[Erik J. Barzeski]

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

It does not, because you don't even know if you score better or worse doing what you suggest. You're basically saying "angles matter because I say so." Well, cool.

And to be clear, I've been consistent in saying that I'm talking about scoring, and even then, when the ball is not rolling. If you hit the ball lower and it rolls (like my daughter), angles can matter because the stuff on the ground comes into play more. And if you like to play for angles, or find it more interesting, or something other than scoring, angles can matter to you.

An exception doesn't prove your point. There are exceptions to all kinds of things that are generally true.

Of course they can and do matter.

Geez. Do you realize how lousy an argument that is? "They matter because I say they do, and if you disagree with me, you're not paying attention." You haven't brought any facts to this argument. You haven't brought logic to the argument. You haven't brought data to the argument. You're just stating your opinion as if it's fact, with no foundation or backing.

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.

Yep.

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

By FAR.

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."

If golfers want to play Tobacco Road by taking on every dumb challenge offered, and they find it fun, cool. Good for them. But that doesn't mean they're making the right choices, long-term, for their best chance to score.

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

Oh, so when the ball is rolling?!?

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?

Yup.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Oh, so when the ball is rolling?!?

I'll put it another way: the stuff on the ground (bunkers, rough, creeks, slopes on greens, fall-offs, mounds, false fronts, ridges/contours, whatever) only matter when the ball is on the ground. If the ball is not on the ground much, that stuff doesn't matter (to scoring).

[Niall C]

Erik


With regards your last post, that is more or less the point I was making. In the absence of fast & firm conditions and a design that differentiates between different angles of approach then angles probably don't matter. However there are an awful lot of classic courses out there built on the principles espoused by the likes of MacKenzie, Simpson, Colt etc where angles do.


Of course, often the choices aren't so stark as left and right but a degree of in-between.


Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall,


They matter more when the ball is rolling but not nearly as much as we’d all like to think.


I play one of the firmest and fastest and most strategic courses there is. And I learned long ago that I score best by just keeping my drives somewhere in the fairway and having a good day with the lag putting. I’d far rather be on the “wrong” side of the fairway all day long than I would on the “right” side of the fairway but with two drives ending up in a bunker because I got too cute.


EDIT: Part of the reason they matter less is because for long approaches (where the ball is naturally going to roll out more), the angle difference between the wrong and right side of the fairways is relatively small. For short approaches - where that angle difference can be much larger - most golfers don’t have to worry about significant roll on the ball.

[Mark Pearce]

Here's what I don't get.  And I know that at least one participant in this thread is likely to respond to me in a way that suggests I'm an idiot.  But hey....


I understand that most pros have a shot dispersion which is shallow (distance is narrowly dispersed) but wide (misses left and right are greater than long and short).  If a player with that shape of dispersion is approaching a green that is significantly longer in one axis than in the orthogonal axis, then surely the angle they approach from must matter?  The better the angle fits their dispersion on to the green shape, the better the prospects of hitting the green?  The better the probability of hitting the green, the lower the predicted score?


Why is that analysis wrong? 

[Sean_A]

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

It does not, because you don't even know if you score better or worse doing what you suggest. You're basically saying "angles matter because I say so." Well, cool.

And to be clear, I've been consistent in saying that I'm talking about scoring, and even then, when the ball is not rolling. If you hit the ball lower and it rolls (like my daughter), angles can matter because the stuff on the ground comes into play more. And if you like to play for angles, or find it more interesting, or something other than scoring, angles can matter to you.

An exception doesn't prove your point. There are exceptions to all kinds of things that are generally true.

Of course they can and do matter.

Geez. Do you realize how lousy an argument that is? "They matter because I say they do, and if you disagree with me, you're not paying attention." You haven't brought any facts to this argument. You haven't brought logic to the argument. You haven't brought data to the argument. You're just stating your opinion as if it's fact, with no foundation or backing.

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.

Yep.

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

By FAR.

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."

If golfers want to play Tobacco Road by taking on every dumb challenge offered, and they find it fun, cool. Good for them. But that doesn't mean they're making the right choices, long-term, for their best chance to score.

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

Oh, so when the ball is rolling?!?

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?

Yup.

Lousy argument? You essentially agree! You haven't come out and and said wind and terrain can be factors which can make angles more relavant, but if you thought about it like you did f&f conditions would would concede the point. What your blanket statement should read is angles don't matter except when a, b, c, d etc are present. And I never mentioned blind shots where a better angle could eliminate that situation. You guys are trying to create a odds on best play rules extrapolated from data not properly gathered to address the question. The data is fact, the created rule of play is not fact. Its a guide which is meant be just that. In no way should it be taken as an absolute fact and written in stone rule. Its fine if you want to claim that using angles is so rare that it should be discounted or isn't statistically relevant. All I am saying is I come across many situations where angles do matter. I play a lot of hilly courses in a lot of wind on firm ground. My reality is angles do matter; not always, not never. I have no idea of the percentages in terms of taking on a shot. If there is any hint of disaster lurking and I am in doubt of my abilities, my intent (if I am keeping score) is usually to play safely away from trouble and try to gain an angle of attack with a shorter, open shot, accept a longer putt or even be a bit off the green. 

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

Completely agreed.

It seems mitigating risk in the form of seeking out better angles of attack in hopes of avoiding bigger numbers is not a valid argument.  The only side being discussed is "improving" scores as opposed to how to decrease risk and take scores worse than par (or bogey for the everyday joe) out of play.

[Charlie Goerges]

Here's what I don't get.  And I know that at least one participant in this thread is likely to respond to me in a way that suggests I'm an idiot.  But hey....


I understand that most pros have a shot dispersion which is shallow (distance is narrowly dispersed) but wide (misses left and right are greater than long and short).  If a player with that shape of dispersion is approaching a green that is significantly longer in one axis than in the orthogonal axis, then surely the angle they approach from must matter?  The better the angle fits their dispersion on to the green shape, the better the prospects of hitting the green?  The better the probability of hitting the green, the lower the predicted score?


Why is that analysis wrong?

Logically speaking, it's a good analysis to me. I'm sure someone will explain why it's not. But for me, one reason it may not reflect in the numbers is because so few greens are designed like that. Looking at a lot of aerials, most greens describe a rough circle or an amoeba-ish square. The greens with an extreme enough shape for the effect you describe are so few in number that they don't even represent a statistical blip, even if they overwhelmingly showed that angles do matter in those specific cases.

[Kyle Harris]

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

This gets a bit self-referential.

If it is indeed the harder side then the statistics will show that it is the harder side.

The thesis isn't that harder/easier sides don't ever exist - it's that they don't exist nearly as often as players think. It is far more likely that an angle/preferred side doesn't exist and that true strategy is, in fact, rare. And even more rare where it actually impacts your score and scoring expectation.

[Kyle Harris]

Here's what I don't get.  And I know that at least one participant in this thread is likely to respond to me in a way that suggests I'm an idiot.  But hey....


I understand that most pros have a shot dispersion which is shallow (distance is narrowly dispersed) but wide (misses left and right are greater than long and short).  If a player with that shape of dispersion is approaching a green that is significantly longer in one axis than in the orthogonal axis, then surely the angle they approach from must matter?  The better the angle fits their dispersion on to the green shape, the better the prospects of hitting the green?  The better the probability of hitting the green, the lower the predicted score?


Why is that analysis wrong?

My "feelings" as a player fit this description. I am MUCH more comfortable hitting over something or having the miss be in front of the target than I am having the miss be left or right.

The player you describe, though, would still be better served spending their time elsewhere to improve than attempting to gain some angle off the tee or approach.

I think a good little case study for this may be the 12th at Augusta National. Where's the target for that player?

Honestly, there just may not be much you can do for them on the course anyway.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I think this discussion comes down to the reasons one plays golf. 


It's pretty well established (as Erik has ardently discussed), if your only priority is to shoot the lowest possible score, angles aren't very high on the list of things that matter.  That being said most people don't play golf just to shoot the lowest possible score.  Even in club competitions I find people are more concerned with beating their friends.


I keep score in nearly every round I play but you better be sure I don't play golf to shoot the lowest score I can.  I play golf because I enjoy the way I feel when playing (even if it's a bad feeling when playing poorly) and often times I feel good when I execute something I'm trying to do that is challenging.  If I'm trying to hit the right side of the fairway and I succeed it feels better than just hitting the fairway (still feels good), and if I don't execute what I'm trying to do I have something to try and do better next time.


So, angles matter, even if the data says they don't matter for low scoring. 


I think we all agree golf wouldn't be all that enjoyable with straight, flat, hazardless, featureless courses (although people spend a lot of time at ranges so maybe I'm way off).

[Erik J. Barzeski]

With regards your last post, that is more or less the point I was making.

I know. I was just pointing out that it's no different than what I've been saying.

However there are an awful lot of classic courses out there built on the principles espoused by the likes of MacKenzie, Simpson, Colt etc where angles do.

Unless the ball is rolling and directly interacting with the features, they still really don't (for scoring).

I play one of the firmest and fastest and most strategic courses there is. And I learned long ago that I score best by just keeping my drives somewhere in the fairway and having a good day with the lag putting. I’d far rather be on the “wrong” side of the fairway all day long than I would on the “right” side of the fairway but with two drives ending up in a bunker because I got too cute.EDIT: Part of the reason they matter less is because for long approaches (where the ball is naturally going to roll out more), the angle difference between the wrong and right side of the fairways is relatively small. For short approaches - where that angle difference can be much larger - most golfers don’t have to worry about significant roll on the ball.

Yes.

I understand that most pros have a shot dispersion which is shallow (distance is narrowly dispersed) but wide (misses left and right are greater than long and short).  If a player with that shape of dispersion is approaching a green that is significantly longer in one axis than in the orthogonal axis, then surely the angle they approach from must matter?  The better the angle fits their dispersion on to the green shape, the better the prospects of hitting the green?  The better the probability of hitting the green, the lower the predicted score?Why is that analysis wrong?

Two reasons.

1. The width vs. depth is not nearly as severe as you think. It's a pretty circular oval, often tilted a little back left to short right for a righty.
2. Again, as Kyle and I have been saying, trying to PLAY to those angles introduces more danger on the first shot. Who cares if you have a better "angle" that "fits" your shot pattern a tiny bit more if 2 of 7 drives end up dead in a fairway bunker you could otherwise avoid?

Lousy argument? You essentially agree! You haven't come out and and said wind and terrain can be factors which can make angles more relavant, but if you thought about it like you did f&f conditions would would concede the point.

No to wind, yes to terrain because I've always said that they matter when the ball is rolling.

What your blanket statement should read is angles don't matter except when a, b, c, d etc are present.

Nah. Just "when the ball is rolling" covers it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That being said most people don't play golf just to shoot the lowest possible score.

In other words, my Tobacco Road example, or "artistry" or interest or whatever. I've cited these other reasons many times, and they're all valid, but as you noted, I'm talking about scoring.

So, yes.

And I sometimes play shots that aren't probably the "best" in that situation, but just because I feel like it in the moment. I enjoy hitting good shots, but my definition of "good" is fluid, because sometimes I am taking the smart statistical play, and sometimes I'm goofing around a little, or trying something.

[Kyle Harris]

Nobody is saying gambling isn’t fun.


But it’s still gambling.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Nobody is saying gambling isn’t fun.


But it’s still gambling.

Like golf, most people think they are playing smart at casinos when they aren't.

[Sven Nilsen]

What about very small angles, like when you decide to tee up on one side or the other of a tee box.

[Mark Pearce]

2. Again, as Kyle and I have been saying, trying to PLAY to those angles introduces more danger on the first shot. Who cares if you have a better "angle" that "fits" your shot pattern a tiny bit more if 2 of 7 drives end up dead in a fairway bunker you could otherwise avoid?

So angles do matter.  But the advantage they might give is less than the risk of playing for them?  So the thread title is wrong?  Or, at the very least, a massive over-simplification?

[Thomas Dai]

As McQueens character said in Bullitt “.. you work your side of the street, and I’ll work mine.”
Atb

[Jason Topp]

2. Again, as Kyle and I have been saying, trying to PLAY to those angles introduces more danger on the first shot. Who cares if you have a better "angle" that "fits" your shot pattern a tiny bit more if 2 of 7 drives end up dead in a fairway bunker you could otherwise avoid?

So angles do matter.  But the advantage they might give is less than the risk of playing for them?  So the thread title is wrong?  Or, at the very least, a massive over-simplification?

Mark - from the statistics I have seen, they literally do not matter for average score on most holes.  I am sure there could be exceptions but in those cases, the difference is so completely outweighed by the cost of a mistake as to obliterate any reason to chase a favorable angle. 

One of the Decade guys did an analysis of the 2nd Hole at Talking Stick North, which is a hole lauded for its strategic merit (see Ran's description here https://golfclubatlas.com/countries/talkingstick/?portfolioCats=249%2C250%2C251%2C252%2C253%2C254%2C255%2C256%2C257%2C258%2C259%2C260%2C261%2C262%2C263%2C264%2C265%2C266%2C267%2C268%2C269%2C270%2C271%2C272%2C273%2C274%2C275%2C276 )

He showed quite effectively that there is no upside in taking any risk in hitting it out of bounds left.  You are much better served giving the left side of the fairway a wider birth and dealing with the angles.  There may have been a slight advantage to the angle on the left side but it was very small compared to the penalty.

The interesting question to me is whether this insight should change our perception of the quality of the hole.  My gut says no but I am not sure why.   If one is rewarded for randomly pulling a tee shot that seem less worthy of esteem than having someone make a decision to take a risk and being rewarded. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So angles do matter.  But the advantage they might give is less than the risk of playing for them?  So the thread title is wrong?  Or, at the very least, a massive over-simplification?

Nothing in what you quoted says angles matter. Only what you aim at (i.e. not aiming near a bad bunker because the angle it gives you into the green is great).

The interesting question to me is whether this insight should change our perception of the quality of the hole.  My gut says no but I am not sure why. If one is rewarded for randomly pulling a tee shot that seem less worthy of esteem than having someone make a decision to take a risk and being rewarded. 

That's exactly it.

You can play to the right spots and still occasionally pull or push a shot to the hole.

[Rob Marshall]

Everyone plays with angles but they don't matter to score? I'd like to meet the hooker who plays a straight hole with OB all the way down the left side who doesn't tee off from the left side of the tee box.

[Kalen Braley]

Everyone plays with angles but they don't matter to score? I'd like to meet the hooker who plays a straight hole with OB all the way down the left side who doesn't tee off from the left side of the tee box.

Rob,

Thanks for bringing that up.  I guess playing away from OB by using a different "angle" off the tee doesn't matter either! 

[Mark Pearce]

So angles do matter.  But the advantage they might give is less than the risk of playing for them?  So the thread title is wrong?  Or, at the very least, a massive over-simplification?

Nothing in what you quoted says angles matter. Only what you aim at (i.e. not aiming near a bad bunker because the angle it gives you into the green is great).

You understand that you just contradicted yourself in that answer?  I'm not arguing with your principle, just your grasp of English.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Everyone plays with angles but they don't matter to score? I'd like to meet the hooker who plays a straight hole with OB all the way down the left side who doesn't tee off from the left side of the tee box.

That's not what people are talking about when they're talking about "angles/architecture/strategy."

You understand that you just contradicted yourself in that answer?  I'm not arguing with your principle, just your grasp of English.

I did not. Fairway bunker (or OB) left… playing to get the "better angle" to the green down the left side is almost surely the bad play.

That's just avoiding trouble, period, regardless of the "angle" with which you're left.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Everyone plays with angles but they don't matter to score? I'd like to meet the hooker who plays a straight hole with OB all the way down the left side who doesn't tee off from the left side of the tee box.

Rob,

Thanks for bringing that up.  I guess playing away from OB by using a different "angle" off the tee doesn't matter either! 

It’s just in the head is my guess. You can play away from OB from either side of the tee.


Actually, a good architectural comparison is a long debate about where to position the tee when OB (for example a road) is all the way down the left or right side. Some architects believe that placing the tee as far away as possible from the boundary line is the best answer, some believe that placing it on the boundary line and aiming the tee shot away from OB is the right answer. (This assuming the same tee-shot turning point in both cases). Data collected has never proven whether one or the other keeps more balls from entering the road.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()