News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2023, 04:47:23 PM »
But first of all, Stagner's post above about the 10th hole at Riviera didn't address the issue of angles at all. He compared layups to attempts at the green.
It's also a shot where, for those who lay up, they're hitting a very short club off the tee. They can "chase" the angle a little bit, and the green is so shallow and tilted, it's almost likely to be a bit of an exception.

Why? Because there's a good chance that players who hit it in the right side of the fairway were playing worse than those who hit it in the left half of the fairway. I don't think that anyone would intentionally aim at the right side of the fairway here if laying up.
Also correct. Lou says in the podcast that players actually score best from the middle of the fairway, and my initial though to that is that those players are simply playing better that day, too, overall (perhaps).

So, yes, these are just interpretations of the data, as I've said. There's no "peer-reviewed study" to be done here. Question or poke at the data, but it just says what it says.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #76 on: February 13, 2023, 02:12:07 PM »
.........If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage..... 


My take on this is that some of the old guys wrote that in their books (which they may have believed, but the books were mostly for marketing) but there really was never any "proof of concept."  100+ years later, modern statistics allow that to happen.


I don't challenge fw hazards often (there is no rule that is absolute, of course) as a relatively straight driving average golfer.  Neither do most ams.


None of the tour pros I have worked with did, nor club pros, nor top ams, nor average players.  When asked which side of a fw they would aim for in designing or redesigning a hole most said, "The middle."  Jim Colbert (a grinder who tried to hit the shot required rather than play his stock shot pattern) often preferred to come in from the side of the greenside hazard.  He reasoned it was like teeing off with OB on one side, i.e., that you double the safety angle by aiming away from the hazard compared to coming in from the open front side.  I have heard Jack Nicklaus say the key to playing a hole was to miss the fw hazards.


Sure, there are holes where it really matters, but like most public discussions, the discussion seems to lean towards the exceptions, not the middle ground.  In reality, challenging a player on the tee with temptation probably only works on par 5 holes where a true full stroke might be gained and/or perhaps a hole late in the round where a gamble might allow them to a last ditch effort to catch up to an opponent.


I don't even think those Golden Age designers thought about it and applied it religiously.  After all, if they did, would there be such a percentage of greens from that (or any other era) with what Colt called "wing bunkers" both right and left at the green?  Bunker left, bunker right hardly seems strategic, unless staggered front and back.


Ross wrote, "There is the hole. Play it any way you please."  The first Masters program with the article "by Bobby Jones" was really written by MacKenzie, and people I trust have told me there is a radio interview with Jones where he said, "Mac wrote that, but if there is a hazard, I play as far away from it as possible to avoid it."  I can't recall Colt's writings, other than the wing bunkers I already mentioned.


On the other hand, there isn't much new in those stats, just things most folks knew and are very refined. We know that tour pros miss 50% at 8 feet, but that even at 100 yards, the average distance to the flag is 19.5 feet.  Aiming at the tucked flag has been shown statistically to be a loser, i.e., why risk hazards to possibly gain a 50% chance of birdie?  Then, statistically, the number of made putts from 15-50 feet is about 0.1% difference, so please aim at the fattest and deepest part of the green.  Jack, Tiger, and the other top players stood out with what would be called "course management" which is really code for missing hazards.


The same has always been touted for ams (i.e., aim for the fat part of the green) because they have similarly consistent shot dispersions, albeit at greater angles.  If tour pros are about 13% (6.5 yards on either side for a 100 yard shot) then ams must be about 25% (I don't recall that offhand, but could look it up.)  As pros have taught for years, ams are nearly always better off playing to the safest area possible.


As to what that all may mean for design, I don't know.  Talking with those who support this system and design courses, they don't say they design greens much differently, following the land and using aesthetics as the basic principles.  Where angles do matter is on the tee shot, as when Pete Dye alternated left and right angled fairways.....but that was to encourage or reward a certain shot type, not necessarily to set up an angle.  I believe most tee shots should be designed the same way to test various skills.


Basically, your score is 90-95+% skill and/or execution, and at best <5-10% strategy.  Of course, aiming at the biggest targets is a strategy in itself, perhaps cloaked as course management.  As many have mentioned, when you factor in how you are playing that day, wind, conditions, roll, etc., strategy has always been more about nuance than the simplistic idea of trying to hit a target that gives you and open front green.


And, if my understanding is correct, the best way to create strategy is to undulate at 3-5% fairways in the 300-350 range, since hitting off different fw lies makes golfers create a shot that is different each time.  Those same undulations in shallow rough really complicate things for better players and are probably the best investment in toughening the course for them, vs more expensive sand bunkers only 1% of golfers will find.


We had Scott Fawcette at our ASGCA winter meeting and the reaction from our members was about as miffed as the reactions from those here.  Some of us also looked at those Stagner stats, and the reaction was similarly miffed or confused.


And, as always, just MHO.




Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #77 on: February 13, 2023, 08:38:22 PM »
Good stuff, Jeff.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #78 on: February 14, 2023, 01:05:09 AM »
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention. I just played a course where angles mattered a ton. Not only for a safer angle of approach, but also the likely leave if one didn't execute from the poor angle. This wasn't a few holes. It was hole after hole. Sometimes better angles could be achieved by the ability to hit a long ball.

I gotta ask. Do people not play in wind or on even moderately keen turf? Do people all bomb it 300 yards and hit towering irons with crisp precision? If so, it's a game I don't get to play nor often witness. I am often merely trying to get on the green, so yer damn right angles matter. There were at least 10 times yesterday where after my tee shot, angle position mattered significantly. At least 8 drives where trying to get in the right area of the fairway mattered because of angles...and none involved bunkers.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #79 on: February 14, 2023, 05:31:24 AM »
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention. I just played a course where angles mattered a ton. Not only for a safer angle of approach, but also the likely leave if one didn't execute from the poor angle. This wasn't a few holes. It was hole after hole. Sometimes better angles could be achieved by the ability to hit a long ball.

I gotta ask. Do people not play in wind or on even moderately keen turf? Do people all bomb it 300 yards and hit towering irons with crisp precision? If so, it's a game I don't get to play nor often witness. I am often merely trying to get on the green, so yer damn right angles matter. There were at least 10 times yesterday where after my tee shot, angle position mattered significantly. At least 8 drives where trying to get in the right area of the fairway mattered because of angles...and none involved bunkers.

Ciao


Even anecodotally, the situations you were in v. the situations you think you would have been in are not likely that statistically different when it comes to scoring. That's why "angles don't matter."

How many "bad days on the golf course" were because you played from all the wrong angles? How many "good days on the golf course" were because you played from all the correct ones?

Avoid double bogeys and penalty strokes. That's it.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #80 on: February 14, 2023, 05:59:41 AM »
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention. I just played a course where angles mattered a ton. Not only for a safer angle of approach, but also the likely leave if one didn't execute from the poor angle. This wasn't a few holes. It was hole after hole. Sometimes better angles could be achieved by the ability to hit a long ball.

I gotta ask. Do people not play in wind or on even moderately keen turf? Do people all bomb it 300 yards and hit towering irons with crisp precision? If so, it's a game I don't get to play nor often witness. I am often merely trying to get on the green, so yer damn right angles matter. There were at least 10 times yesterday where after my tee shot, angle position mattered significantly. At least 8 drives where trying to get in the right area of the fairway mattered because of angles...and none involved bunkers.

Ciao


Even anecodotally, the situations you were in v. the situations you think you would have been in are not likely that statistically different when it comes to scoring. That's why "angles don't matter."

How many "bad days on the golf course" were because you played from all the wrong angles? How many "good days on the golf course" were because you played from all the correct ones?

Avoid double bogeys and penalty strokes. That's it.

I couldn't disagree more. Getting the right angle for up and downs etc can make a big difference in increasing odds to lower the score. Getting the right angle to hit low shots with less wind effect can make a big difference in increasing odds to score lower. To me these are obvious facts.

I raised the question before, how much interest in the game would be lost if archies didn't design angles? It's a question that doesn't isn't worth an answer because most know it would be significant.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #81 on: February 14, 2023, 09:43:06 AM »
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention.
Sure thing, pal. Kyle gave a better answer than I will here…

Getting the right angle for up and downs etc can make a big difference in increasing odds to lower the score.
That's just missing it in the right spots. You can miss it in the right spots whether you're coming in from the right side of the fairway or hugging the fairway bunker on the left.

Getting the right angle to hit low shots
It's almost as if you're saying… angles matter when the ball is rolling with this type of comment.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #82 on: February 14, 2023, 10:55:39 AM »
Isn't it --angles don't matter as much as distance?


The way I understand the Stagner/Fawcett/Barzeski/Strokes Gained approach (I'm sure there are nuances between them). You can't reliably get the best angle unless you sacrifice distance (and dispersion) and being closer outweighs almost any angle. Hit your drive as far as you can where you take hazards out of play by aiming between any hazards at your carry distance and live with the dispersion and possible bad angle. If you bring a hazard into play (within your drive dispersion) by chasing the angle the math doesn't work over the long term.


Yes, what you said above. Length is just hugely important in golf. Always has been, always will be.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #83 on: February 14, 2023, 11:34:52 AM »
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention.
Sure thing, pal. Kyle gave a better answer than I will here…

Getting the right angle for up and downs etc can make a big difference in increasing odds to lower the score.
That's just missing it in the right spots. You can miss it in the right spots whether you're coming in from the right side of the fairway or hugging the fairway bunker on the left.

Getting the right angle to hit low shots
It's almost as if you're saying… angles matter when the ball is rolling with this type of comment.


You can always hit a bad shot which doesn't matter what one's intent was. But I believe my odds are lower of hitting in bad spots if I have better angles. I also believe I have higher odds of hitting good shots if I have a better angles. I also believe I have more options on shot selection if I have better angles which can potentially lower my risk. The issue of risk in earning better angles is a different queston all together. For me that depends greatly on width, keen conditions, elevation change, wind and potential risk. It isn't too often I can blow over hazards/features to earn better angles. I almost always feel a bit handcuffed on soft parkland courses because I know my shot selection is essentially limited to hitting the ball in the air regardless of wind or width. To say angles don't matter is a narrow PoV  and I know you said in certain circumstances angles do matter). I am suggesting that keen conditions are not the sole determing factor in angles ebing valuable. I know for a fact they matter to me and I know for a fact that I am not alone in this PoV. I fear far too much about how the game is played by hacks is pulled from incomplete data.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #84 on: February 14, 2023, 11:48:40 AM »
Sean,

Even in your own post you are farther down the path to "angles don't matter" than you think!

"Increasing odds" is one thing so sure, let's explore that for a second.

In order for an angle to "increase my odds to lower score" you must first:

1: Have a golf hole where there is a wide variety of angle based outcomes
2: Execute a shot to find that angle
3: Execute a shot to take advantage of that angle
4: Hole a putt


Then, and only then, will the "increased odds" actually reflect on your score in the manner of a discrete shot.


Why would I think this way when the conditions in order to meet taking advantage of the angle are so strict and MIGHT amount to one stroke over the course of a few rounds? Especially compared to understanding my dispersion pattern and making sure that I don't put that dispersion pattern in a situation that will create a penalty stroke or double-bogey.

From there my perfect shots won't get me in trouble and half of my misses would actually put me in a better position. Do that twice in a row and I've significantly increased the chase of the hole getting in the way of my ball without worrying about a single angle out there.


From a coaching perspective, why would I tell a student or golfer to go chase angles when doing so introduces a higher possibility of a much higher score to gain something that may even add up to a one shot advantage? Even in the firmest conditions, the best strategy is to make sure your dispersion pattern isn't going to get you into trouble and let variance push the hole in the way of your golf ball.

Everything else is a gamble. The gamble is what you consider fun - which is a point that I'm inclined to agree with. But the statement "angles don't matter" is not all that far from "the house always wins" in casino gambling. Long term, even the best strategies fail to pay.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #85 on: February 14, 2023, 11:54:17 AM »
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention. I just played a course where angles mattered a ton. Not only for a safer angle of approach, but also the likely leave if one didn't execute from the poor angle. This wasn't a few holes. It was hole after hole. Sometimes better angles could be achieved by the ability to hit a long ball.

I gotta ask. Do people not play in wind or on even moderately keen turf? Do people all bomb it 300 yards and hit towering irons with crisp precision? If so, it's a game I don't get to play nor often witness. I am often merely trying to get on the green, so yer damn right angles matter. There were at least 10 times yesterday where after my tee shot, angle position mattered significantly. At least 8 drives where trying to get in the right area of the fairway mattered because of angles...and none involved bunkers.

Ciao


Even anecodotally, the situations you were in v. the situations you think you would have been in are not likely that statistically different when it comes to scoring. That's why "angles don't matter."

How many "bad days on the golf course" were because you played from all the wrong angles? How many "good days on the golf course" were because you played from all the correct ones?

Avoid double bogeys and penalty strokes. That's it.

I couldn't disagree more. Getting the right angle for up and downs etc can make a big difference in increasing odds to lower the score. Getting the right angle to hit low shots with less wind effect can make a big difference in increasing odds to score lower. To me these are obvious facts.

I raised the question before, how much interest in the game would be lost if archies didn't design angles? It's a question that doesn't isn't worth an answer because most know it would be significant.

Ciao


This.  Statistically, playing from the supposed better angle DOESN'T affect your score by more than 0.1 strokes on average.  We don't know what conditions of those 6 million shots were measured in, but my guess is that is enough to average things out.  On a select few shots, they certainly can matter.


Maybe the title of Lou's post is misleading.  Angles do matter.  If your 99% tee shot dispersion angle is 4 degrees in both directions, the most important angle is to play 4.5 degrees away from a penalty hazard in favor of keeping it on dry land or inbounds.  The goal is to keep it in play as long as you can.


Side note to my post above, I never understood why anyone would challenge hazards with a driver to avoid challenging hazards with a 7 iron.  Maybe angles can be situationally important when hitting a fw wood in (especially in the old days) but with new clubs, what may have worked (I still don't know that it did) then just doesn't work as well now.


Besides, Mac who wrote the Masters program piece that started this entire line of thinking, also said that the goal architecturally was to tempt people to play shots outside their ability, or match their shots to their ability.  (i.e., carrying a cape bunker means nothing if you are topping your tee shot, lol).  All these stats do is give the thinking golfer a better gauge of their ability, and no surprise, it's not as good as they think they are, and if armed with this knowledge, they can make better strategic decisions.   


As to what constitutes a bad day on the golf course, in my case, it is muscle memory continuing the same bad swing even when I consciously know what I am doing wrong and trying to correct it.  :D
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 11:59:06 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #86 on: February 14, 2023, 12:02:14 PM »
There is a small irony in this post because I think, deep down, a good number of smart people have realized this for a LONG time.

Tom Paul, the grandfather of this concept of Ideal Maintenance Meld, was an early proponent in his own way.

The ideal maintenance meld, of course, hinged on the idea that a well-struck golf ball should lightly dent and bounce twice before any effect of spin controlled it from...

...

...

roughly 150 yards.

The implication here is that anything within that distance is reasonably controlled to stay within a few feet of where the ball lands.

Steve Smyers once told me that the best way to challenge great players is to ask them to hit precise shots off varyingly uneven lies from various distances.

Tom Doak once wrote that the best golf holes in the world have two elements that interact with each other on subsequent shots or some such idea which I just paraphrased.

The above three points and a mountain of shot dispersion data should make it rather straight forward to continue to build compelling golf courses for the better players while still accomodating those with less skills or gifts.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #87 on: February 14, 2023, 01:29:16 PM »

Sean,

Even in your own post you are farther down the path to "angles don't matter" than you think!

"Increasing odds" is one thing so sure, let's explore that for a second.

In order for an angle to "increase my odds to lower score" you must first:

1: Have a golf hole where there is a wide variety of angle based outcomes
2: Execute a shot to find that angle
3: Execute a shot to take advantage of that angle
4: Hole a putt


Kyle,

While I think the above model works perfectly well for the very good golfer, (low single digit to scratch), I don't think it accurately accounts for the average golfer at a 15-16 cap. For players like us, getting pars are our birdies. 

going to your 4 step analysis, while Step 1-2 still hold true, I would amend it after that.

Step:

3) Execute a shot to take advantage and if you miss (the most common one being short), it'll be a less worse miss that ends up in the collar or fairway as opposed to in longer rough or a bunker.

Step 4 then becomes either:
A) Two putt for a par
B)  If you missed, be in better position to save the par, but at the very least take double or worse out of the equation and get an "easy" bogey.

In either outcome the lesser player is simply minimizing bigger scores.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #88 on: February 14, 2023, 02:06:15 PM »
Sean, your first post boiled down to "Angles matter, and if you disagree, you're not paying attention." Just "here's what I think, and if you disagree, you're a dope."

I also believe I have higher odds of hitting good shots if I have a better angles.
Great. Now back that up with something more than what you "believe."

I believe … I also believe… For me… I can… I almost always… I know… I know… I am… I know… to me… I know… I am… I fear
I think I missed a few… See what I said before about how you have to talk to the general idea and there are always exceptions. Angles can matter slightly more to some than others, particularly if the ball is rolling. I'm not here commenting specifically on YOUR game, but that's almost entirely what you seem to be doing.

Why would I think this way when the conditions in order to meet taking advantage of the angle are so strict and MIGHT amount to one stroke over the course of a few rounds? Especially compared to understanding my dispersion pattern and making sure that I don't put that dispersion pattern in a situation that will create a penalty stroke or double-bogey.
QFT.

The above three points and a mountain of shot dispersion data should make it rather straight forward to continue to build compelling golf courses for the better players while still accomodating those with less skills or gifts.
Kyle is on a roll.

Give players options. The more options they have… the more likely they are to choose the wrong one. If your choice is basically "how much of an angle do I want to play" that's one choice. And there's a mathematically sound way to approach it (regardless of whether you're playing for the lowest average score or the best chance of a birdie or something THIS one time).

While I think the above model works perfectly well for the very good golfer, (low single digit to scratch), I don't think it accurately accounts for the average golfer at a 15-16 cap. For players like us, getting pars are our birdies.
Par isn't necessarily relevant. The only real difference between a good player and a bad player is the size of the shot dispersion pattern (the size of their "Shot Zone" in my book).
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #89 on: February 14, 2023, 03:24:58 PM »
Kalen,

There's a level of competence minimum here and that somewhat plays out in another arena. Ultimately that boils down to whether or not you're just trying to squeeze the best out of your round that day in a vacuum or are you attempting to improve yourself between rounds.


Assuming we have a reasonably designed golf course and the player is playing the appropriate length tees (this is a whole topic in itself under this umbrella) the majority of bogey golfers are still looking at three shots to the green on most of the holes. Do "angles" matter? Probably not as much as simply geometry and still not spending penalty shots to get there. In this case we're attempting to avoid triple bogeys and no longer chasing par. The shot dispersions are still going to dictate the target.

If the player isn't looking to get better between rounds then what's the difference between that player and the gambler looking to simply maximize a night at the Craps table? Chasing angles, for any golfer, is no more effective (while admittedly thrilling) than betting hard ways and field bets at the craps table. You're playing in to the house's hand but when it hits, it feels good!

Great. That's fine.

But let's assume we're trying to improve our games...

First, the data will show that keeping the tee shot in play and then prioritizing greens in regulation will improve you the most the quickest. And in that order. So if chasing the angles is potentially getting your tee shot out of play.... often times the RISK with risk/reward... well you get that.

Ultimately the real crux of the "angles don't matter" argument is that improving your game by chasing angles is ultimately a losing proposition and that efforts and practice elsewhere combined with an approach that ELIMINATES DOUBT is what's going to ultimately drop you score.

I don't think you'd find anyone that wouldn't admit that pulling off a low percentage shot to gain an angle is THRILLING, but I also don't think you'd find any competitor that wouldn't mind sitting across from that mindset at the poker table, either. And for the same reason. They're going to beat themselves more often than not. You may lost to someone getting luckier than you do that day. But you'll never lose because you beat yourself.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #90 on: February 14, 2023, 03:34:42 PM »
Sean, your first post boiled down to "Angles matter, and if you disagree, you're not paying attention." Just "here's what I think, and if you disagree, you're a dope."

I also believe I have higher odds of hitting good shots if I have a better angles.
Great. Now back that up with something more than what you "believe."

I believe … I also believe… For me… I can… I almost always… I know… I know… I am… I know… to me… I know… I am… I fear
I think I missed a few… See what I said before about how you have to talk to the general idea and there are always exceptions. Angles can matter slightly more to some than others, particularly if the ball is rolling. I'm not here commenting specifically on YOUR game, but that's almost entirely what you seem to be doing.

Why would I think this way when the conditions in order to meet taking advantage of the angle are so strict and MIGHT amount to one stroke over the course of a few rounds? Especially compared to understanding my dispersion pattern and making sure that I don't put that dispersion pattern in a situation that will create a penalty stroke or double-bogey.
QFT.

The above three points and a mountain of shot dispersion data should make it rather straight forward to continue to build compelling golf courses for the better players while still accomodating those with less skills or gifts.
Kyle is on a roll.

Give players options. The more options they have… the more likely they are to choose the wrong one. If your choice is basically "how much of an angle do I want to play" that's one choice. And there's a mathematically sound way to approach it (regardless of whether you're playing for the lowest average score or the best chance of a birdie or something THIS one time).

While I think the above model works perfectly well for the very good golfer, (low single digit to scratch), I don't think it accurately accounts for the average golfer at a 15-16 cap. For players like us, getting pars are our birdies.
Par isn't necessarily relevant. The only real difference between a good player and a bad player is the size of the shot dispersion pattern (the size of their "Shot Zone" in my book).

Why wouldn't I talk about my game? Especially when it proves my point? Folks are trying to tell me that angles don't matter when I know from experience this is untrue. I gave several real life examples from one game a few days ago. I trust this data.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #91 on: February 14, 2023, 04:16:41 PM »
Kyle,

Thank you for that last post, that was very well thought out. I don't think we're too far off on this issue, but as with many topics on GCA, this one is certainly nuanced.

While I don't agree with the blanket statement "Angles don't matter", there are certainly other statements that are more correct.  Such as "Angles may matter a heulluva lot more on one hole that they do on another". Or that other things matter more in the form of "Angles don't matter as much as getting the ball in play or getting on the green in regulation" as you put, 100% agreed on that for sure.  But at the end of the day angles still can and do matter, it's the how much that is up for debate.

On some holes, angles can matter quite a bit, like for example #6 and #16 at Pac Dunes. Getting over to the right on 6 and the left on 16 are critically important to nearly any class of player, and especially so for golfers like me.  A heavy price will be paid, oftentimes in the form of multiple additional strokes.

Or on countless holes you may find on your local muni, where there is no particular danger to missing on either side of the fairway, why not attempt to play to the side that doesn't require a carry over a nest of bunkers, or a pond?

We could sit here and likely come up with dozens of other situational scenarios using various other criteria like blindness, weather, playing to one's strengths, length of rough, depth of bunkers, etc, but it all still points to the biggest issue in not knowing the methodology of the collection of the data.  And in absence of that, the .1 stroke differential is basically meaningless.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #92 on: February 14, 2023, 09:37:57 PM »
Why wouldn't I talk about my game? Especially when it proves my point?
Because an exception doesn't prove your point. And you have no actual data to verify that you're making the right choices. You might be shooting higher scores than you could.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #93 on: February 15, 2023, 02:46:42 AM »
Why wouldn't I talk about my game? Especially when it proves my point?
Because an exception doesn't prove your point. And you have no actual data to verify that you're making the right choices. You might be shooting higher scores than you could.

The so called exception proves my point. Blanket statements such as angles don't matter is a gross oversimplification.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #94 on: February 15, 2023, 04:15:44 AM »
There is a hidden “match play v. stroke play” debate going on here.


It’s also why I don’t feel match play is of any inherently superior value to stroke play and vice versa.


When you can remove yourself from the game, and the only penalty is a discrete value of one-hole, the rewards and risks are skewed.


When you can’t remove yourself from the game, and MUST continue, the math becomes quite simpler.


I’d venture that Sean’s method or strategy or point or whatever is much less efficient in stroke play long term.


As for match play? That’s just as much about the other person teeing it up against you.


Sport v. Game


The issue with attempting to debate this with the “angles DO matter” crowd is that when they get beat or see the “angles don’t matter” crowd play well they ascribe to the mythical thing they can’t attain:


“The man was a machine off the tee, he never missed!”
“She was putting to a bucket that day!”
“Dialed in, hit so many greens”


But they fail to realize that their perception of their opponent’s play is strictly result based. Did they never miss or did they choose targets that kept their dispersion pattern from getting them in trouble? Were they actually “putting to a bucket” or did the hole get in the way more often that day because they had an unusually good variance of all the other shots?


Going back to my 15 yard pull on the Raynor Road Hole:


I was either “throwing darts” (the actual result to a foot)
“Never missed a green” I hit my target 15 yards right of the hole location but still on the green.
“Putting to a bucket” I make the subsequent 45’ putt


Or


“Routine par” but making no mistake and pushing the opportunity for any of the above comments further into the round.


All of the above are simply because I chose a target and a club that put the vast majority of my potential results away from double-bogeys. I wasn’t pin-seeking or chasing birdies. I was simply maneuvering into the next possible position to attack and caught a break within my variance of expected outcomes.


For me it was “the hole got in the way.” And nothing more.


I give all the credit to any clarity in these thoughts to Mark Broadie and Scott Fawcett. In my July 2018 interview with Ran I said that I do believe Strategy is overrated and then word vomited some explanation about that. Mark and Scott’s independent work helped congeal those thoughts into something more clear.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2023, 04:28:59 AM by Kyle Harris »
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #95 on: February 15, 2023, 04:39:22 AM »
There is a hidden “match play v. stroke play” debate going on here.


It’s also why I don’t feel match play is of any inherently superior value to stroke play and vice versa.


When you can remove yourself from the game, and the only penalty is a discrete value of one-hole, the rewards and risks are skewed.


When you can’t remove yourself from the game, and MUST continue, the math becomes quite simpler.


I’d venture that Sean’s method or strategy or point or whatever is much less efficient in stroke play long term.


As for match play? That’s just as much about the other person teeing it up against you.


Sport v. Game

Matchplay didn't enter my mind, but yes, I can definitely see taking on situational risks that one wouldn't normally contemplate.

No, my point is that when you don't know the abilities of a golfer, the course, the conditions, then it isn't clever to say angles don't matter. Of course they can and do matter. I play courses where angles matter very little and some where angles can make a big difference. It happens that in winter months angles tend to be more important because there tends to be more space with rough down. Which is one reason I mentioned the round from a few days ago. There were tons of opportunities to play angles.

I think you guys are seeing angles as ways to take on risk. Angles are just as important in avoiding risk. The subject is far more complex than a simple angles don't matter statement.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #96 on: February 15, 2023, 06:19:40 AM »
Sean,

All abilities have a shot dispersion. Everything from there is applying the shot dispersion to the next shot. You are still more likely to get down in 3 shots from a greenside bunker you failed to carry from the "wrong angle" than you are getting down in 4 shots from the "ideal angle" 160 yards out in the fairway. Even if that's 0.1 shots more likely it still demonstrates that angles don't matter. A bogey from the "ideal angle" counts the same as a bogey from the greenside bunker.

Angles don't enter into that. That's why they don't matter. If a large chunk of your shot disperson is going to cost you a stroke becauase you are attempting to find the correct angle you are not making the correct choice long term. If a large chunk of your shot disperson is within the "correct angle" by aiming away from the same, then if angles matter you are making the correct play. Either way, you're not chasing angles - you're placing your disperson pattern in the place of least resistance.

These are unassailable facts. It's not arrogance. Ultimately, what you would classify as a poor shot or a missed shot others will classify as an example of variance costing you more than it needed to. My aiming well right of a "correct angle" but into a safe area and pulling it into the correct angle is not going cost me as much long term as aiming continuously for the "correct angle" and pulling it into a hazard every now and then.


To improve, you'd gain more long term by working on tightening your disperson pattern than you would by chasing angles.

1. Avoid penalties
2. Avoid double-bogeys
3. Get driver in play as far as possible
4. Hit GIR
5. Get close to the hole

Then. Maybe.

6. Chase angles

The problem is that most recreational golfers don't mind losing enough to ever care. Gambling is only a problem when you care about losing, but when you're winning it's a "system."
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #97 on: February 15, 2023, 07:58:25 AM »
I tend to agree that "Angles Don't Matter" where the design and the conditioning don't lend themselves to the player being at an advantage by approaching the green from the right angle. Perhaps that's where Sean and Erik/Kyle differ. I don't know where Erik and Kyle play their golf but I know from experience that Sean tends to play older courses that go for a firm and fast meld and where greens are often subtly orientated to favour one side of the fairway over the other. Firm and fast often accentuates any mistakes and therefore the advantage of approaching from the "correct" side increases.


Think of a situation where the player is hitting a long iron/hybrid/fairway wood to a green on a fast and firm course. For most players the shot might call for the ball to land just short or at the front edge and then to run on. Now imagine if the green is slightly angled with offset bunkers on either side accentuating the angle then clearly being on one side of the fairway is going to present a relatively clear path relative to the other where the front of the green might be partially covered by a flanking bunker thereby significantly reducing the opening to the green. Neither is the airborne route any easier as the ball isn't going to stop quickly on landing when hitting that kind of club. In that scenario, which is by no means rare on a lot of courses over here, it's fairly obvious that angles matter.


Conversely where you have fairly soft conditions and circular greens that don't favour a particular angle of approach then I imagine angles don't really matter. What kind of courses did they take their stats from ?


Niall 

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #98 on: February 15, 2023, 08:48:31 AM »
I tend to agree that "Angles Don't Matter" where the design and the conditioning don't lend themselves to the player being at an advantage by approaching the green from the right angle. Perhaps that's where Sean and Erik/Kyle differ. I don't know where Erik and Kyle play their golf but I know from experience that Sean tends to play older courses that go for a firm and fast meld and where greens are often subtly orientated to favour one side of the fairway over the other. Firm and fast often accentuates any mistakes and therefore the advantage of approaching from the "correct" side increases.


Think of a situation where the player is hitting a long iron/hybrid/fairway wood to a green on a fast and firm course. For most players the shot might call for the ball to land just short or at the front edge and then to run on. Now imagine if the green is slightly angled with offset bunkers on either side accentuating the angle then clearly being on one side of the fairway is going to present a relatively clear path relative to the other where the front of the green might be partially covered by a flanking bunker thereby significantly reducing the opening to the green. Neither is the airborne route any easier as the ball isn't going to stop quickly on landing when hitting that kind of club. In that scenario, which is by no means rare on a lot of courses over here, it's fairly obvious that angles matter.


Conversely where you have fairly soft conditions and circular greens that don't favour a particular angle of approach then I imagine angles don't really matter. What kind of courses did they take their stats from ?


Niall


Niall,

There is acknowledgement to firm and fast conditions making a difference but as far as stats are concerned they are based on shot dispersions. How the shot got to where it ended up doesn't much matter, just where it stops. I'll be the GIR rate from either side of the fairway in your hypothetical case is similar or not statistically significant. And I'll bet the bogey rate is nearly identical. What's the double-bogey rate of shrinking the target off the tee to one preferred side?


Depending on the nature of firm and fast certain features can tighten dispersions just as much separate them. If you're so fast that everything moves to the bottom of a collection area, is that really interesting? I've argued no for years. I think Jeff Warne is with me.

We have a few holes at Streamsong that see this play out where the target and angle actually does matter to some degree for all classes of player. Blue #8 is a good example, though longer hitters here are contending with a penalty shot, as well. A shorter hitter will have to play down the left as the right side will throw the ball outside of the reach of their second shot. But in playing down the left, the shorter shot is done over a forced carry all the way to the green. Does playing the extra shot on the right-hand route outweigh any inherent risk to reach the green in two down the left-hand route? Considering no penalty shots are in play here we have an actual strategic decision.


I also have numerous preferences to the side of the fairway (Streamsong Red #11 comes to mind, I much prefer being down the low left side though most caddies on the property will guide you high and right) from which I play on certain holes, but thinking in terms of shot dispersions as opposed to "ideal/unideal" has helped eliminate any DOUBT I may have in case I don't execute the way I intended and see that there truly is no penalty other than the one I created in my head.


And that's the crux of it. Searching and chasing angles more often than not CREATES problems that simply don't exist with the shotgun at the end of a shaft we employ to strike the ball. Just keep all the buck shot in play and wait until it hits the hole.


Strip away the created mental hazard and how many times during a round of golf is there a true mathematically strategic choice? Are they enough to actual worry about as a means to shoot the best score consistently? 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2023, 08:58:29 AM by Kyle Harris »
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “Angles Don’t Matter”
« Reply #99 on: February 15, 2023, 09:09:06 AM »
Kyle


If I understand your first paragraph correctly, you are suggesting in the scenario I described that the percentage of players playing from the "harder" side who hit the green is likely to be no different than the percentage of players  playing from the easy side, is that correct ? That's like saying that if you asked a 100 people to throw a ball into a basket from 10 feet and then asked the same 100 people to throw the ball in the basket from 5 feet that you would have the same or similar success rate both times. You may well be proved to be correct but I find it hard to believe that would be the case.


Niall

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back