[Niall C]

Ally


With respect, we're all repeating ourselves, not just you.


Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

   Beware of “scientific data” that disproves common sense and experience. Leaving the pin in rarely helps; removing trees makes courses easier (better maybe, but easier):  and having a better angle to a green is an advantage (although not necessarily a big enough advantage to take the risk). This exhausting discussion is no more than an exercise in disproving common sense.  More often than not, common sense makes sense.

But common sense isn't always that common!

[Charlie Goerges]

But common sense isn't always that common!

Not to pick on Jeff, but this phrase gets tossed out a lot...Common sense isn't that common. The pithy phrase should be a variation: "Common sense often isn't sense". I don't always like it, but in things like science or statistics, "common sense" is often just plain wrong. It sucks, but it means that ordinary people really can't understand a lot of things, like statistics or quantum physics or black holes or computer programming or biology.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Charlie,


Thanks for not picking on me.


Probably the most apt phrase that applies here is the admittedly also controversial and debated phrase, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it (or in a variation, "can't improve it."  Obviously, Stagner, Fawcette, Barzeski, et al believe in measuring to manage the course.  Personally, I don't see how you can argue a point like that.


Going back to my first post on the other thread, is the idea that the concept of risk/reward never really was measured in any meaningful way, until recently, that is, i.e., there was never any proof that playing the way the gca supposedly designed it really mattered.  And it should be no surprise that statistically, the risk is rarely worth it. IMHO, only on short par 5 holes, where you might gain a full stroke, and/or near the end of a competitive round (especially if a par 5) where you don't really care if you lose by more, but only about a chance to win.




If a pro needs to get to 8 feet just to make 50% of his putts, but the average distance to the pin is much larger than that, you can only hope to make a few birdies for that risk, and in reality, the bogeys slightly outweigh any benefit.  Think about it, if you wanted to improve from 95 to 79, is it more practical to start eliminating bogeys or add birdies? 


Besides, I have no conceptual problem of a tee shot merely being a certain kind of challenge, rather than gaining some minuscule advantage.  It sets up the approach. Being in the fw is the biggest differentiator, being long helps by reducing approach length and dispersion pattern, and then, maybe, being on the right side of the fw might help, if successful, in about that order.


Of course, this data is based on the most typical case of a green basically tilted back to front, which architects do because for most, golf is hard enough without building a target that most can't hold, just to create some difficulty.  Mike Nuzzo is right in that greens sloping away really do create a bigger need for angles, although I think it is hard to build a fall away green that rewards one side of the other, rather than just reject shots.  So, it may be the right way to design for angles, but again, IMHO, the wrong way to design a golf course.


Even with a Redan, there is a way to play from the left, using the backstop, which might be even better than coming in from the right and trying to gauge the reverse slope, as suggested by the 7th at Shinney where the players cut a shot in, given the green speeds.  I think those here were in at least a bit of an uproar because they weren't playing the hole "as designed" or in reality, playing it the way we gca geeks think it "should."  The Redan may have been played most often to allow for the slope when designed in 1923 or so, and may have been played that way when match play was prevalent, but for how golf is now, it seems it isn't or shouldn't be.


You have to admit, this site typically feels that way, devoted to the idea that any design from the Golden Age is perfect and beyond reproach.  But, we all know times have changed.  While I have definitely gone all the way to the dark side by siding with team data in this case, it really sounds to me like team angles is striving to make the story fit the preconceived notion, and in some cases, almost desperately so! 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Good stuff, Jeff.

And I'll remind everyone (and myself) that when I'm talking about this stuff, I'm only talking about scoring, really. I'm not talking about the esthetic beauty of angles, or the thrill one gets when they take on something and pull it off even though they probably shouldn't have (if they cared about scoring), or whatever other reasons "angles" can "matter."

I'm just talking about scoring, generally.

[Mike Bodo]

In simplest terms, if angles truly mattered or mattered as much as some think they do Jack Nicklaus wouldn't have won 6 Masters being a fader of the ball when the course favors someone with a right to left ball flight.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In simplest terms, if angles truly mattered or mattered as much as some think they do Jack Nicklaus wouldn't have won 6 Masters being a fader of the ball when the course favors someone with a right to left ball flight.

Well… never under-estimate the abilities of the all-time greats to rise above certain "challenges." Maybe if he was a lefty he'd have won 8? Who knows?

[Mike Bodo]

Well… never under-estimate the abilities of the all-time greats to rise above certain "challenges." Maybe if he was a lefty he'd have won 8? Who knows?

I agree. Heck, given his greatness if Jack were a lefty he'd perhaps he'd have won 10 Masters. LOL! I just came across an article published in Golf Digest espousing how ANGC favors lefties before even making my previous post. I guess angles do matter to them. Wait, that's a contradiction. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I agree. Heck, given his greatness if Jack were a lefty he'd perhaps he'd have won 10 Masters. LOL! I just came across an article published in Golf Digest espousing how ANGC favors lefties before even making my previous post. I guess angles do matter to them. Wait, that's a contradiction. 

If a course predominantly has holes that work in one direction over another, that's not quite what people are talking about with regards to "angles." If you can imagine a course with 14 doglegs left (like 13 at ANGC), you could see how that would favor a lefty fader or a righty drawer over their opposites… but the strategies on where to aim your tee shots end up being the same. It's just that trees might block your preferred shot shape or force you to try to hit a shot shape which you don't normally like.


That's not saying anything anyone here doesn't know, I don't think.

[Brett Meyer]

Going back to my first post on the other thread, is the idea that the concept of risk/reward never really was measured in any meaningful way, until recently, that is, i.e., there was never any proof that playing the way the gca supposedly designed it really mattered. 

This has been my single biggest takeaway from all the Lou and Erik tweets/posts; the classical risk/reward concept works much better in theory than in practice. In reality, almost any hazard is probably too severe for the reward that being near it will give you on the next shot. So designers thinking about employing this concept should be cognizant of the new empirically-informed reality and either not employ it or recalibrate the balance between them.

Besides, I have no conceptual problem of a tee shot merely being a certain kind of challenge, rather than gaining some minuscule advantage.  It sets up the approach. Being in the fw is the biggest differentiator, being long helps by reducing approach length and dispersion pattern, and then, maybe, being on the right side of the fw might help, if successful, in about that order.

Neither do I. It's good to have challenging drives in their own right. But maybe we shouldn't be justifying part of the challenge of a drive by how taking on that challenge can set you up for a better approach shot.

Of course, this data is based on the most typical case of a green basically tilted back to front, which architects do because for most, golf is hard enough without building a target that most can't hold, just to create some difficulty.  Mike Nuzzo is right in that greens sloping away really do create a bigger need for angles, although I think it is hard to build a fall away green that rewards one side of the other, rather than just reject shots.  So, it may be the right way to design for angles, but again, IMHO, the wrong way to design a golf course.

I'm very sympathetic to Mike Nuzzo's idea. But it could still be wrong. It'd be interesting to subset the data to holes with fall-away greens that are set at an angle to the fairway to test it.

You have to admit, this site typically feels that way, devoted to the idea that any design from the Golden Age is perfect and beyond reproach.  But, we all know times have changed.  While I have definitely gone all the way to the dark side by siding with team data in this case, it really sounds to me like team angles is striving to make the story fit the preconceived notion, and in some cases, almost desperately so!

This whole thing is starting to remind me of what's probably starting to become the most famous theory vs. empirics debate in social science: on the effect of the minimum wage on employment. The theory that increasing the minimum wage would lower employment was something of a law-of-nature of economics...until David Card and Alan Krueger came along in 1994 and examined a 'natural experiment' in which New Jersey increased its minimum wage and Pennsylvania didn't. Card and Krueger found that there was no detectable difference in employment trends in border counties in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Subsequent work generalized their study to all border counties between states across the country and found no differential trend in employment in these counties when one state increased the minimum wage and the other didn't.

We have to accept good empirical work and update the theory when the evidence doesn't support it. Of course one thing we absolutely should do--which I've been trying to do here--is narrow the theory to the cases in which it should matter most and ask for testing of those cases. I still haven't seen this for the special cases that Mike and I have discussed. But I'm definitely starting to believe that there won't even be evidence for lower scoring from the 'good' angle even for those.

Still, I'd like to see it. I'm not ready to give up my Team Angles jersey just yet. But if there's no evidence for the classical theory even in those cases, we might need to rethink the idea of designing for angles altogether.

Good stuff, Jeff.

And I'll remind everyone (and myself) that when I'm talking about this stuff, I'm only talking about scoring, really. I'm not talking about the esthetic beauty of angles, or the thrill one gets when they take on something and pull it off even though they probably shouldn't have (if they cared about scoring), or whatever other reasons "angles" can "matter."

I'm just talking about scoring, generally.

And you should continue only talking about scoring. We need to straighten out how basic principles of golf course architecture affect scoring. I'd love to have a debate about the aesthetic value of angles. But the classical theory of the importance of angles is about how they'll affect scoring, not about aesthetics. So we need to examine that thoroughly first.

[Max Prokopy]

Well… never under-estimate the abilities of the all-time greats to rise above certain "challenges." Maybe if he was a lefty he'd have won 8? Who knows?

I agree. Heck, given his greatness if Jack were a lefty he'd perhaps he'd have won 10 Masters. LOL! I just came across an article published in Golf Digest espousing how ANGC favors lefties before even making my previous post. I guess angles do matter to them. Wait, that's a contradiction. 

As an overgeneralization, a pull tends to go a bit farther...some of the big swing holes at ANGC like 12 and 13 have the trouble short right.  So a lefty hitting a weak "fade" or a pull might be more likely to stay dry.  Again, an overgeneralization but there have been large momentum swings with their water hazards. 

[Sean_A]

Going back to my first post on the other thread, is the idea that the concept of risk/reward never really was measured in any meaningful way, until recently, that is, i.e., there was never any proof that playing the way the gca supposedly designed it really mattered. 

This has been my single biggest takeaway from all the Lou and Erik tweets/posts; the classical risk/reward concept works much better in theory than in practice. In reality, almost any hazard is probably too severe for the reward that being near it will give you on the next shot. So designers thinking about employing this concept should be cognizant of the new empirically-informed reality and either not employ it or recalibrate the balance between them.

Besides, I have no conceptual problem of a tee shot merely being a certain kind of challenge, rather than gaining some minuscule advantage.  It sets up the approach. Being in the fw is the biggest differentiator, being long helps by reducing approach length and dispersion pattern, and then, maybe, being on the right side of the fw might help, if successful, in about that order.

Neither do I. It's good to have challenging drives in their own right. But maybe we shouldn't be justifying part of the challenge of a drive by how taking on that challenge can set you up for a better approach shot.

Of course, this data is based on the most typical case of a green basically tilted back to front, which architects do because for most, golf is hard enough without building a target that most can't hold, just to create some difficulty.  Mike Nuzzo is right in that greens sloping away really do create a bigger need for angles, although I think it is hard to build a fall away green that rewards one side of the other, rather than just reject shots.  So, it may be the right way to design for angles, but again, IMHO, the wrong way to design a golf course.

I'm very sympathetic to Mike Nuzzo's idea. But it could still be wrong. It'd be interesting to subset the data to holes with fall-away greens that are set at an angle to the fairway to test it.

You have to admit, this site typically feels that way, devoted to the idea that any design from the Golden Age is perfect and beyond reproach.  But, we all know times have changed.  While I have definitely gone all the way to the dark side by siding with team data in this case, it really sounds to me like team angles is striving to make the story fit the preconceived notion, and in some cases, almost desperately so!

This whole thing is starting to remind me of what's probably starting to become the most famous theory vs. empirics debate in social science: on the effect of the minimum wage on employment. The theory that increasing the minimum wage would lower employment was something of a law-of-nature of economics...until David Card and Alan Krueger came along in 1994 and examined a 'natural experiment' in which New Jersey increased its minimum wage and Pennsylvania didn't. Card and Krueger found that there was no detectable difference in employment trends in border counties in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Subsequent work generalized their study to all border counties between states across the country and found no differential trend in employment in these counties when one state increased the minimum wage and the other didn't.

We have to accept good empirical work and update the theory when the evidence doesn't support it. Of course one thing we absolutely should do--which I've been trying to do here--is narrow the theory to the cases in which it should matter most and ask for testing of those cases. I still haven't seen this for the special cases that Mike and I have discussed. But I'm definitely starting to believe that there won't even be evidence for lower scoring from the 'good' angle even for those.

Still, I'd like to see it. I'm not ready to give up my Team Angles jersey just yet. But if there's no evidence for the classical theory even in those cases, we might need to rethink the idea of designing for angles altogether.

Good stuff, Jeff.

And I'll remind everyone (and myself) that when I'm talking about this stuff, I'm only talking about scoring, really. I'm not talking about the esthetic beauty of angles, or the thrill one gets when they take on something and pull it off even though they probably shouldn't have (if they cared about scoring), or whatever other reasons "angles" can "matter."

I'm just talking about scoring, generally.

And you should continue only talking about scoring. We need to straighten out how basic principles of golf course architecture affect scoring. I'd love to have a debate about the aesthetic value of angles. But the classical theory of the importance of angles is about how they'll affect scoring, not about aesthetics. So we need to examine that thoroughly first.

Perhaps a few key ingredients of the classical angles-strategy theory should be mentioned. The concept was rooted with the idea of wide and keen fairway/greens, non watered rough and difficult to hit a long high ball hickory clubs. On a 35 yard fairway with receptive greens and prepared rough it's a bit of a no brainer that hitting the fairway is paramount unless one is unusually long relative to length of the course. Condemning a classic theory based on modern ideals of fairway width and overuse of water isn't exactly on. What you are basically suggesting is that perhaps archies should consider wider fairways and supers use less water. Which gets back to my so called examples of being the exception which proves the rule. It would be interesting to see data from courses where there is enough width to provide real choices regarding angles. Much of the premise of the wildly successful renaissance in golf design of the past 30 years is based in the classic theory of angles or what has traditionally been called strategic golf. A significant aspect of this design approach is reliant on temptation. Even if angles don't matter on courses designed with them in mind, what is the alternative design approach? What replaces temptation as the main interest of design? Going back to bowling alley golf? I have said all along that angles matter when they matter. I don't know how often that is. I played a course Monday at which angles mattered very little if at all. The previous Monday I played a course where angles mattered a ton. 🤷

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,


You’re right of course. What is the alternative? I’ve said a couple of times in this thread that I will still try - maybe even harder - to design classic strategy in to courses, perhaps even accentuate it more. But there are also plenty of other angles and diagonals and temptation and interest that we design in to golf courses that aren’t directly related to classic strategy angles.


You are also right that the strategic school probably mattered more 100 years ago (when it was invented) and that the Renaissance was trying to return to that. But, there’s no doubt that given modern equipment etc… it still matters less today, regardless of intent. Plus was the theory 100 years ago actually supported with data anyway? Perhaps it mattered less than the ODG’s thought too.


And whilst the second GA is returning to that era, the dirty secret is that it has always been more about aesthetics and cool looking golf holes than classic strategy. Granted, the era comes with a whole bunch of “fun” shots and recoveries but I’ve always been dubious about these new courses coming with more actual playing strategy than most other courses. (again using “strategy” in its narrowest form, referring to the school of design. There are loads of different decisions to be made through a round that can be defined as strategic)

[Sean_A]

Sean,

You’re right of course. What is the alternative? I’ve said a couple of times in this thread that I will still try - maybe even harder - to design classic strategy in to courses, perhaps even accentuate it more. But there are also plenty of other angles and diagonals and temptation and interest that we design in to golf courses that aren’t directly related to classic strategy angles.


You are also right that the strategic school probably mattered more 100 years ago (when it was invented) and that the Renaissance was trying to return to that. But, there’s no doubt that given modern equipment etc… it still matters less today, regardless of intent. Plus was the theory 100 years ago actually supported with data anyway? Perhaps it mattered less than the ODG’s thought too.


And whilst the second GA is returning to that era, the dirty secret is that it has always been more about aesthetics and cool looking golf holes than classic strategy. Granted, the era comes with a whole bunch of “fun” shots and recoveries but I’ve always been dubious about these new courses coming with more actual playing strategy than most other courses. (again using “strategy” in its narrowest form, referring to the school of design. There are loads of different decisions to be made through a round that can be defined as strategic)

Ally

I absolutely agree that the strategic school is largely irrelevant.

To be honest, I have been referencing all angles throughout the discussion. IMO, avoiding a hazard is just as much about angles as taking the hazard on. That was very much an option as envisioned in strategic design and I think it's the case today. The issue really isn't analytics VS strategic design. It's more the case as to know when one works better than the other and that usually comes with knowledge of the course. Broadly speaking, angles need width and the vast majority of courses aren't wide enough for this approach. The game at high levels has changed to carry distance to tackle features as the dominant way to play.

Unless we accept lesser conditioned courses or radically different bunker/feature schemes I don't believe width will ever make a meaningful comeback except in personal ways. Width doesn't usually make financial sense.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

Sean,

You’re right of course. What is the alternative? I’ve said a couple of times in this thread that I will still try - maybe even harder - to design classic strategy in to courses, perhaps even accentuate it more. But there are also plenty of other angles and diagonals and temptation and interest that we design in to golf courses that aren’t directly related to classic strategy angles.


You are also right that the strategic school probably mattered more 100 years ago (when it was invented) and that the Renaissance was trying to return to that. But, there’s no doubt that given modern equipment etc… it still matters less today, regardless of intent. Plus was the theory 100 years ago actually supported with data anyway? Perhaps it mattered less than the ODG’s thought too.


And whilst the second GA is returning to that era, the dirty secret is that it has always been more about aesthetics and cool looking golf holes than classic strategy. Granted, the era comes with a whole bunch of “fun” shots and recoveries but I’ve always been dubious about these new courses coming with more actual playing strategy than most other courses. (again using “strategy” in its narrowest form, referring to the school of design. There are loads of different decisions to be made through a round that can be defined as strategic)

Width doesn't usually make financial sense.
Ciao

Sean-Could you clarify as to what you mean by width not making financial sense? Thanks.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

You’re right of course. What is the alternative? I’ve said a couple of times in this thread that I will still try - maybe even harder - to design classic strategy in to courses, perhaps even accentuate it more. But there are also plenty of other angles and diagonals and temptation and interest that we design in to golf courses that aren’t directly related to classic strategy angles.


You are also right that the strategic school probably mattered more 100 years ago (when it was invented) and that the Renaissance was trying to return to that. But, there’s no doubt that given modern equipment etc… it still matters less today, regardless of intent. Plus was the theory 100 years ago actually supported with data anyway? Perhaps it mattered less than the ODG’s thought too.


And whilst the second GA is returning to that era, the dirty secret is that it has always been more about aesthetics and cool looking golf holes than classic strategy. Granted, the era comes with a whole bunch of “fun” shots and recoveries but I’ve always been dubious about these new courses coming with more actual playing strategy than most other courses. (again using “strategy” in its narrowest form, referring to the school of design. There are loads of different decisions to be made through a round that can be defined as strategic)

Width doesn't usually make financial sense.
Ciao

Sean-Could you clarify as to what you mean by width not making financial sense? Thanks.

More fairway width costs more money to maintain unless clubs are willing to get creative and/or accept lesser conditions.

Ciao

[Mike Bodo]

Unless we accept lesser conditioned courses or radically different bunker/feature schemes I don't believe width will ever make a meaningful comeback except in personal ways. Width doesn't usually make financial sense.

I agree with your contention that in order for angles to have more meaning width from the fairway is required. I think what makes The Masters my favorite of all the majors is that ANGC is all about width and playing angles. Contrast that to say the PGA Championship and, moreso, the U.S. Open where courses that have width and angles for member play are drastically narrowed and penal rough promoted by the organizations in question to present a challenge and test that was never envisioned by the architects who laid out, built and routed these courses.


One very important component of this topic that really hasn't been discussed is the imporance of lies in shot decision making and how angles impact it. To go back to ANGC, not only is the course all about playing widths and angles, but lies as well. I say this because rarely will you encounter a flat lie on the course. Almost every approach comes off some sort of side, up or downnill lie, which places added importance of being on the correct side of the fairway to have the best possible lie and angle of attack to the green and pin.


If you didn't know better you'd think this discussion centered around courses with flat terrain. However, the angle of the lie one has for their approach, in conjunction with the playing angle to the green, directly affects shot strategy. For example, if you have a hook like for a second shot to a green with a back right pin position that favors a fade, good luck getting that shot anywhere close. it's a no-brainer "red light" situation for most players. You're just happy to get the ball anywhere near or on the green. But there, too, the severity of the angle of the lie influences the type of shot played. If it's a mild or subtle sidehill lie we're talking about then going for the pin in the example cited above is more doable for the better player. Also, if your familiar with how the fairway cants in relation to the green or it's visually apparent from the tee box if it's your first play, then this needsd to be taken into account in how one plays their tee shot in order to set themselves up for the best possible lie and angle for their approach to the green.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Just one question…

It would be interesting to see data from courses where there is enough width to provide real choices regarding angles.

How much width do you think is "enough width"?

At 44 yards apart, two 160 yard shots will be coming in from an angle that's about 2-1/2 minutes on a clock. 44 yards is a LOT of fairway on the courses I play. Many are < 30.

[Brett Meyer]

Perhaps a few key ingredients of the classical angles-strategy theory should be mentioned. The concept was rooted with the idea of wide and keen fairway/greens, non watered rough and difficult to hit a long high ball hickory clubs. On a 35 yard fairway with receptive greens and prepared rough it's a bit of a no brainer that hitting the fairway is paramount unless one is unusually long relative to length of the course. Condemning a classic theory based on modern ideals of fairway width and overuse of water isn't exactly on. What you are basically suggesting is that perhaps archies should consider wider fairways and supers use less water. Which gets back to my so called examples of being the exception which proves the rule. It would be interesting to see data from courses where there is enough width to provide real choices regarding angles.

Sean,

You're right that the theory was developed in an era where the conditions were very different. But I think it's safe to say that it's been largely imported to the modern era, in various golf architecture books, discussions on this forum, etc. I hear the golf commentators talking about good/bad angles during golf broadcasts. So it's important to acknowledge when it's become clear that a theory doesn't apply so well to contemporary circumstances. It certainly doesn't mean that it's a bad theory or that the ODGs were wrong, just that common thinking today that it applies in a broad range of circumstances is wrong.

Erik has acknowledged that angles matter when the ground is firm. I'd like to see the evidence on this, to see how much the firmness of the ground matters for the importance of angles. Because the firmness of the ground being important is another thing we espouse on here. And I still think I (and you) might be right that angles matter when there's width and the hazards on the good angle side are minimal or there's balance between hazards on the good/bad angle side (setting aside ground firmness, slope in the fairway, etc.). But we need to test that to be sure and there's reason to think it might be wrong (because people play too aggressively from the good angle and conservatively from the bad one).

One very important component of this topic that really hasn't been discussed is the imporance of lies in shot decision making and how angles impact it. To go back to ANGC, not only is the course all about playing widths and angles, but lies as well. I say this because rarely will you encounter a flat lie on the course. Almost every approach comes off some sort of side, up or downnill lie, which places added importance of being on the correct side of the fairway to have the best possible lie and angle of attack to the green and pin.If you didn't know better you'd think this discussion centered around courses with flat terrain.

Hi Mike,

You're right that this discussion--or at least my posts--have been based on the assumption of flat terrain. But that's because the terrain is an additional variable and we've been trying to focus on this one variable, angles. The general theory about angles is that they matter regardless of these other variables.

I certainly agree with you that terrain is important. I don't know what the data say about it, but I bet that lie has a large effect on scoring. And what you're getting at here, that terrain might enhance the importance of angles such that angles don't matter on flat terrain but they matter on hilly terrain, is an interesting idea and certainly possible. But I suspect that this would work both ways--the lie can also negate the importance of the angle, like if there's a tucked left pin on a front-right to back-left angled green and you're on the left side of a right-to-left sloping fairway. The angle might be bad, but the lie increases the chance that your ball will have the right shape to enter the green without crossing a hazard.

[Sean_A]

Perhaps a few key ingredients of the classical angles-strategy theory should be mentioned. The concept was rooted with the idea of wide and keen fairway/greens, non watered rough and difficult to hit a long high ball hickory clubs. On a 35 yard fairway with receptive greens and prepared rough it's a bit of a no brainer that hitting the fairway is paramount unless one is unusually long relative to length of the course. Condemning a classic theory based on modern ideals of fairway width and overuse of water isn't exactly on. What you are basically suggesting is that perhaps archies should consider wider fairways and supers use less water. Which gets back to my so called examples of being the exception which proves the rule. It would be interesting to see data from courses where there is enough width to provide real choices regarding angles.

Sean,

You're right that the theory was developed in an era where the conditions were very different. But I think it's safe to say that it's been largely imported to the modern era, in various golf architecture books, discussions on this forum, etc. I hear the golf commentators talking about good/bad angles during golf broadcasts. So it's important to acknowledge when it's become clear that a theory doesn't apply so well to contemporary circumstances. It certainly doesn't mean that it's a bad theory or that the ODGs were wrong, just that common thinking today that it applies in a broad range of circumstances is wrong.

Erik has acknowledged that angles matter when the ground is firm. I'd like to see the evidence on this, to see how much the firmness of the ground matters for the importance of angles. Because the firmness of the ground being important is another thing we espouse on here. And I still think I (and you) might be right that angles matter when there's width and the hazards on the good angle side are minimal or there's balance between hazards on the good/bad angle side (setting aside ground firmness, slope in the fairway, etc.). But we need to test that to be sure and there's reason to think it might be wrong (because people play too aggressively from the good angle and conservatively from the bad one).

One very important component of this topic that really hasn't been discussed is the imporance of lies in shot decision making and how angles impact it. To go back to ANGC, not only is the course all about playing widths and angles, but lies as well. I say this because rarely will you encounter a flat lie on the course. Almost every approach comes off some sort of side, up or downnill lie, which places added importance of being on the correct side of the fairway to have the best possible lie and angle of attack to the green and pin.If you didn't know better you'd think this discussion centered around courses with flat terrain.

Hi Mike,

You're right that this discussion--or at least my posts--have been based on the assumption of flat terrain. But that's because the terrain is an additional variable and we've been trying to focus on this one variable, angles. The general theory about angles is that they matter regardless of these other variables.

I certainly agree with you that terrain is important. I don't know what the data say about it, but I bet that lie has a large effect on scoring. And what you're getting at here, that terrain might enhance the importance of angles such that angles don't matter on flat terrain but they matter on hilly terrain, is an interesting idea and certainly possible. But I suspect that this would work both ways--the lie can also negate the importance of the angle, like if there's a tucked left pin on a front-right to back-left angled green and you're on the left side of a right-to-left sloping fairway. The angle might be bad, but the lie increases the chance that your ball will have the right shape to enter the green without crossing a hazard.

Brett

Hang on, the angles exist. The question is if we should play safe angles, more risky angles or ignore angles. I don't believe you can ignore wind, firmness and terrain. These are highly important considerations. My contention has been that on the right holes, playing for more advantageous angles or safe angles makes sense or at least is a reasonable choice. On many courses ignoring angles makes perfect sense.

Ciao

[Brett Meyer]

Brett

Hang on, the angles exist. The question is if we should play safe angles, more risky angles or ignore angles. I don't believe you can ignore wind, firmness and terrain. These are highly important considerations. My contention has been that on the right holes, playing for more advantageous angles or safe angles makes sense or at least is a reasonable choice. On many courses ignoring angles makes perfect sense.

Ciao

I certainly agree that wind, firmness, and terrain are important and their presence might make angles more important than they otherwise would be. But I pretty sure I'm right that the general thinking about angles was that they should matter regardless of all of this. And there just isn't much evidence that angles matter all else equal. They might matter in special contexts like when wind, firmness, and/or terrain are present or when a hole has a wide fairway with minimal hazards at its sides and an angled/sloping green, but they don't seem to matter most of the time. And it's not even clear that they matter in these extreme cases.

Speaking of extreme cases, I have a better one than 17 Woking with which I think you're familar: 7 on the Loop Red. The fairway is almost endlessly wide and the hazards are minimal, only coming into play if you're way right or long off the tee and left. The narrow, double plateau green is angled toward the left side of the fairway and missing it right is all kinds of trouble. I'd think that scoring would be lower from the left side of the fairway, where you just have to cross simple, flat land leading into the green, than from the right, where you have to cross slopes and a nasty bunker. It's an extreme example of this type of case, but maybe a better hole for it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I certainly agree that wind, firmness, and terrain are important and their presence might make angles more important than they otherwise would be. But I pretty sure I'm right that the general thinking about angles was that they should matter regardless of all of this. And there just isn't much evidence that angles matter all else equal. They might matter in special contexts like when wind, firmness, and/or terrain are present or when a hole has a wide fairway with minimal hazards at its sides and an angled/sloping green, but they don't seem to matter most of the time. And it's not even clear that they matter in these extreme cases.

Speaking of extreme cases, I have a better one than 17 Woking with which I think you're familar: 7 on the Loop Red. The fairway is almost endlessly wide and the hazards are minimal, only coming into play if you're way right or long off the tee and left. The narrow, double plateau green is angled toward the left side of the fairway and missing it right is all kinds of trouble. I'd think that scoring would be lower from the left side of the fairway, where you just have to cross simple, flat land leading into the green, than from the right, where you have to cross slopes and a nasty bunker. It's an extreme example of this type of case, but maybe a better hole for it.

To add to that… and even when they do "matter" a little… you probably still shouldn't play for them off the tee. You should just maybe be a little happy that variance worked out for you that time around.

[Brett Meyer]

I certainly agree that wind, firmness, and terrain are important and their presence might make angles more important than they otherwise would be. But I pretty sure I'm right that the general thinking about angles was that they should matter regardless of all of this. And there just isn't much evidence that angles matter all else equal. They might matter in special contexts like when wind, firmness, and/or terrain are present or when a hole has a wide fairway with minimal hazards at its sides and an angled/sloping green, but they don't seem to matter most of the time. And it's not even clear that they matter in these extreme cases.

Speaking of extreme cases, I have a better one than 17 Woking with which I think you're familar: 7 on the Loop Red. The fairway is almost endlessly wide and the hazards are minimal, only coming into play if you're way right or long off the tee and left. The narrow, double plateau green is angled toward the left side of the fairway and missing it right is all kinds of trouble. I'd think that scoring would be lower from the left side of the fairway, where you just have to cross simple, flat land leading into the green, than from the right, where you have to cross slopes and a nasty bunker. It's an extreme example of this type of case, but maybe a better hole for it.

To add to that… and even when they do "matter" a little… you probably still shouldn't play for them off the tee. You should just maybe be a little happy that variance worked out for you that time around.

For some context, here's the hole below. You tee off from the right side of the image and play to the left. It's ~290 from the tips to where the junk cuts in on the left. Short of that the fairway is almost endlessly wide. Second image is the view from the tee.

As wide as this fairway is, you don't think it might be ok to aim up the left side to get a better angle into the green, assuming that running into the junk isn't an issue?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

For some context, here's the hole below. You tee off from the right side of the image and play to the left. It's ~290 from the tips to where the junk cuts in on the left. Short of that the fairway is almost endlessly wide. Second image is the view from the tee.

It's a 350-yard hole, no? And what about the green makes the angle particularly great from the left versus the right? If there's a reason to aim left here, it's that the right side has all that crap while the left side just appears to put you in another corridor's fairway.

And I'll stipulate to the fact that there will be some exceptions, but not many places can have 75-yard-wide fairways.

[Tim Martin]

For some context, here's the hole below. You tee off from the right side of the image and play to the left. It's ~290 from the tips to where the junk cuts in on the left. Short of that the fairway is almost endlessly wide. Second image is the view from the tee.

It's a 350-yard hole, no? And what about the green makes the angle particularly great from the left versus the right? If there's a reason to aim left here, it's that the right side has all that crap while the left side just appears to put you in another corridor's fairway.

And I'll stipulate to the fact that there will be some exceptions, but not many places can have 75-yard-wide fairways.

Why not stipulate to the fact that you’ll give your keyboard a rest? You should lay off the catnip.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()