[Jim Nugent]

"To my mind, the real beneficiary of this information is someone who is working with or raising a youngster who has a keen eye for the game. If they want to really achieve, then it's better to teach them to hit it far than to hit it straight."

Michael F. -

Based on what I have read and heard, that is exactly how Jack Grout taught a very young Jack Nicklaus, so not all that much has changed in the past 60-odd years.


DT

Also what Arnie's father taught him. 

[A.G._Crockett]

First, and of great importance, Broadie's research shows that the idea of "long and wild" is pretty much a myth.  The same skill set that allows a given golfer to hit the ball a long way also allows him to hit the ball relatively straight.  ...

Dr. Knuth is a pretty good statistician, and he says 12% of golfers are " Wild Willy's". How does that mesh with Brodie's claim above?

Knuth is indeed a good statistician, but he isn't talking about the question of "long but wild" when he used the term "wild willy".  That is a generalized term for players who have a relatively high "anti-handicap" that has nothing to do with how far or how inaccurately a given player is hitting the ball off the tee or anywhere else on the golf course; it has to do with a wider range of all posted scores vs another player with a tighter range of all posted scores.

Dr. Knuth explicitly defines Wild Willy as a long, but inaccurate hitter. I did misremember the %. 12% are Steady Eddie, and 8% are Wild Willy.

You completely missed the point of the anti-handicap and those two fictional models, but no worries.  And in any case, a mere 8% would seem to prove Broadie's point anyway.

[Garland Bayley]

Dr. Knuth explicitly defines Wild Willy as a long, but inaccurate hitter. I did misremember the %. 12% are Steady Eddie, and 8% are Wild Willy.

He does say they are long and inaccurate, but I'm almost certain that's editorializing rather than anything based on statistical analysis. He's very clear that the people he calls Wild Willies are people who have a wide distribution in posted scores (varying by 20 shots or more), whereas Steady Eddies tend to be within 5-6 shots of a specific number every round.

In a personal communication to me, verifying that a player can establish a lower handicap index from the back tees than what he establishes from the forward tees, he specifically noted that the long, and inaccurate Wild Willy type of player would be exactly the type of player that would do that.

So since he uses it in additional contexts, I don't think he was editorializing.

[Garland Bayley]

First, and of great importance, Broadie's research shows that the idea of "long and wild" is pretty much a myth.  The same skill set that allows a given golfer to hit the ball a long way also allows him to hit the ball relatively straight.  ...

Dr. Knuth is a pretty good statistician, and he says 12% of golfers are " Wild Willy's". How does that mesh with Brodie's claim above?

Knuth is indeed a good statistician, but he isn't talking about the question of "long but wild" when he used the term "wild willy".  That is a generalized term for players who have a relatively high "anti-handicap" that has nothing to do with how far or how inaccurately a given player is hitting the ball off the tee or anywhere else on the golf course; it has to do with a wider range of all posted scores vs another player with a tighter range of all posted scores.

Dr. Knuth explicitly defines Wild Willy as a long, but inaccurate hitter. I did misremember the %. 12% are Steady Eddie, and 8% are Wild Willy.

You completely missed the point of the anti-handicap and those two fictional models, but no worries.  And in any case, a mere 8% would seem to prove Broadie's point anyway.

Since I made no statement about anti-handicap, it is only in your imagination that I missed any points being made about it.

And since Knuth has determined a percentage of golfers that fall into the two categories, Steady Eddie and Wild Willy, I am wondering how call them "fictional ".

[JESII]

Can I ask a question likely to be laughed at?


Why would it behoove me to measure parts of my game against the average of my class of golfer?


The Scott Fawcett video about the 5th at Sweetens Cove left me completely unsatisfied with this line of player development. I suspect there are a great number of players on the PGA Tour that would not be considered tacticians on the golf course...maybe they never needed to develop that skill. Maybe the 5th hole at SC should be a driver every time...but his rationale just didn't resonate well. Curious to dig in a little deeper but I really need to read these two books.

[Michael Felton]

Can I ask a question likely to be laughed at?


Why would it behoove me to measure parts of my game against the average of my class of golfer?

If you want to improve, figuring out where your game is lacking relative to your peers and those a little better than you can help you figure out what you need to work on.

[JESII]

Right...but these guys seem to make strategic recommendations based on tour averages. I guess the players each make their strategic decisions based on their specific areas of strength? The notion that putting is a crap shoot and that the ideal target on #18 at TPC Houston is the left edge of the right fairway bunker are tough for me to get my hands around even conceptually.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have ordered both books and will read with interest.  I have been reading Broadie's articles over the years, and may have already seen most of his conclusions bit by bit.  Have also watched a ton of Fawcett videos.


One question I haven't seen so far answered is whether shot pattern reduces that 65 yard cone?  In theory, set up for a fade, aim to left edge of target, bring ball back to target.  Shouldn't setting up to avoid a left shot (barring the 1% chance of a double cross) half, or at least reduce the shot dispersion cone?  Good players have been using that theory for years, anyway.  Do stats prove that wrong?


I do note Fawcett says going against your strongest, most typical and repeated flight path increases the miss zone, somewhat negating the idea of playing different shot types.  I didn't really see any statistical back up for that, but it may make some sense for almost all players.  A few could probably master more than a high fade (or whatever)


Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this is Tom Doak thinking about math as a basis for design, going against his natural pattern of intuitive, no rules design!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why would it behoove me to measure parts of my game against the average of my class of golfer?

So that you can judge your relative strengths and weaknesses. Combine that with an honest assessment of your limits - Brian Gay is likely not going to find an extra 25 yards throughout the bag, so he's gotta compete in other areas - and you can figure out how to set up the best game and game plan for yourself.

For the average golfer (amateurs, I mean, not the "class average"), comparing yourself against your class is fine, but comparing yourself against a class of golfers in the next better class is often very illustrative. It'll show you where you need to gain the most strokes to move up to that level. For example, a 9 wanting to become a 5 might need to get on or near (we coined the phrase "near-GIR" or "nGIR" in LSW) just three more greens per round. Maybe developing a trouble shot will help with one of those, and not having a duck hook off the tee twice a round will take care of the other two. Or whatever. And then a small improvement to the short game and putting and, bam, he's a 5.

The Scott Fawcett video about the 5th at Sweetens Cove left me completely unsatisfied with this line of player development. I suspect there are a great number of players on the PGA Tour that would not be considered tacticians on the golf course...maybe they never needed to develop that skill. Maybe the 5th hole at SC should be a driver every time...but his rationale just didn't resonate well. Curious to dig in a little deeper but I really need to read these two books.

I thought the video was pretty good, except for a few things (like laying shot patterns from other holes entirely, played in different conditions, and average players are much worse from bunkers than PGA Tour players, which is all he ever really talks about). It goes to what I said above: for a lot of shots that a PGA Tour player might face, the angle is irrelevant. Angles matter more for average golfers, many of whom are bouncing the ball in or planning on a little roll-out, or who don't have the distance control to just fly a bunker and stop the ball within a few feet of its landing spot.

Now, if for some reason a player is actually worse from 40 yards than they are from 100 (in general) - which would be quite rare, really - then the strategy has to change for that individual. Or he's exceptionally wild off the tee. Or whatever… strategies can change. I watched Brian Manzella give a lesson one time about how the average AoA with a particular club was -4.1°, and he spent the entire lesson trying to get the student to -4.1° with that club… but it's an average. That means there are PGA Tour players who are -1° with that club, and some who are -7° with that club. So that the guy was -6°… is that really the biggest flaw? Probably not (IMO definitely not in that case). My point there is that "averages" aren't always great, particularly if we don't know the standard deviation, and applying "averages" to PGA Tour players or average golfers is full of pitfalls if you get careless.

Again, that's why I don't like the "rigidity" of DECADE. In LSW, we talk about some averages, but only in ways (we think) that can be eye-opening in the sense that someone would have to be an EXTREME outlier to not take note of them. For example, how close average players should be before they aim at the pin instead of toward the fat side of the green. For higher handicappers, we don't even advise they do that at 50 yards. For even single digit players, aiming slightly toward the fat side of the green from 50 yards STILL produced lower scores. But if some individual is flat out deadly with his wedge, or the hole has a big tier just to the fat side of the green, those numbers would shift a little and the strategy should, too.

One question I haven't seen so far answered is whether shot pattern reduces that 65 yard cone? In theory, set up for a fade, aim to left edge of target, bring ball back to target. Shouldn't setting up to avoid a left shot (barring the 1% chance of a double cross) half, or at least reduce the shot dispersion cone? Good players have been using that theory for years, anyway. Do stats prove that wrong?

Another example of why I'm not totally in love with all of Scott's stuff. The 65 yard wide zone is the combined pattern of ALL players, not any one player. The players who make up that pattern may be aiming at different spots. Some may hit a draw, others a fade. Some of those shots are misses (he does say that - some will be in bunkers, etc.). But it is not one player's "Shot Zone" as you'll read about in my book, Jeff.

The stats don't say that hitting a fade eliminates one side of the rough or not. To know this, on the PGA Tour, you'd look at any individual's left and right rough tendencies. Some players are skewed one way or the other, some are pretty even. I teach my players, and a lot of PGA Tour players play the same way, to have a "shot cone." Let's say they play a fade - their ball should never start left of the left side of the cone, and should not fade right of the right side of the cone. But that cone might be 50 yards wide at the end, so they're missing left and right, depending on not only the shot, but where they're aiming the center of that cone. Here's an image.

That has a bit more to do with confidence than raw scoring, as shots that "leave" the cone for a time can still end up close to the hole, as you'll see. But generally speaking, on the PGA Tour, a guy who plays a fade rarely hits a push-draw accidentally. So the cone idea has a lot of weight.

And as you noted, yes, PGA Tour players (and honestly most golfers everywhere) should find their one stock pattern and stick with it unless forced to change it (i.e. to curve the ball around a tree to get to the green, or on a tight dogleg). It's a bit of a jack-of-all, master-of-none type thing. Better to be a master of your fade or draw and not a jack who tries a different shot every time. Unless you're Tiger Woods, maybe. And even that didn't work out when he was struggling - he had a two-way miss with his driver because he didn't know if he was going to fade it, draw it, block it, hook it…

[Steve Kline]

One question I haven't seen so far answered is whether shot pattern reduces that 65 yard cone? In theory, set up for a fade, aim to left edge of target, bring ball back to target. Shouldn't setting up to avoid a left shot (barring the 1% chance of a double cross) half, or at least reduce the shot dispersion cone? Good players have been using that theory for years, anyway. Do stats prove that wrong?

Another example of why I'm not totally in love with all of Scott's stuff. The 65 yard wide zone is the combined pattern of ALL players, not any one player. The players who make up that pattern may be aiming at different spots. Some may hit a draw, others a fade. Some of those shots are misses (he does say that - some will be in bunkers, etc.). But it is not one player's "Shot Zone" as you'll read about in my book, Jeff.

The stats don't say that hitting a fade eliminates one side of the rough or not. To know this, on the PGA Tour, you'd look at any individual's left and right rough tendencies. Some players are skewed one way or the other, some are pretty even. I teach my players, and a lot of PGA Tour players play the same way, to have a "shot cone." Let's say they play a fade - their ball should never start left of the left side of the cone, and should not fade right of the right side of the cone. But that cone might be 50 yards wide at the end, so they're missing left and right, depending on not only the shot, but where they're aiming the center of that cone. Here's an image.

That has a bit more to do with confidence than raw scoring, as shots that "leave" the cone for a time can still end up close to the hole, as you'll see. But generally speaking, on the PGA Tour, a guy who plays a fade rarely hits a push-draw accidentally. So the cone idea has a lot of weight.

And as you noted, yes, PGA Tour players (and honestly most golfers everywhere) should find their one stock pattern and stick with it unless forced to change it (i.e. to curve the ball around a tree to get to the green, or on a tight dogleg). It's a bit of a jack-of-all, master-of-none type thing. Better to be a master of your fade or draw and not a jack who tries a different shot every time. Unless you're Tiger Woods, maybe. And even that didn't work out when he was struggling - he had a two-way miss with his driver because he didn't know if he was going to fade it, draw it, block it, hook it…

Eric,


Aren't you saying the same thing in the above as Fawcett is saying in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79gpNKSkou0?


Jeff, the video I linked to above seems to advocate what you are talking. But, notice that Koepka, and everyone else, is still prone to at least the occasional double cross (even if it is only 1 in a 100 for a Tour pro).

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Aren't you saying the same thing in the above as Fawcett is saying in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79gpNKSkou0?

Kinda, but I'll try to do it in bullet points:

• Players tend to aim the center of their distribution pattern and accept misses to both sides. The idea of "eliminating one side of the golf course" would make sense if you were so good that your Shot Zone was only 20-25 yards wide. For a driver, this isn't true of anyone except maybe the good 6-year-old who only drives it 100 yards.
• Playing a slight curve is better than trying to hit it straight or "both directions." That's what Scott's video shows and talks about.

The second thing is why I teach players to find and use their shot cone: for psychological reasons too, but also because it shrinks your "Shot Zone" a little. But your Shot Zone is not going to be 20-25 yards wide, you're still gonna hit an occasional over-curved shot or an occasional straight shot (not to mention the occasional double-cross), and so your Shot Zone is going to be so wide you can't reasonably "eliminate one side of the golf course).

Does that answer what you were asking?

[Steve Kline]

Aren't you saying the same thing in the above as Fawcett is saying in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79gpNKSkou0?

Kinda, but I'll try to do it in bullet points:

• Players tend to aim the center of their distribution pattern and accept misses to both sides. The idea of "eliminating one side of the golf course" would make sense if you were so good that your Shot Zone was only 20-25 yards wide. For a driver, this isn't true of anyone except maybe the good 6-year-old who only drives it 100 yards.
• Playing a slight curve is better than trying to hit it straight or "both directions." That's what Scott's video shows and talks about.

The second thing is why I teach players to find and use their shot cone: for psychological reasons too, but also because it shrinks your "Shot Zone" a little. But your Shot Zone is not going to be 20-25 yards wide, you're still gonna hit an occasional over-curved shot or an occasional straight shot (not to mention the occasional double-cross), and so your Shot Zone is going to be so wide you can't reasonably "eliminate one side of the golf course).

Does that answer what you were asking?

I think so. It sounds essentially the same as Fawcett to me.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think so. It sounds essentially the same as Fawcett to me.

Right… It's not new. The article for which I made the graphic is from 2010, and I'm sure people understood this stuff shortly after they realized that you could consistently work the ball one way or the other.

We're still trying to talk about how this stuff relates to architecture, hopefully. That's, IMO, relatively unexplored territory.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,


Yes, I watched that video.  Based on that and the reply above by Erik, I gather the shot cone is still 65 yards (or whatever for any player) and if water is left, you still aim 32.5 yards from it to statistically stay out of the water.  What % containment is 65 yards? From the charts in an old Broadie article, looks like 65 yards would be about 90-92.5%.


It also looks like, from both systems, that the 50% accuracy shot off the tee would be within 40 yards.  So, I gather, on a cape hole, a risk taking player, perhaps on the 18th hole where failure wouldn't matter, would perhaps aim 20 yards left of water,

(or maybe 20 yards left of right edge of fw)

hoping to be at least average (50th percentile of shots within 40 yards)  I would imagine the thinking player (or even an intuitive one) wouldn't attempt a shot with less than 50% chance of success.


Another thing the Fawcett video discusses is confidence, which is probably something that can't be measured quite as well.

[A.G._Crockett]

First, and of great importance, Broadie's research shows that the idea of "long and wild" is pretty much a myth.  The same skill set that allows a given golfer to hit the ball a long way also allows him to hit the ball relatively straight.  ...

Dr. Knuth is a pretty good statistician, and he says 12% of golfers are " Wild Willy's". How does that mesh with Brodie's claim above?

Knuth is indeed a good statistician, but he isn't talking about the question of "long but wild" when he used the term "wild willy".  That is a generalized term for players who have a relatively high "anti-handicap" that has nothing to do with how far or how inaccurately a given player is hitting the ball off the tee or anywhere else on the golf course; it has to do with a wider range of all posted scores vs another player with a tighter range of all posted scores.

Dr. Knuth explicitly defines Wild Willy as a long, but inaccurate hitter. I did misremember the %. 12% are Steady Eddie, and 8% are Wild Willy.

You completely missed the point of the anti-handicap and those two fictional models, but no worries.  And in any case, a mere 8% would seem to prove Broadie's point anyway.

Since I made no statement about anti-handicap, it is only in your imagination that I missed any points being made about it.

And since Knuth has determined a percentage of golfers that fall into the two categories, Steady Eddie and Wild Willy, I am wondering how call them "fictional ".

Garland,

Since you are insistent on making an argument in search of a point, I'll concede whatever it is that you wish conceded.  You win, and you win on this thread and forever. 


Goodbye.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Perhaps we can steer this conversation back to the original topic (or what I think is the original topic - Tom will undoubtedly tell me if I'm wrong, I would hope): the impact and effect on our new "understanding" of how best to play and score, and its effects/ramifications on golf course architecture from a strategic standpoint.

I think that's a very interesting line of discussion.

If that alone is not enough to kick it off… I'll ask this: what did everyone think of the Sweeten's Cove videos?

[Michael Felton]

Aren't you saying the same thing in the above as Fawcett is saying in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79gpNKSkou0?

Kinda, but I'll try to do it in bullet points:

• Players tend to aim the center of their distribution pattern and accept misses to both sides. The idea of "eliminating one side of the golf course" would make sense if you were so good that your Shot Zone was only 20-25 yards wide. For a driver, this isn't true of anyone except maybe the good 6-year-old who only drives it 100 yards.
• Playing a slight curve is better than trying to hit it straight or "both directions." That's what Scott's video shows and talks about.

The second thing is why I teach players to find and use their shot cone: for psychological reasons too, but also because it shrinks your "Shot Zone" a little. But your Shot Zone is not going to be 20-25 yards wide, you're still gonna hit an occasional over-curved shot or an occasional straight shot (not to mention the occasional double-cross), and so your Shot Zone is going to be so wide you can't reasonably "eliminate one side of the golf course).

Does that answer what you were asking?

One thing I think gets confused when talking about the one-way miss vs the two-way miss. Scott gets upset when the commentators talk about this and with some justification, because even a guy like DJ who pretty much exclusively hits a fade still misses fairways left and right. As you say Erik, that's because sometimes it goes a bit too straight and sometimes it overfades. I think the issue is this:


It depends on what you mean when you say target. Scott's stuff is all about your target should be where you want the ball to finish. So if you play a fade and you want to finish 32.5 yards left of trouble, that might mean actually aiming yourself 50 yards left of trouble if your average fade is about 15-20 yards. When people talk about a one way miss, they mean the ball only finishing one side of the point you're aiming. That's always going to end up with the ball ending up both sides of your "target" by Scott's definition. A two-way miss would be where the ball finishes left or right of your aiming point. If that's happening, then your shot cone as Erik puts it is going to be much wider than it would normally be.


I agree with Scott 100% when they talk about eliminating one side of the golf course. That's nonsense and I think is laziness combined with trying to sound smart.


I've not actually had a chance to watch the Sweetens Cove videos, but I'm going to.


I think the impact of this stuff on architecture is that you can know what the players are going to do on the tee and you can make that work against them. You put a hazard on one side of the hole and you know they are going to aim away from that, so you put something that doesn't look so bad on the other side.


As to the two way miss side of things, given most people play either a fade or a draw, I'd say that a hole like 5 at Bethpage Black is genius, because hitting that fairway off the tee is so much easier if you fade it than if you draw it. Hitting the green from the fairway is so much easier if you draw it than if you fade it (hitting the green if you miss the fairway is virtually impossible, no matter which way you hit it). So the ideal is to hit a fade from the tee and a draw for your approach. If you can do that you have a big advantage over players who can't. I personally feel like that's one of the most important aspects of good architecture.

[A.G._Crockett]

Right...but these guys seem to make strategic recommendations based on tour averages. I guess the players each make their strategic decisions based on their specific areas of strength? The notion that putting is a crap shoot and that the ideal target on #18 at TPC Houston is the left edge of the right fairway bunker are tough for me to get my hands around even conceptually.

Jim,

A couple of things.


 First, it's an oversimplification, but in Broadie's case, he isn't really making recommendations at all.  He's presenting data, and the data holds true across the entire spectrum of golfers ON AVERAGE.  It may seem like it's based on Tour stats because not only does Broadie have a mountain of Tour data from Shotlink, but because he knows that his readers know who Tiger Woods is. 


Second, what I DO with the data is up to me, and depends on a realistic assessment by me of my game.  Four players who are all 10 handicaps might be 10's for VERY different reasons, and what they should do to get better will vary accordingly.  In MOST cases, the single biggest separator (to borrow Eric's term) is still probably going to be proximity of approach, but one guy could be really wild off the tee and often hitting three for his approach instead of two, while another is a poor iron player, the third is awful on partial wedge shots, and the 4th guy could hit it great but have the yips when he putts.  Each player has to make a realistic assessment of what's going on in their game and figure out how to address it.  And this is where the data is very helpful; if my putting stats are similar to players with much lower indexes than me, then obsessively working on putting is NOT going to make me better.  On the other hand, if my driving stats are like other players in my handicap range, but my GIR stats are not, then I'd suspect my iron play is holding me back rather than either my driving or my short game.  And so on...

And thirdly, none of these guys are saying that putting is "a crap shoot".  What they ARE saying is that the relative value of putting has been misunderstood, with a greatly overestimated strokes gained value compared to other parts of the game, and that the essence of good putting is far more about three putt avoidance than making a lot of 20 footers.  The common thread among great putters is great distance control and rock solid putting from 4' and in, rather than a lot of long bombs.  And neither of those is luck or a crap shoot.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

First, it's an oversimplification, but in Broadie's case, he isn't really making recommendations at all.  He's presenting data, and the data holds true across the entire spectrum of golfers ON AVERAGE.

Yes, it's important to not rely on AVERAGES too much. Averages plus standard deviations are more useful but even those don't tell the whole story. I do think averages can be helpful at reinforcing realistic expectations, though. My college team will (when they're freshman anyway) come off a 400-yard hole where they hit a 9-iron to 15 feet and missed the putt, tapping in for par and be pissed… and I will tell them that they played the hole as well as a PGA Tour player.

Four players who are all 10 handicaps might be 10's for VERY different reasons, and what they should do to get better will vary accordingly.

That's certainly possible, but golfers tend to be less unique than your example. They're often very closely related, and if we find a golfer who should be a 6 but is a 10 because of his short game, we call that a "glaring weakness" and obviously shift the instructional and practice recommendations until that weakness gets back in-line with the others.

And some older golfers, for example, might never hit the ball far enough again, so they might never really get below a 5 handicap, so they might have a glaring weakness that's not something they can fix or improve upon too much, so you have to recognize those situations, too, and work on maintaining that weakness so it doesn't get even weaker, while trying to strengthen those things that can still be improved.

And thirdly, none of these guys are saying that putting is "a crap shoot".  What they ARE saying is that the relative value of putting has been misunderstood, with a greatly overestimated strokes gained value compared to other parts of the game, and that the essence of good putting is far more about three putt avoidance than making a lot of 20 footers.

Yes… Avoid three-putts, and give more putts inside of about 10-12 feet a chance of going in. Avoid practicing putts from 15-25 feet… and yet, that's the distance almost everyone who is "practicing their putting" works on.

The common thread among great putters is great distance control and rock solid putting from 4' and in, rather than a lot of long bombs.  And neither of those is luck or a crap shoot.

Three keys to putting, and one of them can be a glaring weakness for anyone: Read, Bead, and Speed. Read is obvious. Speed is obvious. "Bead" is so that they rhyme, but it comes from "drawing a bead." It basically means hitting your start line. Reading is important all the time, speed is particularly important on the longer putts, and Bead particularly important on the shorter putts.


BTW, I found it funny the first time I read ESC that, though he quickly establishes that putting isn't that important (in LSW terms it has a relatively low "Separation Value®"), he spends 2/3 of the book talking about putting. It's a relatively simple almost one-dimensional issue (distance from the hole), maybe two (slope of the green), and doesn't deal with the fact that some rough is different than other rough. Green speeds are fairly steady on Tour, most pins are cut on 1-2% slopes at most… etc. It's easy to get a lot of good data and good stats, too, because players take 30 putts per round or so.

But putting is almost irrelevant to a discussion on architecture and strategy. There's no real strategy to putting other than to try to get the ball in or very close to the hole. On really rare occasions you might have to figure out a way to give yourself a makable second putt because of a big tier or an intervening cut of fringe or rough (or a bunker at Riviera). But those times are rare.

The real interesting thing again to me at least is how this understanding changes the way golfers play golf, the way they score, and ultimately what architects can do about it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik, I agree with your last line - that is a most interesting avenue for thought & discussion. But I'm hard pressed to wrap my head around it, for a reason you yourself just mentioned, i.e. that even 'averages plus standard deviations don't tell the whole story' and that perhaps these stats are at their best when serving to create realistic expectations.
Which is to say: perhaps the stats we're talking about are very good at describing & explaining 'events' post facto, but maybe not so good at anticipating or prescribing 'golf shots' before hand and in the abstract...which makes drawing out 'architectural implications' very hard indeed...at least for me.
(Tom D probably understands these things better  )
Peter   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, I agree with your last line - that is a most interesting avenue for thought & discussion. But I'm hard pressed to wrap my head around it, for a reason you yourself just mentioned, i.e. that even 'averages plus standard deviations don't tell the whole story' and that perhaps these stats are at their best when serving to create realistic expectations.
Which is to say: perhaps the stats we're talking about are very good at describing & explaining 'events' post facto, but maybe not so good at anticipating or prescribing 'golf shots' before hand and in the abstract...which makes drawing out 'architectural implications' very hard indeed...at least for me.

I don't know that I'd agree with that. Earlier I asked what people thought of the Sweeten's Cove video.

I think that the idea of "angles" is overplayed, and that strategy is thus actually shifting, and that changes the way players play golf courses and the way architects should design golf courses.

Two holes at Dormie Club might be interesting to talk about, too: 10 and 14. 10 IMO has no strategy - it's aim down the middle and kinda hope you pull it, hit a 3W that avoids the nose bunker, and wedge on. I liked the hole more than most people here because… it just requires three really good shots to play well. Goof up any one of them and you're working hard to save a par. I don't mind an occasional "tester" hole. Every shot on that hole had my attention, not because I had options, but because I had to pull off a good shot.

14 is considered strategic, but there's no real strategy here. It's like #5 at Sweeten's. Just hit something near the green and pitch on. If you're in the bunker, blast out and you've still got a birdie putt. Laying back with a 5-iron is a bad idea, unless you're phenomenally horrible and literally have the yips with 50-yard pitches or something.

I think the architecture geeks and the "stats/strategy/gameplanning geeks" (not pejorative as I consider myself in both categories, though much more knowledgeable in the second) are a little bit at odds these days. A lot of what we thought were "strategy" holes aren't really being revealed as much.

What about the Road Hole? Given the sizes of players Shot Zones (shot patterns), does anyone actually think players are aiming for "the right side" of the fairway on day one of the British Open? No way. Not if they know even basic game planning "stuff."

[Ben Malach]

Bring this topic back to the first question of how do we use Broadie's book to build golf to challenge the best in the world.

After reading the book I think the best take away was that variability is the best way to challenge the best in the world. If you create a course that uses the ideas of a course within a course and well contoured in the playing areas. You will get them thinking and create a little distrust. That distrust can be used to force errors as they will force their shot into places they shouldn't. 

By building a course that inhabits the idea of a course within a course creates the variability required to challenge the best in the world. I think one of the key thing that makes stats more relevant in golf than they should be is that modernity has trained all of us to create whats expected even if it not working. By creating a hype flexible venue in length and par you create quirk and interest. This quirk and interest for the average player adds fun and enjoyment but does the inverse to the touring pro. Its one of the reasons the pro's dislike a lot of courses that shift with nature as they can't play stock shots and numbers this increases the dispersion area of their shots as they have to hit shots they don't practice. There for adding risk which any professional is trained to avoid.

One other thing mentioned briefly in some of my reading is the idea of Green, Yellow and Red shots. If we can through contour make green shots look red and the inverse we have a better chance at making the player make a choice that they regret. To make this work we need to embrace more extreme contour in fairways and approaches. My favourite example of a hole that does this well is the 7th hole on the Eden Course at St. Andrews. Which at around 350 yards encourages the player to measure three risks on the tee shot. The first risk is the obvious O.B. left of the estuary, the second being the gorse long right but the third and most devilish is the heavlity undulating land that exists between the 125 yard mark and green. It is this final hazard I have seen most good players stumble on as it not apparent to most that laying back and hitting a longer shot is safer as the lies can leave you dead in the fairway. Most blast away as the book suggests leaving them praying to have a shot to wide but thin green. Obviously this can't be done on every hole but when used even 3 or 4 time during a round you can create doubt on simple shots.

One final thing that I think has been sorely overlooked is variation in width of fairways of a majority of modern golf. Most courses I have seen fall into one of two categories wide enough to land a 747 or so narrow it feels like your playing golf down a downtown street. Variation in this can create mental compression and mental release. If you take into account this psychological principle we can create moments where golfers with swing tighter and swing freer if we can predict when these types of swings will take place we can build holes that take advantage of this to create challenge. Take for example a course that has a player playing a series of holes through a tight wooded glade then moving them to a hole in an open meadow. The golfer will feel the more free due to the removal of the encumberment of the environment. With this perceived freedom we can force them into a situation they are more likely to take on a larger risk. This is exactly the moment that we can create the lines of charm that make great holes.

In summation variation is key to challenging the best in the world as it forces them to think about it as forcing it will end badly for them as past knowledge would only be instructive instead of predictive as it is on a more pedestrian golf course.       

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik - while I can't comment on your specific examples, I sure do agree that a new/updated discussion about 'strategy' is sorely needed, at the very least in the context of the game's top players (but maybe for many of the rest of us too). We use that term very often around here, and about hundreds of golf courses both classic & modern; and, while granting that in the actual playing of a round of golf strategy will mean different things to different people, some type of 'modern' conception of it might still be possible & warranted.
 
Ben - good post there: the variety/variability (e.g. in fairway widths) does seem a key.

Peter   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik - while I can't comment on your specific examples, I sure do agree that a new/updated discussion about 'strategy' is sorely needed, at the very least in the context of the game's top players (but maybe for many of the rest of us too). We use that term very often around here, and about hundreds of golf courses both classic & modern; and, while granting that in the actual playing of a round of golf strategy will mean different things to different people, some type of 'modern' conception of it might still be possible & warranted.

Selfishly I hope this is the direction this conversation goes, and I think it's the direction Tom intended it to take as well.

I talked earlier about camouflaging, and Ben hinted at the same thing - making a red situation appear green. Of course, do that too often and you'll just piss the golfer off.

I also think that talking about this more for the general player and less about the Tour players is wise, as most courses don't host PGA Tour events. In contrast to PGA Tour players, average golfers fear bunkers (or should fear them) far more, while conversely find rough (green side or off the fairway) to be more favorable than PGA Tour players find it. I said before that angles might matter more to the average golfer, because they're - by their lack of speed and ability - still playing the ball lower to the ground with more roll and run than a PGA Tour player, which has (sadly, but predictably and correctly) become a more aerial game.

So, I actually don't see much value in talking about PGA Tour players or their courses (unless the context is how an average golfer plays that course). I may very well be in the minority, but I trust everyone will say so if that's true.

[James Brown]

I have ordered both books and will read with interest.  I have been reading Broadie's articles over the years, and may have already seen most of his conclusions bit by bit.  Have also watched a ton of Fawcett videos.


One question I haven't seen so far answered is whether shot pattern reduces that 65 yard cone?  In theory, set up for a fade, aim to left edge of target, bring ball back to target.  Shouldn't setting up to avoid a left shot (barring the 1% chance of a double cross) half, or at least reduce the shot dispersion cone?  Good players have been using that theory for years, anyway.  Do stats prove that wrong?


I do note Fawcett says going against your strongest, most typical and repeated flight path increases the miss zone, somewhat negating the idea of playing different shot types.  I didn't really see any statistical back up for that, but it may make some sense for almost all players.  A few could probably master more than a high fade (or whatever)


Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this is Tom Doak thinking about math as a basis for design, going against his natural pattern of intuitive, no rules design!

I bought the book as a result of this thread a few days ago and had the same question.  The shot patterns used in the book were pretty symmetrical. 


One thing I drew for my own game from the tee shot data as a 2 handicap that hits my 75% drive about 255 was that you want to play to a aiming point that gives you a 2 percent or less chance of hitting it OB and a 10-20 % chance of hitting into a deep fairway bunker or water hazard.  That’s all depending on shot shape.  For me I hit a draw and miss it 3 times as often left than right.   


This book confirmed a couple of my own tee ball strategies, namely I need to aim about 40 yards right of a left side OB to feel comfortable I have no chance of missing there under pressure.  The other is the nevering lay up strategy on most par fives depending on green severity.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()