[Michael Felton]

I saw this video on youtube yesterday. It was put together by Scott Fawcett (highly recommended if you want to improve your scoring): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eeTEyKW1vc


I wondered your thoughts on it. To summarize his point, PGA Tour players have a shot pattern that is roughly 65 yards wide. If you play a hole that has a 65 yard wide fairway, he would say that they should be centering that shot pattern right in the middle of the fairway. Then, whether you happen to hit it down the left side or the right side is down to where in your shot pattern that particular shot happened to land. Not that you intended to play down the left side or the right side (assuming you're optimizing your strategy anyway).


So, does width really provide additional options or does it just allow you to have a better outcome when you hit it towards the outside of your shot pattern? Or is providing width like this a way for the architect to tempt a player to play sub-optimally? Sub-optimally on 8 at Shinnecock meaning aiming down the left side and bringing the left trouble more into play.


I would add that one thing I think could really help to provide solid alternative options is if the rough around the fairways is still playable. I like it when fairways and greens are firm and fast and a shot in the rough can be chased up onto the green, but it requires skill to judge it correctly. When the rough is so thick that you can't get the ball to the green from it, then it really limits options. A 30 yard wide fairway that has 25 yards of playable rough on either side (maybe more so on one side than the other) offers more strategy than a 60 yard fairway with death either side. IMO. Thoughts?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I believe it's been discussed before here, but maybe not…?

There are some issues with the way he "measures" things. First off, any one specific PGA Tour player's pattern isn't 65 yards wide. That's ALL PGA Tour players. A player whose Shot Zone is 30 yards wide 90% of the time can occasionally flare one right. Lefties may have different patterns than righties. We don't know what the wind was doing for everyone, or where everyone was aiming (someone aiming left side and missing a bit left + someone aiming right side and missing a bit right creates a falsely wide Shot Zone). His patterns don't care whether someone is driving it well that day (or "lately") and thus has a smaller Shot Zone to take on more narrow lines, or whether someone is struggling. They're all just lumped together.

When he takes the shot patterns from par threes and tries to apply them, they're even more terrible, as we really have no idea what the intended target of each player is.

Then, whether you happen to hit it down the left side or the right side is down to where in your shot pattern that particular shot happened to land. Not that you intended to play down the left side or the right side (assuming you're optimizing your strategy anyway).

Though that's a bit more how Tour players should think, and though many are moving in that direction, they still aren't fully there yet. For example on the 5th at Muirfield Village, too many players try to play a line that's got about five yards of "miss" room right - the trees on the corner. Yes, many will bail out a bit left, but their lines should be about 10 yards left of where they often aim. They'd score slightly better from back there if they aimed a bit left. They'd average a slightly longer second shot in, but they'd have more of them, and fewer shots from the treeline/rough.

Generally speaking to what I think the actual topic is, though: width is irrelevant on the PGA Tour. The guys can fly just about anything onto the green and stop it. In our LSW work we've not seen any difference, really, from players hitting from the left side of a fairway to the players hitting from the right side of a fairway (or in the center) to right or left pins. Ditto for the right and left rough to either set of pins. From any distance. The numbers are incredibly narrow.

IMO width can matter for amateurs, who need to run the ball onto the green more often, and so width and angles help them avoid bunkers and/or use ground contours before or on the greens to help feed the ball to locations (or away from locations).

[Ken Moum]

So, does width really provide additional options or does it just allow you to have a better outcome when you hit it towards the outside of your shot pattern? Or is providing width like this a way for the architect to tempt a player to play sub-optimally? Sub-optimally on 8 at Shinnecock meaning aiming down the left side and bringing the left trouble more into play.


I agree with the point he's making in that video. I'll leave how it applies to pros to folks like Erik, but for hacks like me, trying to find short grass is really all I can hope for.

I would add that one thing I think could really help to provide solid alternative options is if the rough around the fairways is still playable. I like it when fairways and greens are firm and fast and a shot in the rough can be chased up onto the green, but it requires skill to judge it correctly. When the rough is so thick that you can't get the ball to the green from it, then it really limits options. A 30 yard wide fairway that has 25 yards of playable rough on either side (maybe more so on one side than the other) offers more strategy than a 60 yard fairway with death either side. IMO. Thoughts?

I absolutely agree with you there.  As a former high single-digit handicapper who's now 71 and not practicing enough to even stay in the teens, most of the courses I really love allow me to find my ball and advance it on my typical tee shots. I played a match against a VERY long hitter a few years ago on my home course, at the time. 


For budgetary reasons the fairways were down to 20-25 yards wide with deep Midwestern June rough.  He said, paraphrasing, "I love it this way, I can hit a wedge on the green out of the long rough and shorter hitters have to hit a longer club and they have no chance."


It's no accident that of the ~350 courses I've played, Brora is at the top of my list.  The sheep keep the rough thin enough that lost balls are rare, but not so low that pars are easily made from the rough.

[Sven Nilsen]

There are two kinds of options:

1.  Options for an individual player.  This is basically a placement idea.  Favoring right gives a better angle, etc.

2.  Options for different players.  Now we're talking about what PP calls the Tiger and the Rabbit.  The Tiger can take on a big carry to open up a green, while the Rabbit has a line that fits their game, but will have no chance of getting home in two.

Instead of options, perhaps what we're discussing is angles.  Can you allow for differing lines of attack on a Cape Hole without width?  Can you provide an aggressive line for the long player and a safe route for the duffer without width?

Any study that only takes into account what Tour Players do completely ignores category 2 above.

Sven

PS - I particularly enjoyed these two lines from the OP - "To summarize his point, PGA Tour players have a shot pattern that is roughly 65 yards wide. If you play a hole that has a 65 yard wide fairway, he would say that they should be centering that shot pattern right in the middle of the fairway."  I get what you meant, but it highlights the point that this study is only talking about a small percentage of the golfing population.

[Thomas Dai]

Angles, as Sven mentions, is what came to mind when I commenced reading the OP and initial responses. There is a famous quote, I can’t recall just now who said it or the exact words, although I’m sure someone will soon remind me, along the lines of “The middle of the fairway is not the ideal place to position your tee shot”.


Erik has a nice line when he says of the top pro’s - “The guys can fly just about anything onto the green and stop it.” I’d be curious to see how they’d get on with firm/hard surface greens if they were required to use a a Surlyn covered ball rather than the nice spiny Urathene ones they usually use? Probably brilliantly, especially as their approach shots would most likely be from nearer the greens!


Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik has a nice line when he says of the top pro’s - “The guys can fly just about anything onto the green and stop it.” I’d be curious to see how they’d get on with firm/hard surface greens if they were required to use a a Surlyn covered ball rather than the nice spiny Urathene ones they usually use? Probably brilliantly, especially as their approach shots would most likely be from nearer the greens!

Not much nearer. The modern "premium" ball goes just as far. They're just more expensive and have more short game spin. But… a surlyn ball launches a bit higher, generally speaking, than a urethane-covered ball.

In general, though I don't like the methodology used to "prove" his argument against angles (Scott did another video wherein he talked about I think the fourth hole at Sweetens Cove), the data says angles don't matter on the PGA Tour, either.

As I noted, I still think they matter to people who are looking to roll the ball onto greens.

[Michael Felton]

We don't know what the wind was doing for everyone, or where everyone was aiming (someone aiming left side and missing a bit left + someone aiming right side and missing a bit right creates a falsely wide Shot Zone). His patterns don't care whether someone is driving it well that day (or "lately") and thus has a smaller Shot Zone to take on more narrow lines, or whether someone is struggling. They're all just lumped together.

When he takes the shot patterns from par threes and tries to apply them, they're even more terrible, as we really have no idea what the intended target of each player.

Generally speaking to what I think the actual topic is, though: width is irrelevant on the PGA Tour. The guys can fly just about anything onto the green and stop it. In our LSW work we've not seen any difference, really, from players hitting from the left side of a fairway to the players hitting from the right side of a fairway (or in the center) to right or left pins. Ditto for the right and left rough to either set of pins. From any distance. The numbers are incredibly narrow.

IMO width can matter for amateurs, who need to run the ball onto the green more often, and so width and angles help them avoid bunkers and/or use ground contours before or on the greens to help feed the ball to locations (or away from locations).

Not that I think Scott (with his stable of PGA tour players) needs much defending, but the difference between 87 yards and 65 yards is roughly the width of the fairway, so I’d say he is at least somewhat factoring in different aiming spots. And I’ve seen enough of those par three plots to see his point. Those guys may have slightly different aiming points but they’re not wildly different and certainly not different enough that you can’t use the data to extrapolate.


In my experience the only amateurs who hit their drivers noticeably straighter than pga tour players are the ones who hit it short enough that angles don’t really apply to them. Not on their tee shots anyway. So if you think there are any amateurs out there who should be aiming at the left quarter of 8 fairway at shinnecock, then I think there is no point continuing to discuss this. By aiming I mean trying to finish, not where they align themselves.

[Michael Felton]

In general, though I don't like the methodology used to "prove" his argument against angles (Scott did another video wherein he talked about I think the fourth hole at Sweetens Cove), the data says angles don't matter on the PGA Tour, either.

As I noted, I still think they matter to people who are looking to roll the ball onto greens.

Since it’s the best example I can think of right now I think on a hole like 16 at Bethpage, where from the left rough you have a line to run the ball on but that angle is cut off from the right rough, I can see it making sense to slightly favour the left side with your target. I think to that extent angles can matter on the pga tour. I do agree that’s more important for amateurs and applies more for them from the fairway too, but amateurs are even less right to aim one side or other.


I’m on my phone right now so I can’t do it, but when I get to my computer I’m going to show a picture of a hole I played last weekend. It’s a dogleg right around a lake. The further right you go, the closer to the water but also the closer to the green. The aggressive play would be to hit it close to the water. The safer line was further left. I aimed at a point that meant the right edge of my shot pattern was in the fairway. I then happened to hit it around the left edge of my shot pattern and it went into an ugly lie in a bunker I didn’t think I could reach. It looked like I played super safe and got into trouble for it. I could just as easily have hit the right edge of my pattern and I’d have looked super aggressive. That wouldn’t mean I was though. It would effectively mean I was lucky that it panned out that way.

[Michael Felton]

As promised, the hole I was talking about:



The red line is where I aimed it. The yellow line is the width of my shot pattern and also about how far I expected to hit it. The orange line is where most of my driver shots were ending up this particular day and the blue dot is where I did end up. If I finished way over on the right of the yellow bit then I look very brave but that’s not the case.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Michael, I disagree with the methodology used to determine the width. Individual player "Shot Zones" are almost always smaller than illustrated. I agree, however, that on the PGA Tour "width" and "angles" are largely irrelevant, save for a few shots on a few courses. (I'm not talking about short game shots - angles can matter there fairly often.)

I didn't suggest amateurs aim anywhere on 8 at Shinnecock, but I will note that most amateurs ARE shorter than most PGA Tour players. And I said angles often matter to amateurs (who often have to run the ball up onto the greens), not that they should play for those angles.

PGA Tour players aren't running the ball onto the green on 16 at Bethpage, so like your tee shot paragraph/photo, I don't see the relevance.

I do think this deserves a topic of its own, though. Goodness:



P.S. As the hole is about 375 yards and it's only 260 to reach that bunker, you probably should've hit 3W.

[Michael Felton]

PGA Tour players aren't running the ball onto the green on 16 at Bethpage, so like your tee shot paragraph/photo, I don't see the relevance.

P.S. As the hole is about 375 yards and it's only 260 to reach that bunker, you probably should've hit 3W.

I meant from the rough. They can't fly the ball on the green and stop it out of the rough there, but they may be able to run it up.


Regarding the P.S., I know that with hindsight. It was into the wind and my driver tops out at about 250 into the wind (or used to). It was 263 to the bunker and I didn't think I could get there. I just switched my ball and I think the new one is going about 15 yards further than the old one, hence the bunker becoming a problem. Also, the further you hit it the more room you have out right and my usual miss is to the right.

[JESII]

In my opinion, it's interesting green complexes that ask the player to consider options and width facilitates those decisions. Agree with the sentiment that short, playable rough is virtually the equivalent of the fairway in this context.




The data analysis Michael and Erik are going through is so foreign to me that I can't buy it...Michael misses his center line by maybe 8 or 10 yards and hits it extra solid and look what he got into?


Michael, RE: the eighth at Shinnecock, doesn't the green virtually demand that you come in from the left side of that fairway? Why would you not aim over there assuming you can carry enough of the bunker?

[Kalen Braley]

I think for the everyday double digit capper, the answer is always gonna be yes.  A ball from the short grass is always gonna give you more options to try the aggressive line to the green, flirt with a hazard, shoot at the pin, attempt an iffy carry, etc. or just play safe if you choose.

Put that same ball in 2 or more inches of rough or a bunker and those options are gonna be some "Safe" choice...

[Michael Felton]

Michael, RE: the eighth at Shinnecock, doesn't the green virtually demand that you come in from the left side of that fairway? Why would you not aim over there assuming you can carry enough of the bunker?

The issue is just aiming it somewhere isn’t sufficient to hit it there. If it was no one would miss a fairway. If you aim it at the left quarter of the fairway and miss left you’re in the deep rough, which is a hack out if you even find it. Better to aim center and if you happen to miss left then you’re in the perfect spot. Basically it comes down to the fact that it’s a better shot to come in from the right side of the fairway than from the left clag.


In my picture, the bunker is a better spot than the water (I got unlucky with my lie in the bunker and they actually ended up a wash), so it’s better to risk the bunker than it is to risk the water. As Erik pointed out it was better still to hit 3W and risk neither.

[JESII]

But Michael, if a tour pro has a 65 yard range, surely you're range is 80+ yards...that's basically unaimable...


That's really the heart of my issue with this type of analytics.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But Michael, if a tour pro has a 65 yard range, surely you're range is 80+ yards...that's basically unaimable...

That's not necessarily true. Either the 65 or the 80.

The 65, because again I don't agree with how SF determines these widths. The 80, because a guy hitting it 320 +/- 5° offline has a range of 56 yards or so left to right. A guy hitting its 260 with +/- 6.5° has about the same width despite worse "accuracy."

Plus, amateurs can't count EVERY tee shot in their "Shot Zone" when building a GamePlan.

[Peter Pallotta]

At the very least, width offers the *appearance* of options -- which is often effectively quite as good as the reality.
To use the analogy that Sven references: if a tee shot seems to offer an ideal (but more dangerous) line to the bunkered right side of a wide fairway, the Rabbit-with-the-heart-of-a-Tiger (ie most of us, to varying degrees) has to be made to feel, in the moment of choice-decision, that *both* of the following are true:
1. For the tiger in him: that the called-for shot is just on the very edge/limits of his skills & capabilities, and truly involves a score-wrecking risk, and
2. For the rabbit in him: that the fairway is wide enough to accommodate (and to a certain extent forgive) the very real possibility of a less than excellent/his best possible golf shot.
And if both *seem* to be true, then as he makes his decision to go for it and addresses the ball, the Rabbit-with-the-heart-of-a-Tiger is, at that moment, not his handicap and not an 'average golfer' and not his history of poor shots and failed attempts, but instead a pure potentiality - a true Tiger in disguise.
And that sense of potential, when the stakes are high, is where the thrill comes from; the feeling that, 'on this one golf shot at least, I have risen above & transcended myself, and become what I previously only dreamed of being'. That's the joy & the fun.
And that's what width provides.

 

[Thomas Dai]

Confusion.
Width can be pretty confusing at times. Where do I aim?
Atb

[Mark Fedeli]

Peter said exactly what I was going to say. It’s the appearance of options that matters most. Making players comfortable enough to attempt different strategies and lines of play. That’s the fun. No one envisions missing their spot by 30 yards. Every golfer is attempting to execute the ideal version of their chosen shot. Whether they pull it off or not is a different story, and smart players will choose their shot based on their ability.

[Sven Nilsen]

Lets think about another type of hole, the Bottle.


Plenty of width short of the pinch, but a narrow area with trouble on both sides for those that want to get closer to the green.


Now imagine the same hole if the fairway was the same narrow width from tee to green.  Why would anyone lay back?


Sven

[Luke Sutton]

Hey everyone, long time lurker, first post. I’m much more knowledgeable about golf strategy and teaching than architecture but I’m here to learn more. I am 35, 4 handicap and a former college player who recently became interested in architecture (for fun, not work). I decided to post because I recently took Scott’s Decade class, I’ve read Erik and Mark Brodie’s books.


Erik - you should take his class. It’s free for pga members. I actually mailed a copy of your book to Scott after his class because of all the similarities. You’d be shocked, and probably think he plagiarized you if you went to his class.


I think Scott, Erik and Mark all have it figured out... no one is good enough to use the width of the fairway to consider approach options. Even pro’s hit it at a 65yard pattern. They play 20-30 yard fairways. Tons of luck involved. And not many courses (especially ones in Texas where I play) have any rough at all so it’s not a consideration really. Most rough is cart trampled anyways. From Scott’s data rough costs the tour play 0.25 shots. They just hope to make enough birdies to make up the slight loss from those unlucky shots that ended up there.


So how does this apply to a 15 handicap who drives it 230? Erik kinda touched on this... the 15 handicap has much more margin for error because he hits it much shorter. His ball doesn’t travel far enough to have wider than a 65 yard shot pattern (extreme outliers are excluded). So the pro at 300 has a 65 yard pattern and the am from 230 has the same 65 (Scott’s data not mine).


I know I didn’t give a ton of details because Scott provides a ton of content in his half day class and I couldn’t even begin to touch on it all. Let me know any specific questions and I’d be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. I can tell you that his system works awesome for decent golfers (it’s designed for high level college/HS players). I’ve only been using it a month but I’ve seen a ton of improvement in GIR and penalty strokes, hopefully the handicap drops soon.


Luke

[Luke Sutton]

Lets think about another type of hole, the Bottle.


Plenty of width short of the pinch, but a narrow area with trouble on both sides for those that want to get closer to the green.


Now imagine the same hole if the fairway was the same narrow width from tee to green.  Why would anyone lay back?


Sven

This is straight out of Scott’s class... for this type of hole (narrow all the way)


1. Are there 65 yards between penalty stroke hazards (yes)
2. Does the fairway pinch to less than 40 yards where your driver will land (yes)
3. Can you carry a driver on one side and not get in trouble (no)
4. Will 3w also get into the pinching hazard (yes)
5. ANSWER: It is unlikely that you should drop back to a 2i or hybrid unless the hole is short and you will be left with a wedge or less. As a result, you should probably hit driver since 3w doesn’t remove the trouble either.

[James Brown]

I think the scariest fairway to hit in the whole world with the wind in your face is #1 at TOC and it’s the widest fairway in the world. 


My reaction to the original video was complete concurrence with the author.  It doesn’t matter what angle you come into the green under MOST circumstances.  However, the pin locations dictate this dynamic.  When pins are tucked or close to strong features it matters a great deal.


Is suspect if someone could find a similar shot placement graphic from TOC hole 17 we would see a more compelling result. 

[Luke Sutton]

I think the scariest fairway to hit in the whole world with the wind in your face is #1 at TOC and it’s the widest fairway in the world. 


My reaction to the original video was complete concurrence with the author.  It doesn’t matter what angle you come into the green under MOST circumstances.  However, the pin locations dictate this dynamic.  When pins are tucked or close to strong features it matters a great deal.


Is suspect if someone could find a similar shot placement graphic from TOC hole 17 we would see a more compelling result.

In this situation the strategy would be to aim at the center of the green and hope for a 2 putt par. Tucked pins like this are not birdie opportunities (neither is 17 at TOC). Scott’s strategy for approaches is to aim far away from penalty hazards, make pars and move on. Get your birdies on the par5’s and hope to par all the 3s and 4s.

[Sean_A]

I think its important to think of strategy as a continuum rather than yes or no.  Its rare to be offered four options (highly stratgic design) and its rare to be offered only one option (very penal design).  The concept doesn't change no matter how good a player is. What changes is the ability of players nullify the strategic choices.  Its getting to the point for touring pros where they can treat a hole the same regardless of the options because distance has become the overwhelming factor.  Its very difficult to combat this style of play without resorting to 80s/90s US Open style set-ups....if targeting a winning a score is deemend important.   

Still there are some holes which do showcase the essence of strategic golf even for the touring the pros.  So it shouldn't be the alien concept folks make it out to be.  I still see choices made at a TOC Open even though -15 will likely be the minimum score required to have a chance to win. This is the entire reason the 17th tee is no longer on the grounds of TOC...to retain the incredible strategy of the hole.  And Luke, one simply cannot aim far away from the Road Hole Bunker because the green isn't wide enough  for such luxurious thinking.  The strategy of the approach is do you want to take on the green period, and that is only really possible if one hits a very good drive on the right.  So the approach stategis are (IF IN POSITION) play for the green, play short right or play long leftish.  The entire argument for widening that fairway is to entice guys to play safe left off the tee.  If a pro is sitting in fairway he may then be enticed to take on the green...thats when things become highly entertaining.  Same for fairway short right.  Give a guy a place to play for his chaip and putt par and things become highly entertaining.  Its a fascinating hole, but needs width to fully showcase how the great the hole is.  These days, a guy misses left (not far left) in rough and then is far less likely to be tempted.  Tempation should be the main reason for nearly all hazards and good percentage of ground features.  Once you get into 3-4 options territory there is a higher probability of being tempted...especially if you are in the fairway.


So I don't really buy options (which is to say strategy) are an illusion...they are a reality strongly rooted in the history of architecture these past 100 or so years. The bottom line is...no width equals very limited choices...which is to say penal golf.  That doesn't mean width automatically provides strategy, but its impossible to offer more than two options (lay up or go for it) with 30 yard wide fairways unless the rough is so light that its difficult to call it rough.  Width has to work hand in glove with the penalty areas, bunkers and greens to really offer more than two choices.  Lets face it, a round of two choices does get a bit tiresome...no? I mean par 3s are generally a one choice deal. So a steady diet of bland two choice holes doesn't really ramp up the interest level terribly high.  Unfortunately, most of the time that is just what we are fed and we greedily gulp it down...until we play something with a bit more about it...and it can't be at the green at all the time because that gets old.

All this said, looking at how pros play the game these days is not a good starting point for talking about architecture.  We consistently refer back to pros because that has always been the case and we have a fair amount of data related to the pro game.  However, this data reflects an incredibly small percentage of golfers and therefore doesn't come close to reflecting how the game is played for handicap golf.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()