[Ben Hollerbach]

Let’s take a moment and consider the following examples:

Two approach shots, both from 160 yards to the middle of the green, 25 yards apart from each other, an equal distance from the middle of the fairway. The player, a bogey golfer, will need to land the shot short of the green and bounce the ball up to the putting surface.


Even though both shot’s desired target is the flagstick, they will have different aiming points. This bogey golfer playing from the right side of the fairway does not have a direct path to the flagstick. Their intended shot, landing short and bouncing up onto the green, will have a very high likelihood of flying directly into the front right greenside bunker. Even an approach struck with the intent to fly the bunker, a missed shot will end up in the bunker.


Playing to the left of the greenside bunker, this bogey golfer has a maximum launch window of just 2.85° to hit their ball and expect it to end up on the putting surface after a straight and forward bounce. From this position they only have the opportunity to hit 34.7% of the putting surface. Note: the maximum launch window would include the potential of a ball landing in the rough and bouncing up, considering the height of the rough this may not be possible and the resulting launch window would be even smaller.


The same player, playing from the left side of the fairway does have a direct line to the flag. But more importantly they have a launch window of 5.08° to hit their ball and expect it to end up on the putting surface after a straight and forward bounce. Providing them access to 60.2% of the putting surface.


Comparing the two approach shots, the left hand shot has the potential to hit nearly twice as much green as the right hand shot. Considering how important greens in regulation are to a player’s scoring, having directline access to nearly twice as much green will have a significant impact on a player’s scoring potential.



Let’s now examine the approach shot faced by the bogey golfer from a left side fairway bunker.


With a launch window of 5.99°, from this position they have access to 69.5% of the green. For a more skilled player playing from a shallow bunker lie, this might be the best angle into the green. For the average player, who hits ~35% of their greens in regulation, having to play out of a fairway bunker will not significantly impact their GIR potential.


I recall Scott Fawcett saying that you can pretty much ignore fairway bunkers off of the tee, especially when comparing the penalty value of them to trees and water. It is just as true in this circumstance as well. When compared to the approach from the right side of the fairway, even with the difficulty derived by the bunker shot, the player’s potential to hit the green is not significantly changed from the left side fairway bunker. A bogey player playing from either the left side fairway bunker or the right side of the fairway will average ~2 strokes to reach the putting surface. But when you account for the impact an additional GIR can have on the average player’s score, the increase in GIR potential from an approach shot played from the left side of the fairway is worth challenging the left side off of the tee.


Let’s now take into account a similar approach shot from the right side rough.


Much like the approach from the right side of the fairway, this approach shot does not have a direct path to the flagstick. Their intended shot, landing short and bouncing up onto the green, will have a very high likelihood of flying directly into the front right greenside bunker. Playing the ball out of the rough, the bogey golfer approach will have a higher probability of coming up short, landing in one of many greenside bunkers that protect the right side.


Playing to the left of the greenside bunker, this bogey golfer has a maximum launch window of just 2.29° to hit their ball and expect it to end up on the putting surface after a straight and forward bounce. From this position they only have the opportunity to hit 23.2% of the putting surface. Once the approach lands, the ball will be running away from the green. The shot will require great distance control, while being executed from a less than ideal lie. The potential for the player to find the green from this location is very, very low.


Knowing that they would be unable to fly the ball onto the green, when devising a strategy for play the bogey player would need to first identify their entry to the putting surface. Standing on the tee, it would be clear that the bunkers near the green present a much higher risk to their scoring than the bunkers in the fairway. The opening to the green down the left would be their ideal path onto the green, regardless if their approach was hit from the fairway, rough, or fairway bunker. The greatest risk to them would be to lose their tee ball towards the right side and be forced to either challenge the greenside bunkers through the air or try and bounce a ball through a very small window up to the green.


These examples exhibit the playable options for a player who needs to land the shot short of the green and bounce the ball up to the putting surface. For many of these players, they don’t have a high enough swing speed to play the shot another way. But it is also just as valid for those who do have a high enough swing speed.

59% of all approach shots struck by amateur players miss short of their intended target, including 57% for single digit handicap players, the same risk profile that would influence the play of our example golfer should be applied by virtually all amateur players. This is not a complicated hole setup, but it’s clear that approaching from the left is far preferred than approaching from the right.  This is why angles still matter for most golfers, and it's why the green construction is what determines the value in those angles.

[Ben Hollerbach]

In post 1, we examined how obstacles around the green greatly impact the approach angles of a bogey golfer. For part 2, we’ll quantify the angles' impact on a player’s potential for scoring.



Trackman created a shot diagram for the average male amateur (AMA) from 160 yards. Analysing the dispersion of the 1,600 sample shots, I broke up the shot pattern into 1° segments, calculating the distribution of shots across the total 14° range.


Using a 98% shot dispersion field overlaid on top of each location's approach angle, each of the 4 approach location’s launch window shot probabilities can be calculated.


The cluster of bunkers on the right side of the green significantly impacts the shot probability of any approach shot taken from the right side of the fairway. The probability of hitting the green from either the right rough or right fairway is nearly the same. As the approach angle moves left, the probability increases dramatically. Keep in mind, these probabilities are strictly related to the angle into the green. Lie position will be accounted for next.

*Based upon launch window size

The average GIR percentage for all amateurs is ~35%, but that number is reflective of approach shots from a variety of approach positions. To properly evaluate a bogey player’s potential to hit the green from a wide range of locations it is necessary to differentiate their GIR percentage from the fairway, rough, and fairway bunker. Using the PGA tour as a benchmark, a ratio between these various lies can be determined. In 2021 the GIR average on the PGA Tour was 66.09%. This was for all approach shots into the green. From the fairway the percentage climbed to 77.17%, 48.90% from the bunker, and 52.36% from a lie that was neither fairway or a bunker. For this exercise, 52.36% will be considered to be from the rough.

Using the GIR: All as the anchor, the ratios would be as follow:

• GIR: All: 1
• GIR: FW: 1.17
• GIR: Bunker: 0.74
• GIR: Rough: 0.79

Applying these ratios to the amateur rate of 35.51%, the expected percentages would be as follows:

• GIR: FW: 41.47%
• GIR: Bunker: 26.27%
• GIR: Rough: 28.13%

The average amateur is 53.7% as effective at hitting the green as a touring pro, But does that relationship hold true from the fairway bunker and rough? The average amateur hitting the green from a fairway bunker 1 out of 4 times sounds plausible, but can’t be confirmed.

To account for a potential difference between a touring professional and the expected weekend warrior, the GIR percentages were adjusted to the following:

• GIR: All: 35.51%
• GIR: FW: 41.47%
• GIR: Bunker: 14.91%
• GIR: Rough: 25.21%

A 5th approach position was added to the mix, the green position represents a neutral approach shot taken from the middle of the fairway, 160 yards out. Applying the adjusted GIR probabilities and you have the following Approach Shot Probabilities for each of the 5 positions.

*Based upon launch window size and location GIR probabilities

Even with the adjusted GIR rate from the fairway bunker, an approach from the bunker is still a better play than the right rough or the right side of the fairway. Confirming that the most dangerous obstacles on the hole are the greenside bunkers. Notice the  probability similarities of hitting an approach shot into a greenside bunker from the center of the fairway and the fairway bunker. The risk to do so is virtually the same.

Translating these shot probabilities to strokes can aid in developing a better understanding as to the magnitude of difference each approach strategy has on the others. The average player will get up and down out of a greenside bunker 15% of the time and from a similar distance in grass 25% of the time. The average player will also 3-putt 3 times per round, or add an additional 0.166 strokes per hole to their score. If we presume that when they hit the green in regulation they 2 putt the majority of the time and when they fail to get up and down they require on average 2.3 additional strokes* we can formulate an expected score from each position.


* To examine the variability in above par scoring the model was run with the miss U/D strokes ranging from 4 to 5 in 0.1 increments. The resulting expected strokes did not exhibit a change in  order, just a magnitude difference between the order. At a miss U/D stroke count of 5, the low stroke, Blue, was now 3.85 and the high stroke, Orange, was now 4.57, with the difference between Red and Purple now 0.23 strokes.

From the ideal position in the left side of the fairway, the bogey player would average a  3.61 strokes to hole the ball, a full 0.40 strokes lower than the corresponding right side fairway position at 4.01. Even from the left fairway bunker, the bogey golfer will outscore themselves playing from the right side of the fairway. Steering clear of the bunker off of the tee is the worst strategy to maximize scoring. Challenging the bunker head on, even when they miss into the bunker, will still net them a scoring advantage over playing safe.

[Jason Thurman]

Interesting...


I feel like you have a lot of assumptions going on here, though.


Is this "bogey golfer" based on a real person? A set of data collected?


Is the hole pictured in this example a real one? How deep are those fairway bunkers?


Also, where do your GIR stats for amateurs come from? I see what you're doing with your data extrapolation, though, and it's a cool starting point for thinking about how angles might impact playing strategy at the recreational level. But I suspect you might underestimate just how badly the average bogey golfer struggles when hitting shots from fairway bunkers, for one thing. And if we're going to draw conclusions that angles are worth playing for even if they require taking on a fairway bunker, I think we probably need to apply that to specific holes.


Because your bogey golfer isn't gonna hit any greens from fairway bunkers at Arcadia South, for instance, even though he should 100% be considering angles on just about every shot there.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Jason,


The bogey golfer used in this example is derived from published data. Below is the collection of resources I used to generate the analysis:

• "Handicap Index Statistics" USGA
• "How many Greens in Regulation should you be hitting based on your handicap?" Peter Sanders, Shot by Shot
• "How often should you actually get “Up-and-Down” based on your handicap?" Peter Sanders, Shot by Shot
• "Sand Saves: How often should you actually get “up-and-down” from the bunker based on your handicap?" Peter Sanders, Shot by Shot
• "PERFORMANCE OF THE AVERAGE MALE AMATEUR GOLFER" Trackman
• "This golf study reveals the most common misses for every handicap" GolfTec

The hole used for this analysis is based upon one that currently exist, but was descriptively modified by another user in a recent thread. For my analysis I simply built upon what was previously used.

I'll agree that it is entirely possible that a 14.91% GIR rate for a bogey player is high, what would you expect it to be? Even if the GIR bunker rate for the bogey golfer is 9%, from the left side fairway bunker the bogey player would still score better than from the right side of the fairway.

[Michael Felton]

If you're looking at bogey golfers, you need to include the possibility of the player leaving it in the fairway bunker. On the occasions that they get it out I'd guess most of the time they're not getting closer than 100 yards to the green. They're not hitting the green 34% of the time.


I'd also factor in the fact that most bogey golfers hit it left to right, so the right side of the fairway they probably have more balls bouncing on the green from the fairway than from the left side of the fairway, where with their fade if they land it in the fairway it's bouncing in the bunker and the balls that would bounce onto the green are landing in that left rough.


I would say that there is zero chance they score better from the fairway bunker than from the right side of the fairway. For equal distance from the green at 160, PGA tour players are 0.3 strokes worse from a fairway bunker than from the fairway. They are extremely precise with their depth judgment. My guess is scoring averages might actually be:


left of the fairway bunker in the rough - 4.3
In the fairway bunker - 4.8
Left side of fairway - 3.8
Right side of fairway - 3.9
Right rough - 4.3


Likelihood of each of those given:


Center target - 10%, 15%, 25%, 25%, 25%
Left of fairway target - 15%, 20%, 30%, 20%, 15%


Both very rough.


Expected scores:


Center target - 4.15
Left of fairway target - 4.17

[Ben Hollerbach]

Michael,

What the chart illustrates is the probability, or likelihood they may hit the green. Within this probability is the potential they have of leaving the ball in the bunker or just getting it out of the bunker, in this case that potential is reflected in the ~15% GIR rate and how it’s applied to the model.

if you look at the shot dispersion put together by Trackman, you can see the majority of the shots landed short and right of their intended target. This would confirm that their shot either flies from left to right or they consistently launch the ball right of their target. Either way, this would suggest that their shot is more likely to land into a bunker short and right. The more right the approach shot is played from the more they are punished for a short and right approach shot, as a ball even a fraction offline will end up in the bunker with virtual certainty. The same is not true from the left as their approach window is much wider.

When comparing the PGA Tour player from an ideal position vs. less ideal position you’ll often see larger performance differences than you would for the average player. PGA Tour professionals are much, much better at capitalizing on the ideal position. The average player’s execution is not consistent enough. This is why in my analysis I started with the PGA Tour data as a comparison but then used a discount to better apply the data to our bogey golfer.

If you know where we can get our hands on better data that directly reflects the performance of the amateur player please point me towards it, I’d love to include it in my model. What are you basing your guesses on?

[Adam Uttley]

Isn’t the point a little moot anyway? A bogey golfer won’t be going for the green from either the right rough or the fairway bunker.  They’ll be just trying to get it out of the bunker and aiming to land it 40yds short (taking green-side bunkers out of play) from the right rough. The right rough will certainly be preferable for the bogey golfer than the fairway bunker.


I think you can overthink these things.  A data-driven approach works for pros but I’d say the benefit diminishes as handicap goes up because the dispersion of their shots (of trajectory, side spin etc not just finishing position) increases exponentially as it does so.

[Michael Felton]

Michael,

What the chart illustrates is the probability, or likelihood they may hit the green. Within this probability is the potential they have of leaving the ball in the bunker or just getting it out of the bunker, in this case that potential is reflected in the ~15% GIR rate and how it’s applied to the model.

if you look at the shot dispersion put together by Trackman, you can see the majority of the shots landed short and right of their intended target. This would confirm that their shot either flies from left to right or they consistently launch the ball right of their target. Either way, this would suggest that their shot is more likely to land into a bunker short and right. The more right the approach shot is played from the more they are punished for a short and right approach shot, as a ball even a fraction offline will end up in the bunker with virtual certainty. The same is not true from the left as their approach window is much wider.

When comparing the PGA Tour player from an ideal position vs. less ideal position you’ll often see larger performance differences than you would for the average player. PGA Tour professionals are much, much better at capitalizing on the ideal position. The average player’s execution is not consistent enough. This is why in my analysis I started with the PGA Tour data as a comparison but then used a discount to better apply the data to our bogey golfer.

If you know where we can get our hands on better data that directly reflects the performance of the amateur player please point me towards it, I’d love to include it in my model. What are you basing your guesses on?

I'm basing my guesses on watching people play. Bogey golfers are awful from fairway bunkers.


If their approach window is wider from the left side, then to get there they have to start it left, in which case they run up shot is landing in the rough, not the fairway. From the right side the ball that lands in the fairway has more of a chance of bouncing up to the green. From the left side of the fairway, the ball that lands in the fairway is probably going in the bunker.


I do tend to agree that the tour players have more dispersion between ideal and less than ideal. There are a couple of reasons for that. The bogey golfers' inability to capitalize on the fairway. The recovery shot which is broadly similar regardless of how good a player you are. That bogey golfers are playing courses with light rough where the additional cushion under the ball actually helps vs the tour player who loses control in that situation. The fairway bunker though is like the extreme end of the fairway on that basis. The rough is better than the fairway for the bogey golfer because of the added margin for error. The fairway bunker reduces that margin for error significantly, so the bogey golfer from the fairway bunker has his/her faults amplified, not nullified.


I believe that there is substantial data on bogey golfers available from arccos or someone like that, but I'm not sure.

[Kyle Harris]

Cross platform reference to this thread is now on the clock.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


I used to be very good at math, but I don't really want to let math replace art in the area of golf course design.


I just do not believe that you can design a course for "the bogey golfer" other than to make it playable throughout.  "Bogey golfers" [including Mr. Hendren] are a very diverse group.  As Mr. Dye, who had a great sense of humor, once said to me, "How can you guess where the bogey golfer might be hitting his approach shot to a par-5?  After two shots they could be ANYWHERE."  [Even back on the tee, hitting three.]


The two things I would say about your generic example hole are (1) the three bunkers not right up against the green on the right are just bogey-golfer-killers whilst having no impact on better players, and should be eliminated, and (2) having some short grass to the left of the green would give the bogey player more chance to aim away from all those bunkers on the right, while not really helping the scratch player at all.

[Ira Fishman]

Speaking for Bogey Golfers United, even if we played for the left side, we are likely to end up right…or dead pull left. And of course from the left bunker or right rough, we will try the heroic shot with little probability of pulling it off. We appreciate great architecture not for our own games (other than minimal forced carries) but because we have great imaginations for what life could be.


Ira

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,

The bogey golfer is just simple a representation of the average player, The most common player in the game.

The bunkers on the right would severely punish a bogey player. Especially for an approach struck from the right rough. The key point of this post is that the bunkering at the green creates a preferred angle into the green for the average player.  In this case down the left side.  If the fairway bunkers were omitted, it would be obvious that position provides the best angle to the green. Even from the rough.

If the 3 bunkers well short of the green were removed and the short grass was extended left of the green, the preferred angle would still be down the left. It is the existence of the bunker immediately short and right of the green that has the greatest influence on approach strategy, The rest dictates the severity of the punishment for a missed approach.

[Kyle Harris]

The flawed premise here is that the average golfer exists.


They don’t.


There are some common threads but the only consistent thing is how they spend their shots in a qualitative sense…


Poorly.

[Michael Felton]

If the fairway bunkers were omitted, it would be obvious that position provides the best angle to the green. Even from the rough.

I don't agree. I think the fade player is better off playing from the right side. Their fade is going to come in on your purple angle, which gives them the most room. If the rough to the left was fairway and a ball would bounce up onto the green, then maybe. If the pin is front right, then they're virtually all going to visit that bunker.

[Jeff Schley]

The flawed premise here is that the average golfer exists.


They don’t.


There are some common threads but the only consistent thing is how they spend their shots in a qualitative sense…


Poorly.

Yes the term bogey golfer can be replaced with consistently inconsistent typically. To accommodate that in design you need huge fairways, less hazards, open green approaches and flat greens. Basically make the course much easier. So around the average slope of 113. Whenever I play a course from a less than 120 slope it is like the Red Sea parted and I suddenly think I'm pretty good at golf. 

[Kalen Braley]

The real key to this diagram is that from a bogey golfer perspective, (assuming a right hand player with prevailing slice) you always want to see the bunkers on the right side of the green, not the left.

That way you can aim for the left edge of the green with the approach shot:
1) If the ball works back to the center of the green on a fade or slice?  Great as you still have plenty of room to avoid the bunkers.
2) If you hit it straight?  Still fine to be on left edge or left fringe.
3) If you pull it right? You're staying out of the bunkers and have green to work with hitting from the rough.

[Michael Felton]

The real key to this diagram is that from a bogey golfer perspective, (assuming a right hand player with prevailing slice) you always want to see the bunkers on the right side of the green, not the left.

That way you can aim for the left edge of the green with the approach shot:
1) If the ball works back to the center of the green on a fade or slice?  Great as you still have plenty of room to avoid the bunkers.
2) If you hit it straight?  Still fine to be on left edge or left fringe.
3) If you pull it right? You're staying out of the bunkers and have green to work with hitting from the rough.

Bingo

[Ben Hollerbach]

Michael,

If you look back at the shot dispersion map Trackman produced, you’ll see the majority of shots land short and right of the intended target. These findings are confirmed by GolfTec’s study, there is a 2:1 ratio of shots missing right and a 7:1 ratio of shots missing short.

Mapping out a 10 yard left-to-right shot from both the right rough and equivalent left rough position, landing in the middle of the green approach, we can see the impact of the two shots.




It’s true that the ideal shot from the right rough would land more in line with the best approach angle into the green, but the common miss short and right would also lead to a higher probability of missed approach shots flying into the bunkers. For a ball that is hit straight, the approach from the left side of the fairway is still traveling towards the left edge green,  Providing a closer recovery shot than would be faced from an equivalent approach from the right rough.

With the GIR percentage from the rough hovering around 30% or less, it would make the most sense for the player’s approach strategy to account for the inevitable miss. From the right rough you’d have a potential for 30% of your shots to land in or near the front right bunker, while from the left rough that number would only be 10%.

What then happens when the hole design is flipped and the bunkers protect the opposite side of the green? In this scenario the advantageous play would be to again play away from the greenside bunkers with your tee shot to set up the better angle to green. For a bogey player who plays a left-to-right shot, hitting the green for the left rough would be virtually impossible.

[David Ober]

The flawed premise here is that the average golfer exists.


They don’t.


There are some common threads but the only consistent thing is how they spend their shots in a qualitative sense…


Poorly.

Yup.

[corey miller]

I don't think there is a highly regarded course in Westchester County where a bogey golfer can advance the ball 160 yards from the rough.  Sad but True.  Love all that "restoration" work. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

The flawed premise here is that the average golfer exists.


They don’t.


There are some common threads but the only consistent thing is how they spend their shots in a qualitative sense…


Poorly.

Yup.

To think that the play of the average player can't be understood is simply asinine.

With all the data acquisition and analytics that have been performed in recent years by the likes of Mark Broadie, Trackman, GolfTec, Arcos, etc... we know more about the amateur player today than at any previous time in the games history!

100 years ago a course may have been built with few to no bunkers, only to have the architect return in a years time to build bunkers where they found large collections of divots. That practice produced courses that we today define as the greatest examples of strategic design. The data that is being collected on how the amateur plays the game is the modern equivalent of those divots. The rest of the golfing world has embraced how data can improve performance, why does architecture think it knows differently?

[Tom_Doak]

To think that the play of the average player can't be understood is simply asinine.

Architects aren't the ones who think they know everything, "because data".


I can "understand" the play of the average golfer just fine . . . or, at least, probably better than they can.  But I can't design for it, because the results are just too random.  I can design for their "good" shots, but if I make an approach shot challenging for their good shot off a good drive, then 75% of the time it's going to be too challenging for where they drove it and their realistic second shot.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,

You've spoke in the past that your courses are not designed for the touring professional, Many architects speak to not modifying a course based on the suggestions of only the club champion and low handicap players, and twice in this thread you've said that you do not believe that you can design a course for "the bogey golfer". Others have echoed the same sentiments as well, which leads me to ask who are golf courses designed for?

Is it just the 5-12 handicap player that is good enough to appreciate architecture but not too good that they have developed biased views on their own playing tendencies? How big is that subset of golfers? is it even 1/3rd of all that play the game?


When a dead straight, dead flat hole of 400 yards is too challenging for the average player to score 4 on consistently, shouldn't the focus of the hole's design be towards making play engaging and captivating? If the bulk of challenge comes from the players inability to control the strike of their ball why is challenge not more internal, following in Mackenzie's mindset of holes looking more difficult than they actually play?


100+ years ago when the Bogey card was more common place, wasn't play of the game more centered around the bogey golfer? If that was the scoring benchmark then, wouldn't architects of the time been trying to build courses to the play around that benchmark? Considering the revere we have for those older courses that are so playable for the high handicap players and still challenging for the low handicap players it would seem the bogey player and all their follies are who we should be trying to design for today.

[Michael Felton]

100+ years ago when the Bogey card was more common place, wasn't play of the game more centered around the bogey golfer? If that was the scoring benchmark then, wouldn't architects of the time been trying to build courses to the play around that benchmark? Considering the revere we have for those older courses that are so playable for the high handicap players and still challenging for the low handicap players it would seem the bogey player and all their follies are who we should be trying to design for today.

Bogey in that context doesn't mean what bogey golfer means now. Bogey then was "what a good player would shoot". At least as I recall. It basically pegs those half par holes as the higher number, even if par is the lower number. Most holes would have par and bogey be the same, but long par 4s or long par 3s would have a bogey one above par. I think RSG was par 71, bogey 77 or something like that. It's a little bit like the course rating. In any case, architects who were designing a course for the bogey player 100 years ago were not trying to design it for a 90s shooter.

[jeffwarne]

I don't think there is a highly regarded course in Westchester County where a bogey golfer can advance the ball 160 yards from the rough.  Sad but True.  Love all that "restoration" work.

But they can from the brilliant white crushed quartz bunkers!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()