Angles, angles, angles

[TEPaul]

The other day an architect friend of mine mentioned that an architect he respects keeps saying that golf architecture to a remarkable degree almost always boils down to the subject of angles.

I was sitting here this morning thinking of all the interesting combinations of angles that can be mixed in so many ways in concept and design. And I wasn't even thinking about it in an aesthetic sense (which is certainly interesting and most important, in my opinion) only in the context of all the arrangements of any kind of angle for the strategic consequences of golf.

And when you start to imagine all the mixing together of both topographic ground angles with the linear angles (of man-made architecture) as a golfer faces his target to effect at the same time the flight patterns, distance considerations in the air and then bounce and roll patterns of a golf ball--there seems so much a designer can utilize if he just keeps thinking it all through constantly in the context of angles.

Angles such as the fairly severe right to left slope of Merion's #5 in combinations with the perfectly arcing linear creek line angle on the left all combining with the right to left horizontal angle of the entire green surface etc. And to think that all of that is natural. But then how well the man-made bunker just short and right works against the safe play drive with the very severe right/left angle just over it.

Or the amazing angle of Riviera's #10 green that might actually face to the left of the most lefthand portion of the enormously wide fairway!

Or the semi-blind almost vanishing angle of Hanse's #4 right greenside at French Creek!

It also seems amazing to consider that in the early days of golf so many of the first architects relied so completely on just straight right angles in almost everything they did. Some of those courses, certainly in the old drawings and some of the old aerials and photos looked almost like steeplechase courses with straight right angles almost everywhere. Maybe that was just man's natural inclination towards orderliness that produced that.

From somewhere just before 1910, American architects anyway (siince they appear to have been the only ones really using right angles everywhere) clearly started to pick up bigtime on the really clever use of angles in everything architecture and got really sophisticated fast with their use of all kinds of angles particulary naturally appearing ones.

But obviously Colt, Alison, Fowler, Abercrombie, maybe Park, Simpson, Wethred etc were ahead of them on that. Whether the Europeans were just picking up on and utilizing the natural angles they found or starting to dedicatedly make them, preceding say 1895, would be a good discussion.

I think it needs to be reanalyzed when and why and how much early American architecture started to move away from the geometric era and style of design of almost total right angles. Who moved away from it the quickest and who stuck with it would be interesting too?

And then when they started to wiggle those basic angle lines in all kinds of interesting ways--the way nature does--that's when it really got to be the ultimate in my opinion.

Maybe this whole idea of all the uses of all kinds of angles in golf architecture, natural or otherwis, is just elementary to some of you, but for me it wasn't that obvious. But maybe that's why I never passed any class I ever took in geometry.

[Euclid]

Tom Paul,

Your arch nemesis has mentioned the significance of angles and angles of attack for two years.

No wonder you failed, you skipped class.

[A_Clay_Man]

Firstly Tom, I'll state up front that I have very little knowledge of the past but want to know how will effect the future. So analysing why or where is an impossibility for me.

When you state that 'they' wiggled the lines, I sense you have some examples, what are they?

Gosh i hate to sound like a broken record with my limited exposure but it's theses angles both shot wise and contour wise that made me respect so much of Spyglass hill and is also one of the main reasons I think Ken Dye made a masterpiece here in Farmington.

To me the contour of the land provide the hidden soul to the course while playing angles can be overcome with heroic shots. Meaning that it's the natural tendencies of the effect of the land on any given lie that makes the hole have character.

Is that along the lines( pardon da pun) you're talkin bout?

[Sam Lacey]

Adam
Ken Dye? Contour of the land? What land? You must be a big fan of containment.

KD = manufactured.

I really like the views though.  

[Dan Kelly]

Maybe this whole idea of all the uses of all kinds of angles in golf architecture, natural or otherwis, is just elementary to some of you, but for me it wasn't that obvious. But maybe that's why I never passed any class I ever took in geometry.

Tom I --

Here's my angle on it:

Most of the great insights are right on the border between acute and obtuse.

[A_Clay_Man]

Sam Lacey- Are you speaking of Pinon? Sure, of the other courses of his I've seen he uses natural containment more/better than anyone, but not so much here at Pinon. The only place containment may have been over done here is around the greens, but that is debateable. Mostly because I feel the greenside mounding can and should be used for strategic purposes, when maintained . Believ me when I say that the bounces we get this time of year makes a mockery of any definition of containment. Plus, Pinon Hill's holes fit the land on each and every hole.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

For what it's worth from my travels -- a well angled course can stand the onslaught of the technological wave we've seen. The first rate courses do not suffer the same consequences because the playing angles force the player to reach optimum locations for scoring.

You mentioned Merion and I agree. But I can also add a host of other courses that were designed from 1910 on in America that do this so well.

Usually, when I visit a new course the first impression I get is how well the "angles" are accentuated with the design. The poor ones are usually those that tolerate any sort of play from just about any position on the course.

[eaglepower]

     


     I belong to a club that has an interesting use of angles.  The first hole goes out and plays to an angle that eventually configures into a triANGLE.  The second hole comes back towards the clubhouse with a mirror image (except the topography is slightly more angled), eventually completing a rectANGLE.  By perfecting these opening holes, I have been able to master some of the more famous angular holes from around the world, such as the third at Angle Dangle.

  So Tom, just keep an eye on the angle of your dangle.

[Robert Kimball]

Interesting topic, as usual.  

I would like to offer Ross' 5th hole on Pinehurst #2 as a great example of use of angles.  There are multiple ways to attack from the teeing area, and of course, once the green is reached, there are no guarantees.  

[Tom Doak]

Tom:  The Old Course at St. Andrews is all about angles.  For every pin position you need to know the contours at the front of the green so you can try to play in perpendicular to the contours -- if you don't, the contours will steer your shot to the side, more often than not into a bunker or away from the flag.

Angles like these come into play more when the fairway is wide, but also when holes are SHORTER.  From 75-100 yards out there is a big divergence in the look of an approach shot from the left or right side of the fairway; from 150 yards out it's harder to create a difference.  This is why Merion and the tenth at Riviera and St. Andrews (with EIGHT par fours under 400 yards) stand out in your memory, and mine.

[ForkaB]

Tom D

You are right about St. Andrews and angles, but.........given that a very high percentage of the holes are blind from the tee, how can you possibly choose the proper angle for your drive, unless you have a pin sheet for the day?

For me, this fatal combination is one of the reasons that I think the Old Course is as much a model for what can be bad about GCA as well as for what can be good.

[Brian Phillips]

Hear! Hear! Rich.

I only have 27 rounds of golf before I should apparently understand and enjoy TOC.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Much of your last post is precisely why not just firm and fast conditions "through the green" are important but why the correct degree of firmness "on the green" is essential. Without that last little piece so much variety is lost. It if weren't this way what you would have is the situation that Luke Donald mentioned of being able to "stop the ball on a dime" anywhere, and consequently approximately 1/2 the game would be negated (the ground game) and all the beautiful angles the ground itself can create all over the course (off the horizontal axis) would be negated too.

Particularly green surface firmness is key. Without that good players will use the aerial green approach game all day long and essentially compromise the full function of many great angles everywhere.

[Tom Doak]

Rich, re St. Andrews:

You could, of course, go out and walk the course to see where the flags are located before playing it.  If you play in the afternoon, you could take a caddie who's already been around that day and knows where they are.  And at any rate, you ought to be all set for the incoming nine if you've paid attention going out!

But the subsequent posters are right on:  if the course is wet enough that good players can stop the ball on a dime, angles don't matter much.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

It's an interesting point that Tom Doak makes about the pin placements at TOC if one doesn't have a pin sheet.

On most courses and most routing without a pin sheet there's not much you can know and most golfers really can't see most pins very accurately on much other than par 3. On most courses some clever architects think that they get lucky in a routing sense if a hole to come has it's pin clearly visible to a golfer playing a preceding hole. There probably isn't another course in the world that has more of this kind of routing good fortune to prepare for upcoming pin positions than TOC with its many shared greens. Lack of trees on a golf course also very much help the observant in this way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Shivas,

As we said on another thread, the pros aim at every pin.  I have to think over 4 days, even a slight angle advantage may make the difference in your final tournament standing.  If you have a frontal opening, you can go "half club down", meaning you putt uphill, with better birdie chances.  Without the opening, you go half club up, and try for more backspin to avoid the downhill putt.  If in the rough, or downwind, that may not be possible.

The question for the good player on angle is whether the frontal opening outweighs the advantage of curving it with the wind.  Perhaps the player not worried about the ground ball would want to hit it to the same side of the fairway as the greenside bunker, so he could start a cut/draw out farthest away.

For average golfers, that difference may come over a season of play, and measured in the number of strokes the handicap is lowered by playing strategically.

[ForkaB]

Tom D

Of course you can go out and walk the first 6 holes of TOC before you play to discover the pin positions, but how practical is that?  Would you ever design a golf course where the greens (and much of the fairways) on holes 2-6 were completely blind from the tee?

BTW--I have seen top pros spin and stop shots to the most "tucked" positions on the firmest and fastest of links greens.  They can play target golf on just about any layout under almost all conditions, if they want to.

[TEPaul]

"BTW--I have seen top pros spin and stop shots to the most "tucked" positions on the firmest and fastest of links greens.  They can play target golf on just about any layout under almost all conditions, if they want to."

Rich:

The hell they can! Those guys are good but not that good--no one is. If greens become firm enough "stop" and "spin" can be almost completely nixed or definitely severely minimized! Somewhere at that point is the "ideal" firmness of green surface for courses that have a good ground game component to their architecture.  And that point of green firmness is necessary to get tour pros from completely relying on their aerial game.

So you think they can stop a ball anywhere do you? I guess you missed last week's Hope (a sort of unlikly tour stop to have this happen) where some of the greens were firm enough that not a single pro could stop a wedge or 9 iron off a tee within about 20 paces! But maybe you thought they were just doing that on purpose.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I'll take your word on the Hope, which I didn't see.  I also remember Bay Hill a few years ago where a few holes played like that.

All I can vouch for is what I have seen with my own eyes, and that includes shots hit to holes and pin positions that I knew extremely well and had played the day before, under the same conditions, that exhibited an amount of "stop" that I did not think possible.  Of couse, you can go over the top with hardness and make greens like marble, but that's not an ideal "maintenance meld," is it?  I do wonder if part of what was seen at the Hope and Bay Hill wa a combination of lushish fairways and hard greens.  The shots I based my statement on were from very tight lies, where more spin can be generated, I assume.

I did put weasel words in my statement, too.  Nothing in golf is absolute.......

[TEPaul]

Rich:

The Hope may have micromanaged their individual green surface firmnesses but at Bay Hill the "ideal maintenance meld" was essentially turned on its head (to the least ideal maintenance meld) and even the pros had almost no functional options. The green approaches were totally soft and the green surfaces were so rock hard they couldn't remotely stop the ball. Even Palmer apologized and stated that would never happen again.

But the ideal (on some types and style of courses) is that point where the green firmness is not over the top just not completely reliable (for stopping and spining the ball). I'm beginning to believe the evidence is also on the green surface following an aerial shot. If a player cannot even remotely find a slight "dent" they probably are too firm. But if he can find that light "dent" (but with definitely no dirt pulled up) they then be at that point where reliability is dialed down to the proper point. Controlling the ball is probably possible but doing it become very tricky.

At that point even pros will want to get a more lofted club in their hands so you can start to see how this "ideal" condition (of green firmness) can have a trickle back effect on their strategy all the way to the tee!

That would be the "ideal maintenance meld" on certain types of courses. But strictly modern age aerial courses obviously need a variation of that "meld". In other words that style of course necessarily needs a more receptive green surface to play "ideal".

Half the point of an "ideal maintenance meld" is it's supposed to tailor the maintenance specifically to the type and style of architecture of any course's design and that can be vastly different from one type or style to another.

In the latter part of the 20th century this kind of varied maintenance meld seems to not have been thought of. Back then it seemed people thought any course was great if it was in "good condition" and most of us know now what that meant!

[Phil_the_Author]

I get the impression, and I could be very wrong on this, that when angles are mentioned in comments most are thinking of the angles of approach into green sites and pin positions.

I believe that the most important angles are to be found in the tee area. Is the tee box pointed directly at landing areas or is it turned slightly in relation to the direction(s) that the fairway runs? Are the landing areas for long hitters restricted or narrowed down by the angle that their ball flight must come into it?

At last year's U.S. Open the tenth tee was criticized because it was located at 251 yards from the beginning of the fairway. If one took a very careful look at the driving statistics for all four rounds played by the 72  who made the cut, distance was not the factor in why many did not hit the fairway from the tee. A total of only 89% of the drives hit over those four days were hit LONG enough to reach the fairway. When you factor out Fridays rainstorms and severe weather it climbs up to 94% over the other three days. Even on Friday 81% hit drives long enough to reach the fairway. In fact on Sunday EVERY player in the field hit it at least 253 yards.

What this shows is that the problem was one of accuracy. They had to hit their drives into a small landing area of 26-28 yards in width.

When tees are angled in relation to the landing areas that a hole should be played from, scores will always be much higher.

Take this weeks AT&T tournament. After the last few weeks in Hawaii where scores were inconceivably low, the "experts" were once again predicting record low scores. I believe the scores are relatively average if not higher than normal for this time of year out there for the pros. I think the answer lies as much in comparing the width of the landing areas that must be hit into as the new equipment being used this year.

Take a long hard look at the courses played in Hawaii and see how very wide the fairways are. When played with little wind as they were, hitting the fairways and placing the tee shots into the proper landing areas is much easier. The angles to those targets from the tees was rather large.

[Mike_Cirba]

Anyone who happened to see the replay of the Azinger-Ballesteros match on "Shell's Wonderful World of Golf" late last night got a good glimpse into the wonderful "angle" game that is TOC.

The wind was fresh, but not overly so, for most of the round, and the putting surfaces were firm.  Stopping the ball on a dime?  Hardly!

A great example was the 7th hole, with the wind coming out of the left and the hole cut on the left side of the green, just beyond the swale.  Seve's drive was on the right side, in the rough, and Paul's was well-left (usually the preferred position).  Given the wind direction, however, Seve had a much better angle of attack, and although his ball didn't make it up the front slope, he was left with a routine par.  Azinger, coming downwind, only was able to play a shot that ran well beyond the pin.  Three putts later was as good an example of differening angles (and their changeability in certain conditions) and firm putting surfaces as any I've seen.

Incidentally, the final scores were Azinger, 72 & Ballesteros, 74.  

Also, the Road Hole Bunker looked pretty fabulous and quite unlike either of the two recent "restored" versions that have been posted here.