When corses are soft angles don’t matter. Once they get firm they can matter a lot.
I’d like to see a comparison of four groups of courses:I'd also like to see a comparison by ability. Intuitively, angles matter more for those whose shots spend more time rolling, rather than landing and stopping. Teen handicappers stop the ball much less quickly than pros, so I'd expect angles to matter more for me than the best.
- PGA Tour courses
- US Top 100 courses built before WWII
- Every course built by TD or C&C
- GB&I Top 100 links courses
I have my opinions of the order these would fall out in “angles matter”. I’d be fascinated to see if I was right.
I’d like to see a comparison of four groups of courses:
- PGA Tour courses
- US Top 100 courses built before WWII
- Every course built by TD or C&C
- GB&I Top 100 links courses
I have my opinions of the order these would fall out in “angles matter”. I’d be fascinated to see if I was right.
I guess I need some clarification on the OP. Is the claim really that angles don’t matter for any player in any situation on any course? Or just that it doesn’t happen often enough to be statistically relevant?Angles don't matter (much at all) when the ball isn't rolling.
I have looked over the ShotLink data for two older courses - Waialae and Cherry Hills - and I couldn’t find any pattern of players aiming for one side of the fairway over another, or of guys making more birdies from drives on one side.Right. I've shared the graphic from before for PGA Tour player data, and… it's basically the same. They score about the same from the fairway, on either side. For the same reasons as above. The data is fairly consistent across a large range of players.
But are we just talking about Tour players (who rarely have an approach shot over 150 yards), or everyone?Unless you define "rarely" in a weird way… that's not correct. I may dig up the stat, but Tour players are approaching from farther out than y'all seem to think.
If the conditions or level of player is such that pin positions matter, then so do angles.Sure. Mostly, as I keep noting, when the ball is rolling… either because they don't hit it far/high enough to get it in the air and stop a little, or the ground is firm (i.e. Melbourne during the Presidents Cup).
Isn't it --angles don't matter as much as distance?Yes, but more because angles don't really matter much (except when rolling), so almost everything else matters more. Distance, fairway vs. rough vs. hazards… etc.
The way I understand the Stagner/Fawcett/Barzeski/Strokes Gained approach (I'm sure there are nuances between them). You can't reliably get the best angle unless you sacrifice distance (and dispersion) and being closer outweighs almost any angle.Not quite. You can hit driver and "try" to be on the left side of the fairway, or "try" to be on the right side of the fairway. But it's generally dumb to do so.
Hit your drive as far as you can where you take hazards out of play by aiming between any hazards at your carry distance and live with the dispersion and possible bad angle. If you bring a hazard into play (within your drive dispersion) by chasing the angle the math doesn't work over the long term.Yes. Pretty much that.
There are all sorts of variables in a single round that can - and should - cause a player to play a more conservative or aggressive shot than the Stagners and Fawcetts of the world might suggest in a vacuum.There are always going to be outliers.
As I understand them, their models would have counseled against Max Homa taking dead aim at the pin, hitting a fade that started over the front-left bunker, on the 16th at Torrey Pines a couple of weeks ago. But Homa took it on, and it arguably won him the golf tournament. They probably would have advised Bubba Watson to just pitch out of the trees at the 2012 Masters, too.They would have, but Max also won by more than one shot, and it could have cost him the tournament, too. You're looking at one event and one outcome and comparing it to the way to shoot the lowest average score. As we wrote in LSW, for example… the way to play the hole for the lowest average score may be different than the way to have the best chance of making birdie when you don't care about also increasing the chances of making double or higher.
I don't see a lot of acknowledgment of that fact in their almighty models.You do realize that when talking to the general "golfer" base, whether it's me with LSW, or Lou, or Scott… we kinda have to talk about general things. But in working with the players with whom I've worked… for example… there are some holes that just suit a player's eye, and even though the "math" says "do X" they're better off doing Y, or Z. Or there are times when they're just feeling it, and they're counseled to diverge.
But are we just talking about Tour players (who rarely have an approach shot over 150 yards), or everyone?Found it. 2017-2021:
getting better
What club does the average pro hit 150 these days?There's a chart here (https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/111869-pga-tour-and-lpga-tour-averages-flightscope/) with averages for the PGA Tour and LPGA Tour.
I’d like to see a comparison of four groups of courses:
- PGA Tour courses
- US Top 100 courses built before WWII
- Every course built by TD or C&C
- GB&I Top 100 links courses
I have my opinions of the order these would fall out in “angles matter”. I’d be fascinated to see if I was right.
I think we'd all like to see the comparisons but I wonder if there would be that much difference for the Tour players for the reasons others have cited.
Niall
53% are longer than 150. I have a hard time getting behind a definition of "rarely" that's synonymous with "the majority." :)
P.S. Remove par threes and it's still well over 50%.
If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage. I think there may be a mental component that still makes strategic design the best approach but good players are unlikely to be consciously approaching a round in those terms.
If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage. I think there may be a mental component that still makes strategic design the best approach but good players are unlikely to be consciously approaching a round in those terms.
Jason:
I spent a fair bit of time wrestling with this question before we started our work at Memorial Park. Of course, I wasn't thinking solely about Tour players, but also the people that play the other 60,000 rounds there each year.
It helped a lot to talk to Brooks Koepka about it. He felt very strongly that tactics matter on a well designed course, and that the reason he performed better at the majors was because tactics mattered more there, and many of today's players just blow them off as unimportant.
For Brooks, strategy was less about what side you missed on off the tee, and much more about what side you missed on for the approach shot to each particular hole location . . . though, on the best holes, playing in from one angle will make it easier to miss in the right spots. As a result, we tried very hard at Memorial to come up with greens complexes where the Tour pro safety valve of missing to the center of the green did not pay off so predictably. We tried to put a contour or a fallaway or something in the middle, to make you either pick a side, or live with the uncertainty of where a shot in the middle might finish up. I think that worked pretty well.
Brooks is also famous for having said "rough doesn't matter", but the #1 thing I was pleased to hear from other players was that being in the rough at Memorial DOES matter . . . the potential of flyer lies means that the players have to be much more conservative on their approach if they've missed the fairway. And that was basically Brooks's idea, to combine the Bermuda rough with tight grass and slopes around the greens where a wild approach shot could get away from you. Of course, that doesn't mean the players are hitting irons off the tee for position . . . because they aren't much more likely to be in the fairway with an iron, and it isn't worth giving up the distance for that added accuracy.
I wish he was more famous for saying "bunkers don't matter," because we agreed early on there was no way to make bunkers there that would seriously impact a Tour pro's strategy, so we should probably have as few of them as possible.
If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage.
But I am also doubting your math at the end. If 53% of approaches are over 150 yards, and you remove the par-3's, how is it still well over 50% ? What % of the par-3's on Tour are under 150 yards?Sorry - it's 63%. The numbers in the chart represent the start of the range. So 150 means approaches from 150 to 159.
If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage. I think there may be a mental component that still makes strategic design the best approach but good players are unlikely to be consciously approaching a round in those terms.Yes. Except when the ball is rolling. Or if you're just looking at what makes golf interesting to you. It's important to understand that this is generalized data and the data speaks to scoring, not engagement, or fun, or interest, etc.
Brooks is also famous for having said "rough doesn't matter"He's either really dumb OR he meant it a bit differently than it may seem. I think the latter.Dumb is if he really doesn't think it matters, because it does. It's about a 60-yard difference in expected scoring (i.e. 110 in the rough = 170 in the fairway).Meant something different if he just meant he doesn't aim away from areas that are just rough or something. It doesn't change his strategy for the hole like a bunker, a penalty area, etc. might.
I’m surprised at the iron averages shown.I am as well, Pat. But also… caddies lie and flash the wrong info, sometimes, too. :)
I guess I need some clarification on the OP. Is the claim really that angles don’t matter for any player in any situation on any course? Or just that it doesn’t happen often enough to be statistically relevant?
getting better
It's curious that you reference getting better more than shooting lower scores. I think analytics is probably a good way to shoot lower scores regardless of whether you get any better. I think analytics is a better and more well thought-out version of what we used to call "playing within yourself". I think actually getting better is more of a mastery over what happens when you hit a ball. Whether you choose the smart play on the course is another matter entirely.
Saying angles don't matter and using average tour player scores as justification for the statement doesn't make sense to me.You've missed the parts where we've talked about average players. They actually score slightly better from the "worse" angles than they do from the "best" angles.
Variance got in my way favorably that day.Dustin Johnson was once asked about a 9I or something he hit to two feet on the 17th hole to (help him) win a tournament. His answer, flatly in the DJ way, was "I pulled it." He paused then said "I was aiming 15 feet right of that. I wasn't trying to go at that pin."
Erik, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply saying I build golf courses and I watch people play them, a lot. I think using stats to try and prove a point may work for players who pretty much know where their ball is going all the time. But saying angles don't matter isn't really applicable to those of us who play differently and aren't trying to post a number. It's my opinion that angles do matter to some players, to others they don't. Even if only they add interest to the round. I don't think there is any reason to be shitty about it in the way you respond to people who may have a different POV.
When corses are soft angles don’t matter. Once they get firm they can matter a lot.
I think using stats to try and prove a point may work for players who pretty much know where their ball is going all the time.Again, the stats are pretty consistent up to 20 handicappers. And even PGA Tour players have a dispersion pattern that's wider than many seem to think.
But saying angles don't matter isn't really applicable to those of us who play differently and aren't trying to post a number.That's why I said this:
Except when the ball is rolling. Or if you're just looking at what makes golf interesting to you. It's important to understand that this is generalized data and the data speaks to scoring, not engagement, or fun, or interest, etc.
It's my opinion that angles do matter to some players, to others they don't. Even if only they add interest to the round. I don't think there is any reason to be shitty about it in the way you respond to people who may have a different POV.Wow, okay there man. Hypotheticals are pointless IMO. You can make up whatever you want to support whatever position you want.
My biggest take away in how this discussion applies to architecture: as these sorts of analytics become more mainstream knowledge, architects are going to have to get more creative in how they create temptation and poor choices from golfers.Yes, this. They're going to have to, like TD did, create things where what appears to be the optimal target may not be. They'll have it easiest working around the paint-by-numbers approach (DECADE), less so when players take more factors into consideration.
A client of mine, very much into numbers as a finance guy, told me the tour stats show PGA players make 8 footers for par more often than 8 footers for birdie. Why? He said the same reason human investors ride their losers and sell their winners. Why? Because they are human.This has also been shown to be misleading. When you adjust for first-putt or second-putt differences, the gap narrows substantially.
Why do average players score worse from the good angle vs the bad?Because they take on more when they feel they have a good angle. And when they have a bad one, they play more conservatively, which is probably how they should play regardless of their angle.
If I play a difficult par 4 with an otherwise flat fairway, but well guarded green. The correct side of the fairway could vary significantly from day if the pin is tucked on the far left one day, and the far right the next.Lou has explained it, as have the others who have done this. The "good angle" is generally the left side of the fairway to a hole location on the right or vice versa.
Are the data collectors for "average joes" following behind every round and taking note of things like this?Unnecessary. Arccos knows where their shots are hit from. They know where the boundaries of the fairway are, and where the holes are cut. So, effectively, yes they have data collectors noting the specifics of every shot.
isn’t that the kind of golf courses we want?
But even tho the gap closes, it doesn’t CLOSE completely.It becomes almost negligible, and you're still not accounting for other factors besides "loss aversion" or whatever. When they're hitting a par putt, for example, they have seen more putts to that hole.
It is still a fact that more putts are made for par than for birdie. Explain it away anyway you want but it seems a matter of motivation."My mind is made up and I'm not going to consider reasonable explanations for any of it!" - Don Mahaffey (Just teasing a bit, Don. This stuff is just golf.)
Players are not robots and they are very bogey adverse. I’ve watched it for three years at a venue I know well, including taking the greens readings for the event. As players started to see where others made a “number” they got more and more conservative. My takeaway was as much as they want to make birdies, most of them hate making bogeys even more.I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying that the gap is not nearly as large as the stats make it appear to be.
Re the average player being tempted to try something he shouldn’t because he’s in a good spot, isn’t that the kind of golf courses we want? Isn’t that thrill what we all want? Do we really want to reduce the golf we play into being as conservative as possible in order to always try and avoid the big number? Isn't that temptation at the root of good design?I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
First, still, is that I don't think most courses have much strategic value to them, so saying that angles don't matter because of stats is just a tautology.So the flag on the right, you don't think it's generally advantageous to be coming into that from the left side of the fairway over the right side? Generally speaking?
If someone told me 90+% of courses had no discernable strategy whatsoever, nothing in my experience would contradict that.I'd strongly disagree.
Having read and appreciated the back and forth, my simple minded conclusion is that there is a reason (well several) that golfers of all abilities enjoy and embrace links courses with frequently windy conditions. The statistics do not nearly matter as much as the course that presents itself to them.The ball is rolling.
First, still, is that I don't think most courses have much strategic value to them, so saying that angles don't matter because of stats is just a tautology.So the flag on the right, you don't think it's generally advantageous to be coming into that from the left side of the fairway over the right side? Generally speaking?If someone told me 90+% of courses had no discernable strategy whatsoever, nothing in my experience would contradict that.I'd strongly disagree.
Erik, on tour, more putts are made for par than for birdie. It’s a fact. They are not robots. They don’t all play the same no matter the circumstance.
If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage.
That may be true, but I don't think it necessarily is true. Someone has already brought up the idea that being on the wrong side may result in more conservative play, which is often the correct play anyway. Additionally there is the possibility that most courses (even those played by the pros) are only really loosely strategic at best. And finally, there is the conditioning. All added up, they blunt the effects as far as I'm concerned, and don't take away the efficacy of truly strategic design.
It might mean that we need to alter the types of hazards and features we use in order to influence play. Rough and sand don't really force the player to hit lower-trajectory shots, maybe more use of severe contours or trees would help force lower shots, especially on better players.
Erik, on tour, more putts are made for par than for birdie. It’s a fact. They are not robots. They don’t all play the same no matter the circumstance.I haven't denied that. I have shown data that very little of the already small difference is due to "human nature" or loss aversion or whatever. That very little of an already small difference is due to this:
A client of mine, very much into numbers as a finance guy, told me the tour stats show PGA players make 8 footers for par more often than 8 footers for birdie. Why? He said the same reason human investors ride their losers and sell their winners. Why? Because they are human.
This past season, PGA Tour players made an average of 39.8 percent of their birdie putts from 5-to-15 feet while making 52.6 percent of their par-or-worse putts from the same distance. That means that Tour players make a higher percentage of par-or-worse putts than they make birdie putts from the same distance.
Even though 11,000 putts might sound like a lot, it represents less than 1% of the putting data in the ShotLink database. Devin Pope and Maurice Schweitzer [the 2011 study] analyzed the ShotLink data for the par-birdie effect. In their 2011 American Economic Review article, they concluded that “professional golfers hit birdie putts less accurately than they hit otherwise similar par putts.” In 2011, I asked Mark Calcavecchia about the effect and he said, “It’s just human nature.” [Like Don contends.] Intrigued by these results, I looked into the data myself. Sure enough, for putts between four and seven feet, pros sink 3.6% more par putts than birdie putts. But that figure doesn’t take into consideration that par putts in this range tend to be second putts, while birdie putts tend to be first putts. We already know that second putts are easier than first putts because of the learning effect.
After controlling for first-putt–second-putt differences, and controlling for uphill, downhill, and sidehill differences, the par-birdie effect is reduced by more than half. Looking at all putt distances, taking into account differences in strokes gained (not just the one-putt probabilities) and the frequency of putts, I calculate an effect of 0.1 strokes per round. But even this computation overestimates the birdie-par effect. A short first putt for par can happen after chipping from off the green, so the golfer gets to see the path of the chip before hitting his putt. Before putting, a golfer often gets to see the putts of other golfers in the group putting along a similar line.
It seems likely that the par-birdie effect is less than 0.1 strokes per round. Far more important, in my estimation, is the performance increase to be gained from going to school. Watch your putts and the putts of others in your group and read the contours of the green, especially near the hole.
Broadie, Mark. Every Shot Counts: Using the Revolutionary Strokes Gained Approach to Improve Your Golf Performance and Strategy (p. 160). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I found the quotes by Lou Stagner to be staggeringly devoid of context. Social media and generalized statistics both share that commonality I suppose.This behavior has become all too common, especially on social media; make a broad claim, one that may buck long standing commonly held beliefs, but provide little context as to how or why the claim may be true. Generate interest and attention but do little to support the claim.
I appreciate that Erik's commonly used narrative, "Angles matter when the ball is rolling" is slightly more descriptive, but still lacking support.That's been backed up several times before. This is about the tenth time we've had this discussion in the last five years.
Outside of a very very few number of shots, at some point of time during a ball's travel, the ball will roll, even if it is only for a few inches.Yeah, cuz that's what we're talking about. Four feet of roll. Or four inches. Oy.
This is about the tenth time we've had this discussion in the last five years.
You'd think, but he'd rather tell someone that they're wrong than explain to them why he's right.
Erik,
There’s a number of people on this site that have been discussing the same complex and esoteric subjects over and over again for the better part of three decades. I’m not sure why this subject being rehashed is irking you. It’s provocative, misunderstood, and flies in the face of lifetimes worth of common golf knowledge. In your position, I’d be more than happy the subject was coming up yet again. Cheers.
There’s a number of people on this site that have been discussing the same complex and esoteric subjects over and over again for the better part of three decades. I’m not sure why this subject being rehashed is irking you.It doesn't irk me — I just don't see the point in re-hashing everything that's been written many times in much depth. The old posts are still here. The old graphics.
During the numerous times this topic has been discussed on this site I've seen inferences to data and the study on the subject, but I don't think I've ever seen direct references to the actual measured data or to published studies on the subject. Thus the question behind context supporting the claim.Ben, it's tough to take you seriously when you make statements like: "Outside of a very very few number of shots, at some point of time during a ball's travel, the ball will roll, even if it is only for a few inches. So that would imply that angles matter on almost all shots." Yeah, cuz that's what people are talking about when they cite the Presidents Cup at Royal Melbourne. That's what people are saying when they're talking about balls rolling. A few inches. Sheesh.
If one shot's landing characteristic minimizes the impact of the approach angle and the other shot heightens the impact of the approach angle, there is a basis for greater discussion on the subject.Hence… me saying "angles matter when the ball is rolling." Angles don't matter when you fly it and stop it relatively close to where it lands. I've further said that this is for shooting the lowest score, on average, not for interest, or challenge, or art, or show, or whatever. I've also said it's generalized data, and when talking about specifics (players, shots, etc.) there are exceptions.
That doesn’t mean we should stop trying to make a difference to golf course strategy using angles. Because when they do make a difference, it really does add to the game.Yeah… it adds visually, it makes people think, it tempts people… and there are ways to kinda throw a wrench into the system for some guys.
It sounds to me that Eric is saying angles do matter? We can talk about the whos, whens and whys, but it is very clear and obvious that angles matter.When the ball rolls, which it does for a LOT of golfers, even very good ones (my daughter got down to a + index competitively for a few months, and is still a 1 or so).
Arccos' data come from at least tens of thousands of shots over at least thousands of different holes.It's like 600 million, I think. ;) (Not all approach shots of course.)
But would the results look the same for a sample of holes like the 8th at Pacific Dunes or the 10th at Riviera, where the green is narrow and angled toward one side of the fairway?Play around with it yourself:
But it's a strong hypothesis that angles would matter more with this type of architecture and I haven't seen an attempt to address it in Lou Stagner's many Twitter posts. To be fair, it'd be hard to test because you'd have to figure out a way to code holes for architecture.Yes, unless you're just talking about a specific hole, in which case you either basically have PGA Tour data with a few hundred or thousand shots depending on how long the tournament has been there, or you have to hope you pick a popular golf course to get into the hundreds of shots to make it statistically valid.
My suggestion to Arccos would be to run an experiment, or at least half of one. You have the control group data for results from good/bad angles on the sort-of average hole. Now put a bunch of players on the good/bad side of the fairway on holes where a group of experts agree that the design of the hole makes angles more relevant. Do you get the same result? I don't know. But I haven't seen any data so far that convince me that we have evidence that angles don't matter in such a situation...although admittedly I haven't dug around for it.I agree that might be interesting. Again, most of the "angles" stuff, because right now it's one of the few ways to do it, has to do with just saying "the flag is within six yards of the right or left edge of the green."
The most important thing to understand is that architects don’t (or shouldn’t) care what score you shoot. It’s our job to make the playing field interesting. Most of that is about visual presentation: we have no control over where you hit your ball, but we can try to influence where you aim.I played Riviera with your friend Norm Klopardra (Tom, I hope I have the spelling right). Btw, you set the game up!
Oh, it’s more complicated than that? Well, so is design.
The most important thing to understand is that architects don’t (or shouldn’t) care what score you shoot. It’s our job to make the playing field interesting. Most of that is about visual presentation: we have no control over where you hit your ball, but we can try to influence where you aim.
Oh, it’s more complicated than that? Well, so is design.Thing is… it's really not much more complicated than that, no. I'm sure design is WAY more complicated than strategy. Just figuring out how to drain water is probably an order of magnitude more difficult.
The most important thing to understand is that architects don’t (or shouldn’t) care what score you shoot. It’s our job to make the playing field interesting. Most of that is about visual presentation: we have no control over where you hit your ball, but we can try to influence where you aim.Of course.
If you want to make the game boring and calculate the optimally safe route to save 0.1 strokes per hole, instead of taking on the challenges we present, that’s totally on you. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop putting them out there.Doing that doesn't make the game boring. You've still gotta hit the shots. You've still got four hours outside with your buddies. You've still got a beautiful golf course to look at.
On the 10th tee, he spent a few minutes talking about the hole design. He finished by explaining why you should never hit driver on the 10th. It was so effective that I laid up.Laying up is generally not the best strategy there.
Erik points to an interesting point when he mentions angles of the tee and doglegs. A dogleg creates a different kind of angle than hazards around a green. I do not know what that stats say, but it seems intuitive that if you end up with a longer second or third shot because you ended up on the side away from the dogleg, your score likely is to affected.Naturally, yes.
I said something earlier about data analytics (for the avg golfer) becoming mainstream enough that it changes what architects do to provide interest, tempt, or confuse. This quote makes me feel a better about how that will work out going forward.That, and the fact that this "statistical driven strategy" stuff is only ever really known to a tiny percentage of golfers. Heck, everyone here is a golf nerd, and most of y'all don't believe me. :) So, there are always going to be plenty of people who think angles matter in times when they really don't (for scoring, not for interest/whatever), etc. :D
This thread has been enormously informative from a number of perspectives. I can’t imagine a world where I’d stop playing golf to have fun. Shooting better scores is part of that, but taking on and succeeding against poor odds is a bigger part of what makes golf great.Golf is still ridiculously difficult. You're ALWAYS battling poor odds, even if you have a "perfect" strategy. I reject out of hand the notion that playing strategically makes golf "less fun."
But would the results look the same for a sample of holes like the 8th at Pacific Dunes or the 10th at Riviera, where the green is narrow and angled toward one side of the fairway?Play around with it yourself:
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMzczZmUyMWQtYzA0Yi00ZmNlLWFmNmEtZWRlNjViZTU2M2Y5IiwidCI6ImJiNjY5NzU2LWM0YTktNDYwMS1hOWYyLWQyNDRlNTQzNzk3MSIsImMiOjJ9 (https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMzczZmUyMWQtYzA0Yi00ZmNlLWFmNmEtZWRlNjViZTU2M2Y5IiwidCI6ImJiNjY5NzU2LWM0YTktNDYwMS1hOWYyLWQyNDRlNTQzNzk3MSIsImMiOjJ9)
But you'll probably find… no.
https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1350185425923670028 (https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1350185425923670028)
Some other relevant tweets (these are from the pro game):
https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1219649236880543744 (https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1219649236880543744)
https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1220141484336459776 (https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1220141484336459776)
But first of all, Stagner's post above about the 10th hole at Riviera didn't address the issue of angles at all. He compared layups to attempts at the green.It's also a shot where, for those who lay up, they're hitting a very short club off the tee. They can "chase" the angle a little bit, and the green is so shallow and tilted, it's almost likely to be a bit of an exception.
Why? Because there's a good chance that players who hit it in the right side of the fairway were playing worse than those who hit it in the left half of the fairway. I don't think that anyone would intentionally aim at the right side of the fairway here if laying up.Also correct. Lou says in the podcast that players actually score best from the middle of the fairway, and my initial though to that is that those players are simply playing better that day, too, overall (perhaps).
.........If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage.....
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention. I just played a course where angles mattered a ton. Not only for a safer angle of approach, but also the likely leave if one didn't execute from the poor angle. This wasn't a few holes. It was hole after hole. Sometimes better angles could be achieved by the ability to hit a long ball.
I gotta ask. Do people not play in wind or on even moderately keen turf? Do people all bomb it 300 yards and hit towering irons with crisp precision? If so, it's a game I don't get to play nor often witness. I am often merely trying to get on the green, so yer damn right angles matter. There were at least 10 times yesterday where after my tee shot, angle position mattered significantly. At least 8 drives where trying to get in the right area of the fairway mattered because of angles...and none involved bunkers.
Ciao
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention. I just played a course where angles mattered a ton. Not only for a safer angle of approach, but also the likely leave if one didn't execute from the poor angle. This wasn't a few holes. It was hole after hole. Sometimes better angles could be achieved by the ability to hit a long ball.
I gotta ask. Do people not play in wind or on even moderately keen turf? Do people all bomb it 300 yards and hit towering irons with crisp precision? If so, it's a game I don't get to play nor often witness. I am often merely trying to get on the green, so yer damn right angles matter. There were at least 10 times yesterday where after my tee shot, angle position mattered significantly. At least 8 drives where trying to get in the right area of the fairway mattered because of angles...and none involved bunkers.
Ciao
Even anecodotally, the situations you were in v. the situations you think you would have been in are not likely that statistically different when it comes to scoring. That's why "angles don't matter."
How many "bad days on the golf course" were because you played from all the wrong angles? How many "good days on the golf course" were because you played from all the correct ones?
Avoid double bogeys and penalty strokes. That's it.
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention.Sure thing, pal. Kyle gave a better answer than I will here…
Getting the right angle for up and downs etc can make a big difference in increasing odds to lower the score.That's just missing it in the right spots. You can miss it in the right spots whether you're coming in from the right side of the fairway or hugging the fairway bunker on the left.
Getting the right angle to hit low shotsIt's almost as if you're saying… angles matter when the ball is rolling with this type of comment.
Isn't it --angles don't matter as much as distance?
The way I understand the Stagner/Fawcett/Barzeski/Strokes Gained approach (I'm sure there are nuances between them). You can't reliably get the best angle unless you sacrifice distance (and dispersion) and being closer outweighs almost any angle. Hit your drive as far as you can where you take hazards out of play by aiming between any hazards at your carry distance and live with the dispersion and possible bad angle. If you bring a hazard into play (within your drive dispersion) by chasing the angle the math doesn't work over the long term.
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention.Sure thing, pal. Kyle gave a better answer than I will here…Getting the right angle for up and downs etc can make a big difference in increasing odds to lower the score.That's just missing it in the right spots. You can miss it in the right spots whether you're coming in from the right side of the fairway or hugging the fairway bunker on the left.Getting the right angle to hit low shotsIt's almost as if you're saying… angles matter when the ball is rolling with this type of comment.
I wonder if folks truly understand angles. To say they don't matter is to say you aren't paying attention. I just played a course where angles mattered a ton. Not only for a safer angle of approach, but also the likely leave if one didn't execute from the poor angle. This wasn't a few holes. It was hole after hole. Sometimes better angles could be achieved by the ability to hit a long ball.
I gotta ask. Do people not play in wind or on even moderately keen turf? Do people all bomb it 300 yards and hit towering irons with crisp precision? If so, it's a game I don't get to play nor often witness. I am often merely trying to get on the green, so yer damn right angles matter. There were at least 10 times yesterday where after my tee shot, angle position mattered significantly. At least 8 drives where trying to get in the right area of the fairway mattered because of angles...and none involved bunkers.
Ciao
Even anecodotally, the situations you were in v. the situations you think you would have been in are not likely that statistically different when it comes to scoring. That's why "angles don't matter."
How many "bad days on the golf course" were because you played from all the wrong angles? How many "good days on the golf course" were because you played from all the correct ones?
Avoid double bogeys and penalty strokes. That's it.
I couldn't disagree more. Getting the right angle for up and downs etc can make a big difference in increasing odds to lower the score. Getting the right angle to hit low shots with less wind effect can make a big difference in increasing odds to score lower. To me these are obvious facts.
I raised the question before, how much interest in the game would be lost if archies didn't design angles? It's a question that doesn't isn't worth an answer because most know it would be significant.
Ciao
Sean,
Even in your own post you are farther down the path to "angles don't matter" than you think!
"Increasing odds" is one thing so sure, let's explore that for a second.
In order for an angle to "increase my odds to lower score" you must first:
1: Have a golf hole where there is a wide variety of angle based outcomes
2: Execute a shot to find that angle
3: Execute a shot to take advantage of that angle
4: Hole a putt
I also believe I have higher odds of hitting good shots if I have a better angles.Great. Now back that up with something more than what you "believe."
I believe … I also believe… For me… I can… I almost always… I know… I know… I am… I know… to me… I know… I am… I fearI think I missed a few… See what I said before about how you have to talk to the general idea and there are always exceptions. Angles can matter slightly more to some than others, particularly if the ball is rolling. I'm not here commenting specifically on YOUR game, but that's almost entirely what you seem to be doing.
Why would I think this way when the conditions in order to meet taking advantage of the angle are so strict and MIGHT amount to one stroke over the course of a few rounds? Especially compared to understanding my dispersion pattern and making sure that I don't put that dispersion pattern in a situation that will create a penalty stroke or double-bogey.QFT.
The above three points and a mountain of shot dispersion data should make it rather straight forward to continue to build compelling golf courses for the better players while still accomodating those with less skills or gifts.Kyle is on a roll.
While I think the above model works perfectly well for the very good golfer, (low single digit to scratch), I don't think it accurately accounts for the average golfer at a 15-16 cap. For players like us, getting pars are our birdies.Par isn't necessarily relevant. The only real difference between a good player and a bad player is the size of the shot dispersion pattern (the size of their "Shot Zone" in my book).
Sean, your first post boiled down to "Angles matter, and if you disagree, you're not paying attention." Just "here's what I think, and if you disagree, you're a dope."I also believe I have higher odds of hitting good shots if I have a better angles.Great. Now back that up with something more than what you "believe."I believe … I also believe… For me… I can… I almost always… I know… I know… I am… I know… to me… I know… I am… I fearI think I missed a few… See what I said before about how you have to talk to the general idea and there are always exceptions. Angles can matter slightly more to some than others, particularly if the ball is rolling. I'm not here commenting specifically on YOUR game, but that's almost entirely what you seem to be doing.Why would I think this way when the conditions in order to meet taking advantage of the angle are so strict and MIGHT amount to one stroke over the course of a few rounds? Especially compared to understanding my dispersion pattern and making sure that I don't put that dispersion pattern in a situation that will create a penalty stroke or double-bogey.QFT.The above three points and a mountain of shot dispersion data should make it rather straight forward to continue to build compelling golf courses for the better players while still accomodating those with less skills or gifts.Kyle is on a roll.
Give players options. The more options they have… the more likely they are to choose the wrong one. If your choice is basically "how much of an angle do I want to play" that's one choice. And there's a mathematically sound way to approach it (regardless of whether you're playing for the lowest average score or the best chance of a birdie or something THIS one time).While I think the above model works perfectly well for the very good golfer, (low single digit to scratch), I don't think it accurately accounts for the average golfer at a 15-16 cap. For players like us, getting pars are our birdies.Par isn't necessarily relevant. The only real difference between a good player and a bad player is the size of the shot dispersion pattern (the size of their "Shot Zone" in my book).
Why wouldn't I talk about my game? Especially when it proves my point?Because an exception doesn't prove your point. And you have no actual data to verify that you're making the right choices. You might be shooting higher scores than you could.
Why wouldn't I talk about my game? Especially when it proves my point?Because an exception doesn't prove your point. And you have no actual data to verify that you're making the right choices. You might be shooting higher scores than you could.
There is a hidden “match play v. stroke play” debate going on here.
It’s also why I don’t feel match play is of any inherently superior value to stroke play and vice versa.
When you can remove yourself from the game, and the only penalty is a discrete value of one-hole, the rewards and risks are skewed.
When you can’t remove yourself from the game, and MUST continue, the math becomes quite simpler.
I’d venture that Sean’s method or strategy or point or whatever is much less efficient in stroke play long term.
As for match play? That’s just as much about the other person teeing it up against you.
Sport v. Game
I tend to agree that "Angles Don't Matter" where the design and the conditioning don't lend themselves to the player being at an advantage by approaching the green from the right angle. Perhaps that's where Sean and Erik/Kyle differ. I don't know where Erik and Kyle play their golf but I know from experience that Sean tends to play older courses that go for a firm and fast meld and where greens are often subtly orientated to favour one side of the fairway over the other. Firm and fast often accentuates any mistakes and therefore the advantage of approaching from the "correct" side increases.
Think of a situation where the player is hitting a long iron/hybrid/fairway wood to a green on a fast and firm course. For most players the shot might call for the ball to land just short or at the front edge and then to run on. Now imagine if the green is slightly angled with offset bunkers on either side accentuating the angle then clearly being on one side of the fairway is going to present a relatively clear path relative to the other where the front of the green might be partially covered by a flanking bunker thereby significantly reducing the opening to the green. Neither is the airborne route any easier as the ball isn't going to stop quickly on landing when hitting that kind of club. In that scenario, which is by no means rare on a lot of courses over here, it's fairly obvious that angles matter.
Conversely where you have fairly soft conditions and circular greens that don't favour a particular angle of approach then I imagine angles don't really matter. What kind of courses did they take their stats from ?
Niall
The so called exception proves my point. Blanket statements such as angles don't matter is a gross oversimplification.It does not, because you don't even know if you score better or worse doing what you suggest. You're basically saying "angles matter because I say so." Well, cool.
Of course they can and do matter.Geez. Do you realize how lousy an argument that is? "They matter because I say they do, and if you disagree with me, you're not paying attention." You haven't brought any facts to this argument. You haven't brought logic to the argument. You haven't brought data to the argument. You're just stating your opinion as if it's fact, with no foundation or backing.
Angles don't enter into that. That's why they don't matter. If a large chunk of your shot disperson is going to cost you a stroke becauase you are attempting to find the correct angle you are not making the correct choice long term. If a large chunk of your shot disperson is within the "correct angle" by aiming away from the same, then if angles matter you are making the correct play. Either way, you're not chasing angles - you're placing your disperson pattern in the place of least resistance.Yep.
To improve, you'd gain more long term by working on tightening your disperson pattern than you would by chasing angles.By FAR.
The problem is that most recreational golfers don't mind losing enough to ever care. Gambling is only a problem when you care about losing, but when you're winning it's a "system."If golfers want to play Tobacco Road by taking on every dumb challenge offered, and they find it fun, cool. Good for them. But that doesn't mean they're making the right choices, long-term, for their best chance to score.
Perhaps that's where Sean and Erik/Kyle differ. I don't know where Erik and Kyle play their golf but I know from experience that Sean tends to play older courses that go for a firm and fastOh, so when the ball is rolling?!?
And that's the crux of it. Searching and chasing angles more often than not CREATES problems that simply don't exist with the shotgun at the end of a shaft we employ to strike the ball. Just keep all the buck shot in play and wait until it hits the hole. Strip away the created mental hazard and how many times during a round of golf is there a true mathematically strategic choice? Are they enough to actual worry about as a means to shoot the best score consistently?Yup.
Oh, so when the ball is rolling?!?I'll put it another way: the stuff on the ground (bunkers, rough, creeks, slopes on greens, fall-offs, mounds, false fronts, ridges/contours, whatever) only matter when the ball is on the ground. If the ball is not on the ground much, that stuff doesn't matter (to scoring).
The so called exception proves my point. Blanket statements such as angles don't matter is a gross oversimplification.It does not, because you don't even know if you score better or worse doing what you suggest. You're basically saying "angles matter because I say so." Well, cool.
And to be clear, I've been consistent in saying that I'm talking about scoring, and even then, when the ball is not rolling. If you hit the ball lower and it rolls (like my daughter), angles can matter because the stuff on the ground comes into play more. And if you like to play for angles, or find it more interesting, or something other than scoring, angles can matter to you.
An exception doesn't prove your point. There are exceptions to all kinds of things that are generally true.Of course they can and do matter.Geez. Do you realize how lousy an argument that is? "They matter because I say they do, and if you disagree with me, you're not paying attention." You haven't brought any facts to this argument. You haven't brought logic to the argument. You haven't brought data to the argument. You're just stating your opinion as if it's fact, with no foundation or backing.Angles don't enter into that. That's why they don't matter. If a large chunk of your shot disperson is going to cost you a stroke becauase you are attempting to find the correct angle you are not making the correct choice long term. If a large chunk of your shot disperson is within the "correct angle" by aiming away from the same, then if angles matter you are making the correct play. Either way, you're not chasing angles - you're placing your disperson pattern in the place of least resistance.Yep.To improve, you'd gain more long term by working on tightening your disperson pattern than you would by chasing angles.By FAR.The problem is that most recreational golfers don't mind losing enough to ever care. Gambling is only a problem when you care about losing, but when you're winning it's a "system."If golfers want to play Tobacco Road by taking on every dumb challenge offered, and they find it fun, cool. Good for them. But that doesn't mean they're making the right choices, long-term, for their best chance to score.Perhaps that's where Sean and Erik/Kyle differ. I don't know where Erik and Kyle play their golf but I know from experience that Sean tends to play older courses that go for a firm and fastOh, so when the ball is rolling?!?And that's the crux of it. Searching and chasing angles more often than not CREATES problems that simply don't exist with the shotgun at the end of a shaft we employ to strike the ball. Just keep all the buck shot in play and wait until it hits the hole. Strip away the created mental hazard and how many times during a round of golf is there a true mathematically strategic choice? Are they enough to actual worry about as a means to shoot the best score consistently?Yup.
Here's what I don't get. And I know that at least one participant in this thread is likely to respond to me in a way that suggests I'm an idiot. But hey....
I understand that most pros have a shot dispersion which is shallow (distance is narrowly dispersed) but wide (misses left and right are greater than long and short). If a player with that shape of dispersion is approaching a green that is significantly longer in one axis than in the orthogonal axis, then surely the angle they approach from must matter? The better the angle fits their dispersion on to the green shape, the better the prospects of hitting the green? The better the probability of hitting the green, the lower the predicted score?
Why is that analysis wrong?
Kyle
If I understand your first paragraph correctly, you are suggesting in the scenario I described that the percentage of players playing from the "harder" side who hit the green is likely to be no different than the percentage of players playing from the easy side, is that correct ? That's like saying that if you asked a 100 people to throw a ball into a basket from 10 feet and then asked the same 100 people to throw the ball in the basket from 5 feet that you would have the same or similar success rate both times. You may well be proved to be correct but I find it hard to believe that would be the case.
Niall
Here's what I don't get. And I know that at least one participant in this thread is likely to respond to me in a way that suggests I'm an idiot. But hey....
I understand that most pros have a shot dispersion which is shallow (distance is narrowly dispersed) but wide (misses left and right are greater than long and short). If a player with that shape of dispersion is approaching a green that is significantly longer in one axis than in the orthogonal axis, then surely the angle they approach from must matter? The better the angle fits their dispersion on to the green shape, the better the prospects of hitting the green? The better the probability of hitting the green, the lower the predicted score?
Why is that analysis wrong?
With regards your last post, that is more or less the point I was making.I know. I was just pointing out that it's no different than what I've been saying.
However there are an awful lot of classic courses out there built on the principles espoused by the likes of MacKenzie, Simpson, Colt etc where angles do.Unless the ball is rolling and directly interacting with the features, they still really don't (for scoring).
I play one of the firmest and fastest and most strategic courses there is. And I learned long ago that I score best by just keeping my drives somewhere in the fairway and having a good day with the lag putting. I’d far rather be on the “wrong” side of the fairway all day long than I would on the “right” side of the fairway but with two drives ending up in a bunker because I got too cute.EDIT: Part of the reason they matter less is because for long approaches (where the ball is naturally going to roll out more), the angle difference between the wrong and right side of the fairways is relatively small. For short approaches - where that angle difference can be much larger - most golfers don’t have to worry about significant roll on the ball.Yes.
I understand that most pros have a shot dispersion which is shallow (distance is narrowly dispersed) but wide (misses left and right are greater than long and short). If a player with that shape of dispersion is approaching a green that is significantly longer in one axis than in the orthogonal axis, then surely the angle they approach from must matter? The better the angle fits their dispersion on to the green shape, the better the prospects of hitting the green? The better the probability of hitting the green, the lower the predicted score?Why is that analysis wrong?Two reasons.
Lousy argument? You essentially agree! You haven't come out and and said wind and terrain can be factors which can make angles more relavant, but if you thought about it like you did f&f conditions would would concede the point.No to wind, yes to terrain because I've always said that they matter when the ball is rolling.
What your blanket statement should read is angles don't matter except when a, b, c, d etc are present.Nah. Just "when the ball is rolling" covers it.
That being said most people don't play golf just to shoot the lowest possible score.In other words, my Tobacco Road example, or "artistry" or interest or whatever. I've cited these other reasons many times, and they're all valid, but as you noted, I'm talking about scoring.
Nobody is saying gambling isn’t fun.
But it’s still gambling.
2. Again, as Kyle and I have been saying, trying to PLAY to those angles introduces more danger on the first shot. Who cares if you have a better "angle" that "fits" your shot pattern a tiny bit more if 2 of 7 drives end up dead in a fairway bunker you could otherwise avoid?So angles do matter. But the advantage they might give is less than the risk of playing for them? So the thread title is wrong? Or, at the very least, a massive over-simplification?
2. Again, as Kyle and I have been saying, trying to PLAY to those angles introduces more danger on the first shot. Who cares if you have a better "angle" that "fits" your shot pattern a tiny bit more if 2 of 7 drives end up dead in a fairway bunker you could otherwise avoid?So angles do matter. But the advantage they might give is less than the risk of playing for them? So the thread title is wrong? Or, at the very least, a massive over-simplification?
So angles do matter. But the advantage they might give is less than the risk of playing for them? So the thread title is wrong? Or, at the very least, a massive over-simplification?Nothing in what you quoted says angles matter. Only what you aim at (i.e. not aiming near a bad bunker because the angle it gives you into the green is great).
The interesting question to me is whether this insight should change our perception of the quality of the hole. My gut says no but I am not sure why. If one is rewarded for randomly pulling a tee shot that seem less worthy of esteem than having someone make a decision to take a risk and being rewarded.That's exactly it.
Everyone plays with angles but they don't matter to score? I'd like to meet the hooker who plays a straight hole with OB all the way down the left side who doesn't tee off from the left side of the tee box.
You understand that you just contradicted yourself in that answer? I'm not arguing with your principle, just your grasp of English.So angles do matter. But the advantage they might give is less than the risk of playing for them? So the thread title is wrong? Or, at the very least, a massive over-simplification?Nothing in what you quoted says angles matter. Only what you aim at (i.e. not aiming near a bad bunker because the angle it gives you into the green is great).
Everyone plays with angles but they don't matter to score? I'd like to meet the hooker who plays a straight hole with OB all the way down the left side who doesn't tee off from the left side of the tee box.That's not what people are talking about when they're talking about "angles/architecture/strategy."
You understand that you just contradicted yourself in that answer? I'm not arguing with your principle, just your grasp of English.I did not. Fairway bunker (or OB) left… playing to get the "better angle" to the green down the left side is almost surely the bad play.
Everyone plays with angles but they don't matter to score? I'd like to meet the hooker who plays a straight hole with OB all the way down the left side who doesn't tee off from the left side of the tee box.
Rob,
Thanks for bringing that up. I guess playing away from OB by using a different "angle" off the tee doesn't matter either! ;D
You did and I suspect you actually know that you did.You understand that you just contradicted yourself in that answer? I'm not arguing with your principle, just your grasp of English.I did not. Fairway bunker (or OB) left… playing to get the "better angle" to the green down the left side is almost surely the bad play.
That's just avoiding trouble, period, regardless of the "angle" with which you're left.
You did and I suspect you actually know that you did.Perhaps if I had put words like "angle" and "great" in quotes you'd read it the way I "said" it in my mind when I wrote it. I don't see situations where angles matter except:
But that summary and the statement that "angles don't matter" are not the same.Do you want a disclaimer attached to every post about how there are some rare exceptions, or can we assume that the fine folks with whom we're talking here are smart enough to assume that people are generally not stating that things are 100% true 100% of the time with no exceptions?
You did and I suspect you actually know that you did.Perhaps if I had put words like "angle" and "great" in quotes you'd read it the way I "said" it in my mind when I wrote it. I don't see situations where angles matter except:Exceptions exist. I generally talk in generalities. Finding one situation (and the original bit that I replied to was a hypothetical) where an angle might matter doesn't "disprove" the general statement because I have not said "angles always matter and there are no exceptions, even when the ball isn't rolling."
- When the ball is rolling. I've been consistent about that.
- Exceptions. These are rare.
But that summary and the statement that "angles don't matter" are not the same.Do you want a disclaimer attached to every post about how there are some rare exceptions, or can we assume that the fine folks with whom we're talking here are smart enough to assume that people are generally not stating that things are 100% true 100% of the time with no exceptions?
Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling*.
* (And the incredibly rare exceptions that almost certainly exist.)
Lads, lads, lads,
It’s a general hypothesis. Angles don’t matter because there’s not conclusive data that show they do matter.
It’s like those GCA Mythbusters threads I started: If I put forward the hypothesis that “Angles matter”, it would have been busted! It’s not an absolute.
(Incidentally it’s not even Erik’s thread or choice of words).
Lads, lads, lads,
It’s a general hypothesis. Angles don’t matter because there’s not conclusive data that show they do matter.
It’s like those GCA Mythbusters threads I started: If I put forward the hypothesis that “Angles matter”, it would have been busted! It’s not an absolute.
(Incidentally it’s not even Erik’s thread or choice of words).
Lads, lads, lads,
It’s a general hypothesis. Angles don’t matter because there’s not conclusive data that show they do matter.
It’s like those GCA Mythbusters threads I started: If I put forward the hypothesis that “Angles matter”, it would have been busted! It’s not an absolute.
(Incidentally it’s not even Erik’s thread or choice of words).
This is the crux of the beef.
Its clearly just a hypothesis, but being asserted as immutable fact.
Like Sean I'm also perfectly fine if the messaging had been "Angles matter a lot less than you think" or something along the lines.
Lads, lads, lads,
It’s a general hypothesis. Angles don’t matter because there’s not conclusive data that show they do matter.
It’s like those GCA Mythbusters threads I started: If I put forward the hypothesis that “Angles matter”, it would have been busted! It’s not an absolute.
(Incidentally it’s not even Erik’s thread or choice of words).
This is the crux of the beef.
Its clearly just a hypothesis, but being asserted as immutable fact.
Like Sean I'm also perfectly fine if the messaging had been "Angles matter a lot less than you think" or something along the lines.
But that’s exactly what people are saying. They matter so much less than you think that it’s not entirely clear how much they matter at all….
It's like modern politics. People feel the need to express themselves in simple soundbites and defend them absolutely, rather than recognising nuance and finding language that more accurately reflects their meaning. Like Kalen, I don't think anyone actually disagrees much, if at all, with the basic premise, it's just that some won't permit an expression that departs from the absolute. As someone who works every day with language and its exact meaning, I find it very frustrating but guess I should just accept that in the real world, clarity of language is as old fashioned as real ale.
No-one wants to concede that “strategy” isn’t really the most important priority in an architect’s toolbox.
No-one wants to concede that “strategy” isn’t really the most important priority in an architect’s toolbox.
Deceiving the golfer into thinking strategy matters is pretty darn important.
No-one wants to concede that “strategy” isn’t really the most important priority in an architect’s toolbox.
Deceiving the golfer into thinking strategy matters is pretty darn important.
Only to those that think strategy is more important than it is and hence are deceived. That’s a pretty small sub-set:
Golfers who know how to score generally disregard it (or at least the angles part of it). The vast majority of other golfers (save for those who are into architecture) don’t even consider the strategy of a golf course as part of their vocabulary.
But that won’t stop me designing angles / strategy in to as many holes as possible. In fact, in some ways it just encourages me to exaggerate and maximise the angles in any way possible, just so that they can matter more than not much!
How about "angles often don't matter"? Is there any need for false hyperbole when making statements?Angles rarely matter. Angles almost never matter. Angles don't matter except in a few situations… whatever. It's all the same thing, and no different than what I've been saying. This isn't my topic: I didn't choose the title.
(Incidentally it’s not even Erik’s thread or choice of words).Correct, thank you.
It's clearly just a hypothesis, but being asserted as immutable fact."Angles matter" is no less a hypothesis, except that the available data supports "rarely matter" far more than "often matter."
Another more depressing way to look at it is that all of us have devoted our time over the years to a website pushing a myth. Ouch, that hurts!Indeed. :) But again, the context in which they rarely matter is scoring.
Either way, the stats guys seem to be taking over the strategic thinking of the top young players. I am not sure how architecture should adapt, but have been thinking about it. Worth a thread maybe.I think we have a few threads on it.
The best golfers in the world, (who are also the best scorers) talk a lot about how they develop a strategy before majors and other big tournaments. They do site visits on their own dime, spend hours putting together a hole by hole game plan, practice shots they will need to win, etc. And they talk about things like coming in from the right side of the fairway on 11 at Augusta or how the pin location on 2 leads them to decisions back on the tee.There are some old-school people out there who haven't quite adapted, and a lot of the site visits are to find start lines (i.e. can I carry the bunker on this line, how much will the fairway slant kick a ball to the left, etc.), to figure out where you can miss it around greens, that sort of thing. A lot of their "strategy" is determined from an overhead view, like Google Earth or something similar, before they're ever on-site.
As I said, it isn’t an absolute. I always knew that angles mattered less than people thought but was not aware that scoring from the “wrong” side of the fairway might be as good as from the “right” side of the fairway. At my home course (where I have firmly believed that there is a right and wrong side), I still play away from trouble first and foremost. Being on the fairway outweighs playing from the “right” angle…. But I figure that most courses don’t really have a right and wrong side that are actually meaningful.Just about bang on.
Erik acknowledged two important exceptions: when the ball is rolling and off the tee on doglegs.They can be if the dogleg happens in such a way that you almost have to shape the ball to hold the fairway. That's more about the angle of your ball flight, and the curve on it, than what we're traditionally talking about here with "angles."
Don’t they requiring playing the correct angle?Uhhhh… quite often, no. If they're penal enough, you're often treating it like it's on the side of the wider part of the fairway. Or if it's penal enough, you're hitting a 3W to stay just short of it. The fairway bunker on that hole at Kapalua or whatever is interesting… because it's next to a cliff or whatever, and there is an incentive to get it to the green in two.
My son, a good golfer, has an interesting take on this. Basically, when he comes in from the "wrong" side of the fw he does play for the fat part of the green, thus basically incorporating the Decade Strategy of playing safe, and probably his overall score goes down as a result. When he has the better angle to the flag, he attacks and gets in trouble more often, raising his average score, and it all averages out.
I guess the term "sucker pin" is rooted in reality somehow.
That's interesting comment from your son but it seems to assume a binary choice of going for the pin or playing completely safe. From the correct angle he can choose to play somewhere in between. His chances of success of sinking a 15 ft putt are surely better than sinking a 30 ft putt ?It's not really Jeff's son's take: that's what Lou has said all along as well: people play more conservatively when they have the "wrong" angle, which is actually roughly where they SHOULD play from any angle, but they'll typically aim closer from the "right" angle and short-side themselves or whatnot.
Jeff
That's interesting comment from your son but it seems to assume a binary choice of going for the pin or playing completely safe. From the correct angle he can choose to play somewhere in between. His chances of success of sinking a 15 ft putt are surely better than sinking a 30 ft putt ?
Maybe by playing in between he would slightly increase his chances of going in the hazard but then there might be a fair chance of getting up and down if he's a good player and let's also not forget that there is a much better chance of 3 putting from 30 ft than from 15 ft. There is such a thing as playing too safe.
Niall
That's interesting comment from your son but it seems to assume a binary choice of going for the pin or playing completely safe. From the correct angle he can choose to play somewhere in between. His chances of success of sinking a 15 ft putt are surely better than sinking a 30 ft putt ?It's not really Jeff's son's take: that's what Lou has said all along as well: people play more conservatively when they have the "wrong" angle, which is actually roughly where they SHOULD play from any angle, but they'll typically aim closer from the "right" angle and short-side themselves or whatnot.
I'm surprised that nobody has tried to show that "angles matter" by looking at the stats and showing something like this… Let's say that from 150 yards in the fairway a class of player averages 3.12 shots from the "bad" angle and 3.15 shots from the "good" angle (so, a pretty good player). Those are so close it's basically a wash, but how they get those averages might be something like this, out of 1000 times played:
"Bad" Angle (4.12): 1 eagle, 111 birdies, 667 pars, 218 bogeys, and 3 doubles.
"Good" Angle (4.15): 3 eagles, 129 birdies, 592 pars, 265 bogeys, and 11 doubles.
That might show "angles matter" a little… because the scoring spread changes. One location results in more under-par scores but also more over-par scores with fewer pars. But then I'd counter to point out that these stats are derived only from shots hit from the fairway, so if the "better" side of the fairway also has a fairway bunker over there, then that is going to massively affect the scoring, and that you shouldn't play for that angle you should play for safety first… and so on. Which is what Kyle and I have been talking about, ultimately.
That's why the ultimate target is often still basically the same on the green (or should be) regardless of where you're playing from… (as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions).
But you would have at least shown that even though the numbers can work out the same, the actual resulting angle might matter in that sense. It'd be looking at it a little too closely, and not seeing the bigger picture, but it'd still speak to the point a bit.
That's interesting comment from your son but it seems to assume a binary choice of going for the pin or playing completely safe. From the correct angle he can choose to play somewhere in between. His chances of success of sinking a 15 ft putt are surely better than sinking a 30 ft putt ?It's not really Jeff's son's take: that's what Lou has said all along as well: people play more conservatively when they have the "wrong" angle, which is actually roughly where they SHOULD play from any angle, but they'll typically aim closer from the "right" angle and short-side themselves or whatnot.
I'm surprised that nobody has tried to show that "angles matter" by looking at the stats and showing something like this… Let's say that from 150 yards in the fairway a class of player averages 3.12 shots from the "bad" angle and 3.15 shots from the "good" angle (so, a pretty good player). Those are so close it's basically a wash, but how they get those averages might be something like this, out of 1000 times played:
"Bad" Angle (4.12): 1 eagle, 111 birdies, 667 pars, 218 bogeys, and 3 doubles.
"Good" Angle (4.15): 3 eagles, 129 birdies, 592 pars, 265 bogeys, and 11 doubles.
That might show "angles matter" a little… because the scoring spread changes. One location results in more under-par scores but also more over-par scores with fewer pars. But then I'd counter to point out that these stats are derived only from shots hit from the fairway, so if the "better" side of the fairway also has a fairway bunker over there, then that is going to massively affect the scoring, and that you shouldn't play for that angle you should play for safety first… and so on. Which is what Kyle and I have been talking about, ultimately.
That's why the ultimate target is often still basically the same on the green (or should be) regardless of where you're playing from… (as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions).
But you would have at least shown that even though the numbers can work out the same, the actual resulting angle might matter in that sense. It'd be looking at it a little too closely, and not seeing the bigger picture, but it'd still speak to the point a bit.
Erik
The bit in your post that jumps out at me is "as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions". That basically is the nub of the discussion. For instance, equally you could have argued that angles do matter except where the design and conditioning of the course negate the benefit of approaching from the "right" angle. It's pretty well the same conclusion but just coming at it from the other way.
Niall
ErikI guess I find it quite depressing that the ball rolling is considered a rare exception. Golf is so much more fun when the ball rolls. Is that (at least in part) because it makes angles matter?
The bit in your post that jumps out at me is "as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions". That basically is the nub of the discussion. For instance, equally you could have argued that angles do matter except where the design and conditioning of the course negate the benefit of approaching from the "right" angle. It's pretty well the same conclusion but just coming at it from the other way.
Niall
The bit in your post that jumps out at me is "as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions".I've almost always had that in there, and where I haven't, it's just so it's not SO repetitive (and y'all have read it 100 times already).
For instance, equally you could have argued that angles do matter except where the design and conditioning of the course negate the benefit of approaching from the "right" angle. It's pretty well the same conclusion but just coming at it from the other way.That'd be arguing for the minority position and saying "except" to the majority, PLUS this:
Except it doesn’t matter as much as we think even when the ball is rolling…. Or at least not to a big enough extent to chase those angles at risk (which after all is the nub of “strategy”).
Golf is so much more fun when the ball rolls. Is that (at least in part) because it makes angles matter?Yes. Again, consider the Presidents Cup at Royal Melbourne. The very first hole was a great example.
Jeff
That's the point I'm making, it is rarely totally binary. There is usually a sliding scale of how much risk a player will take on with a shot which will depend on their skill level, how well they are playing on the day etc.
Bret
I've read a lot of the ODG's on strategy and can't recall them discussing ego, however they certainly allowed for different levels of golfers getting to the green in different ways. MacKenzie's Lido hole being a case in point. I might add that their designs also had the players playing off the same tees.
Niall
Except it doesn’t matter as much as we think even when the ball is rolling…. Or at least not to a big enough extent to chase those angles at risk (which after all is the nub of “strategy”).
Whether one is the majority and the other the minority, or indeed the other way round, doesn't really matter because they are two sides of the same coin.No. "Except" is for the exceptions, which are the minority.
But "when the ball is rolling" is an exception. The ball rolls in >50% of the golf I play in the Summer months. I find it hard to consider that an exception.Whether one is the majority and the other the minority, or indeed the other way round, doesn't really matter because they are two sides of the same coin.No. "Except" is for the exceptions, which are the minority.
But "when the ball is rolling" is an exception. The ball rolls in >50% of the golf I play in the Summer months. I find it hard to consider that an exception.Whether one is the majority and the other the minority, or indeed the other way round, doesn't really matter because they are two sides of the same coin.No. "Except" is for the exceptions, which are the minority.
Except it doesn’t matter as much as we think even when the ball is rolling…. Or at least not to a big enough extent to chase those angles at risk (which after all is the nub of “strategy”).
Ally
Don't matter as much as who thinks ? Who is the "we" you are referring to ? And if you think the risk isn't worth it, are you saying that there isn't any point to applying strategy ?
Erik
Whether one is the majority and the other the minority, or indeed the other way round, doesn't really matter because they are two sides of the same coin. The supposition in the OP was that angles don't matter however it appears we both agree that they can and do matter in certain situations. For me the question then becomes if they don't matter that much, as you and Ally argue, then what does that say about course designs and maintenance ?
Niall
But "when the ball is rolling" is an exception. The ball rolls in >50% of the golf I play in the Summer months. I find it hard to consider that an exception.It's the exception around the world. And unlike the "rolling a few inches" thing from earlier in the discussion, I'm talking about a reasonable amount of roll, not "hit a 7I that rolls out ten feet." I'm talking about "land your 7I eight yards short of the green so it bounces up and rolls on."
This has been a major aspect of my point. I don't play many soft, flat, windless golf courses. I have been playing Cleeve Hill a ton this winter. Wrong angles can easily be a matter of 1 or 2 extra shots rather than .1.Unlikely. But your anecdata is great. Keep it coming. :P
But "when the ball is rolling" is an exception. The ball rolls in >50% of the golf I play in the Summer months. I find it hard to consider that an exception.It's the exception around the world. And unlike the "rolling a few inches" thing from earlier in the discussion, I'm talking about a reasonable amount of roll, not "hit a 7I that rolls out ten feet." I'm talking about "land your 7I eight yards short of the green so it bounces up and rolls on."This has been a major aspect of my point. I don't play many soft, flat, windless golf courses. I have been playing Cleeve Hill a ton this winter. Wrong angles can easily be a matter of 1 or 2 extra shots rather than .1.Unlikely. But your anecdata is great. Keep it coming. :P
I am hardly going to provide a map and shot location for the past four months that will be mis-analyzed by a guy on the other side of the ocean that doesn't know the course or my game. A synopsis will have to do. 😎 It's fine that you don't trust or believe me. But I trust my experience far more than I do anonymous blobs on a graph. I do get it wrong sometimes and that's ok. In truth, the shorter my carry has become the more I rely on angles and the more I avoid courses and conditions which don't provide for angles.
Ciao
I am hardly going to provide a map and shot location for the past four months that will be mis-analyzed by a guy on the other side of the ocean that doesn't know the course or my game. A synopsis will have to do. It's fine that you don't trust or believe me. But I trust my experience far more than I do anonymous blobs on a graph. I do get it wrong sometimes and that's ok. In truth, the shorter my carry has become the more I rely on angles and the more I avoid courses and conditions which don't provide for angles.
Ciao
Sean,
It would be interesting if you did track a hole where you think angles matter, as in play it ten times, with tee shot finding right and wrong side of fw, including shots that find hazards. Then track your score. Despite the title, the theory is that over 10 plays you would probably make 1 birdie from the favored side, but two bogeys from hitting a hazard on the right side. Thus the aggregate is likely to be about equal over time, but not on any one shot.
No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player.
And, in reality, I think most golfers see hazards out there as stop signs, not "hit it here challenges." The challenge of the tee shot can be the shot itself, fitting it in a slot, using a turbo boost, finding a flat lie, laying up short of hazards, curving the ball to stay in play (statistically, again) and any number of things you might concoct.
Folks seem to be coming at this topic from different angles.
Atb
This may have been covered but isn’t cutting a shot into a right side pin or drawing into a left side pin using angles? Or is it making up for having a bad angle for your natural shot shape.
No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player.That's decidedly inaccurate.
There are supposedly conflicting studies on both sides.Show me the conflicting studies here.
my 60 years of experience is far better than any studyScience schmience!
I don’t know how to paste an article here, but I just Googled the question.I was asking for the conflicting studies about "angles."
I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen the pin reject a good shot.It doesn't happen as often as you think it does. Even a ball rolling 5' past the hole has to hit almost the exact middle of the hole to go in. But that's OT for this topic.
No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player.That's decidedly inaccurate.
Of course you'd say that. It's your business, we get it.No, I'm an instructor for the most part. There is a reason PGA Tour players are employing "stats geeks" - it helps them score better, which is how one defines "better golfer." It's a smart business decision for many of them, to understand expectations, percentages, etc.
Of course you'd say that. It's your business, we get it.No, I'm an instructor for the most part. There is a reason PGA Tour players are employing "stats geeks" - it helps them score better, which is how one defines "better golfer." It's a smart business decision for many of them, to understand expectations, percentages, etc.
Your statement is provably false.
No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player.That's decidedly inaccurate.
Of course you'd say that. It's your business, we get it.
And I agree with Erik: Generally speaking, we place too much emphasis on traditional “strategy” (there are all types of other strategy). All types of golfers tend to score better by playing safely than by risking the hazards that come with chasing angles from the tee. This is because finding the hazards loses more shots than the shots gained from occasionally playing from the “right” side of the fairway. And that is partly because there isn’t as big an advantage gap between the “right” and “wrong” sides of the fairway as our imagination would like us to believe. Not to mention that most people can’t hit the “right” or “wrong” side even if they try.
This isn’t just for tour players.
We know, you've said it before, ad naseum.If you know, why do you continue to say stupid things like "No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player."?
What you aren't acknowledging is that there are way more golfers out there than the guys on tour.When did you fall in love with making such wildly inaccurate statements? Where have I failed to acknowledge this simple fact?
Stats might help .001% of the people who play the game, but they're not going to help the majority of golfers.Incorrect.
Golf IQ, for the majority of players, isn't derived from stats. It's derived from experience.That doesn't mean it has to be. Scott named his system DECADE in part because it forms a goofy acronym, but also in part because he says it shaves a decade off learning these types of things.
The smartest players know the limits of their abilities, not from stats, but from self awareness.And yet… PGA Tour players are hiring statistical consultants.
They know when a little more club is better than a little less, when playing down the middle makes more sense than playing close to trouble, etc. And there are a ton of factors that go into each and every one of those calculations. I know, because I help people make these calculations on the course on a daily basis.What do you think statistical analysis and Shot Zones and what I call "Decision Maps" and stuff are?
I understand where you are coming from. You are selling an ideal, one that people see every week on TV.No.
Unfortunately, most people's problem is that they don't realize that they'll never measure up to that ideal, that of the "better player," and that if they want to shoot lower scores they should play smarter.Ummmmm…
I understand that point. The nuance you are missing is that the "right side of the fairway" can be different for different players. The best path for every golfer is not always the same path.I've never said it is.
How can you apply a very generalized statistical analysis to what is going to work for each individual golfer, on any given day, under one of a myriad of different conditions.We don't do that. Everyone's Decision Map is different.
Take for example number 9 at Pine Needles.Great. A specific example, and one we can talk about a bit more specifically (there are still going to be modifications based on player strengths, the tees they play, any "fears" or great weaknesses they have, etc.).
The fairway is wideAh, but it is not, really. At about 245 or so, it's a little under 30 yards wide:
and there is no hazard that needs to be played away from.There are no "hazards" but there are hazards. See below.
But if you are coming in from the right, it is a significantly more difficult shot than from the left.Let's assume that Ira is correct and that playing from the left side of the fairway is easier than playing from the right. (I actually prefer to be right so I can hit away from the swale to the right of the green, not to the left hitting toward the fall-off, but let's go with the "left is best" approach here).
If you can't recognize that my "stat geek" comment was the same kind of generalized statement you discuss late in your last post, so be it.That's not the same. Plus you said "No stat geek" not "most" or "few" or anything like that.
And if you want to give lessons in how to have discussions on line, perhaps we should start with the concept of tone.There's no tone in plain text, Sven. Only what you add when you read it in your mind. How many insults could one read into your posts, or Tim's? The sentence "No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player."? could be seen as having three alone (in addition to, as noted, being incorrect on the whole.)
As for the rest of your last post, most players are going to learn more from interacting with a good caddie over one round than they are with five range lessons talking about theoretical "decision maps" and a couple of aim point sessions on the putting green.Oh brother. I disagree, go figure. To pick at just one example there… two hours of instruction and a little self practice learning AimPoint can set someone up for a lifetime of improved green reading.
Oh brother. I disagree. To pick at just one example there… two hours and a little self practice learning AimPoint, for example, can set someone up for a lifetime of improved green reading.
We'll agree to disagree. Most players would be better served focusing on pace as opposed to an aiming system for lines that they can't hit anyway.That's not a counter-argument as we're not talking about which matters more or most.
We'll agree to disagree. Most players would be better served focusing on pace as opposed to an aiming system for lines that they can't hit anyway.That's not a counter-argument as we're not talking about which matters more or most.
Pace always matters more.https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1505315269492752387 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1505315269492752387)
Unfortunately most players ignore it because they're too wrapped up in trying to figure out whether it's a 2 or 3 percent slope on a putt that breaks three times before it gets to the hole.The discussion, my point, whatever… was not about whether pace/distance is more important than green reading.
I have made many tweets, posts, etc. about the importance of pace before that one from almost a year ago, too.
Thank you for your response to mine about PN. It is the first time I have been grateful for my slow club head speed.Heh. ;D Yeah, if your dispersion pattern is small (most people under-estimate the size of their actual pattern), you can play to slightly different targets. For sure.
Sven:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HU52sGZZvCA/Ud_R0qtmAlI/AAAAAAAACfc/9JhOvEYR350/s1600/strawman.png)
Erik:I think you missed the point. You made a straw man argument; I wasn't calling you a straw man.
Erik:I think you missed the point. You made a straw man argument; I wasn't calling you a straw man.
PART B: THE APPROACH
Part of the reason it’s better to aim down the fairway is that apparently - and I didn’t know this - there isn’t much difference to scoring from the good side of the fairway than the bad side of the fairway. Now I haven’t studied the stats and personally, I still like coming in from a more “comfortable” angle. It makes me feel more confident. But I’ve known all along that there is a small enough difference in scoring that I don’t go chasing that comfortable angle because the risk outweighs the reward. If I aim it down the middle, I’m going to end up on the good side by chance quite often.
PART B: THE APPROACH
Part of the reason it’s better to aim down the fairway is that apparently - and I didn’t know this - there isn’t much difference to scoring from the good side of the fairway than the bad side of the fairway. Now I haven’t studied the stats and personally, I still like coming in from a more “comfortable” angle. It makes me feel more confident. But I’ve known all along that there is a small enough difference in scoring that I don’t go chasing that comfortable angle because the risk outweighs the reward. If I aim it down the middle, I’m going to end up on the good side by chance quite often.
Ally
Do you know for a fact that is what the survey/data says ? I asked the question in another post and don't think I received a reply.
Niall
Ally
Yes, I could have framed my question a bit better. I was really trying to find out what the data purports to show beyond the simple "Angles Don't Matter". For instance, is the suggestion that it doesn't matter whether you approach from an angle with the green open or with it well guarded, in that the scores will be more or less the same ? Your part B seems to suggest that's the case. Did you get that from Erik or from some another analysis of the data ?
Niall
PART B: THE APPROACH
Part of the reason it’s better to aim down the fairway is that apparently - and I didn’t know this - there isn’t much difference to scoring from the good side of the fairway than the bad side of the fairway. Now I haven’t studied the stats and personally, I still like coming in from a more “comfortable” angle. It makes me feel more confident. But I’ve known all along that there is a small enough difference in scoring that I don’t go chasing that comfortable angle because the risk outweighs the reward. If I aim it down the middle, I’m going to end up on the good side by chance quite often.
Ally
Do you know for a fact that is what the survey/data says ? I asked the question in another post and don't think I received a reply.
Niall
No, hence words like “apparently”, “I didn’t know this” and “I haven’t studied the stats”. I would have thought that was obvious!
But I did - through common sense in knowing my own game - suspect the difference was small, hence my general application of Part A.
Rob, not sure what you’re asking with the curve of the drive? If I aim down the middle, sometimes I’ll end up on the “good” side, sometimes I’ll end up on the “bad” side, sometimes I’ll miss altogether. But crucially, I’ll miss less often than if I head down one side or another…. (This is talking about finishing point, discounting natural shot shapes which I’m sure we all account for to one degree or another when aiming).
|
But it's also possible that even in this best case scenario, the angle wouldn't really matter because players will be more likely to aim for safety when they have a bad angle and/or get too aggressive from the good angle. Hell, you might even get a counter-intuitive result--that scores are lower from the bad angle.Anything's possible, but say a ball is on the right side of a fairway 160 yds. to a diagnoal green with a middle back right pin fronted by a bunker on that section. For me it's a 7 iron to the middle or front left portion of the green if its the safer play, whereas a pro or even a low single digit handicapper that can crush it will most likely take flag directly on with a pitching wedge, as the trap is little more than a visual impediment to them. Of course, other factors, such as wind come into play, but club selection and one's confidence in their ability to execute certain shots often trumps what playing angles attempt to dictate. If presented the same situation but a 110 yds. away vs. 160, it changes my decision making process entirely, as now I'm taking the flag on given I have a much higher lofted club in my hand.
Jeff,
Thank you for posting one of the things I was looking for. And they can't be serious right? All those conditions had to be met?
What Shots Were Selected?
For a shot to be used, it had to meet the following criteria:
- Second shot on a par 4
AND
- Fairway was at least 30-yards wide where the ball was
AND
- Hole was cut 6-yards or less from the right/left edge of the green
AND
- A shot on the "side" of a fairway needed to be close to the edge (20% or less of the fairway width)
For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 6-yards or less from the side-edge of the fairway
AND
- A shot in the center needed to be in the middle 25% of the fairway. For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 3.75-yards or less from the center of the fairway
AND
- No penalty hazards in-play around the green
AND
Shots from the rough were not recovery shots
AND
Shot was +/- 2-yards from the target yardage
I could play several rounds and never incur those precise criteria. Talk about cherry picking data....this is completely laughable. Especially when they say holes with hazards around the green are excluded, which is perhaps the primary reason one would play for the better angle!
Only took 9 pages to get here, but thank you!
Jeff,
Thank you for posting one of the things I was looking for. And they can't be serious right? All those conditions had to be met?
What Shots Were Selected?
For a shot to be used, it had to meet the following criteria:
- Second shot on a par 4
AND
- Fairway was at least 30-yards wide where the ball was
AND
- Hole was cut 6-yards or less from the right/left edge of the green
AND
- A shot on the "side" of a fairway needed to be close to the edge (20% or less of the fairway width)
For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 6-yards or less from the side-edge of the fairway
AND
- A shot in the center needed to be in the middle 25% of the fairway. For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 3.75-yards or less from the center of the fairway
AND
- No penalty hazards in-play around the green
AND
Shots from the rough were not recovery shots
AND
Shot was +/- 2-yards from the target yardage
I could play several rounds and never incur those precise criteria. Talk about cherry picking data....this is completely laughable. Especially when they say holes with hazards around the green are excluded, which is perhaps the primary reason one would play for the better angle!
Only took 9 pages to get here, but thank you!
But it's also possible that even in this best case scenario, the angle wouldn't really matter because players will be more likely to aim for safety when they have a bad angle and/or get too aggressive from the good angle. Hell, you might even get a counter-intuitive result--that scores are lower from the bad angle.That's what you often see from the data: let's imagine a bunker short right. The "good" side of the fairway (left) results in slightly more aggressive shots and often more short-sided shots and a higher scoring average (and plenty of people still miss the shot in the bunker). The "worse" angle leads to more conservative approach shots (plenty still mis-hit it into the bunker). The latter often leads to a smaller scoring spread (fewer doubles, fewer birdies) while the former leads to, due to the aggression, more birdies… with more bogeys and doubles.
What I'm getting at is that I play a draw. If I aim down the middle I'm going to spend a lot of time in the left rough or worse. I use angles on the tee box and start line to get my ball in the fairway.Nobody's (except you?) is talking about start line. It's where the ball finishes.
Anything's possible, but say a ball is on the right side of a fairway 160 yds. to a diagnoal green with a middle back right pin fronted by a bunker on that section. For me it's a 7 iron to the middle or front left portion of the green if its the safer play, whereas a pro or even a low single digit handicapper that can crush it will most likely take flag directly on with a pitching wedgeThey should not. Their dispersion pattern is still quite large from 160.
Etc… There will still be huge data points. Their criteria doesn’t seem obviously set to meet an agenda at all.Yup.
I thought it had been mentioned, so I include a part of the Lou Stagner Tweet from earlier this month.
But Geez, you aren't trusting 581 million shots as enough to be conclusive? The images don't post, presumably for copyright reasons. You can see yourself at https://golfstatpro.us21.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f14910584d0a34c8ff08be313&id=f8d8878c61&e=a1395c42f5 (https://golfstatpro.us21.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f14910584d0a34c8ff08be313&id=f8d8878c61&e=a1395c42f5)
But it's also possible that even in this best case scenario, the angle wouldn't really matter because players will be more likely to aim for safety when they have a bad angle and/or get too aggressive from the good angle. Hell, you might even get a counter-intuitive result--that scores are lower from the bad angle.That's what you often see from the data: let's imagine a bunker short right. The "good" side of the fairway (left) results in slightly more aggressive shots and often more short-sided shots and a higher scoring average (and plenty of people still miss the shot in the bunker). The "worse" angle leads to more conservative approach shots (plenty still mis-hit it into the bunker). The latter often leads to a smaller scoring spread (fewer doubles, fewer birdies) while the former leads to, due to the aggression, more birdies… with more bogeys and doubles.
I suspect that these numbers would be different on a subset of holes designed for angles to really matter, i.e. ones with angled greens, pitched toward the proper fairway angle, and with testing hazards on the short side.Broadly, and as quickly as I can:
Still, I'm convinced that as a practical matter, we shouldn't chase angles unless there's almost no cost to doing so.Basically, yeah.
I still want to see this for different types of holes as described above. But I'm much less confident than I was when I wrote my first post on this that it would make a difference even in the case of minimal driving hazards and almost completely convinced that it wouldn't make a difference if there's any type of significant driving hazard on the good angle side. You and Lou Stagner have changed my priors, so thanks for replying to my posts.I can say this… Lou and I have the data there, and it mostly shakes out the same… for the same reasons.
P.S. I chose 160 because it's a distance at which an amateur might be hitting a 7-iron. Any shorter than that and we're not getting into a lot of roll-out, and any longer than that and the angle just gets smaller and smaller. It seemed to me like a reasonable distance.
I know you said "might," but there's a wide swath of players who will get plenty of roll on a 160 yard shot (and even less) because they (a) have to hit a club with much lower loft than your hypothetical 7-iron or (b) just don't hit the ball that high.You have read my "disclaimer" about the ball rolling billions of times by now (I may be exaggerating slightly).
Some of these people are also deadly accurate with just about every club in their bag.It's highly unlikely they're more accurate from certain distances than a Tour player.
The applicability of the general theory is highly slanted to the playing style of a better player.Not really, no. The strategy stuff holds up into the higher handicaps pretty well. They can't play for angles any more than a lower handicap player. Their Shot Zones are bigger AND they're worse at getting out of trouble.
But in the general scheme of things, angles are going to always matter for a large class of players.So you're just going with the way of arguing where you just state "this is so, because I say it."
I know you said "might," but there's a wide swath of players who will get plenty of roll on a 160 yard shot (and even less) because they (a) have to hit a club with much lower loft than your hypothetical 7-iron or (b) just don't hit the ball that high.You have read my "disclaimer" about the ball rolling billions of times by now (I may be exaggerating slightly).
Which is why I included it in my PS, which you neglected to include in my text that you quote here.Some of these people are also deadly accurate with just about every club in their bag.It's highly unlikely they're more accurate from certain distances than a Tour player.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. But even you would have to admit that an accurate player who hits driver 180 is going to have a smaller dispersion factor than a tour pro that hits it 320.The applicability of the general theory is highly slanted to the playing style of a better player.Not really, no. The strategy stuff holds up into the higher handicaps pretty well. They can't play for angles any more than a lower handicap player. Their Shot Zones are bigger AND they're worse at getting out of trouble.
Which is why many of the think about angles even more. They want to avoid trouble at all costs.But in the general scheme of things, angles are going to always matter for a large class of players.So you're just going with the way of arguing where you just state "this is so, because I say it."
No, I'm arguing this because I see it on nearly a daily basis. Call it an unintended occupational benefit.
Strategy becomes less and less important the worse the golfer. What's "strategy" when your Shot zone is 80 yards by 60 yards with a 6-iron? Just have fun playing golf, and try to get the ball in the air and moving forward more often.
You continue to use the same broad brush you've used all along. Not every high-handicapper fits this description. There are many who can hit a fairly straight shot on repeat, yet they can't get the ball in the air enough to consistently be able to take on trouble head on. And this is just one example of an outlier from your "average amateur."
I’ll let you go ahead and delete that last paragraph. If it wasn’t your intention for it to come across dripping of condescension, I can forgive the lack of self-awareness. If it was, which by your track record I suspect is the case, I can only feel sorry for you.Once again, I will point out that there is no tone in text except whatever you add in your mind when you read it. It literally says "Have a good day." Did you consider that though we disagree, I hope you have a good day? If not, perhaps you should have. Because even though we disagree on some of this stuff, we're still both human beings who derive some sort of joy from this silly sport/game/activity/whatever. And this stuff really, really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It's just golf.
No sarcasm, I do feel sorry for you.The sarcasm was mine. I'm not actually "glad" to know that. I thought that was kinda obvious, but I guess not.
I thought that was kinda obvious, but I guess not.
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at the lack of self-awareness from main players.I think you do. At least one of them, for all the value he adds, comes across as basically rude. Not saying he has a monopoly on that but I think a more reasonable tone (and yes, text can have tone) might lead to better debate.
............
From my point of view, the blowback towards the more prominent golf analytics folks is kinda creepy. I don’t really understand why.
This has been a good thread but perhaps it’s time to let it go. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at the lack of self-awareness from main players. Fellas, no one has the market cornered on knowing what golfers do and don’t do. Lou Stagner’s twitter quote that I used to start this thread is absolutely provocative. As it applies to architecture, I like what Tom said much earlier in the thread. Paraphrasing, he doesn’t care. He has to do his job and golfers have to do theirs.
From my point of view, the blowback towards the more prominent golf analytics folks is kinda creepy. I don’t really understand why.
This has been a good thread but perhaps it’s time to let it go. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at the lack of self-awareness from main players. Fellas, no one has the market cornered on knowing what golfers do and don’t do. Lou Stagner’s twitter quote that I used to start this thread is absolutely provocative. As it applies to architecture, I like what Tom said much earlier in the thread. Paraphrasing, he doesn’t care. He has to do his job and golfers have to do theirs.
From my point of view, the blowback towards the more prominent golf analytics folks is kinda creepy. I don’t really understand why.
The calculus isn't whether to risk a stroke by firing at the flag. Risk today is more defined as, "I'm not taking the risk of losing another $5 golf ball." ;)Great analysis, Jeff and there's a lot of truth to this. I plead guilty of the crime myself, as I've intentionally avoided carries over water even when I've had a decent angle to the pin for fear of losing another $5.00 ball in a round, when I'd already lost two prior. When you pay $50.00 - $75.00 for a round of golf and lose 3 or 4 balls in the process, it becomes an expensive day.
The calculus isn't whether to risk a stroke by firing at the flag. Risk today is more defined as, "I'm not taking the risk of losing another $5 golf ball." ;)Great analysis, Jeff and there's a lot of truth to this. I plead guilty of the crime myself, as I've intentionally avoided carries over water even when I've had a decent angle to the pin for fear of losing another $5.00 ball in a round, when I'd already lost two prior. When you pay $50.00 - $75.00 for a round of golf and lose 3 or 4 balls in the process, it becomes an expensive day.
The calculus isn't whether to risk a stroke by firing at the flag. Risk today is more defined as, "I'm not taking the risk of losing another $5 golf ball." ;)Great analysis, Jeff and there's a lot of truth to this. I plead guilty of the crime myself, as I've intentionally avoided carries over water even when I've had a decent angle to the pin for fear of losing another $5.00 ball in a round, when I'd already lost two prior. When you pay $50.00 - $75.00 for a round of golf and lose 3 or 4 balls in the process, it becomes an expensive day.
The calculus isn't whether to risk a stroke by firing at the flag. Risk today is more defined as, "I'm not taking the risk of losing another $5 golf ball." ;)Great analysis, Jeff and there's a lot of truth to this. I plead guilty of the crime myself, as I've intentionally avoided carries over water even when I've had a decent angle to the pin for fear of losing another $5.00 ball in a round, when I'd already lost two prior. When you pay $50.00 - $75.00 for a round of golf and lose 3 or 4 balls in the process, it becomes an expensive day.
I remember a friend remarking that “it would have been cheaper to lose three ways plus two birdies in the $5 and $2 nassau game than the four ProV1’s I lost.”
There isn’t any connection to how those shots got to either the good side or the bad side. For example, are a number of the bad shot pinpoints the result of the player aiming to the good aide, but knowing if they missed to the other side of the fairway they’d still be in play.That's kinda beside the point. And Lou's data, my data, etc. is an amalgamation of thousands or millions of shots across many, many holes.
The gist of the theory we’re talking about is that because golf is erratic, it is always better to play safe. But sometimes you have it, and two shots are going to go pretty much like you planned. Part of the skill in this game is knowing when you’ve got it going, and when you don’t.We have data on how often players "have it." I think you'd lose any related bets here, but…
But at the end of the day, Hogan, as he often does, proves why both Erik and Sven are correct. The 11th at ANGC (yes, I know that it is not about a tee shot chasing the angle) and the 6th at Carnoustie. Probabilities rule over the long term, but genius is genius.Okay, let's try this. Now, I know it's not average players, but here is shot data from all shots 180-219 in the fairway at ANGC's 11th from 2019-2021. There are 91 shots on the "B" side of the line (the line may not be exactly right - it's shots closer to the left side of the fairway than the right) and 86 shots from the "A" side.
What is the difference in the lies between the A side and the B side.They're all fairway.
But at the end of the day, Hogan, as he often does, proves why both Erik and Sven are correct. The 11th at ANGC (yes, I know that it is not about a tee shot chasing the angle) and the 6th at Carnoustie. Probabilities rule over the long term, but genius is genius.Okay, let's try this. Now, I know it's not average players, but here is shot data from all shots 180-219 in the fairway at ANGC's 11th from 2019-2021. There are 91 shots on the "B" side of the line (the line may not be exactly right - it's shots closer to the left side of the fairway than the right) and 86 shots from the "A" side.
As you can see, only the hole locations close to the water were used to accentuate the angle.
Take a guess what these factors are from A and B:
Stat A B
---------------- ----- -----
Scoring Avg.:
GIR %:
Avg. Proximity:
% < 40 ft.:
% < 20 ft.:
If you don't want to fill out the chart with actual guesses, just guess which one was higher or lower.
Edit to add this: 199.8 average from B, 199.3 average from A.
P.S. Lou wishes to join the site. I've told him to email Ran.
The stats game makes it all static, which it rarely is.That's a cop-out. Everything you're saying right now is a cop-out. If angles matter on the 11th at Augusta National in the Masters, then they matter. If the other things all matter so much more, then angles really don't here.
The stats game makes it all static, which it rarely is.That's a cop-out. Everything you're saying right now is a cop-out. If angles matter on the 11th at Augusta National in the Masters, then they matter. If the other things all matter so much more, then angles really don't here.
What are your guesses?
And here’s the crux of it. There are a ton of variables in this game. Lies matter, perhaps sometimes more than angles. Wind matters. Trajectory matters.
The stats game makes it all static, which it rarely is.
Your Arccos button takes into account wind, lie, trajectory, etc.?
Need to get me one of those.
I can see this kind of stat gathering being done for the tour guys, but we’re not just talking about those guys and the courses they play.
Not a cop out. You just picked a bad example. There are way too many factors going on at 11 for this exercise to have any validity.I didn't pick the example. Ira did (IIRC). And it is a cop-out, because your new plan is just to apparently claim "too many factors going on." Well, if there are too many other factors that affect this, when are those NOT a factor, and where does "the angle" rank in that list? Because, if it's way after whatever you listed (and some things you probably didn't list), then I'm again going with "don't matter much at all*."
Probably most importantly, the strategy at 11 is to hit it far enough to get to the speed slot, thus getting some extra rollout and a shorter club in your hand, which makes a big difference on this hole.These are where most people hit their tee shots on #11 (that hit the fairway).
11 is an example of where a long ball on the safest line is most likely going to result in better results. Perhaps you can break this one down for every drive under 300 and every drive over 300, and we'll see how it plays out.What's that got to do with angles? Let's say we look at tee shots that left 140-180 in to the green. You know what you'd see? Way fewer tee shots. Lower scoring averages (duh), more GIR (duh), more shots inside 20 and 40 feet (duh).
And there are a bunch of other factors here that need to be looked at. Where the pin is for each of those shots also makes a difference.They're all the left pins by the water. The hole locations that exaggerate the effects (supposedly) of the angle with the water right there.
What the wind was doing on each of those shots makes a difference.Those come out in the wash.
Augusta might not be your best exampleIt wasn't my example.
If you want to pick a hole to examine at ANGC, perhaps 18 would be better.I didn't "pick" #11.
I'd like to see a study that tracks not just one shot, but the entire play of a hole. And run control groups for those playing for an angleWhat does it matter if they "played" for an angle but then didn't achieve it, or if they weren't playing for an angle and did achieve it?
, and those playing the safest line off the tee. Do this on longer holes and on shorter holes. Do it for holes where the best perceived approach angle is near a hazard, and when it is away from a hazard. Do it for holes with water, and holes where you're just negotiating bunkers. Do it on 30 yard wide fairways, and do it on 100 yard fairways (there are a few of those out here, believe it or not). Have people hit a few different clubs off the tee if doing so is going to take tee ball trouble out of play (either long or short of it).We have. You'll never guess what it shows!
Do it for one player only.We've done that too (we've consulted with Tour players since 2013). For faders and drawers. You know what it shows? Faders score a little better when the hole is cut on the right, and drawers score a little better when the hole is cut to the left… but there's basically no difference whether they're hitting from the right side or the left side of the fairway, or the right rough or the left rough.
Because isn't that really the issue? How is that individual player going to fare? What use are stats for the atypical golfer? Not every player is going to have the same ideal spot, so how can you decide if a pinpoint is actually in the proper category?
Or just hire a good caddie.We've consulted with caddies, too (you can't consult with a Tour player these days without the caddie being involved). They're helping their players score better by understanding this stuff. They're not just riffing on decades-old stuff.
No, I don’t. But those factors might change how you take on a shot, or influence the outcome.Those factors might affect HOW you play a shot (into the wind maybe you hit a knockdown 8, downwind maybe you rip a PW for the height and spin, etc…), but they don't really affect the "angles" — they don't affect where the optimal center of your Shot Zone is and thus where you're trying to put the ball.
Not a cop out. You just picked a bad example. There are way too many factors going on at 11 for this exercise to have any validity.I didn't pick the example. Ira did (IIRC).
Ira may have picked it, but you ran with it.
And it is a cop-out, because your new plan is just to apparently claim "too many factors going on." Well, if there are too many other factors that affect this, when are those NOT a factor, and where does "the angle" rank in that list? Because, if it's way after whatever you listed (and some things you probably didn't list), then I'm again going with "don't matter much at all*."
The short answer is that 11 is one hole that players don't think about an angle. They think about staying safe off the tee. These were factors specific to 11.
There were likely good lies of the 86 shots on the one side, and good lies on the 91 shots on the other side. And bad lies on both sides. [size=78%]And so on.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]You never addressed the question as to what side of 11 produces flatter lies. Although it won't influence where players aim off the tee on this particular hole, it will influence the results of the shots into the greens. [/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]"You Cannot Reason People Out of Something They Were Not Reasoned Into"[/size]
[/size]
[/size]Unnecessary. [size=78%][/font]Probably most importantly, the strategy at 11 is to hit it far enough to get to the speed slot, thus getting some extra rollout and a shorter club in your hand, which makes a big difference on this hole.These are where most people hit their tee shots on #11 (that hit the fairway).
Most Tour Players? You do see the issue with that, don't you?11 is an example of where a long ball on the safest line is most likely going to result in better results. Perhaps you can break this one down for every drive under 300 and every drive over 300, and we'll see how it plays out.
What's that got to do with angles?
Nothing, it has to do with the strategy that players (specifically Tour Players) take on this particular hole where I've already stated they don't play for an angle off the tee.
Let's say we look at tee shots that left 140-180 in to the green. You know what you'd see? Way fewer tee shots. Lower scoring averages (duh), more GIR (duh), more shots inside 20 and 40 feet (duh).
Are the "duhs" necessary?
This is where many players hit their tee shots. And on a longer shot, the angle should matter more, because the ball will not be flying and stopping as quickly, and it's a more difficult shot anyway with a larger Shot Zone. What you proposed has no value at all and is not on topic here at all - it's just talking about players who had a shorter club in than other players.
Which is entirely what the players want. Here's Larry Mize on the 11th - "[/size]“With the tee shot. There’s a point in the fairway, if you can reach it, where you can get a little more run and get a shorter club in your hand into that green. Makes a big difference.”[/color]
Again, you're the one who wanted to talk about angles on 11. I said it was a bad example.And there are a bunch of other factors here that need to be looked at. Where the pin is for each of those shots also makes a difference.
They're all the left pins by the water. The hole locations that exaggerate the effects (supposedly) of the angle with the water right there.
See the Jordan Spieth quote at the end of my post noting the middle and right pin positions are harder. But then again, no need to digress further on a hole where the players don't play for an angle.What the wind was doing on each of those shots makes a difference.Those come out in the wash.
Does it? If there's anywhere on earth where a sudden gust of wind can seemingly change fortunes, it is probably Amen Corner.Augusta might not be your best exampleIt wasn't my example.
Again, you ran with it.If you want to pick a hole to examine at ANGC, perhaps 18 would be better.I didn't "pick" #11.
Ditto.I'd like to see a study that tracks not just one shot, but the entire play of a hole. And run control groups for those playing for an angleWhat does it matter if they "played" for an angle but then didn't achieve it, or if they weren't playing for an angle and did achieve it?
How do you know there isn't a difference in the results if you haven't run the study? You expect there's a difference, but you don't know it.
Tour players aren't generally playing for angles!
Provably wrong. There are many instances, including on Augusta National, where they are playing for an angle. The layup on 15 is one glaring example.
More and more, they're realizing that what I wrote in 2014, what Mark Broadie wrote in 2014, what Scott's been teaching since late 2014 or 2015 or whatever… is true. They're realizing that what Jack Nicklaus said about how he plays is true. They're realizing that they need to avoid penalties (bad bunkers, trees, horrible rough) first and foremost, try to get it in the fairway second, and forget anything else, really. Aggressive with distance off the tee (so long as they can avoid stuff for the most part), and then conservative into the greens. Tour players aren't often "attacking" pins — regardless of what you hear on TV — from 180 out regardless of their lie or the wind or anything like that. They're just not. Especially with water close by. Do you recall where Scottie — to a right pin — hit his second on Sunday? Short right. Because a bogey doesn't kill him, but a double or triple might.
As mentioned earlier, everything is situational. You can't tell me the guys who are two and three back on Sunday aren't firing at pins., and those playing the safest line off the tee. Do this on longer holes and on shorter holes. Do it for holes where the best perceived approach angle is near a hazard, and when it is away from a hazard. Do it for holes with water, and holes where you're just negotiating bunkers. Do it on 30 yard wide fairways, and do it on 100 yard fairways (there are a few of those out here, believe it or not). Have people hit a few different clubs off the tee if doing so is going to take tee ball trouble out of play (either long or short of it).We have. You'll never guess what it shows!
You just said you don't run control groups for the entire play of a hole for those playing for an angle, which is what all of these variables are talking about.Do it for one player only.We've done that too (we've consulted with Tour players since 2013). For faders and drawers. You know what it shows? Faders score a little better when the hole is cut on the right, and drawers score a little better when the hole is cut to the left… but there's basically no difference whether they're hitting from the right side or the left side of the fairway, or the right rough or the left rough.
I thought we settled the Tour Players only issue earlier in the thread. I'm not just talking about Tour Players.Because isn't that really the issue? How is that individual player going to fare? What use are stats for the atypical golfer? Not every player is going to have the same ideal spot, so how can you decide if a pinpoint is actually in the proper category?Or just hire a good caddie.We've consulted with caddies, too (you can't consult with a Tour player these days without the caddie being involved). They're helping their players score better by understanding this stuff. They're not just riffing on decades-old stuff.
No, I don’t. But those factors might change how you take on a shot, or influence the outcome.Those factors might affect HOW you play a shot (into the wind maybe you hit a knockdown 8, downwind maybe you rip a PW for the height and spin, etc…), but they don't really affect the "angles" — they don't affect where the optimal center of your Shot Zone is and thus where you're trying to put the ball.
I think theres an argument to be made that with 630M shots (and counting) recorded, that variables like lie, wind, and trajectory are aggregated and taken into account. That seems to be the opposite of static wouldn’t you say? It’s an evolving and living collection of data.
I think theres an argument to be made that with 630M shots (and counting) recorded, that variables like lie, wind, and trajectory are aggregated and taken into account. That seems to be the opposite of static wouldn’t you say? It’s an evolving and living collection of data.
Ben:
Let's take an example that I know you know - 14 at Trails. And we'll play it in the winter so that it is into the wind (so we're not worried about excessive roll).
Where should the average player be aiming their tee ball?
Sven
Is your normal miss to the left?
What should the average golfer that fades the ball do?
What if the wind was out of the southeast?
Do you like your chances from low right, where anything in the middle is going to feed, to a middle or back pin?
What if you were four down in a match and your opponent had just piped one down the left side?
Did you think about hitting something shorter off the tee leaving a little longer, but very doable approach, from a better angle?
Sven
I can’t see where any of these factors would cause me to change club selection or aim point.
Actually, check that. The fade one would. Good players tend to miss the ball equally left and right of aim point. Average players and worse tend to miss to one side more often, and that’s usually the fade side (right miss for right handed golfers). It may be useful to aim a bit further left in that scenario.
My dispersion is so wide with a tee club that the only course of action is to aim for safety. With my length, safety off the tee provides me with a really good chance at par and bogey. In fact, I’d say that the percentage of my double bogeys or worse that come after a safe tee shot with the ability to play for the green (on a par 4) is very low. And by comparison, my dispersion with short irons and wedges is low compared to driver and hybrids. I can be much more exacting (again, in comparison) once my tee shot is “safe”.
Increasingly for me - angles are becoming important for second shots on long par fours and some short par fives. You can potentially change the angle 360 degrees on such holes (compared to maybe 2 degrees if you are in the fairway off the tee on a par 4). The difference between a flop shot over a bunker vs. a pitch and run with plenty of green available sure seems to matter to me.
Increasingly for me - angles are becoming important for second shots on long par fours and some short par fives. You can potentially change the angle 360 degrees on such holes (compared to maybe 2 degrees if you are in the fairway off the tee on a par 4). The difference between a flop shot over a bunker vs. a pitch and run with plenty of green available sure seems to matter to me.
I'm curious about this. Thus far I've been assuming that this is considered a separate question to the one asked when talking about whether angles matter.
My dispersion is so wide with a tee club that the only course of action is to aim for safety. With my length, safety off the tee provides me with a really good chance at par and bogey. In fact, I’d say that the percentage of my double bogeys or worse that come after a safe tee shot with the ability to play for the green (on a par 4) is very low. And by comparison, my dispersion with short irons and wedges is low compared to driver and hybrids. I can be much more exacting (again, in comparison) once my tee shot is “safe”.
Ben:
This paragraph is important to the discussion, because I think it changes the discussion (at least for me).
To me, angles matter most if you are trying to get close to the hole to make birdie or par, and less (on the majority holes) if you are only trying to make bogey. Once you get to the 10-handicap player who is just trying to make par or bogey, it becomes obvious that a safe tee shot is more important than an angle, to a guy who's only going to make one birdie per round, maybe.
But in fact, most architects since the Victorian era have been quite happy to let the average golfer play safely and make a bogey, so that's not really news.
Tom:
At a certain point, that person playing for par or most likely bogey is going to be even more concerned at angles. They’re going to want clear shots into the greens just for the comfort level. It might take them two shots to get to that angle of approach, but it is still the best play for them.
Sven
Increasingly for me - angles are becoming important for second shots on long par fours and some short par fives. You can potentially change the angle 360 degrees on such holes (compared to maybe 2 degrees if you are in the fairway off the tee on a par 4). The difference between a flop shot over a bunker vs. a pitch and run with plenty of green available sure seems to matter to me.
I'm curious about this. Thus far I've been assuming that this is considered a separate question to the one asked when talking about whether angles matter.
Charlie,
That's been one of the main points of contention. When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other. And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.
And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey. If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.
Charlie,
That's been one of the main points of contention. When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other. And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.
And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey. If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.
Increasingly for me - angles are becoming important for second shots on long par fours and some short par fives. You can potentially change the angle 360 degrees on such holes (compared to maybe 2 degrees if you are in the fairway off the tee on a par 4). The difference between a flop shot over a bunker vs. a pitch and run with plenty of green available sure seems to matter to me.
I'm curious about this. Thus far I've been assuming that this is considered a separate question to the one asked when talking about whether angles matter.
Charlie,
That's been one of the main points of contention. When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other. And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.
And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey. If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.
Charlie,
That's been one of the main points of contention. When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other. And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.
And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey. If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.
Kalen,
As I described, they tried to use holes that were similar par 4 holes, without a 2 stroke penalty hazard, 30+ yard wide fw, etc. I have had this discussion with several more techinically inclined architects than myself regarding ball dispersion. Some think the tests ought to be tightly controlled on a range, etc. I tend to think that real results out in the "wild" probably end up being very representative, over the controlled tests. Neither side is wrong.
The bogey to birdie stats are about right.
After reading your posts, my opinion is that you are undervaluing the concept of dispersion and variance. My dispersion is so wide with a tee club that the only course of action is to aim for safety.Yes. It's wide for nearly everyone. The only truly accurate players (in general)… are the shorter ones, because the ball doesn't travel far enough to get too far offline. And they're often less "accurate" as measured by degrees offline than better players. As measured by fairways hit, well, that's why the LPGA Tour has players who are "more accurate" than on the PGA Tour.
We are talking about SCORING. Not the experience or the fun or thrill. I hope architects never care about my or anyone else’s score.Yes. I can tell someone to play Tobacco Road in the most boring, strategically sound way… but if they want to go for the green on 11 with a 5I in their hands for the one-in-50 chance of pulling it off… cool. Good for them, and I hope they beat the odds, because they'll remember that shot for a long time. Or however long it takes them to get out of the bunker 30 feet deep and short, whichever comes first. ;)
When Jeff posted the criteria several pages ago, it didn't take into account holes that had water hazards, par 5s, or even par 3s where you may set up one side of the tee box or the other.Let's dispense with the "one side of the tee box or the other." Yes, people will say they "feel" more comfortable over the shot, but there's no evidence to suggest that players actually score differently by changing the angle they have to a green by about a minute's worth on a clock.
And there certainly wasn't any controls that factored in weather, fairway slopes, preferred shot shapes, particular weakness or strengths of ones game, etc.Because those things come out in the wash. If a golfer fades the ball, and he "tends to miss right more than he misses left" as was said (IIRC)… then he's already giving shots away, because he should be looking to center his distribution pattern, and THAT would be his aiming point. If he consistently aims to fade it 5 yards and fades it between 3 and 25… then he's just being kinda dumb, no?
And the emphasis on scoring has been all one sided, about making a good score with par or better, and forgetting about mitigating risk in trying to avoid worse than bogey.No no no. It's far closer to the opposite of what you've said than that. Proper strategy lowers scores not by having the 15-handicapper make more birdies and pars, but by making fewer bogeys and doubles. How? By saying "no, don't challenge that bunker. Aim about 30 yards away from it, or more, because there's no real trouble over there."
The water or OB is the other head scratcher because there is nothing else on a course that makes me chase angles harder than playing to a best spot to avoid penalty strokes.Not sure what you mean here. Hitting away from OB isn't "chasing angles." You're just hitting away from a penalty — you're not hitting it so you have a good "angle" to the green or your layup on a par five or whatever.
Are there cases where an angle can be worth an expected stroke value that is sufficiently?Yep, pretty much. That's how this strategy stuff works.
If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.Agree 100%. My own game speaks to this. Doubles and triples are round killers. One per round or perhaps per side you can get away with, depending on the number of pars and birdies made to offset them.
If you look at the difference in what happened for a player who shot 88 one day and 94 the next, I can almost guarantee the story is found not in pars or birds, but how many doubles or worse did they take.Agree 100%. My own game speaks to this. Doubles and triples are round killers. One per round or perhaps per side you can get away with, depending on the number of pars and birdies made to offset them.
I hadn't realized that they added the walkway behind the green.I think it's temporary to reduce wear and tear on the grass prior to the Players this week.
Could someone please speak as they might to a small child or a golden retriever and explain how the following individual factors may influence the impact a shot's angle of approach will have on a player's scoring potential for any given hole?I apologize for sounding like a broken record, but I'd like to press on this question once more.
Ball Flight:Ground Conditions At Shot Landing Site:
- Decent Angle
- Spin
- Shot Shape
Player Characteristics:
- Firmness
- Grass Height
- Slope
- Moisture
- Hazard Proximity
If these factors have little to no influence, please explain why. If there are other factors that have greater influence, please elaborate on them as well.
- Consistency
- Aggressiveness
This piece by Joseph Lamanga appeared in today's The Fried Egg newsletter, discussing Brandel Chamblee's conclusion that angles don't matter very much.
WHAT'S BRANDEL'S ANGLE?
On Wednesday, No Laying Up released a podcast with Golf Channel and NBC analyst Brandel Chamblee. Throughout the conversation, Chamblee explains his position on distance, the irrelevance of angles, rough as a necessary ingredient to challenge the best golfers in the world, and more. While I agree with some of what Brandel had to say, I strongly disagree with a few of the most fundamental points he expressed on the podcast.
A little over 30 minutes in, Chamblee states that “if you give players the better angle into a hole location versus on the other side of the fairway where they have the worst angle, at every single distance, the worst angle, on average, scores better than the one with the best angle on tour.” I have no idea what data Brandel was fed to reach this conclusion, and I’m skeptical that he could explain how these calculations are derived, but his claim runs counter to any data I’ve ever seen or analyzed. Brandel should be pressed for more details on how he reached this conclusion.
I tried to roughly recreate the calculation Brandel references based on his description in the podcast. I pulled some shots, limiting the data set to second shots from fairway lies on par 4s longer than 400 yards. I defined a “Good Angle” as a shot from the right side of the fairway to a left pin or a shot from the left side of the fairway to a right pin, per Brandel’s wording. Here are the results:
The numbers show that there is neither advantage or disadvantage to having Brandel’s definition of an advantageous angle. I am highly skeptical of the data Brandel saw to conclude that players score worse from a better angle, and assertions like that should be scrutinized. Not all data-driven insights are correct, after all. The data-driven insights I provide should be challenged, too.
Nevertheless, the data I’ve provided seems to back up Brandel’s central claim that angles don’t matter. However, the above definition is a pretty imprecise way to classify angles. We should try to get more precise when possible. Fortunately, I have data from an analysis I did a couple of years ago that paints a better picture of the value of angles. For every shot, I calculated how many feet of green there were between the approach shot location and the flag on a direct line. Instead of simply considering a shot from the right side of the fairway to a left flag as a “good angle,” this analysis considers a shot with ample feet of green to work with as a “good angle.” I’d contend that this is a better (albeit more complicated) definition of a good angle.
The data showed that under this definition, there is virtually zero benefit to having a good angle from wedge distances in the fairway. This result makes sense, as professional golfers are consistently able to stop shots on the green immediately from the fairway with a short iron in hand. However, for shots with longer irons (180-250 yards), the data showed between a 0.10 and 0.15 stroke advantage in having ample green with which to work.
These results are intuitive: the more a golf ball bounces and rolls, the more having an advantageous angle matters. In professional golf, tour players hit the ball so high and with enough spin that angles rarely matter, a reality exacerbated by the ever-increasing distances at which players hit the golf ball resulting in shorter approach distances.
So do angles matter? Yes, just not very much. They’d matter more after a significant rollback, but even under those conditions, I agree with Brandel’s argument that golfers should not take on risk to hunt advantageous angles. Pursuing lines of charm at the risk of finding rough or a penalty hazard is not worth the marginal benefit of a good angle.
Thus, Brandel concludes, the best and only way to challenge a professional golfer is with thick rough. He goes on to ponder whether we want rough that produces a penalty of 0.3 strokes, or 0.4, or maybe even 0.6? The underlying assumption, one that Chris more or less affirms, is that the combination of fairway width and rough length are the only variables that dictate how much a golfer is rewarded for driving the ball accurately, which is just not the case. All elements of a golf course design must work in concert to produce a holistic test for professional golfers, as I wrote about earlier in the week in a free public post on how Muirfield Village rewards driving accuracy. For reference, finding the rough at Memorial is typically about a 0.45 stroke penalty, which isn’t solely due to the length of the rough, as outlined in that piece.
To understand how driving accuracy is tested, one must consider the entire design and strategy of a golf hole, not just look at the length of rough. When Brandel says within the podcast that this is a “setup conversation more than an architecture discussion,” he implicitly dismisses the importance of design, which is a crucial component in any test of top players. It also may explain why he continues to insist that we should all marvel at how straight Bryson DeChambeau drives the golf ball, an assertion that falls apart when you dig into which courses Bryson has succeeded on and which courses have given him trouble. Spoiler: he tends to do well on golf courses with thick rough and narrow fairways that fail to punish wide misses, because contrary to Chamblee’s claims, those golf courses don’t always equate to rewarding driving accuracy.
One last but important point: all of the data upon which Brandel Chamblee and I are basing our findings is PGA Tour data. The data comes from PGA Tour courses, many of which are soft, feature 33-yard wide fairways, and are played with wedges in hand. If every data point in the data set were with a five iron into firm greens on 80-yard wide fairways downwind, the value of angles might show up in the data a little bit differently.
I don’t disagree with everything Brandel said. In some ways, much of what I’ve argued within this piece isn’t that far off from many of his assertions. But the ways in which Brandel should be challenged have important implications. Thick rough is not the only way to test professional golfers. Often, in fact, thick rough fails to adequately test professional golfers (see Valhalla Golf Club). Meanwhile, some of the best tests in professional golf (see Augusta National) don’t rely on thick rough to test the skill and strategy of the best players in the world. Thick rough isn’t the only way to reward accuracy, but to fully embrace that, you’d need to put some effort into understanding golf course design.
Be careful going too far down that path, though. You might end up concluding that architecture matters, and that the game board upon which the sport is played would benefit from a rollback.
While tend to agree that angles matter much less for the best players. I disagree that rough is the only way to challenge the best. First, I have no context for “challenge”. What does this mean for the best players? Second, how do we explain Pinehurst 2? Maybe it doesn’t meet the challenge criteria, but I think the best often falter at #2 and it’s not due to rough. The fairways are a bit wider than “traditional” US Open setups and the rough more forgiving.
Ciao
Not all data-driven insights are correct, after all...
So do angles matter? Yes, just not very much...
When Brandel says within the podcast that this is a “setup conversation more than an architecture discussion,” he implicitly dismisses the importance of design, which is a crucial component in any test of top players...
One last but important point: all of the data upon which Brandel Chamblee and I are basing our findings is PGA Tour data.
The concept of reflexivity needs a little more explication. It applies exclusively to situations that have thinking participants. The participants’ thinking serves two functions. One is to understand the world in which we live; I call this the cognitive function. The other is to change the situation to our advantage. I call this the participating or manipulative function. The two functions connect thinking and reality in opposite directions. In the cognitive function, reality is supposed to determine the participants’ views; the direction of causation is from the world to the mind. By contrast, in the manipulative function, the direction of causation is from the mind to the world, that is to say, the intentions of the participants have an effect on the world. When both functions operate at the same time they can interfere with each other.
A little over 30 minutes in, Chamblee states that “if you give players the better angle into a hole location versus on the other side of the fairway where they have the worst angle, at every single distance, the worst angle, on average, scores better than the one with the best angle on tour.” I have no idea what data Brandel was fed to reach this conclusion, and I’m skeptical that he could explain how these calculations are derived, but his claim runs counter to any data I’ve ever seen or analyzed. Brandel should be pressed for more details on how he reached this conclusion.This is pretty well known, and I've posted the graphic before. Brandel misspoke a little - the scoring averages from the "good angle" are basically the same as they are from the "bad angle."
However, for shots with longer irons (180-250 yards), the data showed between a 0.10 and 0.15 stroke advantage in having ample green with which to work.If you run that at 175-200, on the PGA Tour, you again get the negligible difference. The "250" part of your test is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, as the ball is bouncing/rolling from those distances, even on the PGA Tour.
One last but important point: all of the data upon which Brandel Chamblee and I are basing our findings is PGA Tour data. The data comes from PGA Tour courses, many of which are soft, feature 33-yard wide fairways, and are played with wedges in hand. If every data point in the data set were with a five iron into firm greens on 80-yard wide fairways downwind, the value of angles might show up in the data a little bit differently.If fairways are 80 yards wide, players could begin to aim slightly away from the center (assuming equal hazard difficulties on both sides). But, heck man, I play courses with some fairways that are 17 yards wide. Or 24. 33 often feels like a TON of space.
In short, the "better" angle makes people play more aggressively and lose a few shots as a result. If you play the same amount out to the right as you did from the worse side, then you haven't gained anything from having the better angle.Correct. Except in situations where you can't control the ball landing and rolling out very well, the ideal target shifts very little from the "good" and "bad" angle.
The data showed that under this definition, there is virtually zero benefit to having a good angle from wedge distances in the fairway. This result makes sense, as professional golfers are consistently able to stop shots on the green immediately from the fairway with a short iron in hand.
Didn’t this horse die already? I see a lot of statistical insignificance with Brandel’s take. It appears to me that the stats dudes want use a bit of correlation = causation and take aggregate data and apply to every situation. To his credit, Erik is saying that angles can matter greatly to lesser skilled players and those that can’t aerially attack greens from any angle. Aka, the MAJORITY of golfers.
But let’s be real real for a second. There’s a reason for all this angles don’t matter talk from people with data sets to support. It aligns with their *other* cause of the moment, being anti-rollback. Aka, distance is the only way to truly make a course more or less difficult.
If only there was a way have shots being played at lower trajectories and longer distances from greens. :)
Do you think the game is too easy for a "majority" of golfers? Or is it a small handful who need reining back in?
Do you think the game is too easy for a "majority" of golfers? Or is it a small handful who need reining back in?
Didn’t this horse die already? I see a lot of statistical insignificance with Brandel’s take. It appears to me that the stats dudes want use a bit of correlation = causation and take aggregate data and apply to every situation. To his credit, Erik is saying that angles can matter greatly to lesser skilled players and those that can’t aerially attack greens from any angle. Aka, the MAJORITY of golfers.
But let’s be real real for a second. There’s a reason for all this angles don’t matter talk from people with data sets to support. It aligns with their *other* cause of the moment, being anti-rollback. Aka, distance is the only way to truly make a course more or less difficult.
If only there was a way have shots being played at lower trajectories and longer distances from greens. :)
Do you think the game is too easy for a "majority" of golfers? Or is it a small handful who need reining back in?
So you are telling me that the angle of approach makes no difference on the 10th hole at Riviera? Or the 16th at Pacific Dunes?Tom, angles occasionally matter, and you've seen enough of my posts to know my thoughts on this, too, I think: when the ball is rolling, angles matter more.
I will agree with you that on the average hole, the angle doesn't matter when you've got a wedge in your hands. But it's just dumb to say that we can't make the angle matter.Angles don't matter much when the game is point-to-point (minimal roll). If the ball isn't on the ground, it's not interacting with the architecture much.
Didn’t this horse die already? I see a lot of statistical insignificance with Brandel’s take. It appears to me that the stats dudes want use a bit of correlation = causation and take aggregate data and apply to every situation. To his credit, Erik is saying that angles can matter greatly to lesser skilled players and those that can’t aerially attack greens from any angle. Aka, the MAJORITY of golfers.Maybe not the majority, or the majority of rounds played. Even bad golfers can hit the ball in the air and stop it relatively quickly (they don't often play particularly firm setups).
The other thing wrong with the traditional golden age theories is that if you don't hit ground balls, it might be preferred (and I know many tour pros that say this) to come in from the side of the greenside bunker covering the green. Like teeing up close to OB to give you the greatest safety angle, the approach shot can be aimed at the far side of the green with a hint of curve. If perfectly aimed, it can get close to the pin without clearing the hazard and if it goes straight, you have downhill putt but don't find hazards. The bunker comes into play only if you over cook the shot, which should lead to a penalty of some kind.
The data showed that under this definition, there is virtually zero benefit to having a good angle from wedge distances in the fairway. This result makes sense, as professional golfers are consistently able to stop shots on the green immediately from the fairway with a short iron in hand.
So you are telling me that the angle of approach makes no difference on the 10th hole at Riviera? Or the 16th at Pacific Dunes?
Why does everyone talk about them so much then? Why do pros aim way left on 10 at Riviera, and why do they make bogeys when they miss to the right?
I will agree with you that on the average hole, the angle doesn't matter when you've got a wedge in your hands. But it's just dumb to say that we can't make the angle matter.
I hit the driver 200 to 230 with a slight push or fade (ideally). I create my own angle by teeing the ball near the right hand marker and aim at the left edge of the fairway around 250 yards out.
Angles are critical for mid handicappers. And fun to boot.
I hit the driver 200 to 230 with a slight push or fade (ideally). I create my own angle by teeing the ball near the right hand marker and aim at the left edge of the fairway around 250 yards out.
Angles are critical for mid handicappers. And fun to boot.
I hit the driver 200 to 230 with a slight push or fade (ideally). I create my own angle by teeing the ball near the right hand marker and aim at the left edge of the fairway around 250 yards out.
Angles are critical for mid handicappers. And fun to boot.
But it sounds as if the angle you're describing is the same no matter what the supposed strategy of the hole calls for. I think playing one shot over and over again because it's the one shot shape you hit is not the same notion as playing an angle for a strategy based on the particular design of a golf hole.
I hit the driver 200 to 230 with a slight push or fade (ideally). I create my own angle by teeing the ball near the right hand marker and aim at the left edge of the fairway around 250 yards out.Almost purely visual, as you're likely talking about about less than 1°.
In short, he re-states the same things I've been saying…You really are your own biggest fan, aren't you. Honestly, it's pretty obnoxious.
P.S. My talk almost exactly a year ago at the ASGCA's
BrianI appreciate your perspective. While I begrudgingly acknowledge he occasionally makes reasonable points, I don't care to engage him on that level (or at all, really). The manner in which he consistently behaves on this board is simply obnoxious. Perhaps this thread or post wasn't the most apt moment to (rudely) engage him, but it is where I chose to do so. Like so many others, I spend a lot of time reading this board, new topics and old, and he consistently clutters the board with combative text, so much so that I long ago stopped considering his perspective on anything. Yes, I should ignore him. Yes, I can block him (or so I am told). He is a net negative contributor to this board, and I don't appreciate it. Thanks.
As one of those that seem to bang heads with Erik on a regular basis I have to say your criticism in this instance seems off. It appears to me he's simply referencing the argument/point he made previously while citing comment from Molinari to support his case. I don't find that at all obnoxious. I still don't agree with his/Molinari's contention but suspect the difference is more in the context.
I suspect both Erik and Molinari are thinking of elite level golfers playing courses that are less than fast and firm while from my perspective, that of an undoubtedly average golfer playing on courses that are usually a good bit firmer than they are looking at, their contention simply doesn't hold water.
Niall
In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology. For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance. In many cases, it does. However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball. For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain. For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot. As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me. I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience. Banging people over the head with data rarely works. I can speak from extensive experience.
In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology. For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance. In many cases, it does. However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball. For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain. For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot. As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me. I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience. Banging people over the head with data rarely works. I can speak from extensive experience.
Well said, Brian. Data is great for certain things, but there's nothing like what's going on a player's head at that moment .. in that situation.
Erik's trying to sell something? I didn't realise.In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology. For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance. In many cases, it does. However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball. For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain. For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot. As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me. I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience. Banging people over the head with data rarely works. I can speak from extensive experience.
Well said, Brian. Data is great for certain things, but there's nothing like what's going on a player's head at that moment .. in that situation.
Guys-What you have to remember about Erik is that he participates on GCA in an effort to sell you something namely his data driven “Lowest Score Wins” system and not to participate in the frank discussion of golf course architecture.
In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology. For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance. In many cases, it does. However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball. For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain. For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot. As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me. I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience. Banging people over the head with data rarely works. I can speak from extensive experience.Hear hear. Big Data Golf dumbs down the game in certain ways because it implies that golfers should play against their instincts even in what they know to be potentially high-stress, high-leverage and high-downside situations. Every single golf shot contains so many variables that could lead to going against the data that stripping the individual golfer of his or her agency can be destructive. The data is by no means useless, but it's nowhere near all-knowing.
... so much so that I long ago stopped considering his perspective on anything...
Remembering a quote about catching more flies with honey than vinegar.
Hear hear. Big Data Golf dumbs down the game in certain ways because it implies that golfers should play against their instincts even in what they know to be potentially high-stress, high-leverage and high-downside situations. Every single golf shot contains so many variables that could lead to going against the data that stripping the individual golfer of his or her agency can be destructive. The data is by no means useless, but it's nowhere near all-knowing.
The "Angles Don't Matter" narrative is starting to become extremely exhausting at this point because it relies on the made-up straw-man concept of "chasing angles." Aiming down the right half of a fairway isn't "chasing an angle" so much as it's an attempt to adjust the spray-pattern of shots in such a way that the golfer, with self-knowledge and agency, knows is going to benefit him or her.
You really are your own biggest fan, aren't you. Honestly, it's pretty obnoxious.I think comments like that right there are pretty obnoxious. But I like to stick to the topic, so… I'll do that now.
I suspect both Erik and Molinari are thinking of elite level golfers playing courses that are less than fast and firm while from my perspective, that of an undoubtedly average golfer playing on courses that are usually a good bit firmer than they are looking at, their contention simply doesn't hold water.The PGA Tour typically plays firmer course setups (particularly at the greens) than the average golfer faces. The data from hundreds of millions of shots doesn't align with what you're saying here.
I don't care to engage him on that level (or at all, really).And yet…
The manner in which he consistently behaves on this board is simply obnoxious.Says the guy doing the name-calling. ;)
In the interest of addressing the actual topic of this thread, I will say that the aspect of golf performance that the data-driven experts seem to ignore (or at least not consider enough) is psychology. For logical players, conclusive data should instill confidence and lead to improved performance. In many cases, it does. However, for many of us, something changes when we step over the ball. For some, thoughts race, countless swing thoughts shuffle through their brain. For others, the mind goes blank, causing a momentary loss of any semblance of how to hit the pending shot. As a mid-handicap player for 30+ years, I have proven many times over that I am capable of hitting the necessary shots to score well, but doing so consistently evades me. I work with heavy data and analytics all day every day, so I understand and endorse its potential power, but for that to translate to performance requires effective, flexible instruction as well as a receptive, capable audience. Banging people over the head with data rarely works. I can speak from extensive experience.I don't see how that really addresses the topic at all.
Guys-What you have to remember about Erik is that he participates on GCA in an effort to sell you something namely his data driven “Lowest Score Wins” system and not to participate in the frank discussion of golf course architecture.Yeah, that's not remotely true. If it was, I'd be earning, I don't know, two cents an hour, tops? What you just said is not accurate in the least. But I sense that it's a convenient way for you to ignore some things you don't like.
Hear hear. Big Data Golf dumbs down the game in certain ways because it implies that golfers should play against their instincts even in what they know to be potentially high-stress, high-leverage and high-downside situations. Every single golf shot contains so many variables that could lead to going against the data that stripping the individual golfer of his or her agency can be destructive. The data is by no means useless, but it's nowhere near all-knowing.Understanding the data is but one factor in a player's decision on where to aim, what type of shot to hit, etc. The players we work with learn these kinds of things. They learn when to perhaps be a bit more aggressive or a bit less. They learn to understand normal variance, and manage expectations. If you think it's a purely formulaic endeavor, without consideration for the player and the situation… you don't really understand what we do.
The "Angles Don't Matter" narrative is starting to become extremely exhausting at this point because it relies on the made-up straw-man concept of "chasing angles." Aiming down the right half of a fairway isn't "chasing an angle" so much as it's an attempt to adjust the spray-pattern of shots in such a way that the golfer, with self-knowledge and agency, knows is going to benefit him or her.Oh boy, no. There are a ton of examples where golfers are encouraged to chase an angle "for a better angle on their approach shot" or whatever. They're not hard to find. They're almost always going to lead to a higher scoring average than not chasing the angle.
Of course, I agree it is all in the hands of the user. That said, proponents of the system say that you need to be disciplined and NEVER allow your instinct to override the stats, except perhaps when an all or nothing situation in your match makes you. Even Erik says this.Yep. If you're driving it really well on a given day, you can narrow up your Shot Zone (or poorly, then that may require an adjustment). Or if a wedge shot really suits your eye, we help players understand how they might shift from taking the "straight data" approach in a situation like that.
If the Angles Don't Matter moniker bothers you, how about "Avoid the hazards first and foremost" as a substitute?Yup. (Generally…) Penalties are shots lost. Bunkers are worse than the rough, and they're both worse than being in the fairway from the "wrong" side.
If angles don't matter, does it also mean we stop building them?No, I gave a bunch of reasons or times when angles matter at the end of my presentation last year.
Just noticed this. As an octogenarian high handicapper, I say that angles matter a lot.I've always said that they begin to matter when the ball is rolling. You probably aren't flying it and stopping it relatively quickly, so yes, they likely matter more to you than me.
I am always amazed when a pro hits a drive and you watch it bound along the fairway and it comes to rest in an area surrounded by 50 divots. Wow! They hit the ball there, apparently for a reason...all of them. Is it the best percentage location for the next shot? Is it the best angle for the next shot? Did someone (course set up guy, course designer???) dictate that location as the best place to hit your ball?You should email that one with Edoardo.
Random thought over the weekend.....for those who are angered by the phrase "angles don't matter" even though it is statistically proven, how about "Statistically, going for the pin isn't a wise play?" That is basically the context, i.e., no matter where you are in the fw, even with what you deem a more favorable angle, shot dispersion patterns now tell us it is a low % play to aim close to the edge of a green with a tucked pin....which has long been told to us ams as the best way to play a hole.
Basically, low handicap players need to get within 8-10 feet to have a statistical 50% chance making a birdie putt but only get within 10-12% of the approach distance to the cup. At 160 yards, that is 48-54 feet from the cup, almost 5-7X more likely. Over time, the bogeys simply outweigh the birdies (I think we can all get behind that observation) no matter where you approach from.
Ditto for "challenging a fw bunker." Birdie out of the fw hazard drops to near zero, I would think, whereas bogey from a hazard chances go way, way up. If your dispersion pattern is 10-12% off the tee for, say 280 yards, that is 28-34 yards. And, despite many last generation pros believing it, there is no way you can "take one side out of play." No matter where you aim, it is still 28-34 yards, total, with misses on both sides. If you aim within 28 yards of that fw bunker, you take a chance on getting in it.
Again, that is over time. You can occasionally make a birdie by playing the angle at a crucial point in the match, but you should never expect it.
Random thought over the weekend.....for those who are angered by the phrase "angles don't matter" even though it is statistically proven, how about "Statistically, going for the pin isn't a wise play?" That is basically the context, i.e., no matter where you are in the fw, even with what you deem a more favorable angle, shot dispersion patterns now tell us it is a low % play to aim close to the edge of a green with a tucked pin....which has long been told to us ams as the best way to play a hole.It's a good post, Jeff. Dispersion off the tee is normally bigger than the 10-12%, too. I don't necessarily go with Scott's 60-65 yards, but even at 40 yards, or 45… the math shifts even more in favor of the tiny or more-often-than-many-here-would-believe non-existent reward not being worth the often substantial risk.
Basically, low handicap players need to get within 8-10 feet to have a statistical 50% chance making a birdie putt but only get within 10-12% of the approach distance to the cup. At 160 yards, that is 48-54 feet from the cup, almost 5-7X more likely. Over time, the bogeys simply outweigh the birdies (I think we can all get behind that observation) no matter where you approach from.
Ditto for "challenging a fw bunker." Birdie out of the fw hazard drops to near zero, I would think, whereas bogey from a hazard chances go way, way up. If your dispersion pattern is 10-12% off the tee for, say 280 yards, that is 28-34 yards. And, despite many last generation pros believing it, there is no way you can "take one side out of play." No matter where you aim, it is still 28-34 yards, total, with misses on both sides. If you aim within 28 yards of that fw bunker, you take a chance on getting in it.
Again, that is over time. You can occasionally make a birdie by playing the angle at a crucial point in the match, but you should never expect it.
I also believe that the statistics might show that angles don't matter in part because there isn't much strategy built into most courses (and it's pretty weak when it is included).That doesn't bear out. Over the years I've been sharing what the data shows, I've asked for people to give me examples. I think I may have given more examples of holes where it can matter (the first at Royal Melbourne in the Presidents Cup) than others.
But the relatively small number of times that I encounter real strategy (challenge the hazard to have an easier subsequent shot) it's been refreshing, even when I can't quite execute.This is often demonstrated to be wrong for two reasons:
I well remember him impressing on us as kids you aimed at the flag with a wedge - the rest you play for the middle. Very unfashionable at the time.We've learned a bit since then, Mike. But it sounds like he was close.
Basically, low handicap players need to get within 8-10 feet to have a statistical 50% chance making a birdie putt but only get within 10-12% of the approach distance to the cup. At 160 yards, that is 48-54 feet from the cup, almost 5-7X more likely. Over time, the bogeys simply outweigh the birdies (I think we can all get behind that observation) no matter where you approach from.
Ditto for "challenging a fw bunker." Birdie out of the fw hazard drops to near zero, I would think, whereas bogey from a hazard chances go way, way up. If your dispersion pattern is 10-12% off the tee for, say 280 yards, that is 28-34 yards. And, despite many last generation pros believing it, there is no way you can "take one side out of play." No matter where you aim, it is still 28-34 yards, total, with misses on both sides. If you aim within 28 yards of that fw bunker, you take a chance on getting in it.
Again, that is over time. You can occasionally make a birdie by playing the angle at a crucial point in the match, but you should never expect it.
It's a good post, Jeff. Dispersion off the tee is normally bigger than the 10-12%, too. I don't necessarily go with Scott's 60-65 yards, but even at 40 yards, or 45… the math shifts even more in favor of the tiny or more-often-than-many-here-would-believe non-existent reward not being worth the often substantial risk.
The 8 words quoted in the original post are, well, stupid...
I guess I need some clarification on the OP. Is the claim really that angles don’t matter for any player in any situation on any course? Or just that it doesn’t happen often enough to be statistically relevant?
4. You have always possessed a great analytical mind for dissecting a course and figuring out how to get the ball in the hole in as few a shots as possible. What tactical advise do you offer?For many years I kept my handicap at an MGA club.
Hitting for the centre of greens is uncommon these days. It is said to be throwing money away and no way to win. Doing the opposite is one certain way to miss cuts and throw tournaments away.
Peter Thomson GCA Feature Interview.
I well remember him impressing on us as kids you aimed at the flag with a wedge - the rest you play for the middle. Very unfashionable at the time.
I am always amazed when a pro hits a drive and you watch it bound along the fairway and it comes to rest in an area surrounded by 50 divots. Wow! They hit the ball there, apparently for a reason...all of them. Is it the best percentage location for the next shot? Is it the best angle for the next shot? Did someone (course set up guy, course designer???) dictate that location as the best place to hit your ball?
THAT statement, really is something... ;DThe manner in which he consistently behaves on this board is simply obnoxious.Says the guy doing the name-calling. ;)
Basically, low handicap players need to get within 8-10 feet to have a statistical 50% chance making a birdie putt but only get within 10-12% of the approach distance to the cup. At 160 yards, that is 48-54 feet from the cup, almost 5-7X more likely. Over time, the bogeys simply outweigh the birdies (I think we can all get behind that observation) no matter where you approach from.
Ditto for "challenging a fw bunker." Birdie out of the fw hazard drops to near zero, I would think, whereas bogey from a hazard chances go way, way up. If your dispersion pattern is 10-12% off the tee for, say 280 yards, that is 28-34 yards. And, despite many last generation pros believing it, there is no way you can "take one side out of play." No matter where you aim, it is still 28-34 yards, total, with misses on both sides. If you aim within 28 yards of that fw bunker, you take a chance on getting in it.
Again, that is over time. You can occasionally make a birdie by playing the angle at a crucial point in the match, but you should never expect it.
It's a good post, Jeff. Dispersion off the tee is normally bigger than the 10-12%, too. I don't necessarily go with Scott's 60-65 yards, but even at 40 yards, or 45… the math shifts even more in favor of the tiny or more-often-than-many-here-would-believe non-existent reward not being worth the often substantial risk.
Erik,
My mistake. I had been working with the USGA Slope guide, where they measured the 2/3 probability of hitting a target, where as users of the stat system measure 99% probability in width, equating to 60-64 yards at 300, or 20+%, plus or minus.
I wonder what the stats tell us when going from a 66% chance to a 99% chance of hitting a target doubles the required target width?
I also believe that the statistics might show that angles don't matter in part because there isn't much strategy built into most courses (and it's pretty weak when it is included).
That doesn't bear out. Over the years I've been sharing what the data shows, I've asked for people to give me examples. I think I may have given more examples of holes where it can matter (the first at Royal Melbourne in the Presidents Cup) than others.
But the relatively small number of times that I encounter real strategy (challenge the hazard to have an easier subsequent shot) it's been refreshing, even when I can't quite execute.
This is often demonstrated to be wrong for two reasons:
First, the benefit is often not nearly as large as people perceive. I've shared the charts from PGA Tour players showing their play from the "better" side of the fairway to a tucked pin, and the scoring is almost exactly the same as they do from the bad side and the center of the fairway. The data is consistent with even 10 handicappers, too. The fairway — anywhere in the fairway — is almost always about the same, and better than anywhere in the rough (comparing the same distances, that is).
Second, nobody's even really saying the first thing, because sometimes there is an advantage to being over there. The problem is, by aiming for that side, you're bringing more trouble into play. Let's say it's just a fairway with rough: you're better off aiming for the middle, and accepting your fortune when your ball finds the "better" left side over the "worse" right side. But even on that hole, if you aim for the left side, you're going to end up in the rough more often, and the rough from the "better" side is still often worse than the fairway from the "worse" side. The risk is often not worth the reward.
Angles matter… visually. Artistically. But, in terms of scoring, angles matter very seldom, and almost exclusively when the ball is rolling. This requires either firm conditions, lower ball speed players, recovery shots from bad places, extreme width, or a combo of two or more. A rolling ball interacts with the architecture.
From our friend Peter Pallotta:
Set aside for a moment the question of whether there are strokes to be gained by *intentionally* aiming for one side of a fairway over another.
The question remains: is there any advantage to be had, on occasion, from *accidentally* finding oneself on one side of the fairway instead of the other?
Well, to that point: since for most of us, dispersion is a reality both in terms of left-to-right misses as well us short-to-long misses, I would much rather be approaching a green from the angle at which it opens up to me rather than from the one the forces me to fly my approach shot over a bunker or pond.
In the first case, if (as is a common occurrence) I hit it slightly fat or misjudge the strength of the wind against or the degree of elevation change, I will end up short -- but still on or near the front of the green, and so a two putt par is still possible; while in the second case, that same (common) mishit or miscalculation will mean I land in the bunker or the pond, which makes a bogey quite likely.
Which means that, for me, an average golfer, angles *do* matter, and can lead to me shooting lower scores, even if I got to the better approach angle *accidentally*.
But, and this is the essence of it all: IF those ideal approach angles that matter and that can lower my scores are accessed accidentally, then they also must matter and serve as potential stroke savers if accessed intentionally.
That is: the green contours and green-side hazards don't change one tiny bit, nor care one iota in any way whatsoever, whether I am hitting my approach shot from a helpful angle on purpose-and-through-skill, or merely by happenstance-and-a-lucky-break.The golf course design does not judge my character or choices; it only embraces or rejects the shots I actually hit.
Whether one particular golfer should, in any specific instance, actually try to get his tee ball to one side of the fairway instead of another is a totally different question. I can always look at a golf hole from the tee and *hope* that I will find my tee ball having come to rest at an ideal angle of approach.
My mistake. I had been working with the USGA Slope guide, where they measured the 2/3 probability of hitting a target, where as users of the stat system measure 99% probability in width, equating to 60-64 yards at 300, or 20+%, plus or minus.Not a mistake, just a different way of looking at it. For scoring purposes, we have to consider closer to 90%+ of the shots hit, not only about 2/3, particularly when the outer 1/3 result in many more strokes.
Now your rejoinder to that was that even on what most would consider a highly strategic hole like the first at RMGC Composite, there is no statistical advantage to angles shown in play in the Presidents Cup.I have, several times, called out the first hole at RMGC in the Presidents Cup as an example of a rare time when the angle did matter.
These are the most elite golfers imaginable. Nothing like average golfers on average courses that represent the vast majority of the millions of shots referenced above.The problem with that is that the data is consistent from 15 handicappers to Tour players. Angles often matter LESS to Tour players as they're more point-to-point than even the 15s.
So, what would be most convincing to me is if we could be shown the statistics of the millions of shots of the whole spectrum of golfers only on holes that are clearly built to the strategic style.We have that kind of data. And on several occasions, I'm given examples… like the ninth at Pine Needles one time. And each time, they fail to show anywhere near as much strategy as people think.
And yet, because I'm a low-ball, low-spin player (rolling ball) at this point in my life, even on the low caliber of courses I tend to play, I come across one or two shots a round that could really be considered strategic and I greatly enjoy playing them, even when I'm not really able to always take advantage, which is what I referring to in the item below.I've always said that the angles don't matter… unless the ball is rolling. It's still largely a generalization, but it's a VERY wide, deep generalization.
I would love to see this for a course like Pacific Dunes. On #6, I'd have to imagine that a tee shot played down the right side of the fairway would yield a significant advantage over a shot down the left. That hole is probably a true outlier and an extreme example of angles actually mattering.Nobody's said that angles NEVER matter. Edoardo in fact pointed out that you need a LOT of width and firmer conditions for them to matter. The 6th at Pacific Dunes may be one of the exceptions.
100% spot on, particularly the point that lumping all courses together is both a quantitative and logical error.No, as I can look at thousands of times players play one specific hole.
Erik inevitably will tell us that angles do matter for shots on the ground, certain wind conditions, and the like. In other words, the exceptions swallow the rule, but the rule is the rule because the data is the data, except when it is not.No, the exceptions remain rare.
I believe Erik acknowledges that angles very rarely do matter in high-level golf. And that they matter more, although still very little, the more the ball runs (due to turf or type of golfer).Correct.
The question remains: is there any advantage to be had, on occasion, from *accidentally* finding oneself on one side of the fairway instead of the other?I disagree that it's a good question.
Which means that, for me, an average golfer, angles *do* matter, and can lead to me shooting lower scores, even if I got to the better approach angle *accidentally*.Yeah, the thing is… the data doesn't really support this. At all.
But, and this is the essence of it all: IF those ideal approach angles that matter and that can lower my scores are accessed accidentally, then they also must matter and serve as potential stroke savers if accessed intentionally.Oy. We aren't past this, ten years after ESC, LSW, etc.? No. The small reward (if there is one, and there often isn't even when golfers swear there should be - an approach shot angle into a green is often a matter of a few degrees, and not nearly enough to matter much) is very seldom worth the much higher risk of trying to *intentionally* hit there. That's almost the whole point behind "angles don't matter."
Not sure how relevant this is - but Hal Sutton recently did a Golf.Com interview.I don't give anecdata much weight.
Crazy to see this thread up to 15 pages :o Of course angles matter especially on any well designed golf course from the time one tees off until they hole their putt.You seem to have read none of them.
I caught a few moments of the final round of the PGA Tour event today. The competitor hit a nice drive to the left side of the fairway. The commentator remarked: "He's set himself up with a good angle to the pin."Many of them still think putting is the most important part of golf, or that the ball starts in the direction of the path.
No need to read 16 pages when the answer is obvious. Of course angles matter as ALL golf architects and ALL great golf course architecture depend on them.You probably should have read up a bit more.
hole presentation and esthetics.I don't entirely disagree there (esthetics was in my ASGCA presentation), but that's not the context in which it's being discussed here.
Until shot dispersion patterns become small enough (or courses big enough) that shot placement becomes largely moot and the game more resembles bowling than golf, saying that angles don’t matter seems more theoretically instructive than it does operationally relevant.That misses nearly everything.
It's hard to imagine say, a 50 yard approach to an open fronted green not being easier ie. better scoring average, than say a 50 yard approach to the same green from another angle where the player has to play over a bunker.
When it comes to risk vs reward, if the risks and rewards are obvious, there is no real decision to make.That's a different topic, but surprise surprise… I still disagree.
We both also know that most golfers are not sure where their golf ball is going after they make contact regardless of their intention. As such I agree the value of angles diminishes. But it is the presence of those angles that creates the need for a decision in the first place and that makes for interesting golf (even if one is not capable of the execution).You should read a bit of the many discussions around this topic.
I don’t want hi jack this thread by getting into “The line of charm” vs “The line of instinct.” But angles and risk/reward and temptation,… are what these terms are all about and they are why architects think about them often in their designs. If they didn’t matter, why waste their time?Mark, please read any of the discussions in the last six years on this. You've not really said anything here.
Erik,
We probably agree more than our posts are implying especially if we are talking about most golfers. Most are just trying to make solid contact and play the same ball the entire hole. However, if they end up with a preferred angle, e.g. in the front of the green instead of behind the road hole bunker to a back hole location on 17 at The Old Course, most any golfer will be thankful for that angle! I will leave it at that for now :D
I - for one - am willing to go with that… However, there is a bunch of nuance here. The reason scoring isn’t very different left to right is again possibly because of that mental side of the game, where because we believe that angles matter more than they do, we are far more aggressive from the “easy” side, thus sometimes making fatal errors, thus averaging out what will be more good scores with quite a few bad ones…. Whereas on the “difficult” side, we play safer, making less fatal errors…You tend to see small differences in scoring. To make it up a little with whole numbers:
I would still take a bet with anyone that if you put 100 golfers with the road hole bunker between them and the hole and had them hole out from there then do the same from in front of that green, the scoring would be much different.Straw man, Mark. Nobody's ever said there's no reward, only that it's often over-emphasized, and the shot to put you in that better spot is often more negative than the positives to be gained from hitting your next shot there.
Angles do matter even on tour...With a good angle, they will aim a little more at the pin... with the wrong angle, they will aim 15 feet away on the safer side..Turning an 8-footer into a 20 footerOh boy.
Angles do matter even on tour...
With a good angle, they will aim a little more at the pin... with the wrong angle, they will aim 15 feet away on the safer side..
Turning an 8-footer into a 20 footer
The angles, right or wrong, doesn't generally turn into a hit or miss... architecture can only do so much against tour players discipline!
*Chasing angles reveals negligible benefit to scoring and oftentimes a negative benefit. So angles don’t matter. Unless they do, which is circumstantial.*It's close, but I don't agree with the but after "Unless."
If that’s off base please correct my synopsis so I can better discuss this subject with you.At this point nobody's really come with anything "new" in the last ten years, so pardon me for doubting that you're going to be the first.
More broadly, I have tried to pay attention to what you write on here and I’m beginning to see a pattern. It seems to me that your version of frank discussion is a long play to tell golf architecture fans that we’re overvaluing the art. I think many of us here are happy to defend our love of golf architecture to someone that thinks it’s overvalued. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time. I just don’t understand your insistence that these are complex and not-easily-understood themes and datasets.Lots to unpack there, but… generally… no.
As always, I could be wrong, and for that matter, I am sure he chose to aim at the pin sometimes, when the match required it. I understand that devotees to the basic strategic system laid out by Eric and others tend to have the discipline to never take the statistical sucker punch. And I don't think Erik is telling anyone about architecture, just reactions to architecture and statistical facts, i.e.,Yeah. I love good golf course architecture, and think that even within these systems (which, to be frank, are all very similar because the data is what it is, and optimal is optimal*), there are ways to force a player to either make a decision. And, golfers are still emotional beings. They're not robots who can always choose the optimal target.
I'm puzzled why playing from the good angle would produce scores of bogey or better only 90% of the time while playing from the bad angle it would be 95% ? (my assumption is that "other" in your example is a score worse than bogey)Jeff was quoting me, and I was illustrating how you could score almost the same from one side or the other side while creating a different distribution in the actual scores. An average is an average, but if it's the 18th hole and you need a birdie and don't care if you make par or double, you have to know how the strategy shifts, too.
Or indeed from a good angle par or better would be achieved only 70% of the time as opposed to 75% from a bad angle. Is that really what the data is saying?
My head is spinning. Why would the scores be worse once you have successfully made it to the good angle? Makes no sense. Isn’t the point that it’s not worth taking on a hazard to get to the good angle?Because even Tour players get a little more aggressive than they should, since they've all been told "oh, you can attack the pin from this angle." So they miss the green and short-side themselves a bit or something.
You tend to see small differences in scoring. To make it up a little with whole numbers:"Good" side - 10% birdies, 60% pars, 20% bogeys, 10% others, "Bad" side - 5% birdies, 70% pars, 20% bogeys, 5% others could average out to almost the same with a shift in the distribution of the actual scores to par.It's a non-negligible difference, but not a significant one.I rounded everything into 5s for very good players to illustrate that the distribution of scores could shift even if the scoring averages stayed similar from that point.
Have to wonder…..does the interpretation of data assume all shot results were as the golfer intended?As soon as the golfers are able to hit only their intended shot, we can talk about that…
I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.
It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.
I play a mom and pop 9-holer that keeps the ground firm and bouncy (and slightly shaggy) such that I land most irons a little short and bounce them on, including knock-down wedges. It's an effing blast! And that course isn't even a little strategic. Just imagine how much fun a course with some hazards or strategy would be with the same conditions.
I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.
It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.
I play a mom and pop 9-holer that keeps the ground firm and bouncy (and slightly shaggy) such that I land most irons a little short and bounce them on, including knock-down wedges. It's an effing blast! And that course isn't even a little strategic. Just imagine how much fun a course with some hazards or strategy would be with the same conditions.
The 2nd reply hinted at this all those weeks ago. It’s always been understood that f&f conditions make angles matter more. I very rarely play courses and conditions where angles don’t matter. Hence my disagreement with angles don’t matter statement. I even saw angles matter at the last St Andrews Open.
Ciao
I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.
It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.
I play a mom and pop 9-holer that keeps the ground firm and bouncy (and slightly shaggy) such that I land most irons a little short and bounce them on, including knock-down wedges. It's an effing blast! And that course isn't even a little strategic. Just imagine how much fun a course with some hazards or strategy would be with the same conditions.
The 2nd reply hinted at this all those weeks ago. It’s always been understood that f&f conditions make angles matter more. I very rarely play courses and conditions where angles don’t matter. Hence my disagreement with angles don’t matter statement. I even saw angles matter at the last St Andrews Open.
Ciao
Warmer, warmer, disco!
The “angles don’t matter unless…” version of this debate could use some brevity. Angles do matter. As I’ve said before, shot tracking data in its current form has no way to account for a number of variables that have massive impacts to shot selection and result. And, what’s more, shot tracking data proponents have used really just one thing to assume validity of their data. The sheer size of the data set. But it’s still largely a two dimensional tool. We’re in shot tracking infancy and trajectory, ball speed, spin rate, firmness of turf, slope, etc etc ALL have a massive impact on how the shape of a golf hole and hazard placement affect golfers.
I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.
It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.
I play a mom and pop 9-holer that keeps the ground firm and bouncy (and slightly shaggy) such that I land most irons a little short and bounce them on, including knock-down wedges. It's an effing blast! And that course isn't even a little strategic. Just imagine how much fun a course with some hazards or strategy would be with the same conditions.
The 2nd reply hinted at this all those weeks ago. It’s always been understood that f&f conditions make angles matter more. I very rarely play courses and conditions where angles don’t matter. Hence my disagreement with angles don’t matter statement. I even saw angles matter at the last St Andrews Open.
Ciao
Warmer, warmer, disco!
The “angles don’t matter unless…” version of this debate could use some brevity. Angles do matter. As I’ve said before, shot tracking data in its current form has no way to account for a number of variables that have massive impacts to shot selection and result. And, what’s more, shot tracking data proponents have used really just one thing to assume validity of their data. The sheer size of the data set. But it’s still largely a two dimensional tool. We’re in shot tracking infancy and trajectory, ball speed, spin rate, firmness of turf, slope, etc etc ALL have a massive impact on how the shape of a golf hole and hazard placement affect golfers.
Ben, emotionally speaking, I don't disagree with what you and Sean say here, but I'm trying to stay cognizant of my biases, of which there are two big ones.
First is that I want angles to matter. I've been taught to think that way and I find it more aesthetically and philosophically pleasing.
Second is that on the Doak 2, 3, and 4 courses I tend to play, angles frequently don't matter. Not never, but we're talking once or twice a round in most cases. (I'd love to be playing some of the courses you and Sean are playing)
The second bias is why I pretty readily accepted the premise that angles don't matter as much as I'd thought (slash hoped). At a certain point I voiced the idea that at most courses, I could accept that angles didn't matter, because most courses weren't designed strategically. In response, Erik gave some examples where even strategic holes showed not much reason to believe that angles mattered (In honesty, I don't think enough data was given, which is why I'd like to see the stats for a large cross-section of golfers on holes that were recommended by architects for their strategic nature). But I could accept it given there was the following where everyone already seems to agree angles definitely matter: when the ball is rolling. The game is also more fun when the ball is rolling more.
Anyway, my journey on this has left me feeling like I was defending an ever-diminishing "god of the gaps". Which combined with the fact that at the average course (at least where I play) angles don't matter very often, is a bit deflating. That said, they do matter at least some of the time, so it's worth pressing strategic design still (along with the conditions that make sure it stays strategic).
Ben, the "angles don't matter" believers use "data" to suck the soul and magic from the game. They can believe what they want, but I will always look for the best angle and weigh the risk/reward because it is more fun, way more satisfying, and how I believe the game was intended to be played.
Ally
You are perhaps correct that angles maybe don't matter as much of the time as many think but would you agree that it is the gca's job to try and make them matter ?
Niall
I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.I for one love fast, firm golf. Last year for about three weeks the course I play most often got really fiery. It was great. You could hit some low long-irons off tees and the ball would still roll out for quite a ways. You could still hit shots and stop them somewhat on the greens (though the first hop was still making that nice "thud" sound), but it changed the way the game was played. So fun.
It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.Yup. But the USGA tried to get everyone else to be "down with brown," but the golfers out there still want their course to be their own Augusta National.
I very rarely play courses and conditions where angles don’t matter.You keep saying that, but… It's quite unlikely.
Angles do matter.Just saying it doesn't make it so.
And, what’s more, shot tracking data proponents have used really just one thing to assume validity of their data. The sheer size of the data set.That's not really true. I mean, you need a large enough sample size to make relevant, valid conclusions, but you can look at how 5-7 handicappers play one specific hole. etc.
We’re in shot tracking infancy and trajectory, ball speed, spin rate, firmness of turf, slope, etc etc ALL have a massive impact on how the shape of a golf hole and hazard placement affect golfers.I think you're saying that in high hopes, and I think you're going to be disappointed. The simple fact is whatever spin rates a player is generating, we capture the results of that shot.
Ben, the "angles don't matter" believers use "data" to suck the soul and magic from the game. They can believe what they want, but I will always look for the best angle and weigh the risk/reward because it is more fun, way more satisfying, and how I believe the game was intended to be played.And you're welcome to do it. Sometimes I take on the shot that's not as strategically smart, just because I want to, as well.
I think that is fair enough. And whilst I genuinely think that angles matter less than all us golf architect nerds want to believe (because it’s such an easy touch point), I will always design and build a whole bunch of angles and “strategy” because even if it partially works - even just mentally - I agree it makes the game better.And, like I said in my ASGCA presentation… 95% of golfers aren't aware of this stuff, and won't be for a loooong time. The game's best are, and a good chunk of the serious golfers are, but even among them, there are still plenty out there who think that putting is how you get from a 5 to a scratch. :D
More than half the golf I play is links golf. The ball usually rolls, even when it has been a bit wet. I'm just really sad for all those for whom the ball rolling is unusual.
What I am arguing is that there is specificity missing from the two-dimensional results-only data for your position. Saying that the result is the result and that it takes into account the mountains of breadth from player to player ignores specific circumstances.Kinda, but we can also look at specific things, too. Whether you want to call it narrowing the focus, or drilling down… whatever… the specific examples tend to line up with what we see generally.
He replied that I was in some crazy percentile, like 0.6% of players with that speed and that handicap. This admittedly anecdotal situation told me what I’d always suspected about applying aggregate data to specific players.Give a specific thing if you want to talk about it, but also… there are of course exceptions out there. Doesn't mean they're necessarily worth discussing much.
In your example above, I’ll just say that not every 5-7 handicap is the same.
I think our current version of shot tracking data supposes that that fact doesn’t matter.
Everyone should revert to the mean over time and play accordingly. I am saying that isn’t correct.I haven't said that either.
Just saying it doesn't make it so.One wonders if you might ever concede the same from your own position. I don't think that anyone is doubting your data set. However, your interpretation of that data does not, in itself, constitute fact. What you have instead is just one of many theories about how to approach the playing of the game that is no more or less valid than any other. What separates us, in part, is that whereas my approach to the game involves spending time outside in the fresh air and hitting some shots with my buddies, your approach appears to have a more single-minded (borderline robotic) devotion to scoring. And whereas my focus is on hitting fun, or "dangerous," shots (because I don't too much care about my score), your paradigm seems cautions people AGAINST interacting with the various design features (all but dismissing the relevance of design professionals). Neither of us is wrong, but it's as though we're playing different games.
Part of this debate/squabble seems tied up in the fact that there is some aura placed around words like "strategy" and "angles" that puts an emotional charge into them, so those of us with aggregated centuries and millions of golf shots' worth of experience of our own know that there is bone-deep truth around terms like those.
Ultimately, that's why "Angles Don't Matter" clickbait is effective. On that level, you have to hand it to Erik and Lou and others - they've figured out some good marketing copy in addition to their data.
But just because it's clever doesn't make it correct. After all, every golfer is "chasing angles" on every single shot of every round, even when playing by the data-driven rulebook. Any affirmative decision to aim a shot in a particular direction is presumably intended to set up the next shot from some sort of advantageous angle relative to the hole. Whether you choose to ignore your own tendencies and purely turn your golf brain over to the data is of course your choice as a golfer, but it's still Erik & Lou & Co. telling you to "chase" certain angles.
So it really isn't "Angles Don't Matter" at all. It's "Only Our Angles Matter," which, though less catchy, is closer to the reality of the data-as-God golf approach.
Part of this debate/squabble seems tied up in the fact that there is some aura placed around words like "strategy" and "angles" that puts an emotional charge into them, so those of us with aggregated centuries and millions of golf shots' worth of experience of our own know that there is bone-deep truth around terms like those.
Ultimately, that's why "Angles Don't Matter" clickbait is effective. On that level, you have to hand it to Erik and Lou and others - they've figured out some good marketing copy in addition to their data.
But just because it's clever doesn't make it correct. After all, every golfer is "chasing angles" on every single shot of every round, even when playing by the data-driven rulebook. Any affirmative decision to aim a shot in a particular direction is presumably intended to set up the next shot from some sort of advantageous angle relative to the hole. Whether you choose to ignore your own tendencies and purely turn your golf brain over to the data is of course your choice as a golfer, but it's still Erik & Lou & Co. telling you to "chase" certain angles.
So it really isn't "Angles Don't Matter" at all. It's "Only Our Angles Matter," which, though less catchy, is closer to the reality of the data-as-God golf approach.
One wonders if you might ever concede the same from your own position.I have nothing to concede (that I haven't already)… and unlike many who are saying "angles DO matter," I've offered data, facts, and so on to support my side.
However, your interpretation of that data does not, in itself, constitute fact.Oh boy.
What you have instead is just one of many theoriesRiiiiiiight.
about how to approach the playing of the game that is no more or less valid than any other.No. "Attack every pin regardless of your lie, the distance, the trouble, etc." is not as valid as the strategy I talk about and share with my golfers.
What separates us, in part, is that whereas my approach to the game involves spending time outside in the fresh air and hitting some shots with my buddies, your approach appears to have a more single-minded (borderline robotic) devotion to scoring.That's the very nature of the conversation: it's entirely about scoring.
Part of this debate/squabble seems tied up in the fact that there is some aura placed around words like "strategy" and "angles" that puts an emotional charge into them, so those of us with aggregated centuries and millions of golf shots' worth of experience of our own know that there is bone-deep truth around terms like those.Tim, you've not aggregated centuries and millions of golf shots worth of experience of your own.
After all, every golfer is "chasing angles" on every single shot of every round, even when playing by the data-driven rulebook.Except that's not the way anyone uses the term. Yes, even Scott Fawcett is aiming somewhere when he gets up on a tee of a par four.
Any affirmative decision to aim a shot in a particular direction is presumably intended to set up the next shot from some sort of advantageous angle relative to the hole.No.
You are playing for an angle even if avoiding or delaying risk.No, you're not.
I think the difference is in chasing an angle for where you want to play your next shot vs chasing a position to play your next shot from.Yup. Put another way, it's "chasing an angle into the green" versus "choosing which lie is going to offer the best chance at a good approach shot" (i.e. fairway, not the deep bunker guarding the "good angle" into the green).
The first is saying something like "the green is angled to the left, so it's better to play from the right side and I'll aim that way". The second is more like "I don't care what the green looks like - I want to keep my ball out of trouble and as close to where I'm going as I reasonably can".Yup. And I didn't quote the rest of what you said, but that… too.
I think Erik is right about the whole "when the ball is rolling" thing. There are for sure some people who can play for the angles we are discussing. One of my mother's friends was a decent golfer - she didn't hit it very far, but she hit it VERY straight. She could hit it within a few yards either side of her target with driver. She also hit it fairly low and the ball would roll (which goes hand in hand with the not hitting it very far thing). So she could absolutely play for an angle. Her shot pattern was probably 15 yards wide with her driver though.I used my daughter as an example in my presentation, too. Especially when she plays from 6300 yards or so, she has hybrids into some greens, and is accurate enough with her driver that her dispersion pattern is pretty small. She can shade to a side of the fairway a bit.
PGA Tour players have a roughly 65 yard wide shot pattern (I think at around 95%), so for them, playing to a side of the fairway to get a better angle at the green is ill advised. Playing for a side of the fairway because the other side is serious trouble on the other hand is perfectly reasonable. Take 18 at Sawgrass. Half the players wind up in the right rough/trees there because the penalty of that is less than the penalty of hitting it in the lake. I wouldn't call that playing for an angle though.Nor would I, or anyone other than the people who have tried recently and in the past to define everything as "an angle" so that they can conclude, despite ample evidence that it's not what anyone is actually saying, that they are right and that angles matter.
And if the best players in the world are picking their target based on where the trouble is rather than the angle to the green, then what in the world would make a long hitting 5-7 handicap think they should be chasing angles?Architectural lore and nostalgia.
Having said all that, as Steve said, it's really about what your goals are. If you want to go out and take on trouble and get that rush of pulling off the hero shot, then have at it. No one is saying you can't do that. If your goal is to shoot the best score you can on a given day, then pick your targets appropriately and play to them. You'll score lower that way in the long run.Yep. The angles discussion has always been about scoring. If you want to choose to play in a way that maximizes your idea of fun instead of your score… go for it. I couldn't care less. But the angles discussion has always been about scoring.
- Good course management says completely forget what the best angle in to the green is. Play the tee-shot that is most likely to keep you out of trouble but ideally on the fairway.
"The angles discussion has always been about scoring." In your mind... Seems a bit arrogant on your part.No. Nearly 100% of the time, when the phrase "angles don't matter" has been uttered, debated, etc. it's been about scoring. It's been about how it affects the shot, and the likelihood of hitting it close, or hitting a "good" shot. It's BS to pretend that it hasn't been, and posts like yours there come off as a way to salvage some sort of "see, I was right, they do matter, because I'm going to change the context and pretend it was about this other thing the whole time." For example…
This site is about golf course architecture and angles DO MATTER in golf course design.Angles in this conversation haven't been about the esthetics. They've not been about draining water properly and efficiently. They've not been about how it makes you feel. If you want to talk about design, or drainage, or how this slope blends into that slope… find a different word. The "angles" conversation has been about scoring for a decade plus. Pretend otherwise if you want, but that's all it'll be: pretend.
- Good course management says completely forget what the best angle in to the green is. Play the tee-shot that is most likely to keep you out of trouble but ideally on the fairway.Yes.
That is a true statement. Even in firm and fast situations, I am just trying to hit the fairway (anywhere on the fairway) with my tee shot. It is - of course - the argument for 70 yard wide fairways. That approach to design gives slightly more room for angles in to the green mattering. But it can come at the expense of an element of challenge in your tee shot.One of the reasons why angles don't matter to scoring is that the angles are often so small. On even a 40-yard wide fairway, a shot played from 5 yards from the left edge and a shot played from 5 yards from the right edge from 160 yards are coming in from angles that are less than two minutes on a clock. When you overlay the shot pattern over the endpoint… it becomes apparent that even a shot that would appear to skirt a bunker or whatnot from the one side and needing to cover it from the other isn't quite that way - both are either going to end up in it almost as often or both are going to fly it and it doesn't matter much for that reason.
The above - really very simple premise - does not mean that architects stop using angles because they can get in to everyone’s head (even if they shouldn’t) and they add to the game, even if only aesthetically.
It also assumes that having decided to play safe that the player can still hit a shot that stays out of trouble.No, it doesn't. Maximizing your chances of shooting a good score does not guarantee a good score. How the heck have you been reading and participating in this conversation for ten years to say something as off as that?
All you're doing is increasing the margin for error rather than eliminating it.No shit.
I'm sure there are other caveats that could be added undermining the basic contention.Nothing you just said "undermines the basic contention." At all.
I was communicating with a fellow adult. I think I'll wait for their response and carry on the conversation with them.Typical reply: a non-response to the actual topic with a personal attack/comment thrown in for good measure while also pretending you're the "mature" one. Super obvious; so tired.
- Good course management says completely forget what the best angle in to the green is. Play the tee-shot that is most likely to keep you out of trouble but ideally on the fairway.
Ally
I'm not sure I totally agree with that. If staying out of trouble and playing percentages is good course management then perhaps playing away from every best position if it comes with a risk might in some circumstances hold true, but only depending on what you are looking to achieve eg. a decent score over 18 holes or winning the hole in matchplay. It also assumes that having decided to play safe that the player can still hit a shot that stays out of trouble. All your doing is increasing the margin for error rather than eliminating it. It also assumes that the players ability to rectify the error eg. getting up and down out of the bunker, is less than say the players ability to capitalise on a more aggressive approach. I'm sure there are other caveats that could be added undermining the basic contention.
Niall
"I also think it is fun to try and think of what you could do to make someone using DECADE struggle."
Nice point. I think this is where this or a new thread should go, since so many younger low handicap players are using it. We've beat the horse on whether angles matter. If not, or even if so, what else matters to these players?
- Good course management says completely forget what the best angle in to the green is. Play the tee-shot that is most likely to keep you out of trouble but ideally on the fairway.It strikes me that this statement is confirmation that angles do matter. There is a best angle into the green. So angles matter, just (very) rarely so much as to alter the correct strategy off the tee (which is (nearly) always to play away from trouble rather than improve the resulting angle into the green.
- Good course management says completely forget what the best angle in to the green is. Play the tee-shot that is most likely to keep you out of trouble but ideally on the fairway.It strikes me that this statement is confirmation that angles do matter. There is a best angle into the green. So angles matter, just (very) rarely so much as to alter the correct strategy off the tee (which is (nearly) always to play away from trouble rather than improve the resulting angle into the green.
Angles matter the most on best most thought provoking golf holes. This is not rocket science. For example, I would wager with Any pro that they can’t get the ball up and down on #10 at Rivieria if I am allowed to choose the angle of their approach shot ;DThe ball is rolling on #10 there, and it's also a very narrow green effectively. I've asked for examples of holes where angles "matter" to even a 5 handicap, and people almost never come up with anything.
I think it's safe to say that optimizing strategy does not eliminate the possibility of putting the ball into trouble. As it happens, there are a certain number of penalty strokes/awful spots you'll wind up in if you play optimally. Heck I watched one of the players in the US Open at Shinnecock hit one onto Southampton GC from the 12th tee. If you never hit it in the water/OB, then you're very likely being too conservative. Basically you don't want to aim too far away from the trouble. Take 18 at Sawgrass again - you could aim it 20 yards into the rough on the right. You'll virtually never hit it in the water if you do that, but you'll also play 80+% of your second shots from the rough and it will be very hard to make many pars and you'll make a ton of bogeys and probably a few doubles. Better to aim it right quarter or even right edge of the fairway, so maybe 3-5% of the time you wind up in the water (talking PGA Tour level players), but you'll have 50-60% of your shots from the fairway and 35-45% from the rough.Yup.
While Lou/Scott and others have championed that "angles don't matter," they are frequently fond of the same courses we are, although there are some exceptions (i.e. Fawcett's disdain for the 2nd at Talking Stick).There are exceptions, certainly. They're rare.
It's hard to argue with statistics at the end of the day, and the wealth of data thanks to Arccos makes it harder and harder to argue. Dodo Molinari was recently on the Fried Egg pod and mentioned that TOC may be the only place angles matter and that Augusta was one of his favorite courses.Me linking to that podcast was what kicked off the renewal of this topic and discussion.
But angles do two things: create variety in a golf course you may play many times and create shots which are advantageous for some golfers and not others.The 12th at Augusta was on my slide in my ASGCA presentation. Like the 10th at Riviera, it's more of an exception (and requires a pretty shallow green to do it).
I typically hit a draw with my mid and long irons. I try and hit my drive where my second shot draw will produce the best result.Your aiming spot (for the ball's finishing position) isn't going to differ much than someone who hits a fade.
It strikes me that this statement is confirmation that angles do matter. There is a best angle into the green.This fails in two ways:
… Rarely so much as to alter the correct strategy off the tee (which is (nearly) always to play away from trouble rather than improve the resulting angle into the green.Yep.
Last night I was reading some of Ran's old course reviews and every other word was either "angle", "best angle", "many options" "best angle of attack".....etc.If you've never considered how GCA affects your ability to score, or influences your scoring, in fact if you've never kept score while playing golf and you only ever consider GCA because of how it looks, how visually appealing it is to you… then you might have a point.
It reminded me that this is a site dedicated to Golf Course design....NOT scoring.
Didn't want to start a new thread...
But it sure seems like angles really matter this week at Bay Hill. Several holes where hitting a shot down the middle of the green vs carrying water or bunkers into a tight pin sure seems to be making a noticeable difference. Today they even moved the tee up on 17 to play to that right side pin which looks almost impossible from the back tee.
Play a course with trees and then tell me angles don’t matter ;) Maybe trees will make a comeback. When used properly they can add a great deal of interest and strategy. They have gotten a bad rap because they were often planted in the wrong locations by someone other than a golf architect and/or might be the wrong kind of tree/s as well. They do belong especially on parkland courses. There is an older thread I started in the past about trees making a comeback. They definitely can make angles matter.
Play a course with trees and then tell me angles don’t matter.That's not what anyone's talking about when they're talking about angles.
…
They definitely can make angles matter.
Rob,
Is Michael into trees? Be clear I have taken out literally thousands more trees then I have planted on golf courses but all for good reason (at least I like to think with good reason) :) But well thought out and well placed trees can be great hazards and force shots that ground features cannot. They can definitely make angles matter. Play Harbour Town or even a course like Cypress Point and tell me otherwise.
“Angles Don’t Matter”
“Fairways Don’t Have Proper Sides”
These are both quotes from the data manager of Arccos Golf, Lou Stagner. I decided I was tired of being a golf nut that sucks at golf and I’m working hard to get better. This led me to data analysis and Arccos Golf. Turns out, all the stuff I thought I knew about getting better at golf is sort of old hat.
That said, this modern take on shot tracking and by default, scoring, also has an affect on golf architecture. What’s your viewpoint when you read quotes such as these? Keep in mind that Lou Stagner has over 600 MILLION golf shots from which to draw conclusions.
“Angles Don’t Matter”
“Fairways Don’t Have Proper Sides”
These are both quotes from the data manager of Arccos Golf, Lou Stagner. I decided I was tired of being a golf nut that sucks at golf and I’m working hard to get better. This led me to data analysis and Arccos Golf. Turns out, all the stuff I thought I knew about getting better at golf is sort of old hat.
That said, this modern take on shot tracking and by default, scoring, also has an affect on golf architecture. What’s your viewpoint when you read quotes such as these? Keep in mind that Lou Stagner has over 600 MILLION golf shots from which to draw conclusions.
They matter if you play hickories.
For the elite golfers, the only line that matters is the direct one as far up the hole as possible. If it's in the rough, gouge it out.
Of course, there will be instances that a green contour will be so severe as to make things better from a specific angle... but how many holes do that... especially modern ones?
Quite a few this week at Bay Hill, and as I think about it even a handful at PGA National last week.🤣