[David_Madison]

Pat,

Thank you for your explanation. I agree that having the wings and other non-regular shapes, especially with elevation, adds a great deal to the complexity and challenge for the low handicap player.

With wings as you've described, I think we'd both agree that when the bomber feels compelled to go pin hunting and then misses, the downside is often worse than the upside of success. Then it comes down to the pin seeking bomber missing enough times so that the math works out. I think that I can give you that one for the undisciplined (or maybe typically disciplined) 0-6 handicap player who overestimates his skills and is reckless in pin hunting beyond his ability.

How about the disciplined bomber who is better at picking his spots? Or even more clearly, the professional tournament golfer? For this population, the ability to bomb the ball and then have shorter approaches that can be attempted with higher, softer, more spun shots is a huge advantage over the well-skilled but shorter player. The perfect positioning of the shorter player can't over time overcome the less ideal positioning of the bomber as long as the bomber is hitting either from an acceptable lie from which he can loft/spin his shots even from the less than perfect angle. For this collection of players, I believe that the wings probably give a further advantage to the player who can hit the ball a long way as they can access spots that the average-lengthed comparably skilled (but somewhat more accurate off the tee) player can't get to.

Something else seems to be present here, especially if the conservative play leaves a putting challenge that results in a high percentage of 3-putts. Under that scenario, why not pin hunt? A successful shot leads to a sure par and a possible birdie. A miss earns you your share of bogeys, but so would the safe play to the center of the green. You could end up with the perverse outcome of too severe wings and shapes rewarding the aggressive play. Either way, a shorter approach should have a greater chance of success. Only if the safe play leads you to a relatively reliable par would the wings reduce the benefits of length.

Interesting topic...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Thank you for your explanation. I agree that having the wings and other non-regular shapes, especially with elevation, adds a great deal to the complexity and challenge for the low handicap player.

With wings as you've described, I think we'd both agree that when the bomber feels compelled to go pin hunting and then misses, the downside is often worse than the upside of success. Then it comes down to the pin seeking bomber missing enough times so that the math works out. I think that I can give you that one for the undisciplined (or maybe typically disciplined) 0-6 handicap player who overestimates his skills and is reckless in pin hunting beyond his ability.

I think that one of the "lures" of golf is that we can attempt a shot that may be beyond our ability.
It seems to be a systemic or universal quality in all golfers.  The idea that they can rise to meet the challenge.
And, often, even in failure there's an element of glory, with the "almost pulled it off" mentality.

An approach that's on the green and a considerable distance from the hole, while difficult, shouldn't produce doubles or triples, but errant shots to short side hole locations often yield those scores, so the decision seems to be an unbalanced or unduly weighted one.  The failure to meet the challenge often results in more than a bogey.

How about the disciplined bomber who is better at picking his spots? Or even more clearly, the professional tournament golfer?
For this population, the ability to bomb the ball and then have shorter approaches that can be attempted with higher, softer, more spun shots is a huge advantage over the well-skilled but shorter player.


Are there really any short hitters on the PGA tour ?
Aren't they all long ?  With some just being longer than others.

The perfect positioning of the shorter player can't over time overcome the less ideal positioning of the bomber as long as the bomber is hitting either from an acceptable lie from which he can loft/spin his shots even from the less than perfect angle.


Remember what Lee Trevino said, "Pros that chip for pars and dogs that chase cars aren't long for this world."
When there's a substantive consequence when a green is missed, it alters one's thinking, as does pressure.
Whle the PGA Tour pros tend to disect the course and understand percentages better than anyone, ego and fear still play a part in the decision making process.

For this collection of players, I believe that the wings probably give a further advantage to the player who can hit the ball a long way as they can access spots that the average-lengthed comparably skilled (but somewhat more accurate off the tee) player can't get to.

With wings/diagonals, balls in the rough have a more difficult time getting close to those hole locations, and when the consequences for failure to hit that wing are significant, it causes pause for consideration  Just look at certain hole locations on # 12 at ANGC where the best players in the world, don't go pin hunting on what has to be for them, a short hole.   And, they get to give themselves a perfect lie, on a tee.

Something else seems to be present here, especially if the conservative play leaves a putting challenge that results in a high percentage of 3-putts. Under that scenario, why not pin hunt? A successful shot leads to a sure par and a possible birdie. A miss earns you your share of bogeys, but so would the safe play to the center of the green.


Because missing a short side pin is the most difficult recovery and scores can be higher than bogey

You could end up with the perverse outcome of too severe wings and shapes rewarding the aggressive play.

I don't see the logic in:  The more severe the challenge, the greater the reward for failure to meet that challenge"

Either way, a shorter approach should have a greater chance of success.

Except, with a greater chance and penalty for failure, will the golfer attempt that shot or take the more conservative route.

Only if the safe play leads you to a relatively reliable par would the wings reduce the benefits of length.

The flaw in your logic is that you're excluding scores higher than bogey for those who take the aggressive path and fail.

Interesting topic...

If the pin is back left on # 1, back left or back right on # 4, back left or back right, or front right on # 6, back right on # 8, back right on # 11, back right on # 17, I want to see you attack those pins when you next play MRCC.  I can assure you, bogey will seem like a good score.

[David_Madison]

Pat,

You're right in that I'm not really considering anything worse than bogey, at least not at the elite player level. And on short holes, wings and unusually shaped greens really amp up the difficulty (see my earlier example of Riviera #10, where that green pretty much wipes out any distance advantage).

But I still don't agree that the wings and diagonals necessarily solve the distance issue. Assume for a moment two very good players. Both play conservatively to all winged cups (no pin hunting, no short-siding unless there's a clear miss). Won't the longer player have the advantage of being able to be a bit more aggressive with his safe play? With a wedge in hand, the longer player might aim 15' from the cup on the safe side. The shorter player with 8-iron in hand might play comparably safely to a spot 20'-25' away. At some point, that extra margin for safety, or a small miss too far to the safe side gets you on the wrong side of a slope and now putting gets far more difficult.

Yes, all touring pros and top amateurs (the level where the distance issue is most pronounced) are long, but we agree that there are varying degrees of long. That 8-iron might be after a 290 yard drive on a 450 yard hole, while the bomber has PW or gap wedge after hitting it 315. The really long driver still has an advantage under your scenario. Couldn't you argue that the advantage might even be bigger than had the pin been more centrally located?

I look forward to seeing some of those pins when I'm up there. We won't be able to do this then, but an interesting experiment would be to play two approach shots into those types of cups. The safety would be from the perfect angle but further back, and then an attack shot from 15-20 yards closer in but from the wrong side of the fairway. Play both out and see what happens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I DIDN'T say they solved it, I said that they may be part of the solution.

Fear of failure, the consequence of failure will discourage pin seeking.
Again, you're creating a favorable situation.  Instead of a wedge versus an 8-iron, consider a 4-iron versus a 6-iron or a 6-iron versus an 8 iron.  And, factor in the consequences for missing the short side of an elevated green.

It would seem to me that the 4 and 6 iron player will avoid the winged location and that more aggressive play would be more inclined when short irons are used, but, why context the issue solely in the realm of short holes/shots.

Now, add water or a deep bunker next to the wing.

I don't know how you can think that a circular green offers an equal or more significant challenge than an irregularly shaped green with substantive falloff, when the hole is cut in that wing.

The problem with playing two different approach shots is that there's no pressure on either shot, especially the dicey one.

However, with $ on the line, I like my side of the bet

The best example I can give you is to bet you $ 100 that you can't walk 100 feet, only 33 yards on a 4 X 4 without falling off.
Now, I know you'll take that bet every time.  I mean, how hard is it to walk 100 feet on a 4 X 4.
But, if I elevate the 4 X 4 to 500 feet, will you still take the bet ?
Fear of failure, the consequences of failure loom large when making decisions, on and off the golf course, on the ground and on the same 4 X 4 at 500 feet.

[David_Madison]

Pat,

I have no disagreements with anything you've written here. And you are looking at it from the perspective of someone who's had a whole lot more competitive experience than me.

A couple of things I'm picking up on here. First, it's not the wings themselves that matter, but the stuff off the green that does. No doubt that the worse the consequences of a miss, the more inclined any player, including bombers would be to play safe. And I agree about the dilemma one faces when playing to the safe side introduces putting risks with tiers and other issues that winged greens often create.

Second, I didn't say that a circular green offers a greater challenge than a irregularly shaped green when the cup is cut into the wing. What I said was that the circular green may be less rewarding of distance because everyone can go for the pin with comparative safety. But with the winged green, everyone might play safe but the player closer to the green can play a tighter line on the safe side with the same percentage room for margin as the player coming in from further away who has to play an even safer line further from the cup. And once you get too far from that winged cup, then the putting challenges you introduced take on a far more pronounced effect.

Under competitive conditions and with the desire to play safely and conservatively (and not short-side yourself to a winged cup) won't you still play a tighter line with an 8-iron than a 6-iron, or a 6-iron than a 4-iron?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()