[Tim Martin]

I’m quoting this from an article in GolfWorld dated 1/15/21. “One of my favorite things to
criticize, a weird way to say something, I absolutely hate it when I’m watching golf on TV, which is rare, and I hear the commentators say, Oh this course is about angles.”


He goes on to say “Golf on TV.... that’s hardly ever true. Have you ever watched golf on TV? Like, look at the way Jason Day hits it. Angles don’t mean anything when you fly it to the hole. Like just fly it to the hole and land it next to the hole. Angles aren’t important. So when people say, Oh, This course is all about angles,’ that’s not true. Like it doesn’t matter.”


I know that there have been plenty of opinions about “angles” but I thought this worthy of discussion.”

[Adam_Messix]

I have met and spoken with Peter Malnati.   a great guy and very humble so this to me is he stating his views of reality on the tour, nothing more.


Let's face it, those guys are so long and hit it so high that most of their approaches are short irons where having an angle is not as important.  They generally play on receptive greens where positioning is not as important.  If we saw firmness like Royal Melbourne, angles would be more important or some more lengthening.  I'm sure this leads to a discussion about equipment.

[jeffwarne]

Often true on Tour,especially on the courses they play.
Greens fast enough to have the maximum slope that allows a putt from above the hole to stop.This has made putting easier as there is no fear of going above the hole, and rarely if ever is there a putt that has to leave the face with a large amount of speed or super solid contact.
That same green will have less slope or tilt to accommodate the speed, therefore angles don't matter as much on the bounce as they would with more slope or tilt.
Also, that same green will often be softer as concession to keep super tight turf alive, further neutering the effect of angles.


And they often face unimaginatively designed courses where the challenges are obviously in your face so even a Caveman can figure out the strategy of don't hit it here(a so called bad angle is better than a lake)


Then there's the fact that even on cleverly designed (less) neutered old classic courses they are hitting much higher softer shots than the architect foresaw. (even lengthening a doesn't change the fact that a 190 yard shot can be played by a majority of the field far more highly and softly than a 190 shot pre 1990)
No matter how clever the architecture and maintenance meld, angles certainly matter less with a more lofted club(due to longer drive), and multi cover ball for the approach But it's certainly possible for them to matter(see Riviera #10)

They certainly matter for average golfers, and especially matter for low speed seniors women and jrs.
Regardless of tees played, they ultimately have to approach the green with their lower spinning and lower trajectory shot.


It certainly has to be a thoughtful(or daring) design on Tour to get angles to matter.


Curious what his thoughts are on Memorial Park?


edit:Adam pretty much nailed it

[archie_struthers]

 


I think it's mostly a visual for the the best players but if the course is really firm it matters. I'm not sold that guys hit it dead straight these days, it's likely they still have a shot shape that works best for them. If you drive it left and the pin is left side it's much harder to take dead aim at the flag, given a small pull might put you in a bad spot. Short sided in the pro vernacular. If it's really firm you can't attack it at all ,given that coming in straight on leaves less green to work with and depending on your ability slow it down once on the green.


Was always taken by Nicklaus management of the golf course. He was a great putter and at best decent chipper and sand player so he played to his strength all the time . Didn't hunt pins that didn't fit his left to right shaped shots. Given his talent this spoke volumes to the sublimation of his considerable ego. He understood it was the final score that mattered better than anyone who ever lived. 


Now for lesser than tour players the angle is even more important to scoring as they can't repeat their swing as well and it's really about the visual. All of us have holes that just don't "fit your eye" on your home course. It's a safe bet that you score worse on them than the others.


So for a pro to say this he either doesn't appreciate the architecture and subtlety angles create or he probably doesn't think a whole lot about anything but repetition. Those that do understand probably have at least a slight edge on him for this very reason. Perhaps it's as much about the understanding of the better angle (ala Jack) than the  angle itself!

[Bernie Bell]

Full quote adds a slightly different angle.

Q.  Talking to a few guys about this week, as the game goes to distance, are there places you can't win?
PETER MALNATI:   Where I can't win?  I hit it far now.  I'm longer than average I think.
Q.  Are you longer than Cam Champ?
PETER MALNATI:   No.  But he's pretty long.  There's not places I  can't win.  There's probably conditions in which I can't win.  But like  golf courses, I've never been to Augusta.  Augusta probably ain't going  to suit me great but I putt it really well and I hear you have to do  that there.
Q.  You do.  You have to do it everywhere.  What conditions are you talking about, do you think?
PETER MALNATI:   When it's super wet and we're doing everything  through the air -- one of my favorite things to criticize, a weird way  to say something, I absolutely hate it when I'm watching golf on TV,  which is rare, and I hear the commentators say, oh, this course is all  about angles.
Golf, on TV -- that's rarely ever true.  Have you ever watched  golf on TV?  Like, look at the way Jason Day hits it.  Angles don't mean  anything when you fly it to the hole.  Like just fly it to the hole and  land it next to the hole.  Angles aren't important.  So when people  say, oh, this golf course is all about angles, that's not true.  Like  that doesn't matter.
And so there's places that are the big, wide open course when is  they get really soft like it's going to be tough to hit three clubs  longer into a green and compete.  But when the ball is bouncing and  going crazy places, like here, I hit several drives ShotLink will say  they went 320 plus.  Like when the ball is bouncing like that, I can  play anywhere.

[Bernie Bell]

Challenging the sacred cow of "width and angles" grabs the attention, but it's also interesting that a guy who makes his living on Tour says he hardly ever watches. 

[mike_malone]

Who?

[JLahrman]

Challenging the sacred cow of "width and angles" grabs the attention, but it's also interesting that a guy who makes his living on Tour says he hardly ever watches.

Why? I would think that most of those guys watch very little golf. Maybe if you've got a late tee time watch the early broadcast to get a look at the conditions but when you spend all your time practicing golf, playing golf, and travelling for golf, the last thing I would think you would want to do in your down time is watch golf. Unless you want something to put you to sleep.

[Bernie Bell]

Challenging the sacred cow of "width and angles" grabs the attention, but it's also interesting that a guy who makes his living on Tour says he hardly ever watches.

Why? I would think that most of those guys watch very little golf. Maybe if you've got a late tee time watch the early broadcast to get a look at the conditions but when you spend all your time practicing golf, playing golf, and travelling for golf, the last thing I would think you would want to do in your down time is watch golf. Unless you want something to put you to sleep.

One, if it's true, it's not helpful to discourage people from watching, which is what puts food on the table.  And two, it seems contrary to other professional athletes who seem to enjoy keeping up with their competitors even though they too spend all their time on their craft.  Not that big a deal, just caught my attention. 

[jeffwarne]

Challenging the sacred cow of "width and angles" grabs the attention, but it's also interesting that a guy who makes his living on Tour says he hardly ever watches.

Why? I would think that most of those guys watch very little golf. Maybe if you've got a late tee time watch the early broadcast to get a look at the conditions but when you spend all your time practicing golf, playing golf, and travelling for golf, the last thing I would think you would want to do in your down time is watch golf. Unless you want something to put you to sleep.

Prior to getting my show on SiriusXM I almost never watched golf on TV in the prior decade, except the majors, often on tape.
I was teaching all day and generally the coverage was over by the time I walked off the tee.(It never ceased to amaze me how many people would show up for their outdoor lesson and ask me who was winning the golf tournament)
Same with these guys-if they're playing an event, or home practicing, when(and why)would they watch the event?
I now force myself to watch at least some of the replay at night so I keep up with who's doing what and how on Tour, but it is often difficult with the sound on.

[Tom_Doak]

It's like Koepka saying "fairways don't matter".  Often they DO matter, but not so often to the extent that it makes sense to back off driver to stay in the fairway, or flirt with the rough to gain a better angle.  Because not even professional golfers always hit it where they want to.


Also, there's a big difference in setup and greens contours between the weekly Tour event and a major championship.  Angles matter more where the greens are difficult.  I won't pay much attention to Peter Malnati's view of that until he wins a major or two.

[Mark_Fine]

Everything in GCA is relative.  A 150 yard forced carry doesn’t matter unless you can only carry the ball 125 yards.  A bunker doesn’t matter unless you know you can’t get the ball out of the sand.  A flop shot over a hazard to a tight pin doesn’t matter unless you only know how to play a chip and run. Angles are the same; there are times when to some they matter and other times when they don’t.  It is not rocket science. 

[Tim Martin]

Everything in GCA is relative.  A 150 yard forced carry doesn’t matter unless you can only carry the ball 125 yards.  A bunker doesn’t matter unless you know you can’t get the ball out of the sand.  A flop shot over a hazard to a tight pin doesn’t matter unless you only know how to play a chip and run. Angles are the same; there are times when to some they matter and other times when they don’t.  It is not rocket science.

Mark-That’s more of what I thought about in that they have every shot they need to compensate for a miss whether it’s to bail out from a tee shot, approach or being short sided around the green. I don’t know what percentage of tour players just hit driver as a go to knowing they can extricate themselves from misses but it’s growing steadily. Guys like Webb Simpson, Kevin Kisner and Zach Johnson are few and far between. Distance rules the day.

[Thomas Dai]

The firmer the ground and turf conditions, the more interest and challenge especially if there’s some slope to contend with.
Atb

[JMEvensky]

I have met and spoken with Peter Malnati.   a great guy and very humble so this to me is he stating his views of reality on the tour, nothing more.

+1 on this part--a wonderful guy. He's one worth rooting for.

[archie_struthers]

 


Malnati just had a bad angle and flared it way right. Poetic justice 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

He's right.

Angles matter when the ball is rolling.

[AChao]

Depends on player (skill set) and course and set-up.  Architecture matters also.  I would say angles will matter far less for long pros than for an amateur who can only drive 270 ish over the course of a year.

[archie_struthers]

 


In the new world where it's harder to turn the ball perhaps architects will use doglegs and elbows that are designed for the 250-280 hitter. As much as they bemoan taking driver out of their hands perhaps this will be the strategy of architects. Then we will see if they resist the temptation to bomb and gouge all the time.


IN other words make the angles matter more!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Have told this before, but I did ask Lanny Wadkins about this 10-15 years ago (the new breed probably has changed a bit) but he said his first goal was always to hit the fw and aimed (after accounting for his draw or fade) accordingly.  A better angle didn't mean as much to him as avoiding the rough, which makes sense to me.  (Even if Hogan was said to play to the rough, if necessary to get a better angle) 


For the approach shot, he cited the case of the final hole of 2003 PGA, where winner Shaun Micheel, told the press that he had a distance of 175(?) which was his "perfect" distance for his 6 iron (or whatever) which gave him confidence.  In Lanny's case, having an open front green would allow him to club down and putt uphill if between clubs.  If he had to come over a bunker, he would club up and hit with more spin to spin it down to the pin from behind.  A different shot, but he didn't seem to think it was more risky or taxing.


Also told before, but when designing Colbert Hills, I explained one "carry the fw bunker to open up the green" concept, and his reaction was...."Are you nuts? I don't hit ground balls, so it doesn't matter.  In fact, the best angle is to come from the side that is covered by a green hazard, because I aim for the far edge of the green and shape it back to the center of the green, or a bit more if being aggressive to a tucked pin, so that gives me more room for error."


So, there is that.  If nothing else, I design a few fw hazard left, green hazard left just in case many golfers really play it that way.......

[JESII]

Wanted to opine here last week but it got away from me...


I think there are several reasons why he's correct and several why he doesn't need to be.


Tour courses and setup are the primary reasons he's correct. I think it works from the hole backwards.  Generally flattish greens and hole locations so a 6 or 8 footer for par is no worry for these guys. If you're highly confident you'll make every 6 footer for par, it becomes much easier to aim for a pin near a bunker, especially knowing the bunker is prepared immaculately. This is, of course, in addition to the fact that these guys do hit it high and precisely so they have every reason to aim right at the pin even from the wrong side of the fairway. Additionally, the peddle to the metal mindset on tour these days mandates you hit it at every hole because if it goes right all week, you win $1.5M.

[jeffwarne]

Wanted to opine here last week but it got away from me...


I think there are several reasons why he's correct and several why he doesn't need to be.


Tour courses and setup are the primary reasons he's correct. I think it works from the hole backwards.  Generally flattish greens and hole locations so a 6 or 8 footer for par is no worry for these guys. If you're highly confident you'll make every 6 footer for par, it becomes much easier to aim for a pin near a bunker, especially knowing the bunker is prepared immaculately. This is, of course, in addition to the fact that these guys do hit it high and precisely so they have every reason to aim right at the pin even from the wrong side of the fairway. Additionally, the peddle to the metal mindset on tour these days mandates you hit it at every hole because if it goes right all week, you win $1.5M.

This.
Jack used to aim at the middle of the green and figure par was 68.(for him)
-16 (which very often would now be -8, doesn't win very often nowadays).
But still a good strategy for many majors.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The aim for the flag mentality isn't just a post ProV1 thing. 


I asked Jim Colbert about his strategies, etc. (circa 1983-1984, perhaps his biggest year on tour)  Sort of like my convo with Lanny Wadkins about aiming on the tee shot (answer, well, the middle, duh) I asked Jim how he approached his approach shots.  And, the answer was, always (almost) aim at the pin.  He figured someone was going to be hot any given week and would aim and successfully get close to the pin to shoot a low score.  So, he did, too. 


When asked what happened if he aimed at the pins and wasn't on his game, the answer was, "I lose!" But, he figured he probably would anyway.  Again, he had the mentality, even as a grinder, that you went out there to win.  Purses were big enough back then, but even so, it didn't seem he was playing just to make a cut and get a check.


Separate topic, and I don't know if there is any supporting data, but are Tour greens really that flat?  On the TPC courses (which we presume are custom designed around the players wishes) I have played, the greens really seem to have been quite contoured, not just the supposed 1.5-2% everyone here seems to assume.  I guess I could order the yardage and green reading books for PGA Tour courses to find out, but maybe some has a few of those color coded charts where we can see?  Maybe Tom Doak can chime in on Memorial, how much contour and what were the reactions?

[JESII]

Jeff, I'm primarily speaking to what we see on TV. All of those putts are inside the hole in about half of the events. That's really my only point, when the par saving putt is easy, it takes pressure off each shot preceding it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()