Has technology diminished or eliminated the significance of angles ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

With clubs/balls that go higher and farther has/is the architect's ability to create strategy been diminishd, if not eliminated in many cases ?

[Charlie Goerges]

I think the answer is yes, but I don't think the impact of conditioning can be overlooked in this regard. Softer conditions mean that less attention needs to be paid to what will happen to the ball after it lands. Tighter lies mean the good player can spin the ball even more which consequently also diminishes the worry about approaching from the correct angle.

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

I agree with Charlie, but I think this has been happening for at least 30 years, maybe over 100 years if you believe some of the accounts at the turn of the last century......

Rich

[John Moore II]

It may have diminished it a bit, but certainly technology has not eliminated the significance of angles. I mean, maybe on a dead flat course with no rough and the like it may have, but on a course that adequately penalizes offline shots and shots hit into bad places, then angles off the tee and into the green are still very much in play.

[David_Madison]

At the tour or very high level of play perhaps. Diminished yes, eliminated no. Firm greens with side roll-offs and internal contouring can still help defend against short-sided approaches.

[Bill_McBride]

I think the TPC Sawgrass this week proves that's not the case.  On a number of those holes -- which I only played once 12 years ago so not so good on the hole numbers -- you had a blind shot if your tee shot wasn't on the right line.  Maybe Pete Dye courses are exempt from Pat's theory?

[Tom_Doak]

Eliminated?  Not if the architect is clever enough.

Diminished?  Absolutely.  The angle doesn't matter much when the player has a wedge in his hands, unless the green is REALLY severe.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have talked with a number of Tour Pros on this issue, and had come to the conclusion that they might have diminished.  But, I spoke with a tour pro the other day and he was very aware of his angles and their affect on play.

The ones who seem to notice them most are the grinder types who think they need every advantage to score well.  With enough power, they are truly diminshed, but help others compete.  I think the same would be true of top amateurs.

One interesting twist added in this gents comments were that the tour guys are very attuned to just how well they are striking the ball.  When you are on your game, if you have to come over a bunker, you figure you can just hit it harder, get more spin, and fly past the pin and back it up.  But, if you know you aren't striking it really crisp, then the angle becomes more important. Of course, that would be the case for more amateurs.

So, if we limit our discussion to tour pros who are supremely talented, and on their game, then yes.  For the rest of the world, no they are pretty much the same as they always were.  Just MHO.

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick,
I'll take a contrarian view - No, they haven't dimiinished.

Speaking only for myself, I know that Gil's angles can kill me if I really don't take the time for proper alignment.  Get lazy and I can duck hook or worse just because I didn't line up right.

Angles are what I look for in GCA.  Great use of angles usually means a great golf course.

[Sean_A]

Speaking about handicap players only, as Rich says, it depends on the weather/time of year.  If the greens are soft, most definitely yes.  When properly presented the angles have not been diminished.  In fact, technology has made a great many holes more enjoyable.  The modern length has brought temptation into play where in the old days it didn't necessarily exist.  Why do y'all think so many of these 6000-6500 yard courses are so enthralling to play these days?  IMO, back in the day, many of these courses would have been far too difficult for the handicap player.  Especially classic American courses. 

Ciao

Sean

[Dan Herrmann]

Sean - very well said!

(PS - The referee screwed the Red Wings!)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

The referee had to blow the whistle by NHL rule when he lost sight of the puck.  It was a bad break for the Wings but it happens. I was personally rooting for the Ducks, but only because I knew I was going to watch the game to the end and didn't want an OT marathon to start at Midnight Central time!

I don't want to hijack this thread, but when I was posting last night I was thinking of the related question - can there be too much width in making angles work?  And, if tech allows players to hit straighter, does that suggest narrower fw in combination with angles?  I ask because maintenance costs always favor reducing width so we don't want "unnecessary" width AND good golfers find very wide fw to be too easy.

It appears to me from playing and watching TPC that Pete used angles to increase challenge on tee shots as much as he did to present strategy.  The angles at TPC demand a controlled and patterned (i.e., draw or fade) tee shot because combining distance and direction becomes critical (regardless of strategy)  If those fw were wider, it would reduce the precision demands on the tee shot, and also allow a fw lie (vs rough lie) approach to the green from the less desireable angles, reducing strategy via reducing penalty for a shot in the wrong place.  Yes, the very best can spin it from the rough now, also reducing strategy.

It also occurs to me that in the classic strategic hole (play one side for a frontal green opening) can work with narrower fw by adjusting the green angle and contour.  If you draw straight par 4 holes on a piece of paper at lengths of 350, 400, 450 and 500 and plot a 40 yard wide fw, you will find that if a player just hits the edge of the fw, the green angle to open up its full depth is 18,11,8 and 5 degrees. If you draw the fw at 60 yards wide, the angles go up proportionally but are still relative.

So the question is, is a 475 par 4 with a 60 yard wide fw and a green set at 8 degrees to the preferred side any better than a hole of the same length with a 40 yard wide fw and a green set at 5 degrees to the preferred side, given that the super must maintain another 50% of fw?  And, if the hole is set up so that the player MUST hit within a few yards of the edge of the fw to get the best angle to the Sunday Pin, does having fw 59 yards to the other edge rather than 39 yards right make the hole better or worse?

In short, I think that medium fw - wider than required just to aim at the middle, but not ultra wide - combined with shallow angle greens probably set up the strategy as well as wider fw and steeper angled greens while also using fw angles to increase tee shot challenge.  If golf is too much putting (an oft expressed view) giving golfers a free pass on tee shots doesn't create a well balanced test of golf does it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak & Jeff Brauer,

When you combine the influence of modern tech with the trend toward narrower fairways, how could there possibly be anything less than a diminishment in the significance of angles.

With the financial state of clubs in this economy won't the trend be toward narrowing fairways further ?

Won't golf trend rapidly toward "target" rather than strategic golf...... at the local level and on the tour.

Dan,

I don't think you can cite how one perseon (you) plays one course and expand it to a universal.

If the significance of angles hasn't decreased, how do you explain "bomb and gouge" at EVERY level, not just the PGA Tour ?

[Sean_A]

Sean - very well said!

(PS - The referee screwed the Red Wings!)

Dan

The ref may have been a bit trigger happy with the whistle as it was obvious the puck was still alive the way the players were jostling with their heads DOWN in front of the net - especially when you consider how Ducks defensemen like to throw the cheap shots once the puck is dead .  Its a bad break, but the Wings can only blame themselves for not scoring more goals.  You know the old adage, if you score a goal a period you are going to win an awful lot of games. 

Pat

I think you are stuck in a rut with the the idea of bomb and gouge.  I see very, very, very few handicap players tearing up well designed courses no matter how far they hit it. 

Ciao

[Chris Cupit]

For the elite player absolutely it has diminished the significance of angles and for an elite player if he is playing a "normal" course under regular every day conditions, I would say angles are pretty close to meaningless.

For the other 99% I think it depends.  The high handicap golfer is not proficient enough to realistically position himself within the golf corse at the proper angles so they are mostly pointless in his case.  I do think for the good club player (scratch to a 9 say) who is good enough to have good success hitting shots fairly consistently here he is trying to, then I think angles are very important on the small percentage of courses that maintain fairly firm greens.

Most people are just out to enjoy the day and hit the occasional decent shot and there is nothing wrong with that.  Very few golfers aside from those on this site give angles or strategy on the course a moments thought

[Sean_A]

For the elite player absolutely it has diminished the significance of angles and for an elite player if he is playing a "normal" course under regular every day conditions, I would say angles are pretty close to meaningless.

For the other 99% I think it depends.  The high handicap golfer is not proficient enough to realistically position himself within the golf corse at the proper angles so they are mostly pointless in his case.  I do think for the good club player (scratch to a 9 say) who is good enough to have good success hitting shots fairly consistently here he is trying to, then I think angles are very important on the small percentage of courses that maintain fairly firm greens.

Most people are just out to enjoy the day and hit the occasional decent shot and there is nothing wrong with that.  Very few golfers aside from those on this site give angles or strategy on the course a moments thought

Chris

I don't think you are being very fair to a great many high cappers.  I watch high cappers all the time trying to hit for angles which give them gaps to greens.  This doesn't mean they pull it off or more likely they pull it off eventually, but that isn't the point at all.  Once we start saying angles don't matter archies will totally eliminate them.  This is one reason why we have such a reliance on the aerial game today.  Archies should be forced to watch high cappers play on good courses which are properly presented and allow for kick ins for a year before they design anything.  Once you see these guys essentially trying to play to their caps rather than worry about par then its whole new ball game.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It isn't eliminated but it can be diminished depending on the way any course is set up. THIS after-all is a lot of what the entire Maintenance Meld idea is designed to address.

If the good long player has a lot less club in his hand coming at some angle into a green his effective approach shot success can be addressed by firmer green surfaces and to some extent greenspeed.

We are seeing this very thing happen to some extent this weekend at TPC in the Players. The way they have that course set up this week was definitely not by accident or coincidence, it is part of a dedicated project with this goal that's been going on for a couple of years there.

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick,
Of course I can't speak for everybody.  But I think I do represent the 10-20 cap range pretty well.

BTW - I think TPC Sawgrass is an example of a course with amazing use of angles.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Here's a question for you. What do you think this groove change thing will do (regarding degree or whatever) with bringing back the effectiveness of angles? If this groove change really has a noticeable effect in this way with these modern low spin rate golf balls it would not surprise me at all if a number of good players and the manfacturers begin to go back towards higher spin rate balls and if that happens it might affect both trajectory and distance particularly off the tee.

[Rich Goodale]

Pat:

Here's a question for you. What do you think this groove change thing will do (regarding degree or whatever) with bringing back the effectiveness of angles? If this groove change really has a noticeable effect in this way with these modern low spin rate golf balls it would not surprise me at all if a number of good players and the manfacturers begin to go back towards higher spin rate balls and if that happens it might affect both trajectory and distance particularly off the tee.

Very interesting theory, Tom.  Maybe Jim Vernon is more clever than I have given him credit for on previous posts.

[TEPaul]

"Maybe Jim Vernon is more clever than I have given him credit for on previous posts."


Richard the Previous Post Doubter:

It would be truly surprising to me if Vernon did not realize that because I'm pretty positive Dick Rugge and the USGA Tech Center sure as hell does and if those two guys haven't talked about it I would be totally shocked. Now that most certainly doesn't mean they have or should or will go totally public with it at this point. What purpose would that serve at this juncture? To do that at this point may piss off some entities they don't really need to be pissing off AT THIS POINT! 

No, I think they understand this and so does the manufacturers and the best thing to do would be to just fly the whole damn thing as far under the radar screen of the opinionated arguers on here and elsewhere as possible until the time comes when----BOOM it just comes out with conformance and production and such. And then it will be done.

There is something called "The Notice and Comment" period that is formalized with USGA/R&A rules and reg procedure and this groove change has been through it before the new rules and regs on grooves went into effect. Through that formalized "Notice and Comment" process there's no doubt in my mind the Rules makers and the manufacturers talked about not just the ramification of the groove change only but the ramifications it may have on other things like balls and equipment in the future.

I should also remind you that a couple of years ago the USGA/R&A asked ALL the ball manufacturers to submit their own prototype golf balls that go 15 AND 25 yards less far. The reason the USGA/R&A gave was so that they could more comprehensively study their various characterstics. What do you suppose that was about RICHARD the Previous Post Vernon Doubter??   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak & Jeff Brauer,

When you combine the influence of modern tech with the trend toward narrower fairways, how could there possibly be anything less than a diminishment in the significance of angles.

Pat,

I won't speak for ole TD (touchdown?) but I think I covered my response in my two posts on this thread.  To recap the highlights:

Angled FW still matter because they increase the challenge of the tee shot.

Even among 250 of the top players (i.e. Tour Pros) they have days when angle into the green matters.  Only for the top 10 or so players and the next 240 when they are really on do angles to the green become insignificant.  The tour pro I spoke with said that he alters his strategy for the day depending on how well he is hitting it on the practice range. For the other 25 million golfers, they matter all the time, because lower swing speeds equal less spin.

For individual greens, green contours probably accentuate the importance - i.e. fall away slightly from one side while presenting from the other.


Now, are the angles as important as when there was less irrigation and more of a ground game was played?  Well yes, for average golfers, no for better ones.  Firm and fast would help a lot to increase the importance of angles.  Again, the ratio is about 24.5 million to 0.5 million. 

Would less square grooves increase the importance of hitting the fw and hitting it at the proper position?  Yes to the first and a qualified yes to the second. It seems to me that providing rough on the "wrong side" in combination with a bit less spin enhances strategy more than unfettered width. 

But, again, see above - even for the bottom 90% of tour pros, there are days when they don't spin the ball enough to overcome angle and rough.  We only see the guys who are at the top of their game when we watch TV each week, because the others have missed the cut or are out of contention. 

Can we base all of golf course design (and equipment) on Tiger and Phil?  Or do we base it on the needs and abilities of the average Joe, or something in between?

[Chris Cupit]

For the elite player absolutely it has diminished the significance of angles and for an elite player if he is playing a "normal" course under regular every day conditions, I would say angles are pretty close to meaningless.

For the other 99% I think it depends.  The high handicap golfer is not proficient enough to realistically position himself within the golf corse at the proper angles so they are mostly pointless in his case.  I do think for the good club player (scratch to a 9 say) who is good enough to have good success hitting shots fairly consistently here he is trying to, then I think angles are very important on the small percentage of courses that maintain fairly firm greens.

Most people are just out to enjoy the day and hit the occasional decent shot and there is nothing wrong with that.  Very few golfers aside from those on this site give angles or strategy on the course a moments thought

Chris

I don't think you are being very fair to a great many high cappers.  I watch high cappers all the time trying to hit for angles which give them gaps to greens.  This doesn't mean they pull it off or more likely they pull it off eventually, but that isn't the point at all.  Once we start saying angles don't matter archies will totally eliminate them.  This is one reason why we have such a reliance on the aerial game today.  Archies should be forced to watch high cappers play on good courses which are properly presented and allow for kick ins for a year before they design anything.  Once you see these guys essentially trying to play to their caps rather than worry about par then its whole new ball game.

Ciao

I see your point, but before our renovation the architect and I spent a considerable amount of time with seniors, ladies and a wide cross section of players before, during and after the work.  I personally have sat for hours watching players tackle a particular shot and in my experience the 20 handicapper and above was so wildly inconsistent in merely hitting the ball solidly that the notion they could realistically execute a strategy on a course was zero. 

I do agree that the main point though is that they see the advantage or disadvantage or a particualr approach and TRY to go the preferred way.  Certainly any level of golfer can understand the strategy of a hole but ultimately when it comes to the play of the hole many of the stratgies are pointless.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I think you are stuck in a rut with the the idea of bomb and gouge. 

The phrase "bomb and gouge" didn't eminate from my being stuck in a rut.
It's very apt, at almost every level where the golfer is capable of distance.

I see very, very, very few handicap players tearing up well designed courses no matter how far they hit it.

Then you're playing with golfers who don't understand course management or how to score..
Guys who hit it long tend to fare well today, compared to years ago.  The ball doesn't only go farther, it goes straighter, and that combination results in better scoring opportunities.

Throw me in the rough and give me a sand wedge into the green and I'll take my chances against par anytime. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

It isn't eliminated but it can be diminished depending on the way any course is set up. THIS after-all is a lot of what the entire Maintenance Meld idea is designed to address.

TE,

You have to view course set-up in the context of every day play, whether it be at Gulph Mills, Merion, Aronomink or any other local club.

In addition, the "maintainance meld", which I believe in, can only be achieved if Mother Nature consents.
Anyone living in the Northeast, where I believe it has rained at one time during the day, for the last 19 days, knows that firm and fast conditions are a fiction, and will probably remain a fiction for another few weeks.

If the good long player has a lot less club in his hand coming at some angle into a green his effective approach shot success can be addressed by firmer green surfaces and to some extent greenspeed.

Normally, and in certain circumstances, I'd agree with that statement, however, in the context of every day play, I can't agree with it, for if you get the greens so firm and fast that a good player can't hold them from the rough with a short iron, then neither can the balance of the membership, and when that happens, the politics of the club almost mandates that those Firm and Fast conditions be softened.

We are seeing this very thing happen to some extent this weekend at TPC in the Players. The way they have that course set up this week was definitely not by accident or coincidence, it is part of a dedicated project with this goal that's been going on for a couple of years there.


You can't take a club in Northern Florida in mid-May, that's been specifically prepared for a PGA Tour event and interpolate the conditions as applicable at the local club level, especially in the Northeast.

In addition, that course was designed for PGA Tour Pros, not your average membership.