There’s a number of people on this site that have been discussing the same complex and esoteric subjects over and over again for the better part of three decades. I’m not sure why this subject being rehashed is irking you.
It doesn't irk me — I just don't see the point in re-hashing everything that's been written many times in much depth. The old posts are still here. The old graphics.
During the numerous times this topic has been discussed on this site I've seen inferences to data and the study on the subject, but I don't think I've ever seen direct references to the actual measured data or to published studies on the subject. Thus the question behind context supporting the claim.
Ben, it's tough to take you seriously when you make statements like: "Outside of a very very few number of shots, at some point of time during a ball's travel, the ball will roll, even if it is only for a few inches. So that would imply that angles matter on almost all shots." Yeah, cuz that's what people are talking about when they cite the Presidents Cup at Royal Melbourne. That's what people are saying when they're talking about balls rolling. A few inches. Sheesh.
The "measured data" is often proprietary, whether it's ShotLink data that only a few people are given access to, or data from the likes of Arccos, ShotScope, GolfMetrics, etc. There's no "published study" because it's just published data. Lou can post a chart. Mark can post information. Scott can post information. I can post what I see. These aren't scientific papers with a hypothesis and a test and a conclusion. It's a heap of data that's interpreted.
What kind of "published study" do you need to see if someone says "PGA Tour players make 50% of their putts from 8'2"?" That's not something you write a paper about. It's a statistic. The stats that show that angles don't matter (and that there's often a very, very small advantage in scoring to being on the "bad" angle) are out there, and the means by which they're determined are out there. I've shared them, Lou has shared them, etc.
Here's a podcast talking about this one specifically, and dealing with average golfers (not Tour players):
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-good-angle/id1543363295?i=1000596708327 or
https://overcast.fm/+mucWG_TXE.
If you disagree with the interpretation, then find the holes or flaws if there are any. And I welcome that challenge, as I enjoy being told "you're wrong" if the person can tell me why. "Ha!" you say? Then it goes to show how very little you know of me. Being told "you're wrong and here's why" is what I call an instant opportunity to upgrade my knowledge. Being told "yeah, I think you're right" doesn't do anything for me. I wouldn't be saying it if I didn't think I was probably right. Being told "you're wrong, here's why" is awesome. It just doesn't happen too often.
If one shot's landing characteristic minimizes the impact of the approach angle and the other shot heightens the impact of the approach angle, there is a basis for greater discussion on the subject.
Hence… me saying "angles matter when the ball is rolling." Angles don't matter when you fly it and stop it relatively close to where it lands. I've further said that this is for shooting the lowest score, on average, not for interest, or challenge, or art, or show, or whatever. I've also said it's generalized data, and when talking about specifics (players, shots, etc.) there are exceptions.
I've talked with my daughter about angles. She's playing college golf, but she's also 5' tall. Pound for pound or inch for inch she hits it really far, but… that means she's hitting a hybrid into a par four a few times a round. Angles matter to her… because her ball is bouncing/rolling.
Show me where I'm wrong, and don't use anecdata or hypotheticals or exceptions.