[Sven Nilsen]

I think theres an argument to be made that with 630M shots (and counting) recorded, that variables like lie, wind, and trajectory are aggregated and taken into account. That seems to be the opposite of static wouldn’t you say? It’s an evolving and living collection of data.

Ben:


Let's take an example that I know you know - 14 at Trails.  And we'll play it in the winter so that it is into the wind (so we're not worried about excessive roll).


Where should the average player be aiming their tee ball?


Sven

[Ben Sims]

I think theres an argument to be made that with 630M shots (and counting) recorded, that variables like lie, wind, and trajectory are aggregated and taken into account. That seems to be the opposite of static wouldn’t you say? It’s an evolving and living collection of data.

Ben:


Let's take an example that I know you know - 14 at Trails.  And we'll play it in the winter so that it is into the wind (so we're not worried about excessive roll).


Where should the average player be aiming their tee ball?


Sven

For the 305 tee I will be aiming essentially at the front of the green. Slightly front right if we are being exact.


I know I *should* be on the left side. But my dispersion is wide enough at 250yds or so that if I aim for the upper left side of the fairway and tug one, I’m in the woods.


This is for me, a 12 index with above average club speed. A pretty average golfer I’d argue.

[Sven Nilsen]

Is your normal miss to the left?


What should the average golfer that fades the ball do?


What if the wind was out of the southeast?


Do you like your chances from low right, where anything in the middle is going to feed, to a middle or back pin?


What if you were four down in a match and your opponent had just piped one down the left side?


Did you think about hitting something shorter off the tee leaving a little longer, but very doable approach, from a better angle?


Sven

[Ben Sims]

Is your normal miss to the left?


What should the average golfer that fades the ball do?


What if the wind was out of the southeast?


Do you like your chances from low right, where anything in the middle is going to feed, to a middle or back pin?


What if you were four down in a match and your opponent had just piped one down the left side?


Did you think about hitting something shorter off the tee leaving a little longer, but very doable approach, from a better angle?


Sven

Sven,


I can’t see where any of these factors would cause me to change club selection or aim point.


Actually, check that. The fade one would. Good players tend to miss the ball equally left and right of aim point. Average players and worse tend to miss to one side more often, and that’s usually the fade side (right miss for right handed golfers). It may be useful to aim a bit further left in that scenario.


Other than that specific case, I’m not adjusting my “dead middle of the corridor” aiming point for any of the other variables you raised. Why? The widest point of the fairway is around 75 yards and the corridor itself is perhaps only 10 more on either side. My dispersion with a driver or 3w are pretty similar, and easily fills up that 90 yards. My best case is to aim center mass, allow for variance, keep the ball in play and try to make par.

[Sven Nilsen]

To analyze a bit further, your target spot is actually in the left half of the fairway (at 250 off the tee).  The fairway is over 60 yards wide at that point.  I don't know how wide your specific dispersion pattern is, but aiming a bit further left (say at the front left corner of the green) isn't going to hurt you much, its a minute adjustment.


It really takes a bad pull to get into serious trouble here.  It happens a fair amount of the time because people get greedy, try to get to the green even when they can't (or for the weaker players worry too much about the carry), and end up pulling through the ball too much.


If you manage to find the left half, where your approach is aligned with the green, you really have three misses to most pins - a little short, left and a little long.  From the right side, you only have long and left.  Anything short or right on that line is going to leave you one of the toughest pitch shots on the property.  [As an aside, for a front pin, I don't mind the right side, as the angle isn't as bad and the contours work for holding the shot.]


With respect to your lowest level of acceptable risk concept mentioned earlier, bearing in mind that we're playing golf and not flying a plane, I'd take the slight adjustment to the left on my target line with the hope of increasing my odds on the second shot.  In the grand scheme of trying to make par here, which is my goal every time I play the hole, I know I'm much more likely to make a bogey or worse from a tee ball right of center.  On this hole, on the tee, I'd be analyzing and balancing the risks associated with both the drive and the approach.  To me, a slight risk on the drive outweighs a greater risk if I'm out of position on the 2nd shot.


Now contrast this with 6 at Pacific, another short par 4, this one even wider at about 90 yards in your 250 landing zone.  If you played dead center of the fairway, left of the right side fairway bunker, you're going to be left with a pretty tough angle, sideways on a narrow green, with a quartering wind angle (or dead downwind in the winter to a narrow landing area).  In order to get to a position that is aligned with the angle of the green, you have to play over that bunker, bringing the right side bunkers by the green into play, and even possibly the tree line right of the fairway.  Is the risk worth it?


Doak takes a different approach here.  He takes less club and tries to play as close to the fairway bunker as possible to avoid the contours further up in the middle that feed a ball left.  He is going to take the risk of being near the bunker because he's comfortable with an approach from 100 to 120, not on the absolute best angle, but a better one than if he advanced the ball further and it fed further left. 


These are totally different risk calculations than you get at 11 at Augusta.  11 isn't the narrowest hole on the course, but the real premium is on finding the fairway (as Erik has clearly shown).  Where 11 gets really tricky is not because of the water, it is due to the contours at the front right of the green that can deflect an approach either left perhaps onto the green or right of the green leaving a tough up and down.  A difference of only a few yards on your approach can lead to drastically different results, and its part of the reason why pins on the right side of that green can be as tough as pins close to the water.  Because of this, I don't think there's really a preferred side to the fairway, as wherever you are its going to take an almost equally good shot to procure a good result. 


If anything, this snapshot of three different holes just emphasizes how situational every shot can be.  And yes, I understand that many of the variables that can come into play mean a player should be adjusting their target zone appropriately.  But sometimes, just playing for a safe target zone with minimal risk is going to bring into play much greater risk on subsequent shots.  It is the balancing of those risks that I'm trying to get at when I talk about playing out an entire hole while keeping angles in mind.  Holes like 14 at Trails and 6 at Pac (along with a ton of other holes out here) ask you to make decisions on the tee, and its those kind of holes that make this game fun.


Sven


"Don't go left, don't go left.  OK, you went left, try to get up and down from in front of the green."


Richard "Tour Rich" Perkins on the 6th at Pacific

[Sven Nilsen]

And let's add in one more example on a much different hole than 6 or 14.


How would you play 16 at Old Mac to a right side pin?  Assume normal summer wind off the left and you're hitting from the 435 green tees.


Now play out the same hole from the 408 box as if you were someone who hits a low trajectory ball and maxes out driver at around 170.


Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

My dispersion with a driver or 3w are pretty similar, and easily fills up that 90 yards. My best case is to aim center mass, allow for variance, keep the ball in play and try to make par.

Variance is an interesting concept.  As Erik will tell you, for left and right misses, across a broad range of players, it is probably going to look like a Bell Curve.  For individuals it is going to be a bit more one sided.  One aspect of variance is misses short and long, which we haven't discussed much in this thread.  On both 14 and 6, due to the narrow nature of the green, distance control becomes equally important to direction when you're talking about the approach shots.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

I can’t see where any of these factors would cause me to change club selection or aim point.


Actually, check that. The fade one would. Good players tend to miss the ball equally left and right of aim point. Average players and worse tend to miss to one side more often, and that’s usually the fade side (right miss for right handed golfers). It may be useful to aim a bit further left in that scenario.

Two quick points here.


I'm surprised you don't adjust for wind angle, even if it is a small adjustment.  Especially if you have a predominant fade or draw.


Second, in this instance, we are talking about your misses.  What the misses are for the average "good player" or average "average" player shouldn't matter.  We're talking about you.


Sven


PS - The stats will tell you good players miss slightly more to the left than the right, but on average, anyone over a 5 is going to miss more to the right with the difference getting greater as the handicap gets larger.  But then again, these are averages, and not the numbers for individuals.  If we based everything off of averages, every player over a 5 should be aiming in the middle of the left half of 14.

[Mike Bodo]

If at the end of the stats say playing angles don't matter or have a huge bearing on decision making for the majority of golfers, I totally buy that. Which isn't to say they don't matter at all, but perhaps not as much as some presume.


The average golfer in the U.S. today doesn't have a great or even good understanding of the role design strategy plays in decision making and the extemporaneous factors (wind, lie, temperature, etc.) that affect scoring. It's better golfers that typically have that knowledge and appreciation. For most guys (and gals) I see hacking it around courses, it's a "hit and chase" game for them. Things such as lie, wind, hazard location, pin position, etc. rarely factors in club selection or decision making. Wherever the middle of the fairway and pin are, that's where they're aiming - yardage be damned!


While the average handicap for men in the U.S. is around 14, it's a median average. Which means for every low single digit handicapper out there you have equally as many around 30. I'd argue the vast majority of the 25 handicap and up crowd have little understanding or care regarding proper playing angles, conditions and strategy. They're happy to make solid contact with the ball and hope it goes straight. Lump this group in with the those who don't maintain a handicap (which outnumbers those that do), in which the vast majority would be high handicappers if they did report scores and you can easily see how the data supports the hypothesis that playing angles don't matter or are overrated at best to the average golfer.

[Ben Sims]

Sven,

Four posts, lots to unpack here. I probably won’t touch on everything you’d like me to.

My only par on 14 at BT is from way down to the right, maybe 240yd tee shot and damn near in the woods. I hit a wedge at the front the green, away from the right green side bunker and it went into the small swale on the left of the green. I two putted from there. Every other tee shot I’ve had there went left, either up against a tree near the bunkers on edge of the woods or in the bunkers themselves. All of those resulted in bogeys or worse. Anecdotally, I think this is a fantastic example of why angles are important.

As for 6 at PD, I’m aiming a smidge off the left of the fairway bunker with a reliable 230-250 yd club in hand. I have no issues carrying that bunker, and my dispersion with a hybrid or FW wood should keep me in the hole. There isn’t a single variable I can think of that would change this tactic off the tee. Pull it long, but in the fairway and looking at the big bunker in the hillside in front of the green. Not ideal but still in the game. If I get lucky and push it over the bunker, I’m in the catbird seat. I’m hoping my opponent wouldn’t be so prudent.

After reading your posts, my opinion is that you are undervaluing the concept of dispersion and variance. My dispersion is so wide with a tee club that the only course of action is to aim for safety. With my length, safety off the tee provides me with a really good chance at par and bogey. In fact, I’d say that the percentage of my double bogeys or worse that come after a safe tee shot with the ability to play for the green (on a par 4) is very low. And by comparison, my dispersion with short irons and wedges is low compared to driver and hybrids. I can be much more exacting (again, in comparison) once my tee shot is “safe”.

I am speaking anecdotally of course. This is my experience. I’m trying to use the concepts of variance and knowledge of my own game to my benefit. I am often surprised at how often golfers allow variables to change their process of thought and execution. That doesn’t mean I don’t want the thrill of great architecture though. We are talking about SCORING. Not the experience or the fun or thrill. I hope architects never care about my or anyone else’s score.

[Tom_Doak]

My dispersion is so wide with a tee club that the only course of action is to aim for safety. With my length, safety off the tee provides me with a really good chance at par and bogey. In fact, I’d say that the percentage of my double bogeys or worse that come after a safe tee shot with the ability to play for the green (on a par 4) is very low. And by comparison, my dispersion with short irons and wedges is low compared to driver and hybrids. I can be much more exacting (again, in comparison) once my tee shot is “safe”.

Ben:


This paragraph is important to the discussion, because I think it changes the discussion (at least for me).


To me, angles matter most if you are trying to get close to the hole to make birdie or par, and less (on the majority holes) if you are only trying to make bogey.  Once you get to the 10-handicap player who is just trying to make par or bogey, it becomes obvious that a safe tee shot is more important than an angle, to a guy who's only going to make one birdie per round, maybe.


But in fact, most architects since the Victorian era have been quite happy to let the average golfer play safely and make a bogey, so that's not really news.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:


At a certain point, that person playing for par or most likely bogey is going to be even more concerned at angles.  They’re going to want clear shots into the greens just for the comfort level.  It might take them two shots to get to that angle of approach, but it is still the best play for them.


Sven

[Kalen Braley]

Just to add to Sven's comments,

As a high capper, my overall scores notably improved when I intentionally played for angles, not because i made more pars or birdies, but because i made far less double bogeys and worse.  I will take a ball in rough any day from a better angle over an approach shot from the fairway where I have to fly it over deep bunkers, water, or hit into a side or down sloping green.

[Jason Topp]

Increasingly for me - angles are becoming important for second shots on long par fours and some short par fives.  You can potentially change the angle 360 degrees on such holes (compared to maybe 2 degrees if you are in the fairway off the tee on a par 4).  The difference between a flop shot over a bunker vs. a pitch and run with plenty of green available sure seems to matter to me.

[Charlie Goerges]

Increasingly for me - angles are becoming important for second shots on long par fours and some short par fives.  You can potentially change the angle 360 degrees on such holes (compared to maybe 2 degrees if you are in the fairway off the tee on a par 4).  The difference between a flop shot over a bunker vs. a pitch and run with plenty of green available sure seems to matter to me.

I'm curious about this. Thus far I've been assuming that this is considered a separate question to the one asked when talking about whether angles matter.

[Kalen Braley]

Increasingly for me - angles are becoming important for second shots on long par fours and some short par fives.  You can potentially change the angle 360 degrees on such holes (compared to maybe 2 degrees if you are in the fairway off the tee on a par 4).  The difference between a flop shot over a bunker vs. a pitch and run with plenty of green available sure seems to matter to me.

I'm curious about this. Thus far I've been assuming that this is considered a separate question to the one asked when talking about whether angles matter.

Charlie,

That's been one of the main points of contention.  When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other.  And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.

And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey.  If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.

[Ben Sims]

My dispersion is so wide with a tee club that the only course of action is to aim for safety. With my length, safety off the tee provides me with a really good chance at par and bogey. In fact, I’d say that the percentage of my double bogeys or worse that come after a safe tee shot with the ability to play for the green (on a par 4) is very low. And by comparison, my dispersion with short irons and wedges is low compared to driver and hybrids. I can be much more exacting (again, in comparison) once my tee shot is “safe”.

Ben:


This paragraph is important to the discussion, because I think it changes the discussion (at least for me).


To me, angles matter most if you are trying to get close to the hole to make birdie or par, and less (on the majority holes) if you are only trying to make bogey.  Once you get to the 10-handicap player who is just trying to make par or bogey, it becomes obvious that a safe tee shot is more important than an angle, to a guy who's only going to make one birdie per round, maybe.


But in fact, most architects since the Victorian era have been quite happy to let the average golfer play safely and make a bogey, so that's not really news.

I can’t make the argument for why the tweet isn’t a great quote any better than this. The aggregate data misses the details of who is hitting the ball and what they’re trying to do.


Of your courses, I know Ballyneal best. Speaking to your point about making bogeys, even as an average to poor ball striker I do a good job tacking around the more penal bunkers. On my last trip I can remember one bunker shot in three days. That’s not uncommon in my memory.


The funny thing about all of this angles and safe tee shots talk is how often I don’t aim for “center mass” at BN. Sheesh, off the top of my head I’m usually aiming off the center of the fairway on 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, and perhaps a couple others.

[Ben Sims]

Tom:


At a certain point, that person playing for par or most likely bogey is going to be even more concerned at angles.  They’re going to want clear shots into the greens just for the comfort level.  It might take them two shots to get to that angle of approach, but it is still the best play for them.


Sven

I’m thinking this is where the difference in our thought process resides. I don’t think there’s many points (acknowledging there are some) where the bogey golfer is as concerned about angles as the plus golfer. Getting the ball down in three is such a different proposition to getting it down in five. Speaking about the 14th at BT, I’d venture a guess that the tee shot distribution for bogeys is very even…spread all around. I’d also guess that the tee shot distribution for birdies is mostly located on the left of the fairway.

[Ben Sims]

Increasingly for me - angles are becoming important for second shots on long par fours and some short par fives.  You can potentially change the angle 360 degrees on such holes (compared to maybe 2 degrees if you are in the fairway off the tee on a par 4).  The difference between a flop shot over a bunker vs. a pitch and run with plenty of green available sure seems to matter to me.

I'm curious about this. Thus far I've been assuming that this is considered a separate question to the one asked when talking about whether angles matter.

Charlie,

That's been one of the main points of contention.  When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other.  And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.

And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey.  If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.

A scratch golfer makes ~3 birdies a round and a 15 handicap makes ~1, if I remember correctly. Doubles or worse is way more lopsided. So basically you’re right. The difference between a stick and a duffer isn’t the birdie, it’s bogey and double avoidance.


Like Tom said and I agree, as it applies to angles and this discussion, the path to double bogey avoidance is pretty universal in golf architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Charlie,

That's been one of the main points of contention.  When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other.  And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.

And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey.  If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.

Kalen,


As I described, they tried to use holes that were similar par 4 holes, without a 2 stroke penalty hazard, 30+ yard wide fw, etc.  I have had this discussion with several more techinically inclined architects than myself regarding ball dispersion.  Some think the tests ought to be tightly controlled on a range, etc.  I tend to think that real results out in the "wild" probably end up being very representative, over the controlled tests.  Neither side is wrong.


The bogey to birdie stats are about right.

[Charlie Goerges]

Increasingly for me - angles are becoming important for second shots on long par fours and some short par fives.  You can potentially change the angle 360 degrees on such holes (compared to maybe 2 degrees if you are in the fairway off the tee on a par 4).  The difference between a flop shot over a bunker vs. a pitch and run with plenty of green available sure seems to matter to me.

I'm curious about this. Thus far I've been assuming that this is considered a separate question to the one asked when talking about whether angles matter.

Charlie,

That's been one of the main points of contention.  When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other.  And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.

And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey.  If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.

It's my birdie or par chip that I'm worried about. Not that I'm going to make the chip, but can I get that chip close enough to make par or bogey at worst.

[Kalen Braley]

Charlie,

That's been one of the main points of contention.  When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other.  And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.

And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey.  If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.

Kalen,

As I described, they tried to use holes that were similar par 4 holes, without a 2 stroke penalty hazard, 30+ yard wide fw, etc.  I have had this discussion with several more techinically inclined architects than myself regarding ball dispersion.  Some think the tests ought to be tightly controlled on a range, etc.  I tend to think that real results out in the "wild" probably end up being very representative, over the controlled tests.  Neither side is wrong.

The bogey to birdie stats are about right.

Jeff,

I think we can certainly agree that the testing component needs to be far more controlled over just selecting millions of shots and drawing inferences from them.

P.S.  I looked back at your post, and perhaps the most "interesting" exclusion was this one:

Shots from the rough were not recovery shots
AND
Shot was +/- 2-yards from the target yardage


If i'm interpreting this right, this means any shot from the rough needed to A) at least have intent to finish somewhere on the green AND B) finish + or - 2 yards from the target yardage.  I struggle to understand this one because even for a tour player, how often do they hit a shot from the rough at say 100 yards or more and have it end up within 2 yards of the intended distance?  Much less an average player who may do this once in every 100 shots from the rough? 

And it begs further questions, like how many times was a player coming in from the rough, from a bad angle, and didn't execute to two within 2 yards and their data point is now excluded?  It would also exclude a data point where someone hits it from the rough, from a good angle, but instead of ending up in a bunker or a water hazard, they end up on the fringe and salvage a bogey at worst.  Or what if missing in the rough affords me with a good angle for a simple recovery shot where my next shot will be a simple pitch as opposed to a difficult lob wedge over a bunker as Jason pointed out.

This one criteria alone could easily be excluding millions of potential data points, (much less other results on par 5s, or holes with hazards, etc )and give serious pause to doubt the reliability of the conclusions..

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,


While I can't be sure, I think the 2 yards would be from the edge of the oval of the expected target pattern.  From 160, that might be an oval 24 yards wide and almost as deep, depending on handicap.  Yes, getting 2 yards from the pin would be a lot to ask from the rough. 


Lou's stats did include the average score from the rough on both the right and wrong side of the fw, so I think that is covered, but again, I do tend to think measuring a wide swatch of shots in the real world is probably valid.  I mean, no golf shot is ever in a real controlled situation anyway, so what validity does putting the test in an ultra controlled situation have?  It is what it is.  Maybe the next 580 million shots would have a slightly different result, but I doubt it would be major.


And, as I tried to explain, they did try to control by concentrating on par 4 holes of similar characteristics.  I'm not sure what more control anyone would want, but I understand the idea behind it.


Lastly, in a separate, unreleased USGA study, they asked average golfers if they changed their aim if there was water in play.  They said they didn't, but the USGA had cameras and data collection on each shot, and in reality, they really did, even if they didn't realize it.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

That would make a lot more sense, if it actually was the target "pattern".  I hope further clarification comes because there are certainly other compelling questions based on the criteria you shared.

For example do I need a pin to be within 6 yards of the edge to consider whether I should play for an angle?  If a green is well protected on the right hand side and wide open on the left, that alone would be enough for one to make a decision to come in from the left hand side and avoid carrying all the trouble on the approach. Ditto if that fairway only happened to be 28 yards wide instead of say 32.

The water or OB is the other head scratcher because there is nothing else on a course that makes me chase angles harder than playing to a best spot to avoid penalty strokes.

[Niall C]

Jeff
 
It seems to me from the tweet you posted in post 219 that the definition of better angle seems to rest solely on the player having the most green to play with, or as he puts it “For as long as the game has been played, people have been saying you should play for the better angle. The hole is cut on the right? You should try to hit it up the left-side. The advice is as old as the game itself. Is the advice accurate? Is it easier to score when you have the "better angle"?”


There is no mention of angle being created by orientation of the green or flanking hazards for instance. Take an old classic course like Sunningdale which has quite a few oblong or roughly rectangular greens that have flanking hazards and where the green is usually orientated to favour an approach from one side of the fairway ie. playing up the length of the green with no fronting hazard. If for example the green is orientated to the right side of the fairway but the hole is located on the right side of the green, then the Arcoss stats would have the better angle as being from the left even though you might have to play over a bunker. In that situation most if not all (average) golfers would probably think in that the better approach angle was from the right.


How much green there is to play with might be a consideration but in most of the classic courses I play over here it is usually a much lesser factor.
 
Niall 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()