Does DECADE demand an architectural response?

[Kyle Harris]

To summarize my thoughts, creating situations where there is enhanced shot outcome value differentials within the dispersion area would be the architectural response for defending par given DECADE type strategic playing. Becomes very difficult to create a course that is playable for a wide range of players given how much tighter the dispersion of top level players are than 3+ handicap players, let alone 10+.

This is precisely why my dream is to build a course *without* so many forward tees. The only way to turn up the difficulty of those target areas on the greens for elite players is if the rest of us will be playing the hole like a par-5 and chipping at those targets.  Putting the white tee further forward so we can hit 8-iron at those targets is still too hard; maybe a few of the holes become 300-yard par-4’s but the rest should stay longer and play like 5’s for Colonel Bogey.


This is not a radical new idea; it’s exactly what Colt or Mackenzie were doing 100 years ago before someone decided to build 4-5-6 sets of tees, and it worked just great.

Reminds me of the first hole at Memorial Park. And in another sense the thirteenth.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do adherents find the game less interesting or is it just as fun to aim at the target the system suggests even though the temptation exists to be more aggressive?  Does a course that traditionally tempted players to take on a bunker or some other hazard not tempt adherents to the system?

No. It's just an input into choosing the club and aiming point. You still have to hit the shot.

How do these analytical approaches to the game take into consideration playability factors like wind, rain, firmness of the greens etc?

Your aiming point kinda stays the same… but how you get to it is different, of course, and must account for the conditions. Obviously, you can also account for the fact that your Shot Zone is larger.

[Tom_Doak]

To summarize my thoughts, creating situations where there is enhanced shot outcome value differentials within the dispersion area would be the architectural response for defending par given DECADE type strategic playing. Becomes very difficult to create a course that is playable for a wide range of players given how much tighter the dispersion of top level players are than 3+ handicap players, let alone 10+.

This is precisely why my dream is to build a course *without* so many forward tees. The only way to turn up the difficulty of those target areas on the greens for elite players is if the rest of us will be playing the hole like a par-5 and chipping at those targets.  Putting the white tee further forward so we can hit 8-iron at those targets is still too hard; maybe a few of the holes become 300-yard par-4’s but the rest should stay longer and play like 5’s for Colonel Bogey.


This is not a radical new idea; it’s exactly what Colt or Mackenzie were doing 100 years ago before someone decided to build 4-5-6 sets of tees, and it worked just great.

Reminds me of the first hole at Memorial Park. And in another sense the thirteenth.

Also maybe #4 and #12   

[Thomas Dai]

As an aside I recall reading something Dave Pelz wrote. Apparently when he first started collecting shot data the more analytical players jumped on board pretty quick, he mentioned Tom Kite in particular, but the more instinctive players, he mentioned Lanny Watkins, ran a mile. I also recall a Jack Nicklaus comment along the lines of “if I reckon I can successfully pull off a shot 8 times out of 10 then I’ll go for it. If not I’ll play more conservative.”.
Atb

[Joe Zucker]

As an aside I recall reading something Dave Pelz wrote. Apparently when he first started collecting shot data the more analytical players jumped on board pretty quick, he mentioned Tom Kite in particular, but the more instinctive players, he mentioned Lanny Watkins, ran a mile. I also recall a Jack Nicklaus comment along the lines of “if I reckon I can successfully pull off a shot 8 times out of 10 then I’ll go for it. If not I’ll play more conservative.”.
Atb

I've heard this quote from Nicklaus too and I've often wondered what he means by "pull off a shot".  If it means hit the green, pros can't even do that from the middle of the fairway from 150 yards.  I've interpreted it more as "not lose the ball", but I would love to hear Nicklaus elaborate.  If he was thinking more like DECADE, it would be in a much more conservative fashion.

[Michael Felton]

As an aside I recall reading something Dave Pelz wrote. Apparently when he first started collecting shot data the more analytical players jumped on board pretty quick, he mentioned Tom Kite in particular, but the more instinctive players, he mentioned Lanny Watkins, ran a mile. I also recall a Jack Nicklaus comment along the lines of “if I reckon I can successfully pull off a shot 8 times out of 10 then I’ll go for it. If not I’ll play more conservative.”.
Atb

I've heard this quote from Nicklaus too and I've often wondered what he means by "pull off a shot".  If it means hit the green, pros can't even do that from the middle of the fairway from 150 yards.  I've interpreted it more as "not lose the ball", but I would love to hear Nicklaus elaborate.  If he was thinking more like DECADE, it would be in a much more conservative fashion.

I think he means playing through a gap in the trees or some such. If he thinks the gap is wide enough that he'll get it through 8/10 times then he'll go for it. If it's not then he'll play more conservatively. Or on a hole like 15 at Augusta, if he hit his drive a little too far left and had to hook one around the trees, does he think he'll be able to turn it enough and avoid the trees and make the carry. With that shot it doesn't really matter if he hits the green or not. More important is will he be able to with his next shot.

[Cal Carlisle]

I've heard this quote from Nicklaus too and I've often wondered what he means by "pull off a shot".

I take it to mean "successfully execute what I see in my mind's eye". Could be attacking a flag, a green, a tee shot, whatever. Regardless of what it is, "Pulling off a shot" seems to imply a significant punishment if things don't quite go as planned.

[Pat Burke]

As an aside I recall reading something Dave Pelz wrote. Apparently when he first started collecting shot data the more analytical players jumped on board pretty quick, he mentioned Tom Kite in particular, but the more instinctive players, he mentioned Lanny Watkins, ran a mile. I also recall a Jack Nicklaus comment along the lines of “if I reckon I can successfully pull off a shot 8 times out of 10 then I’ll go for it. If not I’ll play more conservative.”.
Atb

I remember talking with Pelz (back in ‘90’s). There were a few of us talking about the 17 inch past the hole stat and the game plan on a (say) 15-25 foot putt.  He was pretty adamant about getting past the hole (inside a putter length) and there were a few players arguing that at times leaving a ball above the hole 2-3 feet was not what we wanted.  He said it didn’t change the stats.
Well it sure changed my shorts when I left those downhillers!!

[Michael Felton]

As an aside I recall reading something Dave Pelz wrote. Apparently when he first started collecting shot data the more analytical players jumped on board pretty quick, he mentioned Tom Kite in particular, but the more instinctive players, he mentioned Lanny Watkins, ran a mile. I also recall a Jack Nicklaus comment along the lines of “if I reckon I can successfully pull off a shot 8 times out of 10 then I’ll go for it. If not I’ll play more conservative.”.
Atb

I remember talking with Pelz (back in ‘90’s). There were a few of us talking about the 17 inch past the hole stat and the game plan on a (say) 15-25 foot putt.  He was pretty adamant about getting past the hole (inside a putter length) and there were a few players arguing that at times leaving a ball above the hole 2-3 feet was not what we wanted.  He said it didn’t change the stats.
Well it sure changed my shorts when I left those downhillers!!

If you look at PGA tour leave short percentages of putts by length, around 35-40 feet it starts getting very close to 50/50. The 17 inches by the hole may maximize your chances of holing it, but it doesn't minimize your expected score once you're far enough away. If you never leave it short and your shot zone is 5 feet long at 30 feet, then you're going to leave some 5 footers and you'll miss enough of those to more than make up for the extra chance of holing one.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

What I do know is that watching Tiger play Royal Melbourne during the Presidents Cup he was playing the 'angles" theory and not the DECADE concept.
I have always played by the mantra, dont try and play Your A game on the days you showed up with your C game and that seems to take care of the theroies.


I do know that the middle of the fairway is always a good place to play from, something that Decade agrees with.
I think under firm and fast playing conditions, angles become more important.
I t will be interesting to examine how The Open plays in this regard next week

[Tom_Doak]

I also recall a Jack Nicklaus comment along the lines of “if I reckon I can successfully pull off a shot 8 times out of 10 then I’ll go for it. If not I’ll play more conservative.”.
Atb

I've heard this quote from Nicklaus too and I've often wondered what he means by "pull off a shot".  If it means hit the green, pros can't even do that from the middle of the fairway from 150 yards.  I've interpreted it more as "not lose the ball", but I would love to hear Nicklaus elaborate.  If he was thinking more like DECADE, it would be in a much more conservative fashion.

I heard it differently from Jack himself when we played at Sebonack.  On the 13th hole he casually mentioned that he thought the approach he'd left himself was "an 80% shot", meaning he was 80% sure if he hit a good shot it would get there.  I asked, when he played the tour, what % was enough to go for it.  He looked at me like I had rocks in my head, and then responded, 100%.  "That doesn't mean I would always successfully hit the shot, but if I wasn't 100% confident that a good shot would do the trick, it would be stupid to try it."

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I also recall a Jack Nicklaus comment along the lines of “if I reckon I can successfully pull off a shot 8 times out of 10 then I’ll go for it. If not I’ll play more conservative.”.
Atb

I've heard this quote from Nicklaus too and I've often wondered what he means by "pull off a shot".  If it means hit the green, pros can't even do that from the middle of the fairway from 150 yards.  I've interpreted it more as "not lose the ball", but I would love to hear Nicklaus elaborate.  If he was thinking more like DECADE, it would be in a much more conservative fashion.

I heard it differently from Jack himself when we played at Sebonack.  On the 13th hole he casually mentioned that he thought the approach he'd left himself was "an 80% shot", meaning he was 80% sure if he hit a good shot it would get there.  I asked, when he played the tour, what % was enough to go for it.  He looked at me like I had rocks in my head, and then responded, 100%.  "That doesn't mean I would always successfully hit the shot, but if I wasn't 100% confident that a good shot would do the trick, it would be stupid to try it."

 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think under firm and fast playing conditions, angles become more important.

Angles matter when the ball rolls, yeah. Those times are pretty rare on the PGA Tour, though.

[JESII]

We’ll Erik, let’s pull that apart a little bit.


I’ve been curious if you, or any knowledgeable proponent of these data based strategies have evidence that scores have dropped as a result.


More to your last post, and this thread topic…my answer would simply be more random hazard positions combined with firm, undulating (even mildly) ground.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We’ll Erik, let’s pull that apart a little bit.

By asking an unrelated question to the ball rolling and angles mattering? 

I’ve been curious if you, or any knowledgeable proponent of these data based strategies have evidence that scores have dropped as a result.

We do, yes. Both simulated and empirical.

And the system or framework or whatever you want to call it that I developed/teach isn't quite as rigid as others. Players have different feels for things. There are holes where a player just isn't comfortable, or winds, or shots of all types. It's a bit more fluid. Just not as fluid as many want it to be. 

[Jim Sherma]

A better question would be if any architecture matters when it’s soft with little to no role.


At the top end of the game the answer is no except for water or lost ball gunch close to the targets. For those who can really control their ball firm turf activates architecture, soft turf reduces it to aesthetics and eye candy.

[JESII]

Erik,


You have empirical evidence that scores have dropped on the PGA Tour as a result of players adopting these strategies?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Erik,


You have empirical evidence that scores have dropped on the PGA Tour as a result of players adopting these strategies?

I would like to know that answer as well.
Ho would one get such data , and be able to eliminate all other variables.
The elimination of ALL other variables, and a suitable sample size would be essential prior to being able to make the statement.."there is empirical data"

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You have empirical evidence that scores have dropped on the PGA Tour as a result of players adopting these strategies?

That's not the same question. I have data at every level that scores have dropped by players implementing the strategies we've taught. That includes by players on the PGA Tour, but doesn't include "[all of] the PGA Tour" or whatever you might be implying now?

The elimination of ALL other variables, and a suitable sample size would be essential prior to being able to make the statement.."there is empirical data"

I disagree that you have to eliminate "ALL other variables" to have data. That'd be basically impossible, short of a few parallel universes. "Empirical" is defined as "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Anyway, we make a rule of not discussing our client data with others. If you've read ESC, you probably understand the types of simulations you can run. And… this feels off topic. So, again, "we have data."

[JESII]

Erik,


It is the same question.


I asked if anyone had evidence that this stuff helps players shoot lower scores. I meant, and think it was implied, Tour players but leave that aside for now.


You responded, to paraphrase, "yes, we have empirical evidence".


I replied to that asking for clarification that you have empirical evidence that these strategies reduce scores (again assuming the Tour player context was implied as that is where the conversation has d gone).




If you don't want to discussyour work, fine. Maybe it would have been best to just abstain from raising your hand.






I agree with MWP that it would be difficult to prove but not impossible to make a really educated guess. If a players overall skills (as measured by strokes gained statistics)  haven't improved all that much but their overall results are better since adopting a strategic method you'd have a good case to make.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It is the same question.

No. Your second question asked if I have evidence that scores have dropped "on the PGA Tour." That's different than "by PGA Tour players" as it says, essentially, across the PGA Tour. It's not the same question.

I replied to that asking for clarification that you have empirical evidence that these strategies reduce scores (again assuming the Tour player context was implied as that is where the conversation has d gone).

And re-worded the question in the process.

If you don't want to discussyour work, fine. Maybe it would have been best to just abstain from raising your hand.

Yeah, bullshit. "Do you have evidence?" "Yes." Question asked and answered.

We have data (empirical and simulation) that shows scores have and can drop at all levels of the game.

[JESII]

I believe the simulated part...




Erik,


You should try to recognize who your friends are around here, the list is short.

[James Brown]

As long as we play tournament golf, there will be a competition between players and architects.  I hate to say it, but isn’t what RTJ did to a lot of courses a direct response along the lines of what we are talking about here, namely making the driving areas more challenging either my making them narrower with more side hazards that force either really short lay ups or very straight long drives or by challenging with cross hazards a la the penal school of golf from the late 19th century in the UK??

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You should try to recognize who your friends are around here, the list is short.

And yet high quality.

You say that like it's not by choice.

[Rob Marshall]

I believe the simulated part...




Erik,


You should try to recognize who your friends are around here, the list is short.

Jim, there is a wealth of information here. You just need to know where to look.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: