“The problem is the architects" - Jason Day

[Brian_Ewen]

 

http://www.bunkered.co.uk/golf-news/jason-day-pulls-no-punches-over-driving-distance-debate


Jason Day pulls no punches over driving distance debate
By Michael McEwan — 11 October, 2018


It’s arguably the most divisive debate in golf: whether or not to rein-in technology.


There are many who believe that tighter restrictions should be imposed on equipment – the manufacturing of golf balls and clubheads in particular – in order to preserve older courses which are in danger of being rendered obsolete by the distances gains modern pros are making.


Others take a different view. That’s the camp Jason Day is in.


In a wide-ranging interview with Golf Digest, the former world No.1 and US PGA champion – one of the biggest hitters on tour – outlined his opposition to the ‘rein it in’ brigade.


He said: “Do I want the ball to go shorter? No. Why? Isn't it fun watching Dustin Johnson crush a drive over a lake 300 yards away? No one wants to see someone plod it down the right and not take it on. That's boring.


“If you push trying to rein it in too far, then people will stop watching golf. People want to see risk.”


The Aussie added that he believes that course developments, not equipment manufacturers, are to blame for the current set of circumstances.


“The problem is the architects—some of them, anyway—decided that because the ball is going forever, they need to make courses longer to make them harder,” he said. “No, you don't. Just be a better architect.”


READ THE FULL INTERVIEW HERE
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/being-jason-day-interview

[Jeff Schley]

Woah Jason pump the brakes there buddy!
He obviously is not using logic in that technology has allowed himself and his colleagues on tour 20-30 yards more distance since just 20 years ago. So what are courses and architects (who are hired btw they don't build the courses themselves, they are hired) to do? Watch their course be torn to shreds when golfers can get on every par 5 in two with short irons and have lob wedges into almost all par 4's?

Be a better architect?  What does this mean if you can fly past everything anyway? Does he want punishing Pete Dye type layouts with water and OB everywhere?  I totally disagree with his take, but he has a huge advantage as one of the longest hitters so why would he want anyone to take that away from him.  Predictable and biased.

[Tom_Doak]

The truth is, we would all be better off - architects and non-architects - if we just ignored the PGA TOUR players and what they might shoot, and thought about everybody else.  That might be what "being a better architect" is really all about.


However, Jason's argument is also a straw man.  People used to be happy watching Jack Nicklaus crush it 260 over a lake, and that would still be exciting if that's how far the best players could hit it.  Distance is relative.

[Steve Kline]

One way to make a course harder is to add more slope and undulation to the greens. That would mean slowing the greens down. But, Jason and his fellow tour pros would hate that too.

[Tom_Doak]

One way to make a course harder is to add more slope and undulation to the greens. That would mean slowing the greens down. But, Jason and his fellow tour pros would hate that too.

I noticed in Gil Hanse's interview in GOLF DIGEST this month he pooh-poohed the idea of slowing greens down.

[A.G._Crockett]

Though I don't necessarily put much stock in Day's idea that watching Dustin Johnson hit the ball 300 yards over a lake is what fans like most, I do agree with him in principle.  Making the ball go shorter distances is no more creative or beneficial than simply expanding courses with more yardage.


I've said this many times, but I'll give it another shot.  Years ago, when there was debate about raising the basket in basketball because big men had become too dominant, Al McGuire weighed in against the idea, saying that if you wanted to bring back the little man in basketball, then put the basket in the floor.  I feel much the same way about length and GCA; simply building courses longer makes length MORE valuable and important and dominant, not less so.

[Kyle Harris]

We're burying the lede here. Jason Day literally said that a dialed back golf ball would mean *gasp* a 4-iron into #7 at Augusta National.

The guy doesn't understand that a high flighted long-iron to a tight green is a shot those in the past had examined more frequently than today.


In that context, his statement isn't entirely inaccurate. As long as you can continue to build long courses, you will find a need for this type of equipment. The more I think on this, the more I realize this is truly a Chicken and Egg scenario.

[David_Tepper]

"I noticed in Gil Hanse's interview in GOLF DIGEST this month he pooh-poohed the idea of slowing greens down."

Tom D. -

I read the interview with Gil Hanse. To be clear, he said the "powers that be" in golf would not allow slower green speeds to happen. Personally, he had no problem with slower greens.

DT

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure the "architects" would agree on what to do about the "problem."  Nor do I think there is much you can do since length is so often its own reward.  Would love to have seen JD provide what he thinks the solution would be.  Easy to call out another group of people or profession, harder to actually think what better architecture means.


Unfortunately, the only solution under present circumstances is to design a specific set of about 100 courses for the Tour (i.e., TPC and a select few older courses willing to do so) and ignore PGA Tour level players for the rest of design.  Average players don't need a lot more contour, the gently rolling greens and average stimpmeter reading of 9-10 in the USA is almost perfect for them, IMHO.  Only a select few courses have 13 on the stimpmeter for daily play. 


Making most courses in the US tougher because of the top 0.001% of players shoot in the 60's occasionally or even semi regularly (hey, didn't Hogan have some rounds in the low 60's, too?) is folly.  If anything, make the 14,900 courses that won't hole a tourney shorter (or provide shorter tee options) and probably easier (obviously, a case by case basis)

[Ira Fishman]

+1.  Given that only a small handful of PGA events have a single digit winning score, Jason Day must conclude that there are almost no architects who are any good at what they do.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

My initial thoughts after reading that was.  Jason wants:

1)  Small greens
2)  Narrow fairways with punishing rough.
3)  Water and OB
4)  Tucked pins.

Or in other words, something like the Ryder Cup course from a few weeks ago. He is correct in that respect, you build all those things into the course and even a 6800 yard course would be plenty...


Maybe the time is past due for dedicated fields of play for the pros....we have this in pretty much every other sport, why not golf..

[Jim Hoak]

This is one of the most important issues to golf--now and the future.
I absolutely come down on Tom Doak's side from his first post above.  We need to stop paying so much attention to the needs and actions of the touring pros.  They are less than .001% of all golfers.  To let them dictate courses and set-ups robs the joy from those of us who play golf for the fun of it.  The heritage of our game is camaraderie and simple pleasure. 
Golf is a game.  Ignore the pros.  Let them shoot whatever they can--55 or lower.  Who really cares?  Let's recapture the game by its rightful owners!

[Steve Kline]

Virtually every sport has a standard, uniform playing field. It’s just fan seating that sets the playing fields apart for pros and ams in other sports.


The variety in playing fields is one of the things that makes golf so much fun to me.


I don’t care how many under or over par pros shoot. I’d much rather watch them play an architecturally compelling course. Le Golf National May price to be hard for the pros, but I found it incredibly boring to watch. The British Open is fascinating for me to watch whether the winner shoots close to par or goes close to -20 under at a windless TOC.


In many ways, it seems all of this comes down to par and the score in relation to it. I just don’t care much about that. Tour players are really good. They are going to tear any but the most contrived golf course.

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,


I appreciate the sentiments, and I agree with you 100%..until reality pokes its heads in.


Based on the dozens of threads I've read over the years, the primary driver for these longer "championship" courses comes from the course owner either for new development or lengthening existing courses...with a few rare exceptions like Mike K.


I suppose every GC architect could present a consolidated front and refuse to do this work, but that's silly too.


P.S.  As an idealist myself, these days I too am learning a very harsh lesson in ideals vs the nature of human tyranny.

[Tom_Doak]

We're burying the lede here. Jason Day literally said that a dialed back golf ball would mean *gasp* a 4-iron into #7 at Augusta National.

The guy doesn't understand that a high flighted long-iron to a tight green is a shot those in the past had examined more frequently than today.


In that context, his statement isn't entirely inaccurate. As long as you can continue to build long courses, you will find a need for this type of equipment. The more I think on this, the more I realize this is truly a Chicken and Egg scenario.

No top players used to hit a 4-iron into #7 at Augusta National.  They lengthened that hole 60-80 yards when they "Tiger-proofed" the course because it was one of the few that had room to go way back. 


But they could very easily move the tees up a little bit if they dialed back the golf ball, so, another straw man.

[Kyle Harris]

We're burying the lede here. Jason Day literally said that a dialed back golf ball would mean *gasp* a 4-iron into #7 at Augusta National.

The guy doesn't understand that a high flighted long-iron to a tight green is a shot those in the past had examined more frequently than today.


In that context, his statement isn't entirely inaccurate. As long as you can continue to build long courses, you will find a need for this type of equipment. The more I think on this, the more I realize this is truly a Chicken and Egg scenario.

No top players used to hit a 4-iron into #7 at Augusta National.  They lengthened that hole 60-80 yards when they "Tiger-proofed" the course because it was one of the few that had room to go way back. 


But they could very easily move the tees up a little bit if they dialed back the golf ball, so, another straw man.

I understand the specific application in this regard isn't exactly right, however, in the context of the conversation I think he was just using a ready-made example that immediately came to mind. The shot - a high mid-iron to a small target - was tested much more 30 years ago than today. And really yes, I agree with you about the Strawman, that's why it was interesting to me.

[jeffwarne]

I'm just pleased he was healthy enough to grant the interview.....


It may be all well and good to "ignore the views of the top pros"....but what about the the tens of thousands who play at the elite amateur, college, and junior ranks who hit the ball far farther than the scale of the fields of play they play on.


I'm just always amazed that there's such resistance to doing what every other sport does (successfully limiting equipment gains to fit the venues)and a whole host of Pandora's Box ideas(narrow fairways, high rough etc.) as an alternative to returning the game to a simpler, more time manageable scale for players of all levels.


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

[Lou_Duran]

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

The reference to Tom got me thinking about one of the knocks on Nicklaus courses- that they always favored the left-to-right shot.  Of course, no other architect designs to his strengths and away from his weaknesses. 

I once saw Nicklaus hit a mile-high 1-iron into a brisk wind on a 230 yard par 3 (Canterbury CC).  Most everyone else hit 3-woods, more often than not a club or more short.  Then as now, the crowds loved long and high.  Nicklaus just had a tremendous competitive advantage then, probably similarly to DJ, Koepka and others now.

Rolling the ball back is a non-starter.   15+ years ago I thought that bi-furcation was the less bad solution.  That too seems improbable.

Now I am of the opinion that those classic courses which want to host Tour level events should just do what they can with rough, mowing lines, and course setup to challenge the best players and let the scores indicate just how far playing abilities really range  (maybe a crazy temporary tee on occasion as well).   As it was suggested, perhaps there ought to be 100 or so courses designed to contain the pros with par as a meaningful standard.  I suspect that there are enough "sticks" in many areas that would try to challenge these courses the other 30-50 weeks of the year.   

[MLevesque]

Although I disagree with the statement the that the PGA TOUR and the rest of golf is not the same sport, I believe we give the PGA Tour and its players too much importance in potentially dictating course redesign and future course design.  Let them play their 46 weeks per year on whatever sterile 7,000-8,000 yard track will host them.  The mistake is to have our beloved classic courses be irreparablely altered to chase the false and fleeting "glory" of host a PGA Tour event to the detriment of the larger golfing community.

[Garland Bayley]

He says he wants players carrying it 300 yards over water. Then he blames architects for building courses too long. Makes me think he may be a few cards short of a full deck.   

[Mark Pearce]

He says he wants players carrying it 300 yards over water. Then he blames architects for building courses too long. Makes me think he may be a few cards short of a full deck. 

He does very little to suggest that he's one of the brightest sparks on the tour.  This interview does nothing to alter my perception of him.

[Terry Lavin]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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?

[V_Halyard]

Not sure the "architects" would agree on what to do about the "problem."  Nor do I think there is much you can do since length is so often its own reward.  Would love to have seen JD provide what he thinks the solution would be.  Easy to call out another group of people or profession, harder to actually think what better architecture means.


Unfortunately, the only solution under present circumstances is to design a specific set of about 100 courses for the Tour (i.e., TPC and a select few older courses willing to do so) and ignore PGA Tour level players for the rest of design.  Average players don't need a lot more contour, the gently rolling greens and average stimpmeter reading of 9-10 in the USA is almost perfect for them, IMHO.  Only a select few courses have 13 on the stimpmeter for daily play. 


Making most courses in the US tougher because of the top 0.001% of players shoot in the 60's occasionally or even semi regularly (hey, didn't Hogan have some rounds in the low 60's, too?) is folly.  If anything, make the 14,900 courses that won't hole a tourney shorter (or provide shorter tee options) and probably easier (obviously, a case by case basis)

... course bifurcation...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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?

I think there's a bit more to it than that.