance of the hazard

Deleted. Point had been made already.

[Josh Tarble]

I haven't chimed in on here in a while, but I think Jason Day has a point to his comments.  I'm not entirely sure how to express my point either, but I regularly think about this in regards to design.  During the dark ages, everything was longer, tighter, more penal, more difficult.  To the point that courses like Oakland Hills (and many others) were being lengthen, trees planted, made tighter. Less fun overall.  Of course manufacturers were going to come up with solutions to be able to hit it straighter and farther.


Let's say that design age never happened.  Let's say no one was concerned with that and instead width and fun was being celebrated.  Instead of ruin-ovations like Oakland Hills or the Jones family style in general, what if courses like Pacific Dunes or Sweetens Cove or even classic design like British courses or NGLA were built?


Would length be the ultimate battle? Would have designers like Nicklaus and Palmer and the Jones family have been celebrated or derided? What direction would manufacturers have directed their equipment R&D if courses couldn't be overpowered and instead needed placement and thought to succeed?

[Kalen Braley]

Josh,


The technology battle, aka longer, straighter, easier to hit, more reliable, etc... has been going on since the beginning of the game....

[Thomas Dai]

On an essentially photographic social media site an architect and poster herein said in relation to a par-3 course that has not long been open -
“....hitting short approaches into nearly every green, it’s a good simulation of how easy the game feels for Tour pros.”
Atb

[V_Halyard]

At the end of the “Day”, if he were right, we would see sponsors pay to telecast long drive competitions for three or four days every weekend on multiple networks.

...Not happening


Viewers are compelled to watch contestants battle each other using a quiver of golf tools and a variety of skills in the quest to win the round. If Day really believes that, He would skip a tour event and direct his jet to Vegas and jump into a long drive féte.


Again... Not happening

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't chimed in on here in a while, but I think Jason Day has a point to his comments.  I'm not entirely sure how to express my point either, but I regularly think about this in regards to design.  During the dark ages, everything was longer, tighter, more penal, more difficult.  To the point that courses like Oakland Hills (and many others) were being lengthen, trees planted, made tighter. Less fun overall.  Of course manufacturers were going to come up with solutions to be able to hit it straighter and farther.


Let's say that design age never happened.  Let's say no one was concerned with that and instead width and fun was being celebrated.  Instead of ruin-ovations like Oakland Hills or the Jones family style in general, what if courses like Pacific Dunes or Sweetens Cove or even classic design like British courses or NGLA were built?


Would length be the ultimate battle? Would have designers like Nicklaus and Palmer and the Jones family have been celebrated or derided? What direction would manufacturers have directed their equipment R&D if courses couldn't be overpowered and instead needed placement and thought to succeed?

Not sure I get your connection because,


1) The USGA is still doing those things (at least up until Merion in 2013)
2) I don't believe Oakland Hills ever influenced any architect other than RTJ himself, and his sons, and Dick Wilson, and maybe Joe Lee (his protégé) who was trying to keep up with him.  I would have to look at all the other courses designed from 1951 until Sand Hills in 1999, but I wonder how many were really narrow with fw bunkers on both sides of the LZ?




For every RTJ/Wilson course, there were probably 100 Floyd Farley courses design as muni's etc.