“Angles Don’t Matter”

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’d like to see a comparison of four groups of courses:


- PGA Tour courses
- US Top 100 courses built before WWII
- Every course built by TD or C&C
- GB&I Top 100 links courses


I have my opinions of the order these would fall out in “angles matter”. I’d be fascinated to see if I was right.

I think we'd all like to see the comparisons but I wonder if there would be that much difference for the Tour players for the reasons others have cited.


Niall

I didn’t mean for tour players. I meant average stats on all rounds.

[Tom_Doak]

53% are longer than 150. I have a hard time getting behind a definition of "rarely" that's synonymous with "the majority." 

P.S. Remove par threes and it's still well over 50%.

Erik:


I'm surprised at the numbers.


But I am also doubting your math at the end.  If 53% of approaches are over 150 yards, and you remove the par-3's, how is it still well over 50% ?  What % of the par-3's on Tour are under 150 yards?


I'm also surprised that the % under 100 yards is so small.  But, I don't watch the average Tour event, ever.  They must have pretty much eliminated short par-4's on most of those courses.  They sure didn't want many of them in Houston, for pace of play reasons.

[Jason Topp]

I have started a few threads on this topic.  My recollection is that the preferred angle does not improve average score at all.   If in the fairway, a player scores just as well from the “bad” side as the good side.  From what I have seen the data is pretty compelling.  Basically - one looking to optimize score should hit it in play and as far as possible.  The player should choose a target that takes into account the scatter plot of her tee shots. 


If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage.  I think there may be a mental component that still makes strategic design the best approach but good players are unlikely to be consciously approaching a round in those terms. 

[Tom_Doak]

If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage.  I think there may be a mental component that still makes strategic design the best approach but good players are unlikely to be consciously approaching a round in those terms.

Jason:


I spent a fair bit of time wrestling with this question before we started our work at Memorial Park.  Of course, I wasn't thinking solely about Tour players, but also the people that play the other 60,000 rounds there each year.


It helped a lot to talk to Brooks Koepka about it.  He felt very strongly that tactics matter on a well designed course, and that the reason he performed better at the majors was because tactics mattered more there, and many of today's players just blow them off as unimportant.


For Brooks, strategy was less about what side you missed on off the tee, and much more about what side you missed on for the approach shot to each particular hole location . . . though, on the best holes, playing in from one angle will make it easier to miss in the right spots.  As a result, we tried very hard at Memorial to come up with greens complexes where the Tour pro safety valve of missing to the center of the green did not pay off so predictably.  We tried to put a contour or a fallaway or something in the middle, to make you either pick a side, or live with the uncertainty of where a shot in the middle might finish up.  I think that worked pretty well.


Brooks is also famous for having said "rough doesn't matter", but the #1 thing I was pleased to hear from other players was that being in the rough at Memorial DOES matter . . . the potential of flyer lies means that the players have to be much more conservative on their approach if they've missed the fairway.  And that was basically Brooks's idea, to combine the Bermuda rough with tight grass and slopes around the greens where a wild approach shot could get away from you.  Of course, that doesn't mean the players are hitting irons off the tee for position . . . because they aren't much more likely to be in the fairway with an iron, and it isn't worth giving up the distance for that added accuracy.


I wish he was more famous for saying "bunkers don't matter," because we agreed early on there was no way to make bunkers there that would seriously impact a Tour pro's strategy, so we should probably have as few of them as possible.

[Jason Topp]

If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage.  I think there may be a mental component that still makes strategic design the best approach but good players are unlikely to be consciously approaching a round in those terms.

Jason:


I spent a fair bit of time wrestling with this question before we started our work at Memorial Park.  Of course, I wasn't thinking solely about Tour players, but also the people that play the other 60,000 rounds there each year.


It helped a lot to talk to Brooks Koepka about it.  He felt very strongly that tactics matter on a well designed course, and that the reason he performed better at the majors was because tactics mattered more there, and many of today's players just blow them off as unimportant.


For Brooks, strategy was less about what side you missed on off the tee, and much more about what side you missed on for the approach shot to each particular hole location . . . though, on the best holes, playing in from one angle will make it easier to miss in the right spots.  As a result, we tried very hard at Memorial to come up with greens complexes where the Tour pro safety valve of missing to the center of the green did not pay off so predictably.  We tried to put a contour or a fallaway or something in the middle, to make you either pick a side, or live with the uncertainty of where a shot in the middle might finish up.  I think that worked pretty well.


Brooks is also famous for having said "rough doesn't matter", but the #1 thing I was pleased to hear from other players was that being in the rough at Memorial DOES matter . . . the potential of flyer lies means that the players have to be much more conservative on their approach if they've missed the fairway.  And that was basically Brooks's idea, to combine the Bermuda rough with tight grass and slopes around the greens where a wild approach shot could get away from you.  Of course, that doesn't mean the players are hitting irons off the tee for position . . . because they aren't much more likely to be in the fairway with an iron, and it isn't worth giving up the distance for that added accuracy.


I wish he was more famous for saying "bunkers don't matter," because we agreed early on there was no way to make bunkers there that would seriously impact a Tour pro's strategy, so we should probably have as few of them as possible.

Tom


I have been reading a book on cognitive bias and this could be a prime example of that but the Houston tournament has seemed to provide a different and more interesting test than other tour venues.  The equation is definitely different. 

[Charlie Goerges]

If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage.

That may be true, but I don't think it necessarily is true. Someone has already brought up the idea that being on the wrong side may result in more conservative play, which is often the correct play anyway. Additionally there is the possibility that most courses (even those played by the pros) are only really loosely strategic at best. And finally, there is the conditioning. All added up, they blunt the effects as far as I'm concerned, and don't take away the efficacy of truly strategic design.


It might mean that we need to alter the types of hazards and features we use in order to influence play. Rough and sand don't really force the player to hit lower-trajectory shots, maybe more use of severe contours or trees would help force lower shots, especially on better players.

[Pat Burke]

I’m surprised at the iron averages shown.


Thanks Erik

[Pat Burke]

IMO
Firm conditions making distance control a premium are the test
When players are hitting it as high as they do, angles matter with (as Erik mentioned) firm conditions.


But perfect and consistent greens, even compared to my generation, will not make these players as worried about 30+ foot putts.


Give them room in the fairways and it’s hard to hide anything!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But I am also doubting your math at the end.  If 53% of approaches are over 150 yards, and you remove the par-3's, how is it still well over 50% ?  What % of the par-3's on Tour are under 150 yards?

Sorry - it's 63%. The numbers in the chart represent the start of the range. So 150 means approaches from 150 to 159.

That's not your fault. I initially posted 63%, then edited it to say 53%, and thought I changed it back when I got clarification that I was right (150 = 150 to 159) the first time, but apparently I didn't. Or I didn't save it or something.

If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage.  I think there may be a mental component that still makes strategic design the best approach but good players are unlikely to be consciously approaching a round in those terms.

Yes. Except when the ball is rolling. Or if you're just looking at what makes golf interesting to you. It's important to understand that this is generalized data and the data speaks to scoring, not engagement, or fun, or interest, etc.

Brooks is also famous for having said "rough doesn't matter"

He's either really dumb OR he meant it a bit differently than it may seem. I think the latter.Dumb is if he really doesn't think it matters, because it does. It's about a 60-yard difference in expected scoring (i.e. 110 in the rough = 170 in the fairway).Meant something different if he just meant he doesn't aim away from areas that are just rough or something. It doesn't change his strategy for the hole like a bunker, a penalty area, etc. might.

I’m surprised at the iron averages shown.

I am as well, Pat. But also… caddies lie and flash the wrong info, sometimes, too. 

[Ben Sims]

I guess I need some clarification on the OP.  Is the claim really that angles don’t matter for any player in any situation on any course?  Or just that it doesn’t happen often enough to be statistically relevant?

Tom,


I’d rather not offer clarification, mostly because I don’t have any way of doing so. The use of those two quotes were meant to stoke conversation about golf architecture.


That said, if I were to venture a guess at how the person who tweeted those quotes would respond, it would be that the statistical relevance of angles or sides of fairways was insignificant. I can’t be sure obviously.


As a someone that still wonders exactly *why* hole is good vs a hole that isn’t, even though I’m pretty good at identifying *whether* a hole is good or not, I found the quotes extremely unnerving.

[Ben Sims]

getting better

It's curious that you reference getting better more than shooting lower scores. I think analytics is probably a good way to shoot lower scores regardless of whether you get any better. I think analytics is a better and more well thought-out version of what we used to call "playing within yourself". I think actually getting better is more of a mastery over what happens when you hit a ball. Whether you choose the smart play on the course is another matter entirely.

Charlie,


We’re splitting hairs here. Getting better is getting better. I’ve known people with hands of gold that couldn’t fly an airplane. I’ve also known people with mediocre physical skills that were gods of the sky. Or to put it in golf terms, there aren’t pictures next to the scores. Analytics is a way to understand how golfers score, and in turn, help build a roadmap on the places I need to spend more time practicing.

[Don Mahaffey]

Saying angles don't matter and using average tour player scores as justification for the statement doesn't make sense to me.
Below is s very simplistic hypothetical way of refuting that approach using two holes that might have the same stroke average:


1) this concave golf hole averages 4.1, long, narrow, tree lined, its all about execution approach to design. The range of scores is tight, some birdies, a few more bogeys, and mostly pars leads to the average of 4.1.


2) this convex hole averages 4.1 as well. Wide with a severely crowned green and fairway with cenetline hazards and enough slope that tee shots run away from the center line. pin right and tee shot right results in an approach that a player attacks and brings birdie into play. Similar when pin is on left.  Players are more aggressive because it's a wide hole, but the convex nature of the hole has balls running away from targets so misses are punished a little more and not contained by rough or trees, and misses to the wrong side of the green brings short shots to a target that is running away from the player.


These holes have the same stroke average, the former has a tighter score dispersion, the latter more birdies but more others too. The stats say angels don't matter because a wide hole designed around angles has the same average score as a narrow penal hole designed with player execution in mind.  But do stats really describe the architecture and related strategy?

[Kyle Harris]

A few posters in this thread need to look up the term “gambling” and “risk”.


Descriptive statistics help ameliorate risk. Using them to dictate your approach IS a strategy. Deviating from the statistically best play is what we call “gambling”


The word gamble in and of itself implies failure.


Is not successful golf reducing the amount of/effect of those failures?


The last kick-in birdie I had was because I put my shot dispersion to the fattest part of the green and hit a 15 yard pull. It was on a Raynor Road Hole.


Variance got in my way favorably that day. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Saying angles don't matter and using average tour player scores as justification for the statement doesn't make sense to me.

You've missed the parts where we've talked about average players. They actually score slightly better from the "worse" angles than they do from the "best" angles.

Don, you can "prove" anything when you're just allowed to make up whatever you want.

Variance got in my way favorably that day.

Dustin Johnson was once asked about a 9I or something he hit to two feet on the 17th hole to (help him) win a tournament. His answer, flatly in the DJ way, was "I pulled it." He paused then said "I was aiming 15 feet right of that. I wasn't trying to go at that pin."

Once in a playing lesson I talked through my shot. 150 or so, chippy 8I, aimed 25 feet left because the hole was cut on a small portion of a quasi-island type green (not water around, but 10' slopes all around). I said "if I hit it, I'll have a look at birdie. Pull it and I'll have to work a bit, but I can make a two-putt par. Push it and I might get it close accidentally." I hit it, immediately said "yep, I pushed it." It went in the hole for a 2. The least exciting eagle in history because both of us knew, and I called it right after contact, that I'd "missed" the shot I was trying to hit.

[Don Mahaffey]

Erik, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply saying I build golf courses and I watch people play them, a lot. I think using stats to try and prove a point may work for players who pretty much know where their ball is going all the time. But saying angles don't matter isn't really applicable to those of us who play differently and aren't trying to post a number. It's my opinion that angles do matter to some players, to others they don't. Even if only they add interest to the round. I don't think there is any reason to be shitty about it in the way you respond to people who may have a different POV.

[Ben Sims]

Erik, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply saying I build golf courses and I watch people play them, a lot. I think using stats to try and prove a point may work for players who pretty much know where their ball is going all the time. But saying angles don't matter isn't really applicable to those of us who play differently and aren't trying to post a number. It's my opinion that angles do matter to some players, to others they don't. Even if only they add interest to the round. I don't think there is any reason to be shitty about it in the way you respond to people who may have a different POV.

I like this Don. My own opinion is somewhat nuanced. I found the quotes by Lou Stagner to be staggeringly devoid of context. Social media and generalized statistics both share that commonality I suppose. That said, I’m still going to use generalized golfer analytics to make better decisions on course. So in that way, they are very useful.


My biggest take away in how this discussion applies to architecture: as these sorts of analytics become more mainstream knowledge, architects are going to have to get more creative in how they create temptation and poor choices from golfers.

[Don Mahaffey]

Ben, the problem with analytics is they create as many questions as answers.
I was talking to an MLB catcher earlier this week. He said they certainly know the history on every hitter, especially vets with 1000s of at bats.  But, they still use human scouts who are tracking the last 25 or 50 at bats as there are short term, and long term tendencies. MLB hitters mess with their swing just as much as golfers and are also always trying to adjust to how they are pitched. 
A client of mine, very much into numbers as a finance guy, told me the tour stats show PGA players make 8 footers for par more often than 8 footers for birdie. Why? He said the same reason human investors ride their losers and sell their winners.  Why? Because they are human.


Erik keeps going back to scores. Why do average players score worse from the good angle vs the bad? I think his point is there is no such thing as a good angle.  I think it might be because they are not robots and get tempted into trying more aggressive shots.  But who really knows. 

[Kalen Braley]

Along the lines of Don's post, I'd be curious of the methodology of how the data is actually captured.

If I play a difficult par 4 with an otherwise flat fairway, but well guarded green.  The correct side of the fairway could vary significantly from day if the pin is tucked on the far left one day, and the far right the next. 

Are the data collectors for "average joes" following behind every round and taking note of things like this?

P.S Does it also factor in stuff like weather conditions, because depending on the wind direction, the "correct" side (on paper) could very well be the wrong side.  Or preferred ball flight shape?  (I can't hit a draw to save my life)

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm also curious what the answers are to Kalen's questions right above.

[Bill Crane]

When corses are soft angles don’t matter. Once they get firm they can matter a lot.

Jim ~  I agree, and hitting PW versus 6 iron makes a big difference, too.  That is the general tone of some posts after yours.
The imponderable is really the psychological effect on many players of having a straight look at the pin versus carrying a bunker or other challenging feature such as a nob or a barranca etc.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think using stats to try and prove a point may work for players who pretty much know where their ball is going all the time.

Again, the stats are pretty consistent up to 20 handicappers. And even PGA Tour players have a dispersion pattern that's wider than many seem to think.

But saying angles don't matter isn't really applicable to those of us who play differently and aren't trying to post a number.

That's why I said this:

Except when the ball is rolling. Or if you're just looking at what makes golf interesting to you. It's important to understand that this is generalized data and the data speaks to scoring, not engagement, or fun, or interest, etc.

It's my opinion that angles do matter to some players, to others they don't. Even if only they add interest to the round. I don't think there is any reason to be shitty about it in the way you respond to people who may have a different POV.

Wow, okay there man. Hypotheticals are pointless IMO. You can make up whatever you want to support whatever position you want.

My biggest take away in how this discussion applies to architecture: as these sorts of analytics become more mainstream knowledge, architects are going to have to get more creative in how they create temptation and poor choices from golfers.

Yes, this. They're going to have to, like TD did, create things where what appears to be the optimal target may not be. They'll have it easiest working around the paint-by-numbers approach (DECADE), less so when players take more factors into consideration.

A client of mine, very much into numbers as a finance guy, told me the tour stats show PGA players make 8 footers for par more often than 8 footers for birdie. Why? He said the same reason human investors ride their losers and sell their winners.  Why? Because they are human.

This has also been shown to be misleading. When you adjust for first-putt or second-putt differences, the gap narrows substantially.

Why do average players score worse from the good angle vs the bad?

Because they take on more when they feel they have a good angle. And when they have a bad one, they play more conservatively, which is probably how they should play regardless of their angle.

If I play a difficult par 4 with an otherwise flat fairway, but well guarded green.  The correct side of the fairway could vary significantly from day if the pin is tucked on the far left one day, and the far right the next.

Lou has explained it, as have the others who have done this. The "good angle" is generally the left side of the fairway to a hole location on the right or vice versa.

Are the data collectors for "average joes" following behind every round and taking note of things like this?

Unnecessary. Arccos knows where their shots are hit from. They know where the boundaries of the fairway are, and where the holes are cut. So, effectively, yes they have data collectors noting the specifics of every shot.

[Don Mahaffey]

Re the par vs birdie putt, we talked about that and while obviously if it’s a three putt situation the player has had a look, if he was long, at the break. But even tho the gap closes, it doesn’t CLOSE completely. It is still a fact that more putts are made for par than for birdie. Explain it away anyway you want but it seems a matter of motivation. Players are not robots and they are very bogey adverse. I’ve watched it for three years at a venue I know well, including taking the greens readings for the event. As players started to see where others made a “number” they got more and more conservative.  My takeaway was as much as they want to make birdies, most of them hate making bogeys even more. 


Re the average player being tempted to try something he shouldn’t because he’s in a good spot, isn’t that the kind of golf courses we want? Isn’t that thrill what we all want?  Do we really want to reduce the golf we play into being as conservative as possible in order to always try and avoid the big number?  Isn't that temptation at the root of good design?

[Charlie Goerges]

It's a pretty fascinating discussion and it can bring out some strong opinions. It leaves me wondering, a little bit, if "angles don't matter" means two different thing to two different groups of people. I have some problems with the statement as made, more on that in a minute.


But Don said about strategic courses:

isn’t that the kind of golf courses we want?

I think the answer is yes! Please keep doing your best in this area, it is most appreciated! Whether it affects my score a lot may be in question, but it definitely affects my enjoyment a lot.




My questions about the analytics point of view doesn't have anything to do with their earnest desire and work to help people play better. First, still, is that I don't think most courses have much strategic value to them, so saying that angles don't matter because of stats is just a tautology. If someone told me 90+% of courses had no discernable strategy whatsoever, nothing in my experience would contradict that. In other words, there's no point in measuring strategy when none was intended. If that's true, real, intentional strategy of the type advocated here would just be a blip in the statistics at best.


Additionally, I'm curious how much the arccos people have considered the z-axis in their calculations, but I admit it's a minor point.

[Ira Fishman]

Having read and appreciated the back and forth, my simple minded conclusion is that there is a reason (well several) that golfers of all abilities enjoy and embrace links courses with frequently windy conditions. The statistics do not nearly matter as much as the course that presents itself to them.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But even tho the gap closes, it doesn’t CLOSE completely.

It becomes almost negligible, and you're still not accounting for other factors besides "loss aversion" or whatever. When they're hitting a par putt, for example, they have seen more putts to that hole.

It is still a fact that more putts are made for par than for birdie. Explain it away anyway you want but it seems a matter of motivation.

"My mind is made up and I'm not going to consider reasonable explanations for any of it!" - Don Mahaffey (Just teasing a bit, Don. This stuff is just golf.)

Players are not robots and they are very bogey adverse. I’ve watched it for three years at a venue I know well, including taking the greens readings for the event. As players started to see where others made a “number” they got more and more conservative.  My takeaway was as much as they want to make birdies, most of them hate making bogeys even more.

I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying that the gap is not nearly as large as the stats make it appear to be.

Re the average player being tempted to try something he shouldn’t because he’s in a good spot, isn’t that the kind of golf courses we want? Isn’t that thrill what we all want?  Do we really want to reduce the golf we play into being as conservative as possible in order to always try and avoid the big number?  Isn't that temptation at the root of good design?

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.

First, still, is that I don't think most courses have much strategic value to them, so saying that angles don't matter because of stats is just a tautology.

So the flag on the right, you don't think it's generally advantageous to be coming into that from the left side of the fairway over the right side? Generally speaking?

If someone told me 90+% of courses had no discernable strategy whatsoever, nothing in my experience would contradict that.

I'd strongly disagree.

Having read and appreciated the back and forth, my simple minded conclusion is that there is a reason (well several) that golfers of all abilities enjoy and embrace links courses with frequently windy conditions. The statistics do not nearly matter as much as the course that presents itself to them.

The ball is rolling.