Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jason Topp on January 21, 2020, 01:56:22 PM
-
I have seen a fair amount of data recently that suggests, at least at the professional level, there is no benefit to having a favorable angle when approaching a green. Here is an example:
https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1219649236880543744/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1219649236880543744/photo/1)
-
I love this kind of topic...even though it's a rabbit hole.
My culprit for this? Tour set ups with smooth medium fast and flat greens. makes those 6 footers for par really easy for the guy approaching from the wrong side of the fairway.
-
I love this kind of topic...even though it's a rabbit hole.
My culprit for this? Tour set ups with smooth medium fast and flat greens. makes those 6 footers for par really easy for the guy approaching from the wrong side of the fairway.
Exactly. There is no advantage to be had, if it doesn't matter which side of the hole you wind up on.
-
Wonder if they can do this for specific events where we know the greens actually do offer an advantage.
-
Here is a tool the guy created on Riviera's 10th. I am not sure whether or not it is consistent or inconsistent with the overall statistics:
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMzczZmUyMWQtYzA0Yi00ZmNlLWFmNmEtZWRlNjViZTU2M2Y5IiwidCI6ImJiNjY5NzU2LWM0YTktNDYwMS1hOWYyLWQyNDRlNTQzNzk3MSIsImMiOjJ9 (https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMzczZmUyMWQtYzA0Yi00ZmNlLWFmNmEtZWRlNjViZTU2M2Y5IiwidCI6ImJiNjY5NzU2LWM0YTktNDYwMS1hOWYyLWQyNDRlNTQzNzk3MSIsImMiOjJ9)
-
Given the way course maintenance practices and equipment has developed over the last few decades I don’t consider that angles generally matter as much as they used too and probably matter less and less these days as the ability of the player increases.
However, for physically weaker players, older folks etc who aren’t able to get much trajectory then I’d still say yes, angles still matter.
Indeed angles might be even more important these days for physically weaker players for as grass has got lusher and rough is more shaped around the entrances to greens the chance to run the ball onto the putting surface has probably diminished so being in the right spot to play a shot into a green when using the kind of non-spinny ball that most lessor players use has meant that finding the best angles has become more crucial.
Atb
-
Didn't look at the photo, but i've got to think it depends on distance. Sure maybe from 100-150 yards out its negligible but for 200- 250 its still got to be pretty important.
P.S. I recall in the Presidents Cup on one of the par 3s at RM, they had a tucked pin just over a bunker that played about 200 yards and these guys were hitting it all over the place trying to find a decent line into that pin.
-
I'm glad Jim and Tom raised a mitigating factor/counter argument.
I must admit that this new age thinking and these modern stats -- Lou there, and Erik here -- seem more compelling and convincing to me every day.
And I don't like it.
It means that my *natural inclination* and my *rational, reasoned choice* are one and the same!
That doesn't seem right at all.
What kind of game, what kind of game of *golf*, doesn't ask me to struggle against my baser instincts in the service of higher thought?
What am I left with? "Me hit ball hard. Ball go far. Me hit ball hard again. See ball go".
It's like reading "The Cat in The Hat" over and over again, long after the children have gone off to college!
-
This is based on relatively narrow fairways and flat greens around the hole (as mentioned). They’re is little angle difference created on a narrow fairway versus a wide fairway.
-
This is based on relatively narrow fairways and flat greens around the hole (as mentioned). They’re is little angle difference created on a narrow fairway versus a wide fairway.
Paul -
Maybe. However, I think of a stereotypical tour setup as having flags very close to the edges. Such a setup would seem to reward approaches from the wide side of the fairway.
I also wonder if this conclusion would be different with club golfers.
Regardless of the answer to that question, there are many traditional golf strategic truisms that have been debunked by data: 1) lay up to a preferred yardage (even the worst wedge player is better from 50 yards than 100); 2) it is better to be below rather than above the hole (putting statistics are consistent from either side); 3) short game shots are the most important shots (they are not at any level of play). I wonder whether the preferred angle question is similarly questionable.
We see the same effect in baseball (strikeouts, home runs); basketball (no mid range 2 point shots) and to a lesser extent in football (going for two on extra points).
It leads me to wonder whether golf course design should be taking account of analytics when deciding how to challenge the player.
-
With tour approach shots with 8 irons and shorter that are launched into the stratosphere, landing like butterflies with sore feet, angles make little difference. The professional game is played vertically not horizontally, strategy is what club. to use. Exception was Royal Melbourne where angles and a ground game were paramount.
-
This is based on relatively narrow fairways and flat greens around the hole (as mentioned). They’re is little angle difference created on a narrow fairway versus a wide fairway.
Paul -
Maybe. However, I think of a stereotypical tour setup as having flags very close to the edges. Such a setup would seem to reward approaches from the wide side of the fairway.
I also wonder if this conclusion would be different with club golfers.
Regardless of the answer to that question, there are many traditional golf strategic truisms that have been debunked by data: 1) lay up to a preferred yardage (even the worst wedge player is better from 50 yards than 100); 2) it is better to be below rather than above the hole (putting statistics are consistent from either side); 3) short game shots are the most important shots (they are not at any level of play). I wonder whether the preferred angle question is similarly questionable.
We see the same effect in baseball (strikeouts, home runs); basketball (no mid range 2 point shots) and to a lesser extent in football (going for two on extra points).
It leads me to wonder whether golf course design should be taking account of analytics when deciding how to challenge the player.
How can being below the hole not be an advantage over being above the hole?
-
With tour approach shots with 8 irons and shorter that are launched into the stratosphere, landing like butterflies with sore feet, angles make little difference. The professional game is played vertically not horizontally, strategy is what club. to use. Exception was Royal Melbourne where angles and a ground game were paramount.
Attack angle and descent angle are the ones that they care about.
-
These are the winning scores from the first 9 majors held at this venue: are angles important?
-4
-3
-6
-5
-3
-9
-8
-8
-8
-
Not sure I know how to correlate that list to an answer...what course/major? What years?
-
No
Many reasons
1.with a wedge-no unless tons of slope or tilt (see 2 and 3)
2. with increased distance they are nearly always hitting wedges
3.slope and tilt have been greatly reduced due to successfully convincing people that slope and tilt are gimmicky and that fast greens are more difficult(and then they get flatter etc.)
4. tour pins are often so close to the edge that the player is shooting slightly away from them from any angle
-
Here is a tool the guy created on Riviera's 10th. I am not sure whether or not it is consistent or inconsistent with the overall statistics:
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMzczZmUyMWQtYzA0Yi00ZmNlLWFmNmEtZWRlNjViZTU2M2Y5IiwidCI6ImJiNjY5NzU2LWM0YTktNDYwMS1hOWYyLWQyNDRlNTQzNzk3MSIsImMiOjJ9 (https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMzczZmUyMWQtYzA0Yi00ZmNlLWFmNmEtZWRlNjViZTU2M2Y5IiwidCI6ImJiNjY5NzU2LWM0YTktNDYwMS1hOWYyLWQyNDRlNTQzNzk3MSIsImMiOjJ9)
Pretty nifty little viz he's got. If you toggle through the different pin positions you'll see the average score bounce around.
Fun fact: average score for drives that land on the green is 3.28. You are more likely to three-putt than one-putt when driving the green.
(I think he's the green section numbers reversed in the viz as according to the stats the front of the green pins (1) play 3.65 for shots that land on the green (4) while the back of the green plays 2.81. Damn data quality!). But a 3.65 scoring average when driving the green with pins on one of the sections means pros more often 3-putt than 2-putt in that scenario. Wow!
-
Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling. Thus:
- Angles matter to the average or especially older golfer. They need to roll the ball onto greens, and can't do that if a bunker is in between them and the green.
- Angles matter to the better player (even PGA Tour players) when the course is firm. For example, Royal Melbourne at the Presidents Cup.
To the average PGA Tour player, angles don't matter, because the ball doesn't roll very far when it lands. The ball comes in steeply and with enough spin that it generally doesn't go very far from where it lands, which means that even from a "bad" angle they can put the ball over hazards and stop it on the green.
Lou worked with Dave Wedzik and I for a year, too, and generated that same chart (in more detail) with us. We did some more digging in and generally:
- Players playing from the "wrong" side (right side of fairway, right hole location) tended to hit toward the middle of the green more. Less trouble, but slightly longer putts. They played slightly "safe."
- Players playing from the "correct" side (left side of fairway, right hole location) tended to be a bit more aggressive, which lead to more missed greens, but a slightly closer proximity on greens hit. They played slightly "aggressively."
The numbers, as you can see in the charts, basically balance out, though.
-
I wouldn't endorse any design, presentation or course set up decisions based on the statistics from pro golfers. This is far too small a subset of golfers to give much notice.
Ciao
-
Compared to my time trying to play, it's really amazing how differently the professional game is attempting to be played.
as a 57 year old, I developed my game as a kid largely in New Jersey. To me, the courses I played were predominantly tight, tree lined, with rough. Driving it straight, having the ability to work the ball were hugely important to playing well.
As a rookie on tour (1990), much the same. Driving it in play on most courses I played was important. Being able to hit one side of the fairway or another was hugely helpful, but not at the risk for most of us to hitting it in the rough.
Players like Nicklaus, Norman hitting it crazy high, straight and long got players attention, and many worked to emulate that success, looking for height and length. The manufacturers responded when I was playing, with hybrids, Titanium heads, longer (and more consistent) light shafts all trying to answer a demand.
Many courses responded by lengthening, creating a reactive arms race.
As the players and manufacturers demands moved towards higher launch and longer carry, RandD evolved tremendously. The difference in launch ideals from 1995-2000-2010-2020 was staggering.
As a player and then a teacher, the knowledge we gained about the ideal launch parameters was and is amazing. The ability to accurately measure and capture swing, launch and ball data has hugely impacted my swing as well as my coaching.
In one weekend in 2015, I made changes in my swing working with Leadbetter that gave me about 25 feet higher ball flight (500 more rpm spin) with my irons. I picked up about 2 degrees more launch angle with driver, and net gained 1 club and 10 yards. I had to find these gains even as a Champions player to effectively manage my approaches into greens. Even for me, at that point, shotmaking became more about controlling my height (and distances) than having the ability to curve the ball each direction.
I was on the sidelines for 10+ years, and it was interesting to watch the evolution (IMO), of this.
Players looking for height, courses lengthening, manufacturers RandD helping players find more height, the tour moving hole locations tighter to edges, players looking for more height, etc.
LA CC was an interesting thing to me. I had played it when on tour (mid 90's. I didn't like it then, but it was tough. Now I like it a ton after the reno , but it seems easier for me with the width and the height I could hit it now. With more width off the tee, players can add horsepower, and less club into a green which means more height and less (in many cases) need for a proper angles.
Norman and Tiger really showed fitness and power were huge, and players watched, learned, and adjusted. The current generation followed a successful blueprint for building a tour game and the knowledge in equipment makes it mare accessible for everyone to find and use that knowledge to max out speed and launch. The analytics push it more
-
I made the mistake of giving these clowns the clicks and responses on Twitter before I realized they were repackaging someone else's (Mark Broadie) work.
When you can't answer simple questions about your data with simple answers, you're selling something.
-
I want to see how these numbers change playing from the rough. Absent that it really doesn't help very much. I would think correct angles after missing the fairway are much more important.
-
Justifying anti-strategy design because its ubiquitous is proving why there are only about 50 great courses in the world.
One example;
Koepka's approach to the 10th at Shinnecock, in their last open, shows how important the angle matters to the best in the world. While everyone bombed it over the crest of the hill, he played just short of the left bunker, short of the crest. This thoughtful strategic choice, which gave him both a better angle and an uphill lie, affording a better chance of holding even the firmest green.
-
No
Many reasons
1.with a wedge-no unless tons of slope or tilt (see 2 and 3)
2. with increased distance they are nearly always hitting wedges
3.slope and tilt have been greatly reduced due to successfully convincing people that slope and tilt are gimmicky and that fast greens are more difficult(and then they get flatter etc.)
4. tour pins are often so close to the edge that the player is shooting slightly away from them from any angle
Not to mention the Play it Forward campaign that wants to put wedge in everyone's hands.
-
I love this kind of topic...even though it's a rabbit hole.
My culprit for this? Tour set ups with smooth medium fast and flat greens. makes those 6 footers for par really easy for the guy approaching from the wrong side of the fairway.
Thought I answered on this topic, but obviously not. Some thoughts:
First, 6 foot is the 50% miss/make distance for pros. They are not "really easy." Especially under pressure. Will also reiterate that I believe basing any design solely on the Tour pro (and especially the top 20 we see on TV who are playing at the top of their games) is goofy. I can see designing for the average Tour Pro, and the stats show these guys still struggle on average out of the rough, the sand, the greens, etc. I can see using Senior Tour stats as a pretty good proxy for low handicap ams, really.
Second, I have been thinking of throwing in a grenade here, a topic with the title "When will Bareski, Fawcett and Broadie replace McKenzie, Tilly and Ross as the experts on strategy?" It may never happen on golf club architectural nostalgia.com, but I think it has or will happen in the real golf world, starting with pros, and working down to ams after the stats based strategy becomes more widely publicized. :)
Third, and remember these observations come from over a decade ago, so we can't blame continuing distance advancements.
I ask every pro I know about their strategy. Lanny Wadkins (in 1995) on whether having an open green front matters: "Not much. If I am between clubs, it helps as I can go down a club. If I don't have an open front, I club up with more spin. Its a bit harder because I also have to look at the back edge and see if there are any rolls I can use to spin the ball towards the pin. When asked about one side of the fw or the other on tee shots? "What's wrong with the middle?"
When designing Colbert Hills in 1999, on one hole, I pointed out the better angle to the green was from the bunkered side of the fw, as it provided an open front. His reaction? Not really. He prefers aiming to the side of the fw where he needs to come over the bunker on the theory that he aims at the outside edge of the green and curves it back. He added that he didn't consider ground balls, LOL.
That is similar to those who tee close to OB on the tee, as it doubles their miss angles from X degrees to more than X degrees, and its safer. The only thing he needs go guard against on those approaches is "overcooking" the fade or draw, or being too aggressive to get close to the pin.
And, Larry Nelson, circa 1986, prior to Pro V 1.....he never looked at hazards at all when planning his approach shot. He looked at contours that might affect his approach within the green. He didn't allow it to enter his mind he would miss by that much. Both he and Colbert loved rolling edges on the greens that allowed a safe play to the middle, but where those rolls could affect you when you went for the pin. Similarly, all of them would only "tolerate" a few tiered greens per round, reasoning that a contour in the middle of the green had to tendency to take the safe shot well away from the hole if it hit the wrong tier. They thought that made it pretty easy to make par, but a lot harder to play aggressively to the corners and edges.
Notah Begay III, Litzke, Elkington, JC Snead and others felt pretty similarly in most areas. You could throw a blanket over their opinions of what constituted good architecture for them. Steve Pate was a bit more flexible in his opinion.
-
Jeff,
I think that you might be describing the gulf between doers and thinkers, practice vs. theory.
As a senior golfer, I tend to play away from fairway bunkers more than positioning the tee shot to the side of the fairway with a better opening to the green. Simply, i am a much better greenside bunker player than from those guarding the fairways. And for those holes where I am likely to hit my approach on the green, I am typically hitting to the center as opposed to favoring one side (I am more concerned with short and long).
Even when I was a decent golfer, I had much better control of distance on my approaches than I did accuracy. There were few greens that wouldn't accept my approaches, though, as you know, most greens in our part of the country were mostly tilted back to front in the direction of the shots (not much internal contouring or high spots to move the ball).
I think that strategy as often discussed on this site is mostly an intellectual exercise. I remember going to my first King Putter and expecting these cracking golfers playing as the architecture indicated. One particular guy, a very good writer who regularly extolled the virtues of the ground game, actually played accordingly. But it was out of necessity as the guy couldn't get the ball in the air toward the target if he tried his best. Put a bunker in front, and he had no choice but to go toward one of the sides.
Strategy is about choices and the ability to execute the shots that are available. There is a frequent critique that modern players don't possess the shotmaking abilities of their predecessors. I don't think that this is necessarily true- I've seen too many extraordinary recovery shots when the situation demanded it. It is more likely a function that most skilled golfers play to their strengths, and absent high rough, holes cut in slopes, and heavy wind, they can more easily control the distance they hit the ball by air.
So, IMO, it is not that angles don't matter, but that they don't dictate a style of play. I believe that this is true at most levels of play, excluding water hazards for the higher handicappers.
-
...
As a rookie on tour (1990), much the same. Driving it in play on most courses I played was important. Being able to hit one side of the fairway or another was hugely helpful, but not at the risk for most of us to hitting it in the rough.
...
Is this an indication that narrowing fairways is reducing the effects of thoughtful design?
-
A thing of the past.
Good players can control the ball enough it matters almost zero. Bad golfers cause enough problems for themselves without obstructions. There is a range from about 6-12 handicap that thinking is a bigger part but a 12 handicapper is expected to drop a shot a 2 out of 3 holes anyway so greenside bunkers (that make the angles) are not big enough problems.
The game has changed, hit the ball straight from the tee as far as you can. Select correct club and hit it as hard as you can at the flag (distance shown in your viewer). Remove green plan from pocket to select slope angles so as to determine how far to the side of the hole to aim.
The game I liked does not really exist any more.
-
How can being below the hole not be an advantage over being above the hole?
Rob,
It's similar to playing downwind vs. into the wind. Playing downhill/wind/grain, misses tend to self-correct. Playing into uphill/wind/grain, misses are exacerbated. Imagine you have a straight downhill putt. If you start it a bit to the right, it's now going very slightly sidehill and will break slightly back to the left. If you have a straight uphill putt and start it a bit to the right, it will actually break slightly to the right, exacerbating your miss. In this scenario, you have to be more precise to hole the uphill putt than the downhill one.
Another small factor is that the ball is rolling more slowly when it reaches the hole on a downhill putt. That means you're more likely to lip in a downhill putt than an uphill putt.
All in all, it's often easier to make a downhill putt.
There are some caveats. It's easier to 3-putt a downhill putt because it's harder to get the speed exactly right. Obviously if you're putting down a slope where you literally can't stop the ball next to the hole, or on a severe slope playing many feet of break, that's harder. If the green is bumpy, that affects downhill putts more because the ball is rolling more slowly.
But the argument isn't that putting downhill is better. It's just, we think putting downhill is much worse than putting uphill, and that's often not the case.
-
Do bunkers matter? Do fast greens matter? Does water matter? Does width matter? The list goes on. The answer is all relative to who the target audience is. One thing that matters to all is firmness of the turf but even that is relative. We do have to stop designing/maintaining courses (at least 99% of them) around a touring pro’s game.
-
I love this kind of topic...even though it's a rabbit hole.
My culprit for this? Tour set ups with smooth medium fast and flat greens. makes those 6 footers for par really easy for the guy approaching from the wrong side of the fairway.
First, 6 foot is the 50% miss/make distance for pros. They are not "really easy."
Jeff, I believe it's out to 8 feet...which is a 33% improvement in what, 15 years? Other than the stock market is anything else increasing that fast?
My main point in using that metric is that the risk of a miss, when going after a short side pin from the wrong side, is less than it used to be because maintenance practices (on Tour) are that much better. Have you seen the latest move with bunker raking? They do the job with the tines like always then flip the rake over and smooth the sand perfectly.
-
Jim,
I think you are right.
I agree the metric for missing for a pro is small, but then, what would you expect? Broadie's stats do show it matters though:
Hit green from 160 yards
" " " FW 2.98 Strokes
" " " Rough 3.23 Strokes
" " " FW Sand Bunker 3.28 Strokes
" " " Recovery from trees, etc. 3.81 Strokes
Rough or sand reduces chances of hitting the green by about 8% at that distance. Shorter shots are only 4% more likely to miss, longer shots stay about the same from a quick look.
Over 18 approach shots, that would be maybe 1.44 shots per round for a guy who never hit the fw. Maybe not enough, but then, I would guess those percentages would be higher on PGA West or something.
BTW, since this is nominally still on angles, was going to say, Pete probably made angles the most important off the tee, at least. Take a normal width fw (i.e.30-35 yards on tour) and angle it 20 degrees off the tee, and a curved tee shot to match the fw angle is pretty important just to hit the fairway. :D
Of course, while tour pros miss shots within a 10% of intended line, low handicappers are about 12%, mid handicappers 15%, etc. So, again, angles matter more for everyone else, as noted. Why talk about tour pros? Just put them on specifically designed stadium courses if you want higher scores. If you want them on traditional older courses, accept lower scores.
-
I made the mistake of giving these clowns the clicks and responses on Twitter before I realized they were repackaging someone else's (Mark Broadie) work.
This isn't Mark's work. It's just data pulled from the ShotLink data. It's not difficult to compile, but it's not Mark's.
I want to see how these numbers change playing from the rough. Absent that it really doesn't help very much. I would think correct angles after missing the fairway are much more important.
I can't share the whole chart with you, but here's are two yardages.
100-124 yards, right hole location:
LR: -0.11
LF: 0.12
CF: 0.17
RF: 0.10
RR: -0.10
175-199 yards, left hole location:
LR: -0.17
LF: 0.08
CF: 0.11
RF: 0.06
RR: -0.17
L = left, F = fairway, R = Right or Rough, etc.
First, 6 foot is the 50% miss/make distance for pros.
8 feet is 50%.
Second, I have been thinking of throwing in a grenade here, a topic with the title "When will Bareski, Fawcett and Broadie replace McKenzie, Tilly and Ross as the experts on strategy?" It may never happen on golf club architectural nostalgia.com, but I think it has or will happen in the real golf world, starting with pros, and working down to ams after the stats based strategy becomes more widely publicized.
It's already basically happened.
And, thing is… it's really not that complicated. You can learn how to play pretty much any golf hole three ways in a short period of time. Those ways are "highest percentage chance of eagle or birdie," "lowest average score," and "lowest chances of a double or worse."
The middle of those is how roughly the first 54 to 72 holes are played by the majority of PGA Tour players week in and week out, with a small shift toward the first and last as players near the lead get to the back nine (generally speaking - you'll have some players say "damn the torpedoes" Saturday morning and make a nice climb… or flame out).
Scott has a flow chart that basically ends with "smash driver" 90% of the time, after all. The LSW approach is similar but might have a little more psychology to it, too, and with the Tour guys we've worked with it's sometimes just about comfort - sometimes they're just comfortable laying back on some holes, or playing a certain kind of shot, and part of our job is to help them get more comfortable with the optimal strategies, and appreciating that even if it doesn't "work" two out of the first three times, it does in the long term.
It's not that complicated, because again, to a Tour player, and most good players, golf is an aerial game. Bunkers don't matter - they fly the ball over them. Width and angles and thus a big chunk of strategy matter when the ball rolls. Strategy matters more, I would argue, to the 16 handicapper or older player who doesn't have the speed to "fly it and stick it." It matters when you get conditions like we saw during the Presidents Cup - when the ball would roll. Angles matter then.
But most of the time on the Tour or for good players, nah.
P.S. Jeff, I'm not sure it'd be quite the grenade you think. Maybe to the firmly entrenched, but I remember a conversation here within the last few years about what the new info and data says about "strategy" and how it should or might or could potentially affect golf course design/architecture.
-
“Scott has a flow chart that basically ends with "smash driver" 90% of the time, after all. The LSW approach is similar but might have a little more psychology to it, too, and with the Tour guys we've worked with it's sometimes just about comfort - sometimes they're just comfortable laying back on some holes, or playing a certain kind of shot, and part of our job is to help them get more comfortable with the optimal strategies, and appreciating that even if it doesn't "work" two out of the first three times, it does in the long term.”
Who do you work with?
-
These are the winning scores from the first 9 majors held at this venue: are angles important?
-4
-3
-6
-5
-3
-9
-8
-8
-8
So these are the first 8 winning scores at Augusta. One under each day the opening four years and -2/day the next four. Back then AGNC had wide fairways, no rough and severe greens so (equipment and skill aside), my thinking is angles mattered.
-
It's not that complicated, because again, to a Tour player, and most good players, golf is an aerial game. Bunkers don't matter - they fly the ball over them. Width and angles and thus a big chunk of strategy matter when the ball rolls. Strategy matters more, I would argue, to the 16 handicapper or older player who doesn't have the speed to "fly it and stick it." It matters when you get conditions like we saw during the Presidents Cup - when the ball would roll. Angles matter then.
There's at least one guy out there who takes angles into account. When Bryson's caddie maps out the course for him, he assigns values to the various features on and surrounding a green. For example, a particularly penal bunker might be given a -2, while a backstop might receive a +1. On their approach, they are looking at the total of the values for each possible line. Its not the determining factor in deciding where to hit it, but it does enter the conversation. The same idea filters back to the tee, as they're trying to get to the spot that maximizes the highest value approach.
But then again, Bryson might be a little different from the majority of the other pros out there.
-
I have always found it very disappointing watching live professional golf because they really play very conservatively on their approach shots. That is why match play is more exciting. Stroke play tournament players are just trying to avoid going backwards and they are very happy to have a bunch of GIR and then dominate the par 5s with their length.
It has sort of been said already here, but maybe angles are no longer important because either way they play safe (vs them being able to attack pins from bad angles).
-
I had an interesting debate on here many years ago with Pat Mucci about Pine Valley.
My position was that the penalty for missing a fairway is so great that it's not worth aiming for the edges for a preferred angle to a particular pin...he felt it was worth the risk for the reward of a great look. Each hole seemingly has several that would be best approached from a preferred part of the fairway but at what risk.
What is the cumulative calculation of having 10 or 12 great looks at the hole in exchange for 2 or 3 chip outs?
How does Broadie (or any of the guys studying the Shotlink data) know where a guy was aiming? They assign a margin of error without actually knowing what zero is...
-
How does Broadie (or any of the guys studying the Shotlink data) know where a guy was aiming? They assign a margin of error without actually knowing what zero is...
Thank you.
Pertinent to the discussion in general, but also personally:
I've been aiming at the OB stakes for years, because the extreme left/right side of the playing corridors often give the best angle.
But my playing companions don't understand my choice, and assume that I just mishit it.
And the Shotlink data has not been kind to me.
-
If we're solely discussing the pro's we see on TV here then it's worth bearing in mind that they are playing 4-round tournaments with most/many competing for their mortgage money and their first objective is to make the 2-round cut. There's a different mindset between this scenario to that of Joe or Jane the Average Amateur who is probably playing a 1-round event or a social knockabout with some friends.
atb
PS - anyone watched the European Tour golf from Emirates GC, Dubai today? There's bitching that the course is too hard and unfair because there are too many doglegs and tee shots are going through the fairways into the relatively grown-up rough on the far side.
-
How does Broadie (or any of the guys studying the Shotlink data) know where a guy was aiming? They assign a margin of error without actually knowing what zero is...
Thank you.
Pertinent to the discussion in general, but also personally:
I've been aiming at the OB stakes for years, because the extreme left/right side of the playing corridors often give the best angle.
But my playing companions don't understand my choice, and assume that I just mishit it.
And the Shotlink data has not been kind to me.
OK smart guy...
As they say, hook it into trouble...hook it out of trouble...
-
How does Broadie (or any of the guys studying the Shotlink data) know where a guy was aiming? They assign a margin of error without actually knowing what zero is...
Jim - I do not think they claim to know where someone is aiming. Instead they use data to calculate how many strokes on average a pro will take to hole out from the position where the ball ends up. For example if a hole has an average score of 4.0 and the player hits the tee ball to a position where on average it would take 2.8 strokes to hole out, the player would have gained 0.2 strokes. If, conversely, the tee ball winds up in a spot where it takes on average 3.2 strokes to hole out, the player would have lost 0.2 strokes. That calculation is done for every shot.
The system is not perfect - wind, the precise lie the player faces and I am sure other factors make the measurement a rough estimate for any particular shot. However, the thought is that those factors wind up averaging out with enough data.
There is an app called golfmetrics that allows you to do the measurements on your own game. The formulas are very simple - you input distance to the hole and indicate whether you are in the fairway, rough, sand green or in a trouble spot. Nonetheless, the results seem to accurately reflect the quality of my play when I have used it.
-
You’re right...my beef is with the guys coaching strategy based on those numbers. Specifically, they ignore the positive mindset derived from playing a hole well in exchange for the idea that you need to make as many birdies as possible and on the good weeks you won’t make many bogies/doubles based on bad strategy.
There’s so much money at the top that a top 5 makes the year for a mid or low level guy.
This strategy likely (hopefully) blows up on good golf courses but I have no evidence...
-
You’re right...my beef is with the guys coaching strategy based on those numbers. Specifically, they ignore the positive mindset derived from playing a hole well in exchange for the idea that you need to make as many birdies as possible and on the good weeks you won’t make many bogies/doubles based on bad strategy.
There’s so much money at the top that a top 5 makes the year for a mid or low level guy.
This strategy likely (hopefully) blows up on good golf courses but I have no evidence...
Bingo.
These are descriptive statistics which describe an event as it was. Think of SABRmetrics and WAR with baseball.
Now, how do you use that for predictive things? Ask Billy Beane.
These guys ain't no Billy Beane.
-
You’re right...my beef is with the guys coaching strategy based on those numbers. Specifically, they ignore the positive mindset derived from playing a hole well in exchange for the idea that you need to make as many birdies as possible and on the good weeks you won’t make many bogies/doubles based on bad strategy.
There’s so much money at the top that a top 5 makes the year for a mid or low level guy.
This strategy likely (hopefully) blows up on good golf courses but I have no evidence...
Bingo.
These are descriptive statistics which describe an event as it was. Think of SABRmetrics and WAR with baseball.
Now, how do you use that for predictive things? Ask Billy Beane.
These guys ain't no Billy Beane.
Jim/Kyle:
I don't understand your arguments.
Jim - Why shouldn't players devise strategies based on this data? If the goal is to shoot the lowest score, why wouldn't you take into account the likely score and range of potential outcomes based on laying up v. being aggressive? I think you have to adjust the general numbers for your own game but for most of us, our own game is not going to vary that much. If the satisfaction of a successful layup paid off so well, wouldn't the numbers reflect that effect?
Kyle - You have made references to flaws in the methodology but I cannot figure out what they are. Billy Beane did not exactly figure out the playoffs but pretty much every successful baseball team has adopted and refined his approach.
I am happy to be proven wrong on this topic. I like the concept of playing for angles. However, I think an idea should hold up in actual results rather than be based on faith.
-
There's at least one guy out there who takes angles into account. When Bryson's caddie maps out the course for him, he assigns values to the various features on and surrounding a green. For example, a particularly penal bunker might be given a -2, while a backstop might receive a +1. On their approach, they are looking at the total of the values for each possible line. Its not the determining factor in deciding where to hit it, but it does enter the conversation. The same idea filters back to the tee, as they're trying to get to the spot that maximizes the highest value approach.
But then again, Bryson might be a little different from the majority of the other pros out there.
Bryson also regularly thinks he's much better than he is. He's out there calculating air density and stuff, and then he hits a wedge to 28 feet. It may just be "how his brain works" and that's how he plays his best golf, but just because he's doing that stuff doesn't mean he's deriving any actual benefit from it. The shot pattern with a driver on the PGA Tour is pretty still pretty wide. Narrower (and/or farther) for better drivers, and very wide for some.
So if he does take this back to the tee, it's pretty vague. On approach shots, too, their shot patterns are larger than most would suspect, but there's also more "stuff" to contend with. Slopes, rough, bunkers, water, short-grass/"chipping" areas, etc.
What is the cumulative calculation of having 10 or 12 great looks at the hole in exchange for 2 or 3 chip outs?
Unless again the ball is rolling a ton, there's almost always a net loss of strokes when you're adding what are effectively 20% penalty shots to the equation. That's a HELL of a hurdle to overcome.
How does Broadie (or any of the guys studying the Shotlink data) know where a guy was aiming? They assign a margin of error without actually knowing what zero is...
Yeah, that's one of the issues. If Tiger is aiming pin-high 25 feet right, and he hits it 27-feet pin high, that's a GREAT shot. And often the shots that get close are the pulls or pushes, or over-curves, that the guy gets away with.
I was giving a playing lesson talking about this stuff. Pin is tight front right, with steep slopes away all around the green. I say "I'm gonna aim 25 feet left. If I hit it there, outside shot at birdie, par guaranteed. If I pull it, I'll have to work, but probably par. If I push it, I might be good." I proceed to push it… and hole out. :P We laughed about it, and the kid jokingly said "great shot" which was exactly correct (the sarcastic tone was the correct part), as it was a "miss," but had it been shown on TV, people would be under the impression that guys hole out from 150 routinely, and are aiming there when they do it.
Anyway, aiming and intent are the next-generation. CHIII might be shown to be a better - albeit more conservative - ball striker than he already is thought to be.
-
Jason,
There was a video of a guy instructing strategy on the basis of this data. Posted on here about a year ago.
They used a fairly short hole as the example, about 370 if I remember close. It turned a tiny bit to the right with some trouble on the right. The advice was to hit driver 320 aiming in the left rough because that took the right bunker completely out of play and "you" score the same from 50 yards in the rough as you do from 120 in the fairway.
This could be personality, but playing defense on this hole half the time seems like a major mistake in the context of the flow of a round of golf. I suspect these guys can hit their 250 club within 10 yards of the target 90+% of the time. This gives them a sand wedge from the fairway which results in a good look at birdie the vast majority of the time.
Backing into a strategy of blasting driver because the results will not be worse, in aggregate, than the "right play" completely ignores the mental effect of momentum in the game. again, maybe it's personality but not a single player has ever been able to ignore it...and why would you want to?
-
This strategy likely (hopefully) blows up on good golf courses but I have no evidence...
Bingo.
These are descriptive statistics which describe an event as it was. Think of SABRmetrics and WAR with baseball.
Now, how do you use that for predictive things? Ask Billy Beane.
Well, unless Brooks Koepka was just yanking my chain, I can tell you he thinks about what side to miss on in major championships, and is not normally aiming for the middle of the fairway off the tee, or aiming for the hole on his approach shots.
As Kyle says, it's different when you are out there doing it. A bunker DOES matter if it affects your aim point, consciously or subconsciously. Tom Watson was maybe the first guy who honestly didn't care if he missed his approach in the bunker, and so he never thought about them at all [on American courses], which was a huge advantage. Does everyone play that way now?
Being able to hit the shot when you need to hit the shot is not just random. It's got a lot to do with what is going on between your ears. As Reggie Jackson used to say to the sabermetrics guys, nobody questions "clutch" when Jack Nicklaus hits a clutch shot, so why is baseball different? [And sure, Jack didn't hit the clutch shot every time he needed to, but his rate of success was probably a bit different than other guys in the last round of a major.]
-
They used a fairly short hole as the example, about 370 if I remember close. It turned a tiny bit to the right with some trouble on the right. The advice was to hit driver 320 aiming in the left rough because that took the right bunker completely out of play and "you" score the same from 50 yards in the rough as you do from 120 in the fairway.
This could be personality, but playing defense on this hole half the time seems like a major mistake in the context of the flow of a round of golf.
If I'm "picturing" the same type of hole and the math and all that as what you recall, hitting driver there is not "playing defense." Some of those drives are going to be in the fairway, and some of the 120-yard shots are going to be in the rough. In that example, based on what you've said, the scoring will be lower from 50 than from 120.
I suspect these guys can hit their 250 club within 10 yards of the target 90+% of the time.
They can but generally, no. Expand it to ±15 yards and you're getting pretty close. Shot Zones are pretty large, even on the PGA Tour.
This gives them a sand wedge from the fairway which results in a good look at birdie the vast majority of the time.
Jim are you just not trusting the data here? You said above that players are going to score the same from 50 yards in the rough (about 2.83) versus 120 in the fairway (2.85), which is true, and are also ignoring that not all of the 120 yard shots will be from the fairway (3.08 from the rough), and not all of the 50-yard shots will be from the rough (2.65 from the fairway).
So assuming even 15% of the shots end up differently (I made the 50/120 yard shots both 2.84 so they were dead even):
2.84 * .85 + 2.65 * .15 vs. 2.84 * .85 + 3.08 * .15
2.812 (from 50) vs. 2.876 (from 120)
That's only 0.06 shots, but that is just over a shot a round if they make a similar "mistake" on every hole.
Here are some other bits of data, using the median player from 2019, and from 100-125:
Proximity from fairway: 19'11" (Go figure: PGA Tour average from 20' is 1.87 or so, which added to the shot they hit, gets you 2.87)
GIR Percentage: 75.19% (they miss the green nearly 1/4 of the time, a lot of that's on the fringe, but sometimes it's rough or a bunker)
Fairway Scoring: 2.856 (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.028.y2019.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.028.y2019.html))
(It's also important to keep in mind, since some of those stats don't seem to perfectly line up given the 2.85 from the fairway number, that: a) proximity only counts shots on or around the green. If your ball is in a bunker, they don't count it, I don't think, and b) the distances being 100-125 makes the numbers "better" because the average distance of that type of shot would be from 112.5 or so yards, not 120 like in the example.)
Backing into a strategy of blasting driver because the results will not be worse, in aggregate, than the "right play" completely ignores the mental effect of momentum in the game.
If I've read your summary of what the guy (probably Scott) was saying… Hitting driver is the "right play," not something a player would be "backing into" or "playing defensively" to do. Laying up would be the dumb play in most situations.
-
Erik,
I'll try to digest and respond to the rest, but my "defensive" term was once you've driven it in the left rough (which is where this example had the guy aim, you are playing defensive because of a mediocre or poor lie half the time. The defense was from 50 yards with a shitty lie, no the driver.
I suspect most guys would stand on that tee wanting to make birdie, and in developing a strategy, make birdie more often than any other. My issue is that it will absolutely result in more bogies which are more damaging mentally than a birdie is helpful mentally...on a hole like this.
-
GIR Percentage: 75.19% (they miss the green nearly 1/4 of the time, a lot of that's on the fringe, but sometimes it's rough or a bunker)
Just curious, is there an easily-available stat for how often a Tour player hits into a fairway bunker? I assume "sand saves" are for greenside bunkers?
-
I'll try to digest and respond to the rest, but my "defensive" term was once you've driven it in the left rough (which is where this example had the guy aim, you are playing defensive because of a mediocre or poor lie half the time. The defense was from 50 yards with a shitty lie, no the driver.
Okay, I get the clarification…
But, Jim, that 50 yards from the rough scoring stat includes those bad lies. Why isn't the guy from 50 yards playing "offense"? Because he's in the rough? The stats say he's playing just as much offense as he is from 120, because they're scoring the same from those places.
The only other possibility might be to hit it to about 85 yards… but usually the two options are pretty clear cut, with just a sliding scale in between them connecting those two "endpoints."f
I suspect most guys would stand on that tee wanting to make birdie, and in developing a strategy, make birdie more often than any other. My issue is that it will absolutely result in more bogies which are more damaging mentally than a birdie is helpful mentally… on a hole like this.
Ah… I don't think you're right about that.
Again the median PGA Tour player misses the green from 120 yards more than you seem to think, and when they hit the green, they hit it to just over 20 feet, from which they have only about a 15% chance of making the putt.
Maybe this will make sense:
- 50-75 yards, rough: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02362.y2019.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02362.y2019.html) - median is about 23'.
It's about three feet farther away, which raises their expected putting from 1.87 to about 1.9. But… the stat is from 50-75 yards away. And you can say "yeah, 25 yards, that's all" but 75 yards is also 50% more, and that's going to have quite an impact.
So, players from 50 yards even in the rough are, IMO, being just as aggressive or conservative as players from 120.
For the average player, the numbers get even more separated: if you can get to 50 over 120, even if 100% of your shots are in the rough versus the fairway, take the 50. Average golfers don't play PGA Tour level rough very often.
I don't believe the statistics (what's actually happened) back up your claims of what is "absolutely" certain to happen. I think they suggest a virtual tie at best, and if we aren't talking about 100% scenarios of 50r vs. 120f, the gap begins to widen and favor the 50 as producing more birdies.
Edit to add this to Tom:
Just curious, is there an easily-available stat for how often a Tour player hits into a fairway bunker? I assume "sand saves" are for greenside bunkers?
Publicly accessible? This is your best option:
https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.01008.y2019.html - "The percentage of time a tee shot comes to rest in a fairway bunker (regardless of club) when the distance of the drive was determined by a laser." (The laser bit usually just means, say, a tracked round, so Torrey Pines North probably doesn't count, for example, as they don't always put ShotLink computers and infrastructure out on the alternative courses.
Rory led in hitting it into only 3.0% (with Webb Simpson), or 24 out of 796 times.
Technically sand saves are "The percent of time a player was able to get 'up and down' once in a greenside sand bunker (regardless of score). Note: 'Up and down' indicates it took the player 2 shots or less to put the ball in the hole from that point. (111)"
They have a category for "30+ yards (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.370.html)" but the definition still says "greenside."
-
Erik,
While the averages of 50 yards in rough and 120 in the fairway are the same, the simple fact that you would make more birdies from 50 yards also means you would make more bogies...to end up with the same average.
I just looked for the clip and he name Scott Fawcett came up but I couldn't find the specific video I was thinking of.
-
https://youtu.be/ziCTTnmGPzU
I think this is it...the first couple minutes are the hole I was thinking of.
Now I have to watch it to see how bad my memory is today...
-
While the averages of 50 yards in rough and 120 in the fairway are the same, the simple fact that you would make more birdies from 50 yards also means you would make more bogies...to end up with the same average.
Of course, but you've asserted that you're "absolutely" going to make more bogeys from 50. I don't think that's accurate. I think they're basically almost the same: the scoring average from 50r is the same as 120f, which is the strongest indicator of this, and the proximity numbers also back that up as well. Both plays, 50r and 120f, will result in about the same % of birdies, pars, and bogeys, I believe.
But remember, again, we're not talking about 50r versus 120f, because players are going to miss the fairway occasionally at 120 and hit it occasionally at 50. And that just shifts the balance in favor of the 50-yard shot. Ultimately, from 50 yards, the players will make more birdies and fewer bogeys.
https://youtu.be/ziCTTnmGPzU (https://youtu.be/ziCTTnmGPzU)
I'll watch now and make a note if I have to change anything I've said based on your memory of the hole (which I suspect was better than you may have thought).
-
My assertion is simply that the strategy coaches suggesting driver is the only way to play that hole are only counting birdies because of the value of a top finish on Tour. They discount the mental baggage cause by bogeying an easy hole even if the 100 round scoring average is the same.
-
My assertion is simply that the strategy coaches suggesting driver is the only way to play that hole are only counting birdies because of the value of a top finish on Tour. They discount the mental baggage cause by bogeying an easy hole even if the 100 round scoring average is the same.
I understand that, but you're still basing this on the (I believe mistaken) idea that you're "absolutely" going to make more bogeys from 50.
I think that:
- From 50r @ 100% and 120f @ 100%, you make virtually the same number of bogeys and birdies (and pars).
- Every little bit that 100% in either category changes (and it can only go in one direction), you increase the chances of birdie from 50 or bogey from 120, and decrease the chances of bogey from 50 or birdie from 120.
-
Didn't you post the averages as 2.83 from 50 yards in the rough and 2.85 from 120 in the fairway?
-
My assertion is simply that the strategy coaches suggesting driver is the only way to play that hole are only counting birdies because of the value of a top finish on Tour. They discount the mental baggage cause by bogeying an easy hole even if the 100 round scoring average is the same.
I'm not sure about that. First, the key to golf is to forget the last hole, especially if its bad. If you can't do that, you aren't going to be very good anyway. Bogey a hole, and then 5 more because you're teed off? It does happen.
In reality, knowing the stats should be a comfort and aid to you playing right after a bad hole. Instead of saying "I need a birdie, I'll be aggressive" which may be your mindset, but not the way to play the hole will be avoided by being less emotional. It's sort of like people who sell off during a stock dip in panic, when the long term stats would tell them to stay in the market.
I am off the point I wanted to make. Basically, it seems like everyone in the world bases their opinions of pros on the top guys they see every week. And, the reason those top guys are in the lead is because they are on their game. The rest of the tour guys are missing it much wider, driving it much shorter, etc. Add the unrealistic opinion of just how good these guys are with a mindset that somehow the design shouldn't just challenge them in reasonable ways would make most of you very bad architects, at least IMHO.
I have had the chance of visualizing it, luckily. Back in the 1995 Ryder Cup, Seve was benched and I followed him alone around the course (he was obviously avoiding other groups) He could barely keep it on the golf course that day. Similarly, Crenshaw was clanking his irons so bad you could hear it, and hit very few greens. So, even the best are only the best a few weeks a year. Their stats drop quite a bit outside those weeks.
-
I was there also. Seve tee to green was pathetic. He hit a tree about 50 yards off the tee on #5. Could have been one of the worst drives I've ever seen a pro hit in person. But............. he was hanging in matches with some amazing pitches. His short game was magical to watch.
-
Jeff, are you suggesting good players don’t let their emotions impact play? Or that they try not to...
-
Most regular PGA Tour events put pins in flat spots on greens rather than near the edges of slopes, which may have an effect on this data. That's not to say they do it uniformly for all 72 holes, but typically speaking they set up the pins so that putts inside 5 feet are more or less straight from any side of the hole.
Obviously that's not the case for the majors, and it's probably not the case for some of the marquee events like the Players, the Memorial, etc. but that's the SOP for rank and file PGA events.
-
I thought that strokes gained was something new. It was actually created by Peter Sanders in the 1980's. I'm sure shotlink data has taken it to a new level.
-
Jeff, are you suggesting good players don’t let their emotions impact play? Or that they try not to...
In reading the work of the work of the analytics guys, the "emotions" seem to manifest themselves in a surprising way. Namely that situations such as a bad angle for the player or a hole location tucked next to a hazard will result in more conservative approach shots. The conservative approaches result in smaller numbers of bogies or worse which narrows or even improves the stroke average of a bad angle vs. a good angle.
-
Still seems like the thread title is incomplete. Should say:
"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.
-
Still seems like the thread title is incomplete. Should say:
"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.
That's pretty much it.
-
Still seems like the thread title is incomplete. Should say:
"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.
That's pretty much it.
I would be interested in data either supporting or refuting this statement. I do not have it but could argue that staying out of penalty or lost ball situations is so critical to higher handicap players that, in most cases, it makes angles less relevant.
Imagine a hole with a nasty bunker short right of the green and the pin right. From the left side of the fairway, a higher handicap is still going to hit a bunch of balls in the bunker. From the right side of the fairway, if that player aims short left of the green I think it is possible that player will score just as well as she would going for the green from the left side. I am not sure the difference in score would be all that big. It would be interesting to see what data actually shows.
-
Here's some data on Kalen having a bad angle leaving a bunker on his line to be cleared. His approach is 1) on the green 2%, 2) over the green 5%, 3) short of the bunker 13%, 4) well left 18%, 5) well right 27%, 6) in the bunker 35%.
When in the bunker 100% chance it will take 3 to get out, thereby earning the nickname, Sandman. ;D
80% of those that got in the bunker would have bounced on the green had the bunker not been on his line.
-
Still seems like the thread title is incomplete. Should say:
"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.
That's pretty much it.
I would be interested in data either supporting or refuting this statement. I do not have it but could argue that staying out of penalty or lost ball situations is so critical to higher handicap players that, in most cases, it makes angles less relevant.
Imagine a hole with a nasty bunker short right of the green and the pin right. From the left side of the fairway, a higher handicap is still going to hit a bunch of balls in the bunker. From the right side of the fairway, if that player aims short left of the green I think it is possible that player will score just as well as she would going for the green from the left side. I am not sure the difference in score would be all that big. It would be interesting to see what data actually shows.
Jason,
Given the wide variety of skill sets for mid to high cappers, i think finding data on this for those other than tour players may be difficult if not next to impossible. In general thou, I would think most would want to avoid the bunker even if it meant missing the green in almost any other position (long possibly excepted, but most high cappers rarely go long anyways)
However, I think angles have bigger implications when there is water, OB, or ball-losing tall grass nearby.
-
"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.
I think the percentage is much higher than that. 1-2% of golfers. Not much higher you say? By goodness, it's 10-20 times as many! :) I don't think angles matter much (unless the ball is rolling) for most 5 handicappers and better. So probably upwards of 3-4%? I have no idea, but it's more than just "good pros," which is what I assume the 0.1% represents.
-
There seems to be two different conversations happening here:
- Good to excellent players that can expect to execute a given shot with a reasonable expectation of being relatively close to their intended target
- lesser players that either do not have a high expectation of being able to control distance and/or direction with regularity, or don't have the carry length to play an aerial game
For the first group angles matter when the greens are firm and there is a benefit either to having play along the length of the green to allow for run out, or there is benefit to landing into an upslope to help the ball stop quickly versus having the ball shed off the landing area due to landing on a down or cross slope. This situation is less about carrying any hazards around the greens rather than the greens themselves and their firmness.
For the second group angles matter for the hazards around the green and either tacking around them or trying to play away from and avoiding them. Firmness is less of the deciding factor for this group since their expectation is not to be aiming for a specific landing area on the green as much as for the green or bail out area itself. Also, internal contouring is less of a direct concern for this group as well as far as the approach shots are concerned.
To answer the question I posit:
For group 1 - they matter only when the greens are sufficiently firm and the architecture or the greens allow for the player to be better off by choosing and executing to the beneficial landing area given the day's pin placement.
For group 2 - they always matter up to the point that the player is understanding of their benefits and actually playing to minimize score. This is opposed to just going out, aiming at the flag and seeing what happens.
-
GIR Percentage: 75.19% (they miss the green nearly 1/4 of the time, a lot of that's on the fringe, but sometimes it's rough or a bunker)
Just curious, is there an easily-available stat for how often a Tour player hits into a fairway bunker? I assume "sand saves" are for greenside bunkers?
Not sure if this has been answered, but they keep a stat called "fairway bunker tendency"
Here is how last season looked:
https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.01008.y2019.html (https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.01008.y2019.html)
The best hit into a fairway bunker on 3% of their drives on holes with fairway bunkers. The middle of the pack hit into one on 5.7% of the holes, and the end of the pack hit into them on 8% of the holes.
Once in a fairway bunker, the average player on tour last year hit the green about 48% of the time.
So, if every single par 4 or 5 hole had fairway bunkers, the average PGA pro will end up missing 0.41 greens per round because of them (14 holes x .057). And that doesn't even factor in that they may have missed the green anyway even if they weren't in the bunker. So, maybe that goes down to something like .3 greens per round. On those .3 greens missed, they'll give up and down about half the time say. So, call it 0.15 bogeys per round caused by fairway bunkers if my reasoning is right.
-
"Do angles not matter for the top .1% of golfers" ...cause it sure as shit matters for the weekend warrior, even if most of em either don't know it or can't execute well enough to do anything about it.
I think the percentage is much higher than that. 1-2% of golfers. Not much higher you say? By goodness, it's 10-20 times as many! :) I don't think angles matter much (unless the ball is rolling) for most 5 handicappers and better. So probably upwards of 3-4%? I have no idea, but it's more than just "good pros," which is what I assume the 0.1% represents.
Erik
Even .1% is a pretty wide net. For example in the US alone there are approx 24 million golfers, so .1% would still be the top 24,000 golfers in the country and include every pro and tens of thousands of the best amateurs.
But perhaps 1% for the top 240,000 is plausible too.
-
Not sure if this has been answered, but they keep a stat called "fairway bunker tendency"
Yeah I gave him the same stat up above. Post after his.
I appreciate the added numbers in the rest of the post.
And Kalen, yeah, I'm still comfortable with as high as 2%. But not 3-4 at all. That was a stretch.
-
Not sure if this has been answered, but they keep a stat called "fairway bunker tendency"
Yeah I gave him the same stat up above. Post after his.
I appreciate the added numbers in the rest of the post.
And Kalen, yeah, I'm still comfortable with as high as 2%. But not 3-4 at all. That was a stretch.
1% sounds like a better estimate, especially after learning there are approx 27,000 PGA Pros...even thou i do wonder how many on the business side keep their game in good shape. ;)
Either way, for the vast vast majority, its safe to say angles do matter, even if this discussion has mostly focused on the best of the best.
P.S. I still say angles matter for all on 200+ yard approach shots...
-
1% sounds like a better estimate, especially after learning there are approx 27,000 PGA Pros...even thou i do wonder how many on the business side keep their game in good shape. ;)
Few do.
Either way, for the vast vast majority, its safe to say angles do matter, even if this discussion has mostly focused on the best of the best.
Yeah, they matter the most for those who can actually play to them and control their ball the least. :)
-
1% sounds like a better estimate, especially after learning there are approx 27,000 PGA Pros...even thou i do wonder how many on the business side keep their game in good shape. ;)
Few do.
Either way, for the vast vast majority, its safe to say angles do matter, even if this discussion has mostly focused on the best of the best.
Yeah, they matter the most for those who can actually play to them and control their ball the least. :)
Yea,
Its quite the dilemma Erik. Its really a double whammy where those who are affected the most by angles often have the least amount of game to do something about it.
All the more reason to bifurcate and roll the ball back for Pros and top Ams, so we can achieve MAMA...Make Angles Matter Again! When you're wedging from 135, sure its bombs away, but put a 6 iron back in thier hand from 175 and it might make em think a bit more...
-
What do you mean?
Angles matter to those want them to matter. They don't guarantee a better score. They do however make you feel like you're playing golf...which is kind of my point earlier. Playing "the right way" effectively feels good, which helps you play better. Smashing it into the rough at 50 yards and getting a shitty lie half the time feels bad...
-
1% sounds like a better estimate, especially after learning there are approx 27,000 PGA Pros...even thou i do wonder how many on the business side keep their game in good shape. ;)
Few do.
Either way, for the vast vast majority, its safe to say angles do matter, even if this discussion has mostly focused on the best of the best.
Yeah, they matter the most for those who can actually play to them and control their ball the least. :)
Yea,
Its quite the dilemma Erik. Its really a double whammy where those who are affected the most by angles often have the least amount of game to do something about it.
All the more reason to bifurcate and roll the ball back for Pros and top Ams, so we can achieve MAMA...Make Angles Matter Again! When you're wedging from 135, sure its bombs away, but put a 6 iron back in thier hand from 175 and it might make em think a bit more...
They should roll the ball back for everyone. What's wrong with everyone using a rolled back ball? You can always move up a set of tees.
-
Angles matter to those want them to matter. They don't guarantee a better score. They do however make you feel like you're playing golf...which is kind of my point earlier. Playing "the right way" effectively feels good, which helps you play better. Smashing it into the rough at 50 yards and getting a shitty lie half the time feels bad...
Jim, you're conflating what you feel is right with the data, or something. For me, "smashing it into the rough at 50 yards" feels good to me because that is the right play, and will result in lower scores.
-
What do you mean?
Angles matter to those want them to matter. They don't guarantee a better score. They do however make you feel like you're playing golf...which is kind of my point earlier. Playing "the right way" effectively feels good, which helps you play better. Smashing it into the rough at 50 yards and getting a shitty lie half the time feels bad...
You are right Jim. Not everyone fits in the same barrel. You may not have the strength the hit it 50 yards out of the rough. Some days the rough is worse than others. The best play for you may not be the best play for me.
-
What do you mean?
Angles matter to those want them to matter. They don't guarantee a better score. They do however make you feel like you're playing golf...which is kind of my point earlier. Playing "the right way" effectively feels good, which helps you play better. Smashing it into the rough at 50 yards and getting a shitty lie half the time feels bad...
I sympathize with your side of this argument--but I think we're wrong. EB, as usual, makes a compelling case for statistics over gut instinct. Kind of like when baseball scouts and coaches were told everything they thought they'd learned over a lifetime was
wrong.
Analytics will eventually suck all the joy out of sports.
-
JM,
I'm still far from convinced that its the right decision for the other 99% of every day players, even if it is the right choice for pros who have the skills to consistently hit out of different kinds of roughs and various lies.
If anything, what I've noticed in my own game and those around me of similar skill is that aggressive play and hitting it as far as you can usually works against them. As opposed to taking the foot off the pedal and trying to play a bit safer and taking double bogey or worse out of the equation most of the time. Even the most difficult holes can be fairly easy bogeys for High cappers when you plan and play around the trouble and not go for par.
-
Analytics will eventually suck all the joy out of sports.
You are not wrong.
-
I'm still far from convinced that its the right decision for the other 99% of every day players, even if it is the right choice for pros who have the skills to consistently hit out of different kinds of roughs and various lies.
Assuming the rough isn't 6" PGA Tour rough or something, 50r < 120f for every level of golfer.
This doesn't account for the width available at 50r (i.e. water, OB, thick trees, etc.) vs. 120f (i.e. the shot to get there). Only the expected score from those positions.
If anything, what I've noticed in my own game and those around me of similar skill is that aggressive play and hitting it as far as you can usually works against them. As opposed to taking the foot off the pedal and trying to play a bit safer and taking double bogey or worse out of the equation most of the time. Even the most difficult holes can be fairly easy bogeys for High cappers when you plan and play around the trouble and not go for par.
You might be right. I also think you'd be surprised.
For example, a 450-yard hole. And someone comes along and says "just hit your 5H 190, your 7I 150, and then hit your wedge 110. Two putt for bogey." All sounds great, except the guy is gonna miss the green 50% of the time from 110, miss the fairway 50% of the time with his 5H, shank his 7I 10% of the time perhaps… etc.
You don't know what they'd do playing more conservatively, because you probably almost never see it in a large enough sample size. (But you're probably still right, because they probably don't realize how freaking huge their Shot Zone is with their driver, and how many penalty shots and "black areas" of the course they hit into with driver.)
-
Maybe I live in a different golf world. I am continually confronted by the dilemma of angles. For handicap players this dilemma is the foundation of recovery shots. This is why courses that don't offer real recovery options are generally less interesting than those which do. Golf for the masses is far more about the misses and what to do afterwards than it is about executing the perfect plan tee to green. That BTW does not in any way lessen the value or importance of devising a tee to green plan, its just the reality for the vast majority of golfers.
Ciao
-
JM
I think you and Jim are both right.
The stats are indeed compelling, and they may in fact suck the joy out of the game.
But I think you create a false dichotomy:
The choice isn't between the stats and gut instincts, but between what the stats tells us collectively and what an individual knows/believes about his own particular game.
And that's where Jim is right.
Angles matter for those who believe angles matter, and who are made more confident (and more assured in their ball striking) by believing what they believe, and by honouring what they know.
They may know, for example, that nothing produces worse shots for them than being 'in between clubs', especially with short irons and wedges in hand -- having to choke down or try a three/quarter swing etc.
Well, whatever the collective stats may tell me (however undeniable), they can't make me believe that this particular golfer wouldn't be better off 'laying up to the correct distance for a full, stock PW' (as that old quaint advice from years ago used to say) than trying to get as close as possible to the green, whether that ends up being 60 or 75 or 90 yards away.
For that individual golfer, a shorter shot from any angle is worse than a longer shot from the preferred angle -- if only because the 'longer shot' is for him a 'stock shot', and in believing/knowing that his stock shots are his best shots he finds his confidence, and his game.
-
I want to see how these numbers change playing from the rough. Absent that it really doesn't help very much. I would think correct angles after missing the fairway are much more important.
I can't share the whole chart with you, but here's are two yardages.
100-124 yards, right hole location:
LR: -0.11
LF: 0.12
CF: 0.17
RF: 0.10
RR: -0.10
175-199 yards, left hole location:
LR: -0.17
LF: 0.08
CF: 0.11
RF: 0.06
RR: -0.17
L = left, F = fairway, R = Right or Rough, etc.
So basically no difference whatsoever? Interesting. Is that because from the rough they just play to the middle and have at it? Out of curiosity, given the 50r vs 120f discussion, let's suppose you're playing a hole that's 330 yards. The pin is on the right side and the hole turns a little to the right. If you hit driver, you're going to wind up 50 yards away (ish). If you miss it in the left rough, you're looking straight down the green. If you miss it in the right rough, you're a little bit closer (let's say 5 yards), but you're coming in over a bunker (a deep one). If you lay back with a 3 iron that leaves you the 120 yard shot. Let's say you'll hit the fairway 70% of the time with 3 iron and 50% of the time with driver. Let's also assume there isn't anything like water or OOB lurking near either shot. It's just fairway or rough. Do you think your best option would be to hit driver aiming at the middle of the fairway (by aiming I mean centering your shot pattern on), or would you be better favoring the left side by a few yards?
Absent the info above, I would definitely say hit driver and favor the left a little. Reason being more of your right misses will be in the fairway and while your left misses will be in the rough more, you'll be playing straight down the green with the good angle. Intuitively that makes sense to me. But if scoring average is independent of which side the hole is on, then you should center your shot pattern in the middle of the fairway, since that will maximize your fairways hit (at 50%).
For the record, it's hard to imagine in this scenario that the 3 iron gaining you 20% of fairways is worth losing the yardage. If there is OOB or a lake around then maybe.
Trying to think of an example hole that might look like this. 6 on Winged Foot West is the best I can come up with. With the pin right there, if you miss the fairway right you're done for. I would think.
-
I'm still far from convinced that its the right decision for the other 99% of every day players, even if it is the right choice for pros who have the skills to consistently hit out of different kinds of roughs and various lies.
Assuming the rough isn't 6" PGA Tour rough or something, 50r < 120f for every level of golfer.
This doesn't account for the width available at 50r (i.e. water, OB, thick trees, etc.) vs. 120f (i.e. the shot to get there). Only the expected score from those positions.
If anything, what I've noticed in my own game and those around me of similar skill is that aggressive play and hitting it as far as you can usually works against them. As opposed to taking the foot off the pedal and trying to play a bit safer and taking double bogey or worse out of the equation most of the time. Even the most difficult holes can be fairly easy bogeys for High cappers when you plan and play around the trouble and not go for par.
You might be right. I also think you'd be surprised.
For example, a 450-yard hole. And someone comes along and says "just hit your 5H 190, your 7I 150, and then hit your wedge 110. Two putt for bogey." All sounds great, except the guy is gonna miss the green 50% of the time from 110, miss the fairway 50% of the time with his 5H, shank his 7I 10% of the time perhaps… etc.
You don't know what they'd do playing more conservatively, because you probably almost never see it in a large enough sample size. (But you're probably still right, because they probably don't realize how freaking huge their Shot Zone is with their driver, and how many penalty shots and "black areas" of the course they hit into with driver.)
Erik,
I think the 50 Rough vs 120 fairway is not the best comparison, certainly not for me or even most players if I had to guess.
For example take a standard 380 yard par 4 hole that is a bit narrow. Its more of a choice of:
1) Hit driver 225-235 and have 145-155 remaining from the rough. Could be bad lie or good lie, or blocked by trees, etc or.....
2) Hit 3 wood 205-210 and have 165-180 remaining from the fairway.
There are very very few circumstances presented to most golfers where the differential is 70 yards, but I totally acknowledge this could very realistically be the case for a pro on a 380 yard par 4! (50 vs 120)
Outside of top notch players, these differentials are likely gonna be much further out 125-150 yards away, and have 20-30 yards of difference for an aggressive play vs a higher % option to put it in the fairway without being too far out for the 2nd shot.
-
I have a buddy with the chipping yips. If he has 220 into a hole he hits wedge wedge. Maybe Erik can use his Physics degree to cure him but for him closer is not better. Tiger won the Open at Holyoke hitting about 4 drivers the entire tournament. Closer was not better, in his game plan anyways. You can’t put everyone in one box.
If angles weren’t important wouldn’t architecture become pretty boring?
-
So basically no difference whatsoever? Interesting. Is that because from the rough they just play to the middle and have at it?
Basically, yeah.
Out of curiosity, given the 50r vs 120f discussion, let's suppose you're playing a hole that's 330 yards. The pin is on the right side and the hole turns a little to the right. If you hit driver, you're going to wind up 50 yards away (ish). If you miss it in the left rough, you're looking straight down the green. If you miss it in the right rough, you're a little bit closer (let's say 5 yards), but you're coming in over a bunker (a deep one). If you lay back with a 3 iron that leaves you the 120 yard shot. Let's say you'll hit the fairway 70% of the time with 3 iron and 50% of the time with driver. Let's also assume there isn't anything like water or OOB lurking near either shot. It's just fairway or rough. Do you think your best option would be to hit driver aiming at the middle of the fairway (by aiming I mean centering your shot pattern on), or would you be better favoring the left side by a few yards?
You're generally better off aiming a little left. From the rough the ball is going to roll, and as I've said, angles matter when the ball is rolling. That's just almost never among the better players.
Absent the info above, I would definitely say hit driver and favor the left a little. Reason being more of your right misses will be in the fairway and while your left misses will be in the rough more, you'll be playing straight down the green with the good angle. Intuitively that makes sense to me. But if scoring average is independent of which side the hole is on, then you should center your shot pattern in the middle of the fairway, since that will maximize your fairways hit (at 50%).
Well technically if you aim (knowing your Shot Zone) to hit the left edge of the fairway, that's where you would get 50% fairways. Aiming at the center of the fairway should get you 60% or something higher.
It really depends on the specifics of the hole, but you wouldn't aim right even if it put you a few yards closer.
I think the 50 Rough vs 120 fairway is not the best comparison, certainly not for me or even most players if I had to guess.
Just going off the example Jim provided.
For example take a standard 380 yard par 4 hole that is a bit narrow. Its more of a choice of:
1) Hit driver 225-235 and have 145-155 remaining from the rough. Could be bad lie or good lie, or blocked by trees, etc or.....
2) Hit 3 wood 205-210 and have 165-180 remaining from the fairway.
You're generally only going to be a few percentage points higher in the fairway in 2 than in 1, though. If you're 50% with the driver, you're generally not somehow 75% with your 3W. It's usually like 57%, or 60%.
There are very very few circumstances presented to most golfers where the differential is 70 yards, but I totally acknowledge this could very realistically be the case for a pro on a 380 yard par 4! (50 vs 120)
Again, not my example.
Outside of top notch players, these differentials are likely gonna be much further out 125-150 yards away, and have 20-30 yards of difference for an aggressive play vs a higher % option to put it in the fairway without being too far out for the 2nd shot.
And often for amateurs that 30 yards matters. 8I vs. 5I? That matters. And some amateurs actually kinda LIKE being in the rough. I've had scramble partners MOVE the ball into the rough as it can sit up a little.
I have a buddy with the chipping yips. If he has 220 into a hole he hits wedge wedge. Maybe Erik can use his Physics degree to cure him but for him closer is not better. Tiger won the Open at Holyoke hitting about 4 drivers the entire tournament. Closer was not better, in his game plan anyways. You can’t put everyone in one box.
We're talking generalities, not outliers. It'd be impossible to have a discussion of every specific person. If someone has a glaring weakness, and they don't want to work on it, then yeah, they should try to avoid it. Nobody would say differently.
-
Tiger has a glaring weakness?
Course by course, hole by hole, no strategy is right for everyone. IMO of course.
-
Tiger has a glaring weakness?
I was talking about your friend with the chipping yips, and yes, Tiger is an outlier.
And I believe it was one driver. The conditions that week were also an outlier - the ball was rolling 50-70+ yards.
-
If you say 1,I’m sure you are correct. I’m surprised that with your Physics background you’re not more into mechanics. Point is, no method or strategy works for everyone as Tiger and my Yipping friend will attest too IMO.
-
I'm still far from convinced that its the right decision for the other 99% of every day players, even if it is the right choice for pros who have the skills to consistently hit out of different kinds of roughs and various lies.
Assuming the rough isn't 6" PGA Tour rough or something, 50r < 120f for every level of golfer.
This doesn't account for the width available at 50r (i.e. water, OB, thick trees, etc.) vs. 120f (i.e. the shot to get there). Only the expected score from those positions.
If anything, what I've noticed in my own game and those around me of similar skill is that aggressive play and hitting it as far as you can usually works against them. As opposed to taking the foot off the pedal and trying to play a bit safer and taking double bogey or worse out of the equation most of the time. Even the most difficult holes can be fairly easy bogeys for High cappers when you plan and play around the trouble and not go for par.
You might be right. I also think you'd be surprised.
For example, a 450-yard hole. And someone comes along and says "just hit your 5H 190, your 7I 150, and then hit your wedge 110. Two putt for bogey." All sounds great, except the guy is gonna miss the green 50% of the time from 110, miss the fairway 50% of the time with his 5H, shank his 7I 10% of the time perhaps… etc.
I always have preached that in many cases that's a bad idea.
Now you have to hit THREE good shots to make a bogie(unlikely for a mid-high handicapper)-and at least one good putt.
Hardly taking double out of the equation.
Besides being boring as.....
-
P.S.
Marc Leishman beat a stellar field in winning at Torrey Pines -- hitting all of 21.4% of the fairways today (48.2% for the week) but gaining 4.77 strokes on the field with his putting (and an average of 2.67 per round for the week).
I'm not saying it 'means' anything -- you know, it was just one event.
Do angles matter? I don't know. But putting sure does.
-
P.S.
Marc Leishman beat a stellar field in winning at Torrey Pines -- hitting all of 21.4% of the fairways today (48.2% for the week) but gaining 4.77 strokes on the field with his putting (and an average of 2.67 per round for the week).
I'm not saying it 'means' anything -- you know, it was just one event.
Do angles matter? I don't know. But putting sure does.
The great equalizer. Bob Rotella says it all starts from 120 yds and in.
-
I always have preached that in many cases that's a bad idea.Now you have to hit THREE good shots to make a bogie(unlikely for a mid-high handicapper)-and at least one good putt.Hardly taking double out of the equation.Besides being boring as.....
I wasn't saying that was a good strategy. I was pointing out that it's a bad idea, but one that's often promoted. People always seem to assume they'll hit those shots well, for some reason, and that they'll have a par putt all the time.
Do angles matter? I don't know. But putting sure does.
It can, but in general and over the course of a season, it matters least. One round is a very, very small sample size. Make four eight-footers and you gain two whole shots. Hole a single 33-footer, and you gain a full stroke. Putting is highly variable, and Leishman will not continue to gain 8 strokes over every 54 holes (stats from the North course are limited to traditional stats) the rest of the season. Heck, odds are he won't repeat that performance again this year.
Today's round stands out precisely because it's an outlier. When 70% of your strokes gained come from putting, you're an extreme outlier. Typically, for a winner, it's ~35%, and over the course of a season, much less: Driving: ~28%, Approach: ~39%, Short Game: ~19%, and Putting: ~14%.
While you can practice to raise your baseline, you can't practice "getting hot."
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/figure-2-1.png (http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/figure-2-1.png) (Edited to give the URL as the image itself is quite large.)
Also, Leishman had 2.865 strokes gained on his approach shots today. With an average day there, he finishes two back of Rahm.
And Rotella is a psychologist; this isn't his area of expertise at all.
-
In his post round interview he mentioned that it may have been the best putting of his life.
-
I always have preached that in many cases that's a bad idea.Now you have to hit THREE good shots to make a bogie(unlikely for a mid-high handicapper)-and at least one good putt.Hardly taking double out of the equation.Besides being boring as.....
I wasn't saying that was a good strategy. I was pointing out that it's a bad idea, but one that's often promoted. People always seem to assume they'll hit those shots well, for some reason, and that they'll have a par putt all the time.
Do angles matter? I don't know. But putting sure does.
It can, but in general and over the course of a season, it matters least. One round is a very, very small sample size. Make four eight-footers and you gain two whole shots. Hole a single 33-footer, and you gain a full stroke. Putting is highly variable, and Leishman will not continue to gain 8 strokes over every 54 holes (stats from the North course are limited to traditional stats) the rest of the season. Heck, odds are he won't repeat that performance again this year.
Today's round stands out precisely because it's an outlier. When 70% of your strokes gained come from putting, you're an extreme outlier. Typically, for a winner, it's ~35%, and over the course of a season, much less: Driving: ~28%, Approach: ~39%, Short Game: ~19%, and Putting: ~14%.
While you can practice to raise your baseline, you can't practice "getting hot."
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/figure-2-1.png (http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/figure-2-1.png) (Edited to give the URL as the image itself is quite large.)
Also, Leishman had 2.865 strokes gained on his approach shots today. With an average day there, he finishes two back of Rahm.
And Rotella is a psychologist; this isn't his area of expertise at all.
Dr Rotella has worked with some of the greatest players in the game for what 40 years? He doesn't regurgitate stats from a book that you can't apply to everyone. He may be a Psychologist and your're a Physicist or at least have a physics degree. I fail to see the difference.
-
Dr Rotella has worked with some of the greatest players in the game for what 40 years? He doesn't regurgitate stats from a book that you can't apply to everyone. He may be a Psychologist and your're a Physicist or at least have a physics degree. I fail to see the difference.
I've never claimed to have a physics degree (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,240.msg1606897/topicseen.html#msg1606897). Neither has Bryson, hopefully, since he didn't graduate! My point was simply that Bob Rotella's area of expertise is psychology, not data analytics, statistical analysis, scoring, etc.
-
OK. What is the conclusion? My take is that angles do not matter nearly as much as we would like to think, c.p. and generally speaking, of course.
-
OK. What is the conclusion? My take is that angles do not matter nearly as much as we would like to think, c.p. and generally speaking, of course.
I don't know that there's been one, but if there was, I think you said it. I'd only add that angles cease to matter when the combination of the player skill and the conditions let balls fly and stop relatively quickly, and begin to matter more the farther the ball moves (rolls or bounces) once it hits the ground.
Except for the occasional tree, golf is mostly aerial if you can fly it from point to point and stop it relatively quickly, so the angles of bunkers or other hazards on the ground are relatively inconsequential.
-
Dr Rotella has worked with some of the greatest players in the game for what 40 years? He doesn't regurgitate stats from a book that you can't apply to everyone. He may be a Psychologist and your're a Physicist or at least have a physics degree. I fail to see the difference.
I've never claimed to have a physics degree (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,240.msg1606897/topicseen.html#msg1606897). Neither has Bryson, hopefully, since he didn't graduate! My point was simply that Bob Rotella's area of expertise is psychology, not data analytics, statistical analysis, scoring, etc.
Interesting..
-
5 pages of thread, 100+replies and only in 6 replies (per the search engine) is the word wind mentioned yet imo angles and wind are very much inter-related.
Atb
-
5 pages of thread, 100+replies and only in 6 replies (per the search engine) is the word wind mentioned yet imo angles and wind are very much inter-related.
Atb
Wind only matters if conditions are firm as it exaggerates the firm if the wind is the wrong direction. From a UK point of view FIRM might 1/12th of the time and the wind being in the wrong direction might be another fraction.
You need all those factors for the great player to be affected and the shot needs to be from over 200 yards....there is a kinda sliding scale that for some a 100 yard approach with everything 'wrong' for the mid handicapper to have a problem.
The principle is brilliant though.
-
5 pages of thread, 100+replies and only in 6 replies (per the search engine) is the word wind mentioned yet imo angles and wind are very much inter-related.
How do you figure?
From 150 yards out, the difference in angle from the extreme right edge of a fairway to the extreme left edge of a fairway that is 35 yards wide… is a little over 12°. That's nowhere near enough to over-ride the other strategic elements on the course - bunkers, rough, the fairway, trees, etc.
P.S. I bet some of those six include uses like "a ball that winds up going…" or similar.
-
OK. What is the conclusion? My take is that angles do not matter nearly as much as we would like to think, c.p. and generally speaking, of course.
My conclusion - hit it in the middle as far forward as you are confident you can hit it without getting into trouble.
At least on most US courses, the benefit one can receive from a favorable angle is relatively small compared to the cost of rough, bunkers, trees, water, and out of bounds etc. The benefit of a shorter distance to the hole outweighs the benefit of a favorable angle but may not be worth the cost of risking a hazard.
Temptation on a golf course is associated with the cost of obtaining a shorter approach shot, rather than a favorable angle.
Most, if not people are not good enough to try and prioritize one side of the fairway over the other.
It is possible that good golf course design and firm conditions change this equation. It is likely the equation changes if one does not have the ability to land the ball on the green and stop it.
If someone cannot make contact with the ball on a pitch shot or has some other significant shortcoming in their game, this analysis might not work at all.
-
5 pages of thread, 100+replies and only in 6 replies (per the search engine) is the word wind mentioned yet imo angles and wind are very much inter-related.
Atb
"Strategy is about choices and the ability to execute the shots that are available. There is a frequent critique that modern players don't possess the shotmaking abilities of their predecessors. I don't think that this is necessarily true- I've seen too many extraordinary recovery shots when the situation demanded it. It is more likely a function that most skilled golfers play to their strengths, and absent high rough, holes cut in slopes, and heavy wind, they can more easily control the distance they hit the ball by air."
Reply 25, page 2.
-
I'm still far from convinced that its the right decision for the other 99% of every day players, even if it is the right choice for pros who have the skills to consistently hit out of different kinds of roughs and various lies.
Assuming the rough isn't 6" PGA Tour rough or something, 50r < 120f for every level of golfer.
This doesn't account for the width available at 50r (i.e. water, OB, thick trees, etc.) vs. 120f (i.e. the shot to get there). Only the expected score from those positions.
If anything, what I've noticed in my own game and those around me of similar skill is that aggressive play and hitting it as far as you can usually works against them. As opposed to taking the foot off the pedal and trying to play a bit safer and taking double bogey or worse out of the equation most of the time. Even the most difficult holes can be fairly easy bogeys for High cappers when you plan and play around the trouble and not go for par.
You might be right. I also think you'd be surprised.
For example, a 450-yard hole. And someone comes along and says "just hit your 5H 190, your 7I 150, and then hit your wedge 110. Two putt for bogey." All sounds great, except the guy is gonna miss the green 50% of the time from 110, miss the fairway 50% of the time with his 5H, shank his 7I 10% of the time perhaps… etc.
I always have preached that in many cases that's a bad idea.
Now you have to hit THREE good shots to make a bogie(unlikely for a mid-high handicapper)-and at least one good putt.
Hardly taking double out of the equation.
Besides being boring as.....
Jeff,
No disrespect, but outside of when you were first learning the game, when was the last time you were a poor golfer? ;D Even at my best over a 2 year period about 10 yeas ago, i only got my HC to a 12.
In my experience thou, I started scoring a lot better when I stopped going for the hero shots to tucked pins or carrying bunkers and just went for the safe areas doing my best to avoid OB, water, and trouble otherwise. I also don't think Erik's 3 irons analogy is very representative either, for me or the myriads of other high cappers I've played with. We will often choose 3 or 5 wood, and occasionally a long iron, but i can't ever recall using the 3 shorter irons strategy. But even if I did choose to hit 8 iron, 8 iron, wedge on a hard long par 4, that would still be plausible as other than the putter, my PW thru 7 iron have always been the best clubs in my bag in terms of hitting the intended shot with relative accuracy most of the time.
I'm only one data point, but I can say with absolute certainty that playing safer had a huge impact in significantly reducing doubles and worse. But yes as a high capper, they are always there. I doubt I've ever shot a round without taking at least one DB...even my best round ever, a 77, included one.
-
Jason,
for me a specific line in your last post gets to the heart of the matter:
"Most people are not good enough to prioritize one side of the fairway over the other". True.
But the part of your sentence I left out, above, is key I think ie "to try to" prioritize one side over the other.
The "trying" itself is a big part of the fun, and the challenge, of golf -- and the rare accomplishing is one of the thrills of the game.
I wouldn't want to stop trying, and I wouldn't want golf course architecture to stop giving me either the (apparent) reason or the room (literally and figuratively) to try.
-
I also don't think Erik's 3 irons analogy is very representative either, for me or the myriads of other high cappers I've played with.
Oh, FWIW, it wasn't an analogy or anything like that. It's what tens of people have told other members of my forum to do over the years if they want to break 90 or something. "Just play for bogey, don't hit driver ever, just hit 5H off the tees…" that sort of thing. As has been said, they seem to foolishly assume that people will hit THOSE clubs well enough to get on the green in GIR+1… and that they're good enough to two-putt all the time or make an occasional par putt. It's folly.
"Most people are not good enough to prioritize one side of the fairway over the other". True.
This includes PGA Tour players. Until fairways are 40+ yards wide, going for a "side" (assuming symmetrical hazards, etc.) is usually silly.The "trying" itself is a big part of the fun, and the challenge, of golf -- and the rare accomplishing is one of the thrills of the game. I wouldn't want to stop trying, and I wouldn't want golf course architecture to stop giving me either the (apparent) reason or the room (literally and figuratively) to try.
That's something we can't really discuss, though. Is it more fun to chip a 9I from 110 or to hit a full sand wedge? The answer depends on the person. What rarely depends on the person is that any shot from 110 is going to finish farther from the hole, on average, than a shot from 90, and closer than a shot from 150, etc.
Anyone here is free to play their own game and enjoy golf however they want, but IMO an architect can't do much to control that. Some guys like playing shots along the ground, and an architect can try to reward that or encourage it, but some players don't enjoy that. Don't see it or even think of it.
When discussing "strategy" you almost have to, by the very nature of the topic, discuss generalities, because you're always going to have differences at the individual level: differences in capability, what they enjoy doing, etc.
-
While I saw very little of the Phoenix event this weekend, what I did see revealed a course that should make angles matter. Is there any evidence that id did? Or did not?
Also...if they don't matter on Tour, that's an indictment of the Tour set up process. It is, after all, a show and they want birdies so I get it but it certainly waters down the product to some audiences.
-
While I saw very little of the Phoenix event this weekend, what I did see revealed a course that should make angles matter. Is there any evidence that id did? Or did not?
Curious as to what makes you say that. Why do you think angles mattered here but haven't mattered on the PGA Tour?
FWIW, the course is a complete and utter bore to play IMO, and I don't feel angles really mattered when I played it, either.
Also...if they don't matter on Tour, that's an indictment of the Tour set up process. It is, after all, a show and they want birdies so I get it but it certainly waters down the product to some audiences.
I think it's a testament to how good PGA Tour players are. Until greens are made super-firm (the ball will bounce/roll), angles don't matter when you can fly a ball to a spot and stop it reasonably quickly.
-
I watched quite a bit of the tournament over the weekend, and it looked like the par 5s were the only holes it may have mattered just a little bit. But agree with Erik in concept, when these guys can fly bunkers on 200+ yard approach shots to tucked pins, that's borderline silly.
-
Is there any data to support that people like watching pros hit the ball further?
It looks to me like 2019 major final round TV ratings may have been the lowest in history- and that is a year when Tiger won the first major. The Masters ratings last year was lower than it was in 1995 (when the average drive was 263 yards).
-
Curious as to what makes you say that. Why do you think angles mattered here but haven't mattered on the PGA Tour?
FWIW, the course is a complete and utter bore to play IMO, and I don't feel angles really mattered when I played it, either.
Just that the greens were rock hard...nothing to do with the course itself.
Wedges and short irons advancing considerable after landing.
-
While I saw very little of the Phoenix event this weekend, what I did see revealed a course that should make angles matter. Is there any evidence that id did? Or did not?
Also...if they don't matter on Tour, that's an indictment of the Tour set up process. It is, after all, a show and they want birdies so I get it but it certainly waters down the product to some audiences.
I'd bet course set up is as much or more a pace of play issue--birdies just happen to be a byproduct, especially with daylight considerations.
-
It looks to me like 2019 major final round TV ratings may have been the lowest in history- and that is a year when Tiger won the first major. The Masters ratings last year was lower than it was in 1995 (when the average drive was 263 yards).
The Masters aired at 8am last year or whatever, too.
https://www.golf.com/news/2019/04/15/masters-2019-sunday-tv-ratings-tiger-win/
Live coverage of Sunday’s final round on CBS earned the highest overnight rating for a morning golf broadcast in 34 years, according to CBS Sports. It delivered a 7.7 rating on Sunday morning, as the final round tee times and groupings were moved up to avoid inclement weather on Sunday afternoon.
However, due to the early start time, the 7.7 rating is the second-lowest for a Masters final round since 2004.