TW: "Chasing Angles" and Dancing Around Agreement

[Kyle Harris]

Disclaimer: While this may read like a love letter, I am not a DECADE customer or user though I consider Scott Fawcett a friend in golf. There will come a time when I have the time/money to use his product to it's fullest in my own tournament play but that time is not now. What follows is a treatise on my own particular interest in this subject: how people craft their arguments from their perspective to engage their point of view and how it influences their opinions and path to golf improvement or enjoyment.

I think both sides agree much more than they're willing to admit. I think, axiomically, you're all saying the *same thing*.

Let's talk it out.

We can all agree that the primary challenge in golf is the fact that we are manuevering a ball by playing a stroke across a distance. The farther Point A it from Point B the more potential strokes we need to play to get there.


We can also all agree that avoiding situations where the addition of strokes *not* using a club is best. So, avoid penalty shots.


We also all agree that the point is to manuver the ball around the course in the fewest stroke possible.

Therefore, it is axiomic that golf is judged by using the least strokes per unit distance - whatever that may be. This can also be stated that the higher the average distance per stroke, the better the score.

This means that distance has always been a fundamental advantage to the golfer.

But there's more:

Statistics and variance are descriptions of all possible outcomes. A round of golf is a string of singular possible outcomes. Each time you stand over the ball you hold a shotgun in your hand until you strike the ball.

The range of your possible outcomes is your skill. The narrower or more focused those outcomes, the better you are.

But on any given shot only one of those outcomes, only ONE of the buckshot, matters.


You are aiming a shotgun but only using one buckshot.


The DECADE/Scott Fawcett/Mark Broadie crowd share one thing with all great coaches in any pursuit: they seek to eliminate doubt and breed confidence in self and outcome.


They're telling you to acknowledge your shotgun and put the middle of it where it will do the least harm.


Avoid penalty strokes

They're telling you that success on the golf course - your best days - all involve a little luck and a few favorable bounces. Even the top 10% of golfers in the world have dispersion patterns that aren't tight enough to chase angles. What they do have are consistent outcomes that sometimes swing one way or the other for long periods of time. They got hot. They get lucky. They never let it hurt them.


You have no control over your luck - but you do have control over your expectations

They're telling you that your variance in shots should most often keep you out of trouble and that strings of variance (luck) will lead to birdies.


Don't focus on the ideal buckshot but accept the disperson pattern is working for you.

*************


The best shot I hit in 2022 was on a Raynor Road Hole with the hole location as far left and behind the "Road" bunker as possible. I hit a safe, though unremarkable, drive. I aimed such that the left edge of my dispersion pattern was on the left edge of the green. This put my target line well out to the right and the right side of my pattern was off the green but there was no penalty shot or lost ball over there as there would have been had the middle of the disperson pattern been closer to the middle of the green or even at the hole.

I pulled the ball.

To less than a foot. Tap in birdie.

The variance worked for me. The hole got in the way.


I gave the disperson pattern a chance to help me by making sure it didn't hurt me

The great irony to this debate is that when you begin to see the golf course as a series of aiming disperson patterns, the angles begin to still present themselves not as ideal targets but as areas where your possible outcomes begin to work in your favor. The risk/reward is still very much present, which is why avoiding penalty shots becomes an axiom, though even the most ideal angle still will not guarantee a full shot benefit - you still have work to do and your shots will still have variance. Accepting penalty shots by "chasing angles and birdies" simply never works out in the long run. Yeah, you may hit the Big 6/8 bet in the casino Craps game and you may chase that rush, but you're going to lose money more often than not, and not play the Craps Table to the best possible outcome.


In the above Road Hole situation for me, the target on the approach really only changes as my disperson pattern changes with the club I'm hitting into the green, ceteris parabis, however, the angle from which I'm approaching that target may move the number of favorable possible outcomes farther away from the hole. Regardless of the location from the fairway I would still be selecting a target based on the left edge of my disperson pattern being away from penalties/lost balls. The only thing that changes is whether or not that dispersion pattern is more likely to yeild a tighter approach or not.

The thing that changes the disperson pattern is the club. The thing that changes the club, ceteris parabis, is the distance from the hole.

Distance. Always. Is. An Advantage.

The Brandel thread got me thinking about this. I respect everyone involved in these debates, for the most part, and it's amazing to me how much commonality exists. 


F*** it, send it!

[Ben Hollerbach]

We also all agree that the point is to manuver the ball around the course in the fewest stroke possible.

Therefore, it is axiomic that golf is judged by using the least strokes per unit distance - whatever that may be. This can also be stated that the higher the average distance per stroke, the better the score.

The key here being maneuver, and the strategic value not yet calculated. 

If a dead straight hole of 400 is played perfectly to a par, 4 A players average distance per stroke could be no lower than 100 yards. Presumably, if it takes them two dead straight shots to hit the ball to the front edge of the green and 2 putts to roll the ball into the hole they would be exactly 100 yards per stroke.
In contrast, if a player drive their ball 250 yards forward but 40 yards offline into the rough, plays their second 20 yards long of the pin into the rough, and needs 2 more shots to get down for a 4, they would have used more than 112 yards per stroke to achieve their score of 4.

Both players recorded the same score of 4, but achieved it with 2 different yards per stroke measurements. It would not be out of bounds to say that the first player played the hole better than the second, even though they recorded the same score, as the second player had a much higher likelihood of recording a score higher than 4.
So there is an accuracy factor that needs to be included as well.

This same calculation can become magnified on a hole with a dogleg, as the the shortest distance to the hole along the dogleg and the longest distance of the hole outside of the dogleg could produce 2 significantly different yards per stroke differences, and 2 significantly different playable risks.

The great irony to this debate is that when you begin to see the golf course as a series of aiming dispersion patterns, the angles begin to still present themselves not as ideal targets but as areas where your possible outcomes begin to work in your favor.

The angles present themselves as ideal target lines based upon shot dispersion. While the phrase "aim small, miss small" is commonly thrown around, rarely to players truly aim at single points on a plane. They are aiming at selected areas, possibly referenced by specific landmarks. Understanding that ones dispersion pattern is not circular, off axis, and not evenly distributed allows the player the ability to seek out the best approach angle to then maximize the overlap of their dispersion pattern for a particular shot over a particular target area.

[Ben Sims]

The hashtag databoys approached all of this from the wrong place from the very beginning. The “you’re all dumb” thing has always been the trope of innovators. I have no idea why *that’s* the place innovators go. Vinegar and honey and all that.


The better place would’ve been where you’re at Kyle, which is a more nuanced debate about how we’re all somewhat right. Well done.

[Kyle Harris]

Too many Bens!

Ben H:

A few years ago I went down a J. Evans Pritchard style exercise to attempt to quantify quality "strategy" much along the lines of your thinking. I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that it matters all that much since the start and end points remained fixed.

Perhaps if you wanted to somehow qualitatively measure rounds of the same score as a measure of comparison but I think those statistics are already covered in things like Strokes Gained, etc.

Ben S:

Both "sides" tend to go far with the pathos in order to stand out. The other side can often deride a venue at the expense of enjoying an otherwise usually compelling golf tournament.

Call it Innisbrook Syndrome.

[Ben Hollerbach]

We also all agree that the point is to manuver the ball around the course in the fewest stroke possible.

Therefore, it is axiomic that golf is judged by using the least strokes per unit distance - whatever that may be. This can also be stated that the higher the average distance per stroke, the better the score.

Kyle,

Let me ask the question another way. Based on average distance per stroke, who has the better score?

• The player who records a 2 on a 180 yard hole
• The player who records a 4 on a 360 yard hole
• The player who records a 6 on a 540 yard hole

I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that it matters all that much since the start and end points remained fixed.

If the start and end point is fixed, then the overall distance of a hole does not matter, and distance per stroke does not matter for 2 players who recorded the same score.
 
Each player is traversing the same distance, the same conditions, how they achieved their score for a given hole can't be distilled down to a particular ratio.

[Ira Fishman]

One of the many redeeming facts about being an aging golfer with an ever decreasing swing speed is that my cone of dispersion is so narrow that I can chase angles on terrific courses all day long. Plus enjoy the mystery and randomness of the ground game (the major exception to the stats "rules").


I can sympathize, but not empathize, with good players whose cone of dispersion may impede their appreciation of the architecture as they chase scores.


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

The analytical approach to golf is an interesting one.
However, golfers and logic don't necessarily seem to go together. Indeed Churchills line, used in another context, of "a riddle, wrapped up in a mystery, inside an enigma" could well be used to describe how the 5.5" between many a golfers ears functions (or doesn't function).
Not saying there's anything wrong with attempting to logically analyse aspects of the game but given that golf is played by folks of varying physical and mental skills and emotions and desires between the ages of approx 5-90 such an analytical approach may not be relevant to all golfers or even most golfers all of the time. Worth considering by some though it likely is.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

Not saying there's anything wrong with attempting to logically analyse aspects of the game but given that golf is played by folks of varying physical and mental skills and emotions and desires between the ages of approx 5-90 such an analytical approach may not be relevant to all golfers or even most golfers all of the time. Worth considering by some though it likely is.
atb

Yes.  The assumption that players will aim for the "middle of the shotgun" because they are trying to be mathematically efficient over their day or season or lifetime is where the discussion goes off the rails.  How many people are really playing for that goal?  When you go out to play, and you're shooting well above your norm, aren't you going to go for the more thrilling shots?  What do you have to lose?  Or if you're playing a career best round, do you really want to finish conservatively to protect your 82, instead of trying to break 80?


If you're getting paid to play golf, hell yes.  If you're not -- and nobody on this board is making a living off their scores -- I don't really understand the mentality.  I would much rather hit the shots I feel like trying to hit, and enjoy them.  So I'm going to design courses around that premise, and tempt you visually to play the cool shots, and if some guru convinces you not to do that, I'm sorry.  For you.

[Kyle Harris]

What is it with you people and similar names stacking responses!?


There is an irony to Tom Doak's last few statements in that it was this approach that made me see more nuance at a place with which I am intimately familiar in Streamsong and that it was the Renaissance Cup at Memorial Park where I really began to embrace the mentaility.

One thing I began to realize is that shots which I could pull off maybe 1 out of 3 rounds to my satisfaction...


...wait..

No.

One thing I began to realize is that THE RESULT of a shot I could pull off maybe 1 out of 3 rounds to my satisfaction began to occur more frequently when I began to shift my target according to dispersion and variance. The issue is that the 1 out of 3 didn't become 2 out of 3 it became more like 13 out of 30.


I go back to the tee shot location on my Road Hole anecdote in the first post. While my target on the green may have remained the same, the likely out comes shift as the dispersion pattern origian moves to the left in that fairway and more and more move away from the hole.

That's an angle.

Move that left side farther down the fairway and the dispersion pattern of the shorter club gets tighter and moves the possible outcomes back toward the hole location as the target moves with the club.

That's distance being an advantage.

The visceral reaction to the stat-based approach - one I had too - is to balk at this idea of "one ideal way to play"  and you're taking all the gambling out of the game. But I call BS.

All I described above are ages old concepts like sucker pins, taking your medicine, and lines of charm. It may be a little antiseptic to describe them as a 0.2 shot swing over the long run but I'm willing to bet if I were to repackage this as a way to more frequently pull off your angle chasing you'd at least listen.

The irony to this in the above is that I'm describing a Road Hole and that the orientation of the hazards and the putting green very much influenced my play and the range of possible outcomes. The Road Hole bunker is within that range. So is the road behind the green. The dispersion pattern moved under the premise of preventing an outcome where I'd need to drop and take a penalty shot and mitigate bad damage. It'd didn't remove chance or the element of needing to recover.

And on that is one last though - recovery...

And this is something where I think the Stat Guys get lost. Width DOES matter. Strategy is how you apply strings of shot dispersions together and if moving that pattern off the center-line changes it's orientation in relation to the features the architect is VERY MUCH inflienced by the angle. All you're now doing, instead of playing for a line of charm, is attempting to fit shapes into the golf course like that old game for toddlers. One side may force you to move the target into a safe area due to the shape of your pattern (a bail out) while another side may put the hole dead center of the pattern (a green light).

Did the guy "missing" their bailout closer to the hole than the guy "missing" their green light on the "ideal side" gamble more or win the lottery?

I think the best players will never even let you know. They'll just go make the putt.

[Kyle Harris]

Last tangential thought.

"Winning the lottery"

My dad, a generally risk-averse person, used to crack that he played the lottery because it's the most thrill a buck could buy. He chose to participate on occasion.

In golf, you don't really have the right to "choose" to participate. You must play the shot. So the variance of your outcomes is an inevitable result.

Is the thrill in the chase or the result of the chase? That's up to you to decide and I make no judgment on that! It's your game after all. I happen to like winning. But even there I can define what that means to me. Generally it's beating the golfer I was yesterday. But maybe that's really more about control.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yes.  The assumption that players will aim for the "middle of the shotgun" because they are trying to be mathematically efficient over their day or season or lifetime is where the discussion goes off the rails.  How many people are really playing for that goal?  When you go out to play, and you're shooting well above your norm, aren't you going to go for the more thrilling shots?  What do you have to lose?  Or if you're playing a career best round, do you really want to finish conservatively to protect your 82, instead of trying to break 80?

That's the thing… at the higher levels, they are sticking to it for the most part. They buy into the math, the understanding, the strategy… etc. They know the deviations, too, and they generally know how to adjust given a certain day's requirements.

At the "82 never having broken 80" level, people are generally clueless about this stuff.

I'm not saying you are, but banking on the general population remaining clueless isn't really the way to go about things, it seems to me. Better understandings of golf course strategy are filtering down more each year.

And you're still right more often than you should be… as golfers are human, and they'll "go for" things far more often than they should or could. But not all, and that number is (very slowly) shrinking.

This is a huge part of why I disagree with many about, say, Tobacco Road.

If you're not -- and nobody on this board is making a living off their scores -- I don't really understand the mentality.

You don't understand the mentality of wanting to put together a solid round of golf? At what point does one break from the mentality and try to flag everything? If you're sitting at +8 on the last hole and need a birdie, and a par or double or quad all count the same in your mind, then sure… take on the flag.

But on the 14th hole? That's too early and is going to lead to more 88s than 78s. Heck, we talk about in our book how the strategy leads to the lowest average score, but you can make adjustments in situations where, say, you're one down in the club stroke play championship with a dangerous hole to play, but you don't care if you make par or quad because second place and fifth place are all the same to you… you just want the win.

But it's playing Russian roulette with two or three bullets in play… Tempt fate too many times and you're probably not going to get the results you want.

I would much rather hit the shots I feel like trying to hit, and enjoy them. So I'm going to design courses around that premise, and tempt you visually to play the cool shots, and if some guru convinces you not to do that, I'm sorry. For you.

You shouldn't. One can take great satisfaction and enjoyment from navigating a course really well. In hitting the shots. In seeing the ball hit the exact window and react when it hits the green the way they pictured.

And again, there are still plenty of opportunities to play interesting and/or difficult shots. Just because someone plays to the outside of a dogleg because there's a horrible bunker on the inside of the dogleg doesn't mean they don't pull the ball into the bunker, or pull it so that it barely skirts by… thus giving them an option to play a running shot onto the green that slopes right to left and will funnel their ball to hole.

"I would much rather hit the shots I feel like trying to hit." Playing the optimal scoring strategy doesn't take that away. The shots you feel like trying to hit are just slightly less risky. You can keep trying to tempt people… but they can also keep trying to avoid the temptation. You're the snake in the garden of Eden… blaming Eve for not taking the apple. (I may have gotten that horribly wrong, as it's been a LONG time since I was in Sunday school!)

I know it's not one of your courses, but for example… I loved my round at Sand Valley. I shot 69 the first time I saw it, and played strategic golf the whole day. There were still plenty of shots I had to "pull off" and shots I had to "go for." Just because you're playing to the safe side of a target doesn't mean you can't still hit a pure shot that hits your window, and it doesn't mean you can't pull or push it slightly. It also doesn't mean the hole isn't cut, sometimes, in the middle of the green, right where you're going to aim, and it doesn't mean you can't feel really satisfied when you birdie a hole after making a 20-footer where each of the two shots prior were hit almost exactly where you were trying to hit them.

And that's not even to get into the idea that even if you generally play "strategic" golf, that you can't also just go to Tobacco Road one day and take on EVERY shot, and have a hoot, and see what you can pull off one out of five times… It's not like golfers who understand strategic golf must always play that way.

[Kyle Harris]

I think there are more than enough players, as Erik alluded to, in that 82 breaking 80 crowd here are perhaps a little TOO risk averse when it comes to their strategies.

One of the entire premesis of this whole exercise, and apply it as you will, is that the data show that luck is very much a factor in success. Everybody's best rounds involve it. The statistics provide some comfort in that the inevitable regression to your mean is not a reflection of a regression in your skill. The statistics also provide some comfort in that improvement can be measured by who much that regression improves.

Another coaching adage: "You're never as good as your best day or as bad as your worst."

I recently had my best State-Level Qualifier round in 20 years or so and met my goal of breaking 80 in one of them. The 320 yard 17th hole had OB hard left and water right with 70 or so yards between them. There's enough "conventional" wisdom out there to support less than Driver off the tee. But to what degree? 3-wood is just as "risky" in terms of shot dispersion - just 10-20 yards shorter. The green was small and well-guarded, so much so that I felt like playing a pitch shot gave me more chances.

Do I hit it 200 off the tee? 150?

NO! The play is Driver all day. And when the statistics support the decision it's easier to be confident in the play. I hit a good tee shot.

The approach shot was just as thrilling. I actually tugged into the bunker and got up and down.


I think most would find there are just as many statistics-backed "aggressive" or "fun" plays as there are conservative plays. I know I'm hitting my Driver more confidently and frequently because of it.

[Kyle Harris]

As for Tobacco Road - since I play it only once every two-three years... you're darn straight I'm playing against the odds there.

When it becomes my weekly round, I'll likely be more keen to take it apart systematically.


Context matters.

[Ken Moum]

This comparison of styles between amateurs is interesting because I have recently been catching flak in my group because I  "Play safe" "Play for bogey" Play for the money."


Our game ii six, up to 16-or so seniors with a $10 buy-in for net skins, low net nines or Stableford.  I also have a 5/5/10 side game.


I ALWAYS "Play the game." IOW I think about which game we're playing and try to win.


Sometimes, often,  I'll lay up to ensure a net par or avoid a big number.  Having played in 300+ tournaments in my life, I find great satisfaction in calculating what it will take to win and pulling it off.


The guys I play with think I'm being a wuss, or worse.


They say they always take on the challenge and try to make the lowest score possible on every hole. Which is not true. They will play away from the hole when they think they have to.


But when I lay up from 130 to a green that's elevated 10 feet with steep slopes and a bunker that's dead, they give me crap. But it's just smart golf.

[Tim Martin]

This comparison of styles between amateurs is interesting because I have recently been catching flak in my group because I  "Play safe" "Play for bogey" Play for the money."


Our game ii six, up to 16-or so seniors with a $10 buy-in for net skins, low net nines or Stableford.  I also have a 5/5/10 side game.


I ALWAYS "Play the game." IOW I think about which game we're playing and try to win.


Sometimes, often,  I'll lay up to ensure a net par or avoid a big number.  Having played in 300+ tournaments in my life, I find great satisfaction in calculating what it will take to win and pulling it off.


The guys I play with think I'm being a wuss, or worse.


They say they always take on the challenge and try to make the lowest score possible on every hole. Which is not true. They will play away from the hole when they think they have to.


But when I lay up from 130 to a green that's elevated 10 feet with steep slopes and a bunker that's dead, they give me crap. But it's just smart golf.

Ken-I say play the game that you are comfortable with especially if you’re  gambling. Opponents can get testy if you make a habit of dipping in their pockets.

[jeffwarne]

One of the many redeeming facts about being an aging golfer with an ever decreasing swing speed is that my cone of dispersion is so narrow that I can chase angles on terrific courses all day long. Plus enjoy the mystery and randomness of the ground game (the major exception to the stats "rules").


I can sympathize, but not empathize, with good players whose cone of dispersion may impede their appreciation of the architecture as they chase scores.


Ira

This(above)


Modern equipment and athletic speed has altered scale so much that chasing angles is a bad idea most of the time for higher speed players with wider dispersion.
When fairways were wider, and balls went shorter, chasing angles made more sense.




Nicely done Kyle

[Charlie Goerges]

This comparison of styles between amateurs is interesting because I have recently been catching flak in my group because I  "Play safe" "Play for bogey" Play for the money."


Our game ii six, up to 16-or so seniors with a $10 buy-in for net skins, low net nines or Stableford.  I also have a 5/5/10 side game.


I ALWAYS "Play the game." IOW I think about which game we're playing and try to win.


Sometimes, often,  I'll lay up to ensure a net par or avoid a big number.  Having played in 300+ tournaments in my life, I find great satisfaction in calculating what it will take to win and pulling it off.


The guys I play with think I'm being a wuss, or worse.


They say they always take on the challenge and try to make the lowest score possible on every hole. Which is not true. They will play away from the hole when they think they have to.


But when I lay up from 130 to a green that's elevated 10 feet with steep slopes and a bunker that's dead, they give me crap. But it's just smart golf.

Ken, you're playing the way that works for you. I remember in the early 90s Tom Watson did some articles on strategy (Golf Digest I believe) for mid-higher handicappers, and you're just basically doing the type of thing he advised. Now back then he said something to the effect that he'd have the bogey golfer always tee off on a 400+ yard par 4 with a 5-iron and play 5-iron, 5-iron, pitch to such holes. Nowadays the driver is so easy to hit, I think he'd say to do exactly what you described, among many other things.


We used to just call that "playing safe" or "course management" or something along those lines. But it basically equated to the more modern statistical methods, just before anyone bothered with keeping the statistics.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not saying there's anything wrong with attempting to logically analyse aspects of the game but given that golf is played by folks of varying physical and mental skills and emotions and desires between the ages of approx 5-90 such an analytical approach may not be relevant to all golfers or even most golfers all of the time. Worth considering by some though it likely is.
atb

Yes.  The assumption that players will aim for the "middle of the shotgun" because they are trying to be mathematically efficient over their day or season or lifetime is where the discussion goes off the rails.  How many people are really playing for that goal?  When you go out to play, and you're shooting well above your norm, aren't you going to go for the more thrilling shots?  What do you have to lose?  Or if you're playing a career best round, do you really want to finish conservatively to protect your 82, instead of trying to break 80?


If you're getting paid to play golf, hell yes.  If you're not -- and nobody on this board is making a living off their scores -- I don't really understand the mentality.  I would much rather hit the shots I feel like trying to hit, and enjoy them.  So I'm going to design courses around that premise, and tempt you visually to play the cool shots, and if some guru convinces you not to do that, I'm sorry.  For you.

Tom,


Out of curiosity, what did JN say about angles in design when you were working together on LI?  When I have heard him speak on strategy, he was mostly saying "Miss the hazards."


As to average players, golf instructors have been preaching about aiming at the middle of the greens rather than chasing the pin for years, as long as I can remember (and yes, I can still remember, LOL).  I think they also taught aiming well away from water and O.B. as well, although not quite as clearly.


I really don't get the negative reactions to the idea that as time goes on, golf is more scientific and less intuition.  Heck, the same is true of almost any human endeavor.......including golf course design.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Out of curiosity, what did JN say about angles in design when you were working together on LI?  When I have heard him speak on strategy, he was mostly saying "Miss the hazards."

As to average players, golf instructors have been preaching about aiming at the middle of the greens rather than chasing the pin for years, as long as I can remember (and yes, I can still remember, LOL).  I think they also taught aiming well away from water and O.B. as well, although not quite as clearly.

I really don't get the negative reactions to the idea that as time goes on, golf is more scientific and less intuition.  Heck, the same is true of almost any human endeavor.......including golf course design.

Yes.

I'm not a GCA, so take everything in the third point and beyond and throw it out if you want. Won't bother me. But I see it as… a few things.

First, again, most golfers still don't know this strategy stuff. They're still trying to pull off too many shots that they shouldn't be trying to pull off, etc.

Second, even golfers like me who know this stuff… don't have to play that way all the time.

Third, I don't see why GCAs can't still find ways to tempt players, especially the first few times they play a course. Make some bad trouble look "okay" or make some "okay" stuff look menacing, and force players to make decisions. Rather than hard edges to things (i.e. OB in a straight line up the left side), build soft edges into things where you can, either by varying the type of lie (Andy at The Fried Egg, I think, likes the type of rough that gives you a random sort of lie) or the shape of that line.

Fourth, make the ball roll when you can, or open up other shots that favor a player who plays the ball along the ground. If angles matter when the ball is rolling, force or at least push players to play the ball along the ground more. (Of course, if golfers keep insisting on super green conditions, they may not get the firm conditions the architect planned on.)

Fifth… Ahhh, I'm being called back for my appointment early (when does THAT ever happen?), so I'll cut it off there for now.

[Kyle Harris]

Erik,

I think it's easier to be tempted to do too little than too much.

I also think we tend to underestimate the intellgence of golfers in terms of playing safe.


If anything, the statistics probably do just as much to instill confidence on how to play aggressively (full send) as they do as to when to play smart. Laying up is tempting and all too often just pushes the risk to the next shot.

A lot of the times the statistics will tell you to attempt to get all the risk out of the way in the first shot instead of splitting into two.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I also think we tend to underestimate the intellgence of golfers in terms of playing safe.

I don't know which way you mean that to say. They play too safely or they don't play safely enough?

A lot of the times the statistics will tell you to attempt to get all the risk out of the way in the first shot instead of splitting into two.

There's a lot more to it than that. There's "danger" on every shot, risk on every shot, just to varying amounts. A simple par four with a fairway bunker left and a greenside bunker right… your target is generally away from both bunkers. And it's generally "full send" because that leaves a shorter second shot. But if the bunker is HORRIBLE and the corridor narrow, and hitting a 3W keeps you short of it, and still leaves a short iron in, you haven't really pushed off the danger, you've just slightly increased the danger of the greenside bunker because you'll have an extra 20 yards or whatever in to it.

And I know you know all of that, so I'm not saying that to "tell" you that.

[Tom_Doak]

I think it's easier to be tempted to do too little than too much.

I agree with this.  I like to defend my greens asymmetrically, and one reason is that players tend to play away [or shy away] from the more heavily guarded side.  For average players, that's good strategy; for very good players, any time I can get them not to aim right at the flag, I consider it a win.

[Tom_Doak]

At what point does one break from the mentality and try to flag everything? If you're sitting at +8 on the last hole and need a birdie, and a par or double or quad all count the same in your mind, then sure… take on the flag.

But on the 14th hole? That's too early and is going to lead to more 88s than 78s. Heck, we talk about in our book how the strategy leads to the lowest average score, but you can make adjustments in situations where, say, you're one down in the club stroke play championship with a dangerous hole to play, but you don't care if you make par or quad because second place and fifth place are all the same to you… you just want the win.

But it's playing Russian roulette with two or three bullets in play… Tempt fate too many times and you're probably not going to get the results you want.

I don't play golf anything at all like trying to aim at the flag on every approach.  I'm nowhere near that good.  In fact, I've always been pretty good at coaching people I played with or caddied for to get the most out of their games, and that doesn't mean going for it all the time unless you are a +5.


But as an architect, my job is to tempt the average player to "go for" things, and even to give them chances to make it.  It's been a while since I read Alister MacKenzie's book, but there is a line about giving people a chance to go for a carry that looks too far, but is actually within their abilities . . . giving them a thrill, in other words.  Now you would say that you'd also tell them to go for it if it's within their abilities, but I think the general message that's being distilled is to "play safe".


I just worry that you're taking the thrill out of the game.  And I personally think giving players a thrill or two is just as important to golfer retention as "wanting to play a solid round of golf".

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't play golf anything at all like trying to aim at the flag on every approach. I'm nowhere near that good. In fact, I've always been pretty good at coaching people I played with or caddied for to get the most out of their games, and that doesn't mean going for it all the time unless you are a +5.

And even then… they don't go for it as often as many people think.

But as an architect, my job is to tempt the average player to "go for" things, and even to give them chances to make it.  It's been a while since I read Alister MacKenzie's book, but there is a line about giving people a chance to go for a carry that looks too far, but is actually within their abilities... giving them a thrill, in other words. Now you would say that you'd also tell them to go for it if it's within their abilities, but I think the general message that's being distilled is to "play safe".

Sometimes. In the absolute simplest of terms, modern golf strategy is basically "aggressive with regards to distance, safe with regards to penalties/horrible lies and situations".

So I think my advice, Mark Broadie's advice, even Scott's advice would be to carry the bunker off the tee… and play away from the pond to the right side of the green (to make up a situation). Depending on the skill level of the player, the length of the shot, and what is left of the green, that "away from the pond" might have them aiming just left-center of the green all the way to the fringe, fairway, or even the rough to the left of the green.

I just worry that you're taking the thrill out of the game. And I personally think giving players a thrill or two is just as important to golfer retention as "wanting to play a solid round of golf".

I get what you're saying, but I disagree strongly. For a few reasons.

First, again, most golfers aren't playing "super strategic golf" most of the time. Heck, it's probably still 95% who literally never play it that way.

But let's assume the number who will play "super strategic golf" continues to increase… well, there are still plenty of opportunities for thrill. It's not like super-strategic golf for a good player is just playing for bogeys and eliminates ALL trouble. It simply reduces the likelihood of encountering it. You still have to hit a good driver. When you're going for a par five, you're still trying to bounce the ball onto the green instead of into the greenside rough or the greenside bunker… When you're hitting an approach shot, you're still trying to hit it solid and use the left side kicker to funnel your ball toward the hole. Heck, you're still trying to hit a good 35-foot birdie putt and it's still thrilling when it goes in.

There's still a thrill of hitting a good golf shot, and again as far as distance goes "super strategic golf" is still aggressive there. The 17th at Sawgrass is still thrilling, even if you are aiming toward the center of the green most of the time. I'd push back hard on the idea that playing this way takes the thrill out of it. I suppose it takes the thrill out of golf the same way that playing the slots can be thrilling — for some, that's not really thrilling at all, though, because we know the odds. But golf still gives LOTS of chances to chase a thrill, and even the golfers who know the strategy are still human beings, and they're still going to be tempted by a lot of things.

[Thomas Dai]

Temptation and options are two delightful aspects of the game.
Can I? Yes I can! No I can’t or can’t do it very often! If I can’t achieve it what do I do instead?
Some others things I’d like to throw into the mix - matchplay, medal play, pairs play, single or multi-round play, conditions, the standard of your game on the day in question, what’s on the line at the end of the round/event etc - and how the players mindset and thus the players desire and decision making is effected by the situation.
And how bad will the situation be if you take on a shot and it doesn’t come off? How does the next shot fit into your personal skill set?
If golfers were always logical (sensible, astute etc) they wouldn’t just treat stats/chasing-angles/strategy and it’s various pro/con aspects seriously but they’d also as a minimum prepare in advance and arrive early for a game and warm-up rather than jump out of the car onto the 1st tee, their grips would be fresh and grippy rather than smooth and slippery, they’d have clean not mud filled groves on their irons when they take them out the bag to play a shot etc etc etc etc. A golfers mind works, or doesn’t work, in mysterious ways.
Atb