“Angles Don’t Matter”

[Stewart Abramson]

The data showed that under this definition, there is virtually zero benefit to having a good angle from wedge distances in the fairway. This result makes sense, as professional golfers are consistently able to stop shots on the green immediately from the fairway with a short iron in hand.

So you are telling me that the angle of approach makes no difference on the 10th hole at Riviera?  Or the 16th at Pacific Dunes?


Why does everyone talk about them so much then?  Why do pros aim way left on 10 at Riviera, and why do they make bogeys when they miss to the right?


I will agree with you that on the average hole, the angle doesn't matter when you've got a wedge in your hands.  But it's just dumb to say that we can't make the angle matter.

To be clear, it's not me telling anything. These were all Brandel's conclusions and Joseph Lamagna's commentary thereon.I thought the article was an interesting add on to this interesting thread.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


The thing is, in the older generation of pros I worked with, any time I said the goal is to challenge the hazard, I can't recall any saying they did that.  Haven't heard if from top ams, or mid ams, or even and especially low skill ams.


I also think the Golden Age axioms are too superficial as if someone coming in over a bunker will only have the option to fire at the pin.  Stats show that IF a decent player (although Lou's data also includes 5, 10, and 15 handicaps) comes from the wrong angle, he adapts by playing a conservative shot well over the hazard in front.  Not to mention, picking your line, distance, and shot pattern, spin, etc. is still a strategy. (Some would call it tactics instead, but I disagree, as you are still picking a spot to land, just like on the tee shot.


And, statistically, like most sports, playing defense wins championships.  A long downhill approach shot is harder than an uphill putt, but you probably still walk away with par, which is rarely a bad score.  As I have heard Jack and others say, avoid the bogeys because then you need two birdies to get under par.


Very shallow greens like Riv 10 at 45 degrees to the LOP make it harder to come in from the wrong angle, so yes, in those cases, and when the green falls away from one angle, the angle can matter.  How often should that happen in a design, where the green is narrower than the dispersion pattern?  Yes, it can make great players make bogey, but also makes life miserable for the everyday player.


Perhaps oddly, for players with great distance control, coming into a green over a hazard might make the shot easier, since wedge dispersion patterns are usually wider than long.  Thus, if someone knows their carry distance, and the exact carry distance of the line they take, they are probably less likely to miss the green.



As your Brian Silva example also shows, there is no way designers can ever imagine every mental process of every golfer, i.e., how on earth would we know how a guy who is prone to a pull with short irons would play it that way?  Again, play it any way you please.

[Mike Hendren]

I hit the driver 200 to 230 with a slight push or fade (ideally).  I create my own angle by teeing the ball near the right hand marker and aim at the left edge of the fairway around 250 yards out. 


Angles are critical for mid handicappers.  And fun to boot.

[Niall C]

I hit the driver 200 to 230 with a slight push or fade (ideally).  I create my own angle by teeing the ball near the right hand marker and aim at the left edge of the fairway around 250 yards out. 


Angles are critical for mid handicappers.  And fun to boot.

Bingo !

[Stewart Abramson]

I hit the driver 200 to 230 with a slight push or fade (ideally).  I create my own angle by teeing the ball near the right hand marker and aim at the left edge of the fairway around 250 yards out. 


Angles are critical for mid handicappers.  And fun to boot.

But it sounds as if the angle you're describing is the same no matter what the supposed strategy of the hole calls for. I think playing one shot over and over again because it's the one shot shape you hit is not the same notion as playing an angle for a strategy based on the particular design of a golf hole.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The same stats that conclude angles don't matter also show that players who stick with a standard shot pattern have tighter dispersion patterns than those who switch shots to play the shot the hole calls for.  I guess we would call that a top level strategy, as opposed to a hole based strategy.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I hit the driver 200 to 230 with a slight push or fade (ideally).  I create my own angle by teeing the ball near the right hand marker and aim at the left edge of the fairway around 250 yards out. 


Angles are critical for mid handicappers.  And fun to boot.

But it sounds as if the angle you're describing is the same no matter what the supposed strategy of the hole calls for. I think playing one shot over and over again because it's the one shot shape you hit is not the same notion as playing an angle for a strategy based on the particular design of a golf hole.

This is it.


The premise of this thread - as if it needs to be said again - is not absolute.


It is a flippant title that “angles don’t matter” only in terms of setting up approach shots; and that they matter a lot less than architecture strategy would have us believe.


That is all.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I hit the driver 200 to 230 with a slight push or fade (ideally).  I create my own angle by teeing the ball near the right hand marker and aim at the left edge of the fairway around 250 yards out.

Almost purely visual, as you're likely talking about about less than 1°.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A podcast with Edoardo Molinari: https://overcast.fm/+-SYyhIbZ4

39:30 mark… A quote: "On 99% of courses and golf holes, angles don't matter at all." Another: "The only course I can think of where the angle matters a little bit is the Old Course at St. Andrews, but there you have like 90 yard wide fairways" (and firm greens, which he mentioned in the sentence before - i.e. the ball rolls out and doesn't stop pretty quickly).

In short, he re-states the same things I've been saying… because those of us who rely on more than anecdata and old beliefs, and instead rely on millions of shots and holes of data are in agreement.

And angles can matter to an individual shot (talking scoring only here), but if it truly is easier from the left side of the fairway on this one particular hole, you just aim at the middle or the right-center where you should, and then are mildly grateful when you pull one to the left side of your normal Shot Zone (dispersion pattern) and end up on the left side of the fairway.

P.S. My talk almost exactly a year ago at the ASGCA's annual meeting gave a bunch of situations and reasons why angles did matter, but most didn't deal with scoring. There were esthetic reasons. Drainage reasons. Etc. If you're talking about scoring, angles — and the chasing of them — "don't matter at all" in the words of Edoardo.

[Brian Finn]

In short, he re-states the same things I've been saying…

P.S. My talk almost exactly a year ago at the ASGCA's

You really are your own biggest fan, aren't you.  Honestly, it's pretty obnoxious.

[Mark Pearce]

Deleted for civility.

[Niall C]

Brian


As one of those that seem to bang heads with Erik on a regular basis I have to say your criticism in this instance seems off. It appears to me he's simply referencing the argument/point he made previously while citing comment from Molinari to support his case. I don't find that at all obnoxious. I still don't agree with his/Molinari's contention but suspect the difference is more in the context.


I suspect both Erik and Molinari are thinking of elite level golfers playing courses that are less than fast and firm while from my perspective, that of an undoubtedly average golfer playing on courses that are usually a good bit firmer than they are looking at, their contention simply doesn't hold water.


Niall   

[Brian Finn]

Brian

As one of those that seem to bang heads with Erik on a regular basis I have to say your criticism in this instance seems off. It appears to me he's simply referencing the argument/point he made previously while citing comment from Molinari to support his case. I don't find that at all obnoxious. I still don't agree with his/Molinari's contention but suspect the difference is more in the context.

I suspect both Erik and Molinari are thinking of elite level golfers playing courses that are less than fast and firm while from my perspective, that of an undoubtedly average golfer playing on courses that are usually a good bit firmer than they are looking at, their contention simply doesn't hold water.

Niall   

I appreciate your perspective.  While I begrudgingly acknowledge he occasionally makes reasonable points, I don't care to engage him on that level (or at all, really).  The manner in which he consistently behaves on this board is simply obnoxious.  Perhaps this thread or post wasn't the most apt moment to (rudely) engage him, but it is where I chose to do so.  Like so many others, I spend a lot of time reading this board, new topics and old, and he consistently clutters the board with combative text, so much so that I long ago stopped considering his perspective on anything.  Yes, I should ignore him.  Yes, I can block him (or so I am told).  He is a net negative contributor to this board, and I don't appreciate it.  Thanks.

[Brian Finn]

In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology.  For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance.  In many cases, it does.  However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball.  For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain.  For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot.  As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me.  I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience.  Banging people over the head with data rarely works.  I can speak from extensive experience.

[Mike Wagner]

In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology.  For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance.  In many cases, it does.  However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball.  For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain.  For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot.  As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me.  I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience.  Banging people over the head with data rarely works.  I can speak from extensive experience.

Well said, Brian. Data is great for certain things, but there's nothing like what's going on a player's head at that moment .. in that situation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Banging people over the head with data rarely works.  I can speak from extensive experience.


]Brian, I can agree with you there, also based on my experience in discussing architecture with architects.  It appears that very few have the personality type to delve into statistics and the like.


I still think they matter, and that the millions of shots tracked by Lou and others probably covers at least the results of the golfer's indecision and mindsets, so it IS factored in. And, like medicine or other fields, the long term trend is more scientific and less art, although most of us love the illusion of the romantic artiste.  Personally, I wouldn't go to a doctor who still believed in bloodletting and I would trust a golf pro (or architect) who uses all the stats available today to assist in strategy decisions.

No golf design idea is so good that it should be used repeatedly on all 18 holes, including statistics.  Or, said another way, the sucker punch hole is probably the one that golfers will ignore the stats on and take a chance on if appropriately designed for that situation. 

[Tim Martin]

In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology.  For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance.  In many cases, it does.  However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball.  For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain.  For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot.  As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me.  I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience.  Banging people over the head with data rarely works.  I can speak from extensive experience.

Well said, Brian. Data is great for certain things, but there's nothing like what's going on a player's head at that moment .. in that situation.

Guys-What you have to remember about Erik is that he participates on GCA in an effort to sell you something namely his data driven “Lowest Score Wins” system and not to participate in the frank discussion of golf course architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,


I am sure Erik knows that this is not his target audience after all this time......sort of like a politician campaigning in a state traditionally voting the other way.  Still, they seem to do it, for what are probably statistically invalid reasons.


Many of us architects have also been accused of using this as their marketing platform, but for the most part, none of us trumpets their own work, but prefer the actual content of open discussions of different ideas.  And, it seems clear to me (although this is probably better on the "Social Media" thread, I dare say it has changed architecture, which is something I think the Fried Egg and others is reporting on, but didn't do themselves.

[Mark Pearce]

In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology.  For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance.  In many cases, it does.  However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball.  For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain.  For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot.  As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me.  I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience.  Banging people over the head with data rarely works.  I can speak from extensive experience.

Well said, Brian. Data is great for certain things, but there's nothing like what's going on a player's head at that moment .. in that situation.

Guys-What you have to remember about Erik is that he participates on GCA in an effort to sell you something namely his data driven “Lowest Score Wins” system and not to participate in the frank discussion of golf course architecture.

Erik's trying to sell something?  I didn't realise.

[Tim Gavrich]

In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology.  For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance.  In many cases, it does.  However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball.  For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain.  For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot.  As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me.  I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience.  Banging people over the head with data rarely works.  I can speak from extensive experience.

Hear hear. Big Data Golf dumbs down the game in certain ways because it implies that golfers should play against their instincts even in what they know to be potentially high-stress, high-leverage and high-downside situations. Every single golf shot contains so many variables that could lead to going against the data that stripping the individual golfer of his or her agency can be destructive. The data is by no means useless, but it's nowhere near all-knowing.


The "Angles Don't Matter" narrative is starting to become extremely exhausting at this point because it relies on the made-up straw-man concept of "chasing angles." Aiming down the right half of a fairway isn't "chasing an angle" so much as it's an attempt to adjust the spray-pattern of shots in such a way that the golfer, with self-knowledge and agency, knows is going to benefit him or her.

[John Bouffard]

... so much so that I long ago stopped considering his perspective on anything...

Remembering a quote about catching more flies with honey than vinegar.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hear hear. Big Data Golf dumbs down the game in certain ways because it implies that golfers should play against their instincts even in what they know to be potentially high-stress, high-leverage and high-downside situations. Every single golf shot contains so many variables that could lead to going against the data that stripping the individual golfer of his or her agency can be destructive. The data is by no means useless, but it's nowhere near all-knowing.


The "Angles Don't Matter" narrative is starting to become extremely exhausting at this point because it relies on the made-up straw-man concept of "chasing angles." Aiming down the right half of a fairway isn't "chasing an angle" so much as it's an attempt to adjust the spray-pattern of shots in such a way that the golfer, with self-knowledge and agency, knows is going to benefit him or her.

Funny, but I think more data would smarten up the game of golf, or just about anything, really.  


Of course, I agree it is all in the hands of the user.  That said, proponents of the system say that you need to be disciplined and NEVER allow your instinct to override the stats, except perhaps when an all or nothing situation in your match makes you.  Even Erik says this.


If the Angles Don't Matter moniker bothers you, how about "Avoid the hazards first and foremost" as a substitute?

[Mike_Clayton]

If angles don't matter, does it also mean we stop building them?

[Rob Marshall]

Listening to Jeff Warne’s radio show from this past Sunday he had the developer and the Co- Arch of a new course in the Aiken area on. They talked quite a bit about designing the course so that you needed to play angles.

[Carl Johnson]

Just noticed this.  As an octogenarian high handicapper, I say that angles matter a lot.