Mark,
Still not sure on the theory of misses (or the theory of the Missus, which is why I am divorced, but no need to take Greg's thread that far OT!
) Actually, your graphic is in some ways, bringing it back on topic.
Two questions -
1. When trying to accentuate the word "way" should it be "wayyyyyyyy" or "waaaaaaaaY" to the left side?
2. Should the strategy be designed according to projected misses or attempted makes?
It seems to me that opening up virtually every hole to the left doesn't make much sense, just because the scratch and 30 players seem to miss front left.
It really should be a balance or playing angles, right, left, straight on, and in one or two cases, maybe fully covered up all the way across the front. At least, IMHO. Asking a player who is likely to miss left to hit a left to right shot is fair game, even if its likely his miss will be more punished in this case. In general, the other players will be punished more heavily in other cases to balance things out.
As I was driving in to work, it struck me again how it would be nearly impossible for me to ignore good data on how my courses actually function while designing. Of course, art is good, too, because nearly all golfers enjoy that aspect of the course, whether they can quantify it or not.
It also struck me that in this discussion of angles, how much that data argues for dumbing down or at least reducing play angles of most greens to nearly along the line of play.
First, all of these design theories on green width, etc. are based on the presumtion (on a par 4) that everyone hits to the prescribed spot. Most don't, with more coming up short than long. If, in theory, you want to allow the short hitter to still be in the hole, you would probably widen the frontal opening out AND reduce the green angle to allow a shorter hitter in the fw to have a shot.
Second, for Tour Players, hazards left and right, rather than in front, come more into play. And, sharply angled greens affect them less, as well. The difference between scratch and 20's is the area of miss, but its not so different, I suppose on a well played shot by a 20 vs. the scratch - they just don't hit it well as often - and its hard to figure the big 20 miss in when planning strategy.
Taken together, both suggests lateral hazards make for the most balanced play among different types of players, explaining why carry bunkers have been reduced in modern design in favor of lateral bunkers. Lateral bunkers tend to challenge better players more and affect average players less.......
BTW, Pete Dye's basic theory of how much to cover green fronts is "Short Shot - 2/3, Medium Shot, 1/2, Long Shot, 1/3. That rule of thumb is actually about right for balancing basic math with Pete's (and Tony's) intuition.
I recall both KN having much more detailed formulas for green angles, frontal openings, etc. I recently saw a copy of almost identical forumulas from gca William Mitchell, and the gent who shared them recalled being fascinated by the fact that Mitchell could tell "exactly" how wide a green should be from his formula!
I can understand RJ and others being fearful of how that might lead to average design, if followed that closely. I know KN didn't, not sure about Mitchell.