Do angles not matter?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

1% sounds like a better estimate, especially after learning there are approx 27,000 PGA Pros...even thou i do wonder how many on the business side keep their game in good shape.    

Few do.

Either way, for the vast vast majority, its safe to say angles do matter, even if this discussion has mostly focused on the best of the best.

Yeah, they matter the most for those who can actually play to them and control their ball the least.

[Kalen Braley]

1% sounds like a better estimate, especially after learning there are approx 27,000 PGA Pros...even thou i do wonder how many on the business side keep their game in good shape.    

Few do.

Either way, for the vast vast majority, its safe to say angles do matter, even if this discussion has mostly focused on the best of the best.

Yeah, they matter the most for those who can actually play to them and control their ball the least.

Yea,

Its quite the dilemma Erik.  Its really a double whammy where those who are affected the most by angles often have the least amount of game to do something about it.

All the more reason to bifurcate and roll the ball back for Pros and top Ams, so we can achieve MAMA...Make Angles Matter Again!  When you're wedging from 135, sure its bombs away, but put a 6 iron back in thier hand from 175 and it might make em think a bit more...

[JESII]

What do you mean?


Angles matter to those want them to matter. They don't guarantee a better score. They do however make you feel like you're playing golf...which is kind of my point earlier. Playing "the right way" effectively feels good, which helps you play better. Smashing it into the rough at 50 yards and getting a shitty lie half the time feels bad...

[Rob Marshall]

1% sounds like a better estimate, especially after learning there are approx 27,000 PGA Pros...even thou i do wonder how many on the business side keep their game in good shape.    

Few do.

Either way, for the vast vast majority, its safe to say angles do matter, even if this discussion has mostly focused on the best of the best.

Yeah, they matter the most for those who can actually play to them and control their ball the least.

Yea,

Its quite the dilemma Erik.  Its really a double whammy where those who are affected the most by angles often have the least amount of game to do something about it.

All the more reason to bifurcate and roll the ball back for Pros and top Ams, so we can achieve MAMA...Make Angles Matter Again!  When you're wedging from 135, sure its bombs away, but put a 6 iron back in thier hand from 175 and it might make em think a bit more...

They should roll the ball back for everyone. What's wrong with everyone using a rolled back ball? You can always move up a set of tees.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Angles matter to those want them to matter. They don't guarantee a better score. They do however make you feel like you're playing golf...which is kind of my point earlier. Playing "the right way" effectively feels good, which helps you play better. Smashing it into the rough at 50 yards and getting a shitty lie half the time feels bad...

Jim, you're conflating what you feel is right with the data, or something. For me, "smashing it into the rough at 50 yards" feels good to me because that is the right play, and will result in lower scores.

[Rob Marshall]

What do you mean?


Angles matter to those want them to matter. They don't guarantee a better score. They do however make you feel like you're playing golf...which is kind of my point earlier. Playing "the right way" effectively feels good, which helps you play better. Smashing it into the rough at 50 yards and getting a shitty lie half the time feels bad...

You are right Jim. Not everyone fits in the same barrel. You may not have the strength the hit it 50 yards out of the rough. Some days the rough is worse than others. The best play for you may not be the best play for me.

[JMEvensky]

What do you mean?



Angles matter to those want them to matter. They don't guarantee a better score. They do however make you feel like you're playing golf...which is kind of my point earlier. Playing "the right way" effectively feels good, which helps you play better. Smashing it into the rough at 50 yards and getting a shitty lie half the time feels bad...

I sympathize with your side of this argument--but I think we're wrong. EB, as usual, makes a compelling case for statistics over gut instinct. Kind of like when baseball scouts and coaches were told everything they thought they'd learned over a lifetime was
wrong.


Analytics will eventually suck all the joy out of sports.

[Kalen Braley]

JM,

I'm still far from convinced that its the right decision for the other 99% of every day players, even if it is the right choice for pros who have the skills to consistently hit out of different kinds of roughs and various lies.

If anything, what I've noticed in my own game and those around me of similar skill is that aggressive play and hitting it as far as you can usually works against them.  As opposed to taking the foot off the pedal and trying to play a bit safer and taking double bogey or worse out of the equation most of the time.  Even the most difficult holes can be fairly easy bogeys for High cappers when you plan and play around the trouble and not go for par.

[BHoover]

Analytics will eventually suck all the joy out of sports.

You are not wrong.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm still far from convinced that its the right decision for the other 99% of every day players, even if it is the right choice for pros who have the skills to consistently hit out of different kinds of roughs and various lies.

Assuming the rough isn't 6" PGA Tour rough or something, 50r < 120f for every level of golfer.

This doesn't account for the width available at 50r (i.e. water, OB, thick trees, etc.) vs. 120f (i.e. the shot to get there). Only the expected score from those positions.

If anything, what I've noticed in my own game and those around me of similar skill is that aggressive play and hitting it as far as you can usually works against them.  As opposed to taking the foot off the pedal and trying to play a bit safer and taking double bogey or worse out of the equation most of the time.  Even the most difficult holes can be fairly easy bogeys for High cappers when you plan and play around the trouble and not go for par.

You might be right. I also think you'd be surprised.

For example, a 450-yard hole. And someone comes along and says "just hit your 5H 190, your 7I 150, and then hit your wedge 110. Two putt for bogey." All sounds great, except the guy is gonna miss the green 50% of the time from 110, miss the fairway 50% of the time with his 5H, shank his 7I 10% of the time perhaps… etc.

You don't know what they'd do playing more conservatively, because you probably almost never see it in a large enough sample size. (But you're probably still right, because they probably don't realize how freaking huge their Shot Zone is with their driver, and how many penalty shots and "black areas" of the course they hit into with driver.)

[Sean_A]

Maybe I live in a different golf world. I am continually confronted by the dilemma of angles. For handicap players this dilemma is the foundation of recovery shots. This is why courses that don't offer real recovery options are generally less interesting than those which do. Golf for the masses is far more about the misses and what to do afterwards than it is about executing the perfect plan tee to green. That BTW does not in any way lessen the value or importance of devising a tee to green plan, its just the reality for the vast majority of golfers.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

JM
I think you and Jim are both right.
The stats are indeed compelling, and they may in fact suck the joy out of the game.
But I think you create a false dichotomy:
The choice isn't between the stats and gut instincts, but between what the stats tells us collectively and what an individual knows/believes about his own particular game.
And that's where Jim is right.
Angles matter for those who believe angles matter, and who are made more confident (and more assured in their ball striking) by believing what they believe, and by honouring what they know.
They may know, for example, that nothing produces worse shots for them than being 'in between clubs', especially with short irons and wedges in hand -- having to choke down or try a three/quarter swing etc.
Well, whatever the collective stats may tell me (however undeniable), they can't make me believe that this particular golfer wouldn't be better off 'laying up to the correct distance for a full, stock PW' (as that old quaint advice from years ago used to say) than trying to get as close as possible to the green, whether that ends up being 60 or 75 or 90 yards away.
For that individual golfer, a shorter shot from any angle is worse than a longer shot from the preferred angle -- if only because the 'longer shot' is for him a 'stock shot', and in believing/knowing that his stock shots are his best shots he finds his confidence, and his game. 
       

[Michael Felton]

I want to see how these numbers change playing from the rough. Absent that it really doesn't help very much. I would think correct angles after missing the fairway are much more important.

I can't share the whole chart with you, but here's are two yardages.

100-124 yards, right hole location:
LR: -0.11
LF: 0.12
CF: 0.17
RF: 0.10
RR: -0.10

175-199 yards, left hole location:
LR: -0.17
LF: 0.08
CF: 0.11
RF: 0.06
RR: -0.17

L = left, F = fairway, R = Right or Rough, etc.

So basically no difference whatsoever? Interesting. Is that because from the rough they just play to the middle and have at it? Out of curiosity, given the 50r vs 120f discussion, let's suppose you're playing a hole that's 330 yards. The pin is on the right side and the hole turns a little to the right. If you hit driver, you're going to wind up 50 yards away (ish). If you miss it in the left rough, you're looking straight down the green. If you miss it in the right rough, you're a little bit closer (let's say 5 yards), but you're coming in over a bunker (a deep one). If you lay back with a 3 iron that leaves you the 120 yard shot. Let's say you'll hit the fairway 70% of the time with 3 iron and 50% of the time with driver. Let's also assume there isn't anything like water or OOB lurking near either shot. It's just fairway or rough. Do you think your best option would be to hit driver aiming at the middle of the fairway (by aiming I mean centering your shot pattern on), or would you be better favoring the left side by a few yards?


Absent the info above, I would definitely say hit driver and favor the left a little. Reason being more of your right misses will be in the fairway and while your left misses will be in the rough more, you'll be playing straight down the green with the good angle. Intuitively that makes sense to me. But if scoring average is independent of which side the hole is on, then you should center your shot pattern in the middle of the fairway, since that will maximize your fairways hit (at 50%).


For the record, it's hard to imagine in this scenario that the 3 iron gaining you 20% of fairways is worth losing the yardage. If there is OOB or a lake around then maybe.


Trying to think of an example hole that might look like this. 6 on Winged Foot West is the best I can come up with. With the pin right there, if you miss the fairway right you're done for. I would think.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm still far from convinced that its the right decision for the other 99% of every day players, even if it is the right choice for pros who have the skills to consistently hit out of different kinds of roughs and various lies.

Assuming the rough isn't 6" PGA Tour rough or something, 50r < 120f for every level of golfer.

This doesn't account for the width available at 50r (i.e. water, OB, thick trees, etc.) vs. 120f (i.e. the shot to get there). Only the expected score from those positions.

If anything, what I've noticed in my own game and those around me of similar skill is that aggressive play and hitting it as far as you can usually works against them.  As opposed to taking the foot off the pedal and trying to play a bit safer and taking double bogey or worse out of the equation most of the time.  Even the most difficult holes can be fairly easy bogeys for High cappers when you plan and play around the trouble and not go for par.

You might be right. I also think you'd be surprised.

For example, a 450-yard hole. And someone comes along and says "just hit your 5H 190, your 7I 150, and then hit your wedge 110. Two putt for bogey." All sounds great, except the guy is gonna miss the green 50% of the time from 110, miss the fairway 50% of the time with his 5H, shank his 7I 10% of the time perhaps… etc.

You don't know what they'd do playing more conservatively, because you probably almost never see it in a large enough sample size. (But you're probably still right, because they probably don't realize how freaking huge their Shot Zone is with their driver, and how many penalty shots and "black areas" of the course they hit into with driver.)

Erik,

I think the 50 Rough vs 120 fairway is not the best comparison, certainly not for me or even most players if I had to guess. 

For example take a standard 380 yard par 4 hole that is a bit narrow.  Its more of a choice of:
1)  Hit driver 225-235 and have 145-155 remaining from the rough. Could be bad lie or good lie, or blocked by trees, etc  or.....
2)  Hit 3 wood 205-210 and have 165-180 remaining from the fairway.

There are very very few circumstances presented to most golfers where the differential is 70 yards, but I totally acknowledge this could very realistically be the case for a pro on a 380 yard par 4! (50 vs 120)

Outside of top notch players, these differentials are likely gonna be much further out 125-150 yards away, and have 20-30 yards of difference for an aggressive play vs a higher % option to put it in the fairway without being too far out for the 2nd shot.

[Rob Marshall]

I have a buddy with the chipping yips. If he has 220 into a hole he hits wedge wedge. Maybe Erik can use his Physics degree to cure him but for him closer is not better. Tiger won the Open at Holyoke hitting about 4 drivers the entire tournament. Closer was not better, in his game plan anyways. You can’t put everyone in one box.


If angles weren’t important wouldn’t architecture become pretty boring?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So basically no difference whatsoever? Interesting. Is that because from the rough they just play to the middle and have at it?

Basically, yeah.

Out of curiosity, given the 50r vs 120f discussion, let's suppose you're playing a hole that's 330 yards. The pin is on the right side and the hole turns a little to the right. If you hit driver, you're going to wind up 50 yards away (ish). If you miss it in the left rough, you're looking straight down the green. If you miss it in the right rough, you're a little bit closer (let's say 5 yards), but you're coming in over a bunker (a deep one). If you lay back with a 3 iron that leaves you the 120 yard shot. Let's say you'll hit the fairway 70% of the time with 3 iron and 50% of the time with driver. Let's also assume there isn't anything like water or OOB lurking near either shot. It's just fairway or rough. Do you think your best option would be to hit driver aiming at the middle of the fairway (by aiming I mean centering your shot pattern on), or would you be better favoring the left side by a few yards?

You're generally better off aiming a little left. From the rough the ball is going to roll, and as I've said, angles matter when the ball is rolling. That's just almost never among the better players.

Absent the info above, I would definitely say hit driver and favor the left a little. Reason being more of your right misses will be in the fairway and while your left misses will be in the rough more, you'll be playing straight down the green with the good angle. Intuitively that makes sense to me. But if scoring average is independent of which side the hole is on, then you should center your shot pattern in the middle of the fairway, since that will maximize your fairways hit (at 50%).

Well technically if you aim (knowing your Shot Zone) to hit the left edge of the fairway, that's where you would get 50% fairways. Aiming at the center of the fairway should get you 60% or something higher.

It really depends on the specifics of the hole, but you wouldn't aim right even if it put you a few yards closer.

I think the 50 Rough vs 120 fairway is not the best comparison, certainly not for me or even most players if I had to guess.

Just going off the example Jim provided.

For example take a standard 380 yard par 4 hole that is a bit narrow.  Its more of a choice of:
1)  Hit driver 225-235 and have 145-155 remaining from the rough. Could be bad lie or good lie, or blocked by trees, etc  or.....
2)  Hit 3 wood 205-210 and have 165-180 remaining from the fairway.

You're generally only going to be a few percentage points higher in the fairway in 2 than in 1, though. If you're 50% with the driver, you're generally not somehow 75% with your 3W. It's usually like 57%, or 60%.

There are very very few circumstances presented to most golfers where the differential is 70 yards, but I totally acknowledge this could very realistically be the case for a pro on a 380 yard par 4! (50 vs 120)

Again, not my example.

Outside of top notch players, these differentials are likely gonna be much further out 125-150 yards away, and have 20-30 yards of difference for an aggressive play vs a higher % option to put it in the fairway without being too far out for the 2nd shot.

And often for amateurs that 30 yards matters. 8I vs. 5I? That matters. And some amateurs actually kinda LIKE being in the rough. I've had scramble partners MOVE the ball into the rough as it can sit up a little.

I have a buddy with the chipping yips. If he has 220 into a hole he hits wedge wedge. Maybe Erik can use his Physics degree to cure him but for him closer is not better. Tiger won the Open at Holyoke hitting about 4 drivers the entire tournament. Closer was not better, in his game plan anyways. You can’t put everyone in one box.

We're talking generalities, not outliers. It'd be impossible to have a discussion of every specific person. If someone has a glaring weakness, and they don't want to work on it, then yeah, they should try to avoid it. Nobody would say differently.

[Rob Marshall]

Tiger has a glaring weakness?


Course by course, hole by hole, no strategy is right for everyone. IMO of course.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Tiger has a glaring weakness?

I was talking about your friend with the chipping yips, and yes, Tiger is an outlier.

And I believe it was one driver. The conditions that week were also an outlier - the ball was rolling 50-70+ yards.

[Rob Marshall]

 If you say 1,I’m sure you are correct. I’m surprised that with your Physics background you’re not more into mechanics. Point is, no method or strategy works for everyone as Tiger and my Yipping friend will attest too IMO.

[jeffwarne]

I'm still far from convinced that its the right decision for the other 99% of every day players, even if it is the right choice for pros who have the skills to consistently hit out of different kinds of roughs and various lies.

Assuming the rough isn't 6" PGA Tour rough or something, 50r < 120f for every level of golfer.

This doesn't account for the width available at 50r (i.e. water, OB, thick trees, etc.) vs. 120f (i.e. the shot to get there). Only the expected score from those positions.

If anything, what I've noticed in my own game and those around me of similar skill is that aggressive play and hitting it as far as you can usually works against them.  As opposed to taking the foot off the pedal and trying to play a bit safer and taking double bogey or worse out of the equation most of the time.  Even the most difficult holes can be fairly easy bogeys for High cappers when you plan and play around the trouble and not go for par.

You might be right. I also think you'd be surprised.

For example, a 450-yard hole. And someone comes along and says "just hit your 5H 190, your 7I 150, and then hit your wedge 110. Two putt for bogey." All sounds great, except the guy is gonna miss the green 50% of the time from 110, miss the fairway 50% of the time with his 5H, shank his 7I 10% of the time perhaps… etc.

I always have preached that in many cases that's a bad idea.
Now you have to hit THREE good shots to make a bogie(unlikely for a mid-high handicapper)-and at least one good putt.
Hardly taking double out of the equation.
Besides being boring as.....

[Peter Pallotta]

P.S.
Marc Leishman beat a stellar field in winning at Torrey Pines -- hitting all of 21.4% of the fairways today (48.2% for the week) but gaining 4.77 strokes on the field with his putting (and an average of 2.67 per round for the week).
I'm not saying it 'means' anything -- you know, it was just one event.
Do angles matter? I don't know. But putting sure does.   

[Rob Marshall]

P.S.
Marc Leishman beat a stellar field in winning at Torrey Pines -- hitting all of 21.4% of the fairways today (48.2% for the week) but gaining 4.77 strokes on the field with his putting (and an average of 2.67 per round for the week).
I'm not saying it 'means' anything -- you know, it was just one event.
Do angles matter? I don't know. But putting sure does.   

The great equalizer. Bob Rotella says it all starts from 120 yds and in.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I always have preached that in many cases that's a bad idea.Now you have to hit THREE good shots to make a bogie(unlikely for a mid-high handicapper)-and at least one good putt.Hardly taking double out of the equation.Besides being boring as.....

I wasn't saying that was a good strategy. I was pointing out that it's a bad idea, but one that's often promoted. People always seem to assume they'll hit those shots well, for some reason, and that they'll have a par putt all the time.

Do angles matter? I don't know. But putting sure does.

It can, but in general and over the course of a season, it matters least. One round is a very, very small sample size. Make four eight-footers and you gain two whole shots. Hole a single 33-footer, and you gain a full stroke. Putting is highly variable, and Leishman will not continue to gain 8 strokes over every 54 holes (stats from the North course are limited to traditional stats) the rest of the season. Heck, odds are he won't repeat that performance again this year.

Today's round stands out precisely because it's an outlier. When 70% of your strokes gained come from putting, you're an extreme outlier. Typically, for a winner, it's ~35%, and over the course of a season, much less: Driving: ~28%, Approach: ~39%, Short Game: ~19%, and Putting: ~14%.

While you can practice to raise your baseline, you can't practice "getting hot."

http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/figure-2-1.png (Edited to give the URL as the image itself is quite large.)

Also, Leishman had 2.865 strokes gained on his approach shots today. With an average day there, he finishes two back of Rahm.

And Rotella is a psychologist; this isn't his area of expertise at all.

[Peter Flory]

In his post round interview he mentioned that it may have been the best putting of his life. 

[Rob Marshall]

I always have preached that in many cases that's a bad idea.Now you have to hit THREE good shots to make a bogie(unlikely for a mid-high handicapper)-and at least one good putt.Hardly taking double out of the equation.Besides being boring as.....

I wasn't saying that was a good strategy. I was pointing out that it's a bad idea, but one that's often promoted. People always seem to assume they'll hit those shots well, for some reason, and that they'll have a par putt all the time.

Do angles matter? I don't know. But putting sure does.

It can, but in general and over the course of a season, it matters least. One round is a very, very small sample size. Make four eight-footers and you gain two whole shots. Hole a single 33-footer, and you gain a full stroke. Putting is highly variable, and Leishman will not continue to gain 8 strokes over every 54 holes (stats from the North course are limited to traditional stats) the rest of the season. Heck, odds are he won't repeat that performance again this year.

Today's round stands out precisely because it's an outlier. When 70% of your strokes gained come from putting, you're an extreme outlier. Typically, for a winner, it's ~35%, and over the course of a season, much less: Driving: ~28%, Approach: ~39%, Short Game: ~19%, and Putting: ~14%.

While you can practice to raise your baseline, you can't practice "getting hot."

http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/figure-2-1.png (Edited to give the URL as the image itself is quite large.)

Also, Leishman had 2.865 strokes gained on his approach shots today. With an average day there, he finishes two back of Rahm.

And Rotella is a psychologist; this isn't his area of expertise at all.

Dr Rotella has worked with some of the greatest players in the game for what 40 years? He doesn't regurgitate stats from a book that you can't apply to everyone. He may be a Psychologist and your're a Physicist or at least have a physics degree. I fail to see the difference.