“Angles Don’t Matter”

[Ben Sims]

How do the various shot tracking mediums account for trajectory? My assumption is that there’s no way for the sensors and software to differentiate between a high shot and a shot along the ground, right?

[Carl Johnson]

I caught a few moments of the final round of the PGA Tour event today.  The competitor hit a nice drive to the left side of the fairway.  The commentator remarked: "He's set himself up with a good angle to the pin."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My mistake. I had been working with the USGA Slope guide, where they measured the 2/3 probability of hitting a target, where as users of the stat system measure 99% probability in width, equating to 60-64 yards at 300, or 20+%, plus or minus.

Not a mistake, just a different way of looking at it. For scoring purposes, we have to consider closer to 90%+ of the shots hit, not only about 2/3, particularly when the outer 1/3 result in many more strokes.

Now your rejoinder to that was that even on what most would consider a highly strategic hole like the first at RMGC Composite, there is no statistical advantage to angles shown in play in the Presidents Cup.

I have, several times, called out the first hole at RMGC in the Presidents Cup as an example of a rare time when the angle did matter.

These are the most elite golfers imaginable. Nothing like average golfers on average courses that represent the vast majority of the millions of shots referenced above.

The problem with that is that the data is consistent from 15 handicappers to Tour players. Angles often matter LESS to Tour players as they're more point-to-point than even the 15s.

So, what would be most convincing to me is if we could be shown the statistics of the millions of shots of the whole spectrum of golfers only on holes that are clearly built to the strategic style.

We have that kind of data. And on several occasions, I'm given examples… like the ninth at Pine Needles one time. And each time, they fail to show anywhere near as much strategy as people think.

And yet, because I'm a low-ball, low-spin player (rolling ball) at this point in my life, even on the low caliber of courses I tend to play, I come across one or two shots a round that could really be considered strategic and I greatly enjoy playing them, even when I'm not really able to always take advantage, which is what I referring to in the item below.

I've always said that the angles don't matter… unless the ball is rolling. It's still largely a generalization, but it's a VERY wide, deep generalization.

I would love to see this for a course like Pacific Dunes. On #6, I'd have to imagine that a tee shot played down the right side of the fairway would yield a significant advantage over a shot down the left. That hole is probably a true outlier and an extreme example of angles actually mattering.

Nobody's said that angles NEVER matter. Edoardo in fact pointed out that you need a LOT of width and firmer conditions for them to matter. The 6th at Pacific Dunes may be one of the exceptions.

100% spot on, particularly the point that lumping all courses together is both a quantitative and logical error.

No, as I can look at thousands of times players play one specific hole.

Erik inevitably will tell us that angles do matter for shots on the ground, certain wind conditions, and the like. In other words, the exceptions swallow the rule, but the rule is the rule because the data is the data, except when it is not.

No, the exceptions remain rare.

I believe Erik acknowledges that angles very rarely do matter in high-level golf. And that they matter more, although still very little, the more the ball runs (due to turf or type of golfer).

Correct.

The question remains: is there any advantage to be had, on occasion, from *accidentally* finding oneself on one side of the fairway instead of the other?

I disagree that it's a good question.

Dustin Johnson was once asked why he decided to go after a tucked flag on the 17th (71st) hole of an event. He stuffed it to two feet and tapped in for birdie, winning by two eventually.

His answer: "I pulled it." He wasn't aiming there. He stuffed it "accidentally."

Two bits to this:

• The reward is often very small.

• The risk more than outweighs it.

If there is a hole where there's a benefit, just delight in the times your dispersion played at the "proper" place puts a ball just beside the penalty area or bunker leaving a great angle that'll gain you a fraction of a shot.

But it's not something you can plan to do often. It's an accident. An outlier. Toward the fringe of your dispersion.

Which means that, for me, an average golfer, angles *do* matter, and can lead to me shooting lower scores, even if I got to the better approach angle *accidentally*.

Yeah, the thing is… the data doesn't really support this. At all.

If your shot pattern with a 7I is as wide and deep as you say it is, the bunker you don't always carry is irrelevant - if it's short right and you're in the left side of the fairway, you're still gonna come up short right pretty often. It may be a slightly better angle for the second shot, but again… you still don't aim at the left side of the fairway.

I've never denied that angles can matter a little for the shot… the problem comes in trying for those angles, not just accepting when your dispersion and variability put you there.

And in the millions of rounds we (Lou, me, etc.) have at our disposal… there are a LOT of "average golfers." They still don't matter much at all.

But, and this is the essence of it all: IF those ideal approach angles that matter and that can lower my scores are accessed accidentally, then they also must matter and serve as potential stroke savers if accessed intentionally.

Oy. We aren't past this, ten years after ESC, LSW, etc.? No. The small reward (if there is one, and there often isn't even when golfers swear there should be - an approach shot angle into a green is often a matter of a few degrees, and not nearly enough to matter much) is very seldom worth the much higher risk of trying to *intentionally* hit there. That's almost the whole point behind "angles don't matter."

Dustin Johnson "pulled it." Had he pulled it another eight feed, he'd have had to work his butt off to make par. He wasn't aiming there. He wasn't intentionally trying to hit it to two feet.

Not sure how relevant this is - but Hal Sutton recently did a Golf.Com interview.

I don't give anecdata much weight.

Crazy to see this thread up to 15 pages    Of course angles matter especially on any well designed golf course from the time one tees off until they hole their putt.

You seem to have read none of them.

I caught a few moments of the final round of the PGA Tour event today.  The competitor hit a nice drive to the left side of the fairway.  The commentator remarked: "He's set himself up with a good angle to the pin."

Many of them still think putting is the most important part of golf, or that the ball starts in the direction of the path.

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
No need to read 16 pages when the answer is obvious.  Of course angles matter as ALL golf architects and ALL great golf course architecture depend on them.  Yes the importance of angles can diminish or change with the skill of the player or lack there of and due to the conditions, etc but angles will always matter if for no other reason than for hole presentation and esthetics.  If somehow a course was designed where angles didn’t matter, it would be very boring to play and have zero visual interest. 

[Ben Sims]

I don’t know where shot tracking data exists on the spectrum of sports analytics, but I do suspect that its usefulness is tied to the same utility as all the modern advanced sports statistical analysis, sports as business.

At the recreational level, I just think it’s reductive. Actually I think it’s reductive at the sports-as-business level as well, but that’s wholly understood and beneficial. There’s a lot of the line. At the level of golf that MOST golf is played, in my opinion it becomes filtered and extraneous.

Which is also why the answer to this thread is OF COURSE they matter. I think the question golf architects have to ask themselves is this: do angles and hazard placement matter in my work? In answering that question, I think the crux issue very quickly becomes this: shot patterns are bigger than the targets provided for virtually every golf course. Until shot dispersion patterns become small enough (or courses big enough) that shot placement becomes largely moot and the game more resembles bowling than golf, saying that angles don’t matter seems more theoretically instructive than it does operationally relevant.

[Niall C]

Mark


I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said above but as Erik would likely point out the statement "Angles Don't Matter" was in relation to scoring. I haven't seen all or maybe any of the data supporting that contention, it's hard for me to remember on a 16 page long thread that I've dipped in and out of, but I'm dubious of the proposition unless the data is based on approaches to an undefended green with similar contouring gradients from every angle. In other words, nothing that significantly distinguishes one angle of approach from another.


It's hard to imagine say, a 50 yard approach to an open fronted green not being easier ie. better scoring average, than say a 50 yard approach to the same green from another angle where the player has to play over a bunker.


Niall 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No need to read 16 pages when the answer is obvious.  Of course angles matter as ALL golf architects and ALL great golf course architecture depend on them.

You probably should have read up a bit more.

hole presentation and esthetics.

I don't entirely disagree there (esthetics was in my ASGCA presentation), but that's not the context in which it's being discussed here.

Until shot dispersion patterns become small enough (or courses big enough) that shot placement becomes largely moot and the game more resembles bowling than golf, saying that angles don’t matter seems more theoretically instructive than it does operationally relevant.

That misses nearly everything.

It's hard to imagine say, a 50 yard approach to an open fronted green not being easier ie. better scoring average, than say a 50 yard approach to the same green from another angle where the player has to play over a bunker.

This has been addressed. Repeatedly.

Even in instances where they may be a small reward, trying to play for that angle is almost always more than enough to cancel out or reverse the reward.

If the left side is a slightly better angle, and your best line is the right-center, you simply say "wow, good for me!" when your natural dispersion happens to put the ball in the left side, but trying to center your shot pattern on that "better angle" side is often going to result in higher scores, even if you do increase the number of shots that you have from the better angle.

The risks often outweigh the minimal or non-existent rewards. Nobody's ever said there are never rewards.

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
When it comes to risk vs reward, if the risks and rewards are obvious, there is no real decision to make. Most times the risk/reward balance is not obvious and the golfer needs to think which is a big part of what makes great course design.  Angles play a large part in that thinking process. 

We both also know that most golfers are not sure where their golf ball is going after they make contact regardless of their intention.  As such I agree the value of angles diminishes.  But it is the presence of those angles that creates the need for a decision in the first place and that makes for interesting golf (even if one is not capable of the execution). 

I will finish with the old saying, “Knowing where to miss” is just as important as knowing where to try to hit your ball.  Much of the time it is because of angles.  If for example at a course like Pinehurst #2 you miss in the wrong spot, you simply just won’t be likely to hit the green or get up and down. Those wide fairways can present a false sense of security.  If you are on the wrong side of some of them, you simply can’t get the ball on the green.  And leave yourself green side with the wrong angle to the hole and you might be playing ping pong.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I bought into this theory after getting great explanations from Steve Smyers, Erik, and Scott Fawcette.  And, other experiences from tour pros I have known and/or worked with:


Q. Jack, how does that fw bunker affect your strategy?
A.  You want to miss it, obviously.


Q. Lanny, which side of the fw would aim for here?
A. What's wrong with the middle?



Q. Lanny, does an open front green help you?
A. If I am between clubs, I can use the short one and putt uphill. If I must come over a hazard, I club up with more spin, to be sure to clear the hazard and hopefully spin back toward the hole.  So, it's a different shot, but very doable...... from the fw.  That makes avoiding the rough off the tee paramount, and I play accordingly.


Q. Jim, are you going to challenge that fw bunker?
A. No, that is a big, big stop sign saying "don't go there."


Q. Larry, the next hole doglegs the other way.  What shot are you going to hit?
A. As always, a draw, either way.


Q. Larry, what about the tree 200 yards out on the right?  What shot are you going to hit?
A. As always, a draw, but I will hit it higher.



Q. Bruce, the next hole doglegs the other way.  What shot are you going to hit?
A.  As always, a fade, either way.


Q. What if it is a big honking dogleg?
A.  Then I hit a big honking fade......


Actually, if an architect combines a slight dogleg (like 10 deg.) and a narrow enough fw, it strongly favors one shot pattern or another, a la Pete Dye at TPC and others.  That's strategy, too.  Not only the position you aim for but the shot pattern to get there.  And most aim for the center of the fw and try to maximize their chance of success and especially to minimize the chance for bogey+.  The choice is to stick with your typical shot pattern, which statistically has a narrower dispersion pattern that playing a different shot pattern than is your strongest, to a target where that pattern leaves you less room for error.


I have never heard a good player say they are going to challenge a hazard, except perhaps a par 5 where they can gain a full stroke.  The small % chance of gaining 1 stroke on a par 3 or 4 shouldn't encourage a smart golfer.


-If we want to use old sayings, how about defense wins championships?


=Avoid bogey, because then you have to make two birdies to get back to level.  (Sort of like the stock market...if your portfolio goes down 10% (say from $100K to 90K) and then gains 10% the next day, you only have $99K.  Negatives always outweigh the positives, at least in most cases.


=Don't play the sucker punch!  There is a reason it's called that, you know.  And, it is more subtle than most give it credit for, i.e., not just an alternate fw for a tee shot, but aiming at the flag in almost any situation.


I am glad medicine has used science to move forward from bloodletting to microsurgery, and similarly, that golf is using the expanding knowledge/data on golf shots to improve strategy.  It is natural human progression in most fields. 


Someone dissed Erik for trying to sell a book here.  Hey, what were Ross, Mac, Tillie and others trying to do with their writings?  Yes, they were trying to change perceptions from the Victorian era of design, but there never really was any testing of the ideas (which were all very similar) that they proposed in their hopeful best sellers (LOL) I have seen a lot of evidence that people never really played that way, whether pros, or looking at my own mid handicap game, or those I play with.  In most cases, they try to miss the hazards from the top on down.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

When it comes to risk vs reward, if the risks and rewards are obvious, there is no real decision to make.

That's a different topic, but surprise surprise… I still disagree.

The risks of taking the flag on the far right side of the 17th at Sawgrass are obvious, as are the rewards if you pull it off. Players must still make a decision as to where to aim, how aggressive they want to be, etc.

It may be obvious from a strategic standpoint, but then again, as the 71st hole of an event… it's not always obvious even in those situations. Are you in the last group? Are you hitting first? What's the wind doing? Is it between clubs? etc. etc. etc.

We both also know that most golfers are not sure where their golf ball is going after they make contact regardless of their intention.  As such I agree the value of angles diminishes.  But it is the presence of those angles that creates the need for a decision in the first place and that makes for interesting golf (even if one is not capable of the execution).

You should read a bit of the many discussions around this topic.

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
I don’t want hi jack this thread by getting into “The line of charm” vs “The line of instinct.”  But angles and risk/reward and temptation,… are what these terms are all about and they are why architects think about them often in their designs.  If they didn’t matter, why waste their time?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don’t want hi jack this thread by getting into “The line of charm” vs “The line of instinct.”  But angles and risk/reward and temptation,… are what these terms are all about and they are why architects think about them often in their designs.  If they didn’t matter, why waste their time?

Mark, please read any of the discussions in the last six years on this. You've not really said anything here.

When we say "angles don't matter" in this and many other discussions, and if you imagine the specific example of a hole where the "better angle" into the green is from the left, but the left side of the fairway is guarded by a deep bunker:

• The better angle is likely not worth nearly as much (if anything at all) than approaching from the right side of the fairway, or the center.
• The increased risk of going into the bunker and the shots lost as a result almost always outweigh any advantage (if again there is even one at all) of trying to hit it there.

It doesn't matter what the "line of charm" or "instinct" are strategically, to scoring, for the majority of golfers. They should almost all be aiming away from the bunker, avoiding penalty strokes or penalty-like situations.

"Angles don't matter" (except when they do, rarely) is a scoring/strategic conversation.

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
We probably agree more than our posts are implying especially if we are talking about most golfers.  Most are just trying to make solid contact and play the same ball the entire hole. However, if they end up with a preferred angle, e.g. in the front of the green instead of behind the road hole bunker to a back hole location on 17 at The Old Course, most any golfer will be thankful for that angle!  I will leave it at that for now 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Erik,
We probably agree more than our posts are implying especially if we are talking about most golfers.  Most are just trying to make solid contact and play the same ball the entire hole. However, if they end up with a preferred angle, e.g. in the front of the green instead of behind the road hole bunker to a back hole location on 17 at The Old Course, most any golfer will be thankful for that angle!  I will leave it at that for now 

Mentally, yes…. And of course, that’s the crux of the matter as golf is a mental game.


BUT, Erik is telling us that golfers probably shouldn’t let it get in to their head because no matter what we think, scoring shows that there’s not a big difference coming in from the left or the right side (not talking on the Road Hole specifically).


I - for one - am willing to go with that… However, there is a bunch of nuance here. The reason scoring isn’t very different left to right is again possibly because of that mental side of the game, where because we believe that angles matter more than they do, we are far more aggressive from the “easy” side, thus sometimes making fatal errors, thus averaging out what will be more good scores with quite a few bad ones…. Whereas on the “difficult” side, we play safer, making less fatal errors…


…all of which circles back to mean maybe angles do matter more than we think, because they quintessentially change your mindset.


But scoring wise, never chase the angle. Hit for the place that keeps you out of trouble from the tee. Common sense really. “Strategy” has an over-emphasis put on it. Doesn’t mean it’s not important in many different ways but Architecture 101 has it high up on priorities… when in fact, if scoring is your aim, strategy means less than we think.

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
If the data about angles and scoring is accurate and correct, then so be it, it’s correct.  How can one argue otherwise “when it comes to scoring”.  But I think we all agree if it were not for angles, the games would be much less mentally stimulating.  As Pete Dye said, “once you get those boys thinking,…”.


I would still take a bet with anyone that if you put 100 golfers with the road hole bunker between them and the hole and had them hole out from there then do the same from in front of that green, the scoring would be much different.  If it is not (for beginners it might not matter) then I stand corrected.  But one thing is certain, if you did the same thing but first removed the road hole bunker, the game is lesser for it.  Angles, usually driven by hazards and feature orientations, help form the essence of great golf design.

[Philippe Binette]

Angles do matter even on tour...
With a good angle, they will aim a little more at the pin... with the wrong angle, they will aim 15 feet away on the safer side..
Turning an 8-footer into a 20 footer


The angles, right or wrong, doesn't generally turn into a hit or miss... architecture can only do so much against tour players discipline!
 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I - for one - am willing to go with that… However, there is a bunch of nuance here. The reason scoring isn’t very different left to right is again possibly because of that mental side of the game, where because we believe that angles matter more than they do, we are far more aggressive from the “easy” side, thus sometimes making fatal errors, thus averaging out what will be more good scores with quite a few bad ones…. Whereas on the “difficult” side, we play safer, making less fatal errors…

You tend to see small differences in scoring. To make it up a little with whole numbers:
"Good" side - 10% birdies, 60% pars, 20% bogeys, 10% others, "Bad" side - 5% birdies, 70% pars, 20% bogeys, 5% others could average out to almost the same with a shift in the distribution of the actual scores to par.

It's a non-negligible difference, but not a significant one.

I would still take a bet with anyone that if you put 100 golfers with the road hole bunker between them and the hole and had them hole out from there then do the same from in front of that green, the scoring would be much different.

Straw man, Mark. Nobody's ever said there's no reward, only that it's often over-emphasized, and the shot to put you in that better spot is often more negative than the positives to be gained from hitting your next shot there.

Angles do matter even on tour...With a good angle, they will aim a little more at the pin... with the wrong angle, they will aim 15 feet away on the safer side..Turning an 8-footer into a 20 footer

Oh boy.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Deleted

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


Like Erik, I thought the Road Hole was a straw man argument.  An angle certainly matters on that green, when coming over the bunker to a green not deep enough to hold a shot, with potential 2 shot hazards front and back, vs playing along the long axis.


I don't know where Arcos measured these millions of shots, but I guess they are on more standard American holes and courses, where commercial limitations prevent designing such severe greens.  That kind of challenge is only present once on TOC, and one or two examples of narrow greens at 45 degrees would be more than enough for a course catering to the average golfer.

[Ben Sims]

Erik,


May I give a synopsis/paraphrase of your position so I can better understand it?


*Chasing angles reveals negligible benefit to scoring and oftentimes a negative benefit. So angles don’t matter. Unless they do, which is circumstantial.*


If that’s off base please correct my synopsis so I can better discuss this subject with you.


More broadly, I have tried to pay attention to what you write on here and I’m beginning to see a pattern. It seems to me that your version of frank discussion is a long play to tell golf architecture fans that we’re overvaluing the art. I think many of us here are happy to defend our love of golf architecture to someone that thinks it’s overvalued. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time. I just don’t understand your insistence that these are complex and not-easily-understood themes and datasets.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Angles do matter even on tour...
With a good angle, they will aim a little more at the pin... with the wrong angle, they will aim 15 feet away on the safer side..
Turning an 8-footer into a 20 footer


The angles, right or wrong, doesn't generally turn into a hit or miss... architecture can only do so much against tour players discipline!

Philippe, 


I sort of recall Jack Nicklaus, generally acknowledged as one of the masters of strategy or course management, before he decided to focus on the high fade (which I think has statistically been proven to provide a smaller dispersion pattern than "hitting the shot the architecture calls for") used to say he would aim at the middle of the green and pick a shot pattern that would slightly go to the pin location by a few yards.  I don't think he would aim at the pin as you describe. 


As always, I could be wrong, and for that matter, I am sure he chose to aim at the pin sometimes, when the match required it.  I understand that devotees to the basic strategic system laid out by Eric and others tend to have the discipline to never take the statistical sucker punch.  And I don't think Erik is telling anyone about architecture, just reactions to architecture and statistical facts, i.e.,


"Good" side - 10% birdies, 60% pars, 20% bogeys, 10% others, "Bad" side - 5% birdies, 70% pars, 20% bogeys, 5% others.  So, over 100 holes, playing only to the good side, you would expect:


- 10 birdies, 60 pars, 20 bogeys and 10 doubles, and you would be 30 over par from the good side. 


- Conversely, from the bad side, you would have 5 birds, 70 pars, 20 bogeys, and 5 doubles, and would be 25 over par.


Like most sports, playing conservatively (i.e., "defense" is generally the better play.)  That probably won't stop architects from putting hazards and angles out there for golfers to make the wrong decision about.  In fact, that is probably the point of architecture, then and now.  Angles do challenge the mind, and often defeat it, lol.

[Ally Mcintosh]

100% Jeff.

[Niall C]

Jeff


I'm puzzled why playing from the good angle would produce scores of bogey or better only 90% of the time while playing from the bad angle it would be 95% ? (my assumption is that "other" in your example is a score worse than bogey)


Or indeed from a good angle par or better would be achieved only 70% of the time as opposed to 75% from a bad angle. Is that really what the data is saying ?


Niall

[Rob Marshall]

My head is spinning. Why would the scores be worse once you have successfully made it to the good angle? Makes no sense. Isn’t the point that it’s not worth taking on a hazard to get to the good angle?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

*Chasing angles reveals negligible benefit to scoring and oftentimes a negative benefit. So angles don’t matter. Unless they do, which is circumstantial.*

It's close, but I don't agree with the but after "Unless."

Not only do people generally over-state the benefits of being on one side of the fairway over another, they under-rate the negative value of chasing that angle. Furthermore, this idea applies to higher handicappers than most people seem to think.

There are rare exceptions, but both "rare" and "exceptions" are appropriate words.

If that’s off base please correct my synopsis so I can better discuss this subject with you.

At this point nobody's really come with anything "new" in the last ten years, so pardon me for doubting that you're going to be the first.

More broadly, I have tried to pay attention to what you write on here and I’m beginning to see a pattern. It seems to me that your version of frank discussion is a long play to tell golf architecture fans that we’re overvaluing the art. I think many of us here are happy to defend our love of golf architecture to someone that thinks it’s overvalued. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time. I just don’t understand your insistence that these are complex and not-easily-understood themes and datasets.

Lots to unpack there, but… generally… no.

It's not a "long play" to discredit or diminish a bunch of things, it's just what we are coming to see as factual. It's not a value judgment, or a judgment of any kind: it's just an "is." There's no pattern… except to point out what I see as realities, or facts.

I also don't know where I've tried to sound as if I'm saying that these are "complex and not-easily-understood themes and data sets." I feel I've been saying the opposite for ten years, and have been frustrated at how many seem to have such a hard time understanding what I see as generally simple, straightforward things.

So, unless I horribly misread most of what you wrote, I don't know that you've pegged my perspective here at all.

As always, I could be wrong, and for that matter, I am sure he chose to aim at the pin sometimes, when the match required it.  I understand that devotees to the basic strategic system laid out by Eric and others tend to have the discipline to never take the statistical sucker punch.  And I don't think Erik is telling anyone about architecture, just reactions to architecture and statistical facts, i.e.,

Yeah. I love good golf course architecture, and think that even within these systems (which, to be frank, are all very similar because the data is what it is, and optimal is optimal*), there are ways to force a player to either make a decision. And, golfers are still emotional beings. They're not robots who can always choose the optimal target.

I'm puzzled why playing from the good angle would produce scores of bogey or better only 90% of the time while playing from the bad angle it would be 95% ? (my assumption is that "other" in your example is a score worse than bogey)

Jeff was quoting me, and I was illustrating how you could score almost the same from one side or the other side while creating a different distribution in the actual scores. An average is an average, but if it's the 18th hole and you need a birdie and don't care if you make par or double, you have to know how the strategy shifts, too.

Or indeed from a good angle par or better would be achieved only 70% of the time as opposed to 75% from a bad angle. Is that really what the data is saying?

For good players, that's often the case. They get a little more conservative (decrease in birdies, increase in pars), but they'll also make more higher scores. Hence, the distribution of scores changes, without the actual average moving a lot.

My head is spinning. Why would the scores be worse once you have successfully made it to the good angle? Makes no sense. Isn’t the point that it’s not worth taking on a hazard to get to the good angle?

Because even Tour players get a little more aggressive than they should, since they've all been told "oh, you can attack the pin from this angle." So they miss the green and short-side themselves a bit or something.

Anyway, a few of you have seemingly overlooked:

You tend to see small differences in scoring. To make it up a little with whole numbers:"Good" side - 10% birdies, 60% pars, 20% bogeys, 10% others, "Bad" side - 5% birdies, 70% pars, 20% bogeys, 5% others could average out to almost the same with a shift in the distribution of the actual scores to par.It's a non-negligible difference, but not a significant one.

I rounded everything into 5s for very good players to illustrate that the distribution of scores could shift even if the scoring averages stayed similar from that point.