Approach Angles and Shot Probability

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

You've spoke in the past that your courses are not designed for the touring professional, Many architects speak to not modifying a course based on the suggestions of only the club champion and low handicap players, and twice in this thread you've said that you do not believe that you can design a course for "the bogey golfer". Others have echoed the same sentiments as well, which leads me to ask who are golf courses designed for?

Is it just the 5-12 handicap player that is good enough to appreciate architecture but not too good that they have developed biased views on their own playing tendencies? How big is that subset of golfers? is it even 1/3rd of all that play the game?

Ben,


I'm not exactly sure how many of what type of players exist.  One problem with so called modern designs is the tendency to design for top players, like Tour Pros, and merely "accommodate" the many other consistent, good, but shorter hitting golfers out there, and maybe those are the ones we design for, i.e., the straight, crafty, and reasonably consistent 190 or 230 hitters.  It's one of the reasons I am a proponent of shorter courses, allowing that kind of golfer to have fun the way it was meant to be in golf.


Of course, some C and D players are long, some are accurate, and some are short game wizards, with those relative strengths making up for other deficiencies to get to that 5-12 or whatever handicap.


In theory, if designs mix in holes or features that reward each of those, at least some of the time they have a chance to compete and win a hole or match.  Not a perfect solution, of course, but better than what most have proposed over the years. I think it's a shame when architects basically admit they are "giving up" on designing for the majority of the golfing public.  BTW, I enjoy the approach to this thread, even if we know that it will never be conclusive.  I mean, knowing statistically what is likely to happen seems to be a good place to start conceptualizing design, a la TD's comments about not having the three bunkers short right of the green when they punish a typical bad shot, rather than contribute to strategy.  I have gotten to the point where I rue ever having put a right side green sand bunker further short of the green than the front right corner.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Bogey in that context doesn't mean what bogey golfer means now. Bogey then was "what a good player would shoot". At least as I recall. It basically pegs those half par holes as the higher number, even if par is the lower number. Most holes would have par and bogey be the same, but long par 4s or long par 3s would have a bogey one above par. I think RSG was par 71, bogey 77 or something like that. It's a little bit like the course rating. In any case, architects who were designing a course for the bogey player 100 years ago were not trying to design it for a 90s shooter.

Bogey was originally meant to mean the "ground score" or standard score for a hole, while Par was the "perfect score".

That is a far cry from what we have today as par is often references as the standard score and is not applicable to 90% of all players. As a "bogey" player from yesterday was better than we may relate, so is a bogey player of today. In practicality a modern bogey player would have a handicap of 16.

[A.G._Crockett]

Bogey in that context doesn't mean what bogey golfer means now. Bogey then was "what a good player would shoot". At least as I recall. It basically pegs those half par holes as the higher number, even if par is the lower number. Most holes would have par and bogey be the same, but long par 4s or long par 3s would have a bogey one above par. I think RSG was par 71, bogey 77 or something like that. It's a little bit like the course rating. In any case, architects who were designing a course for the bogey player 100 years ago were not trying to design it for a 90s shooter.

Bogey was originally meant to mean the "ground score" or standard score for a hole, while Par was the "perfect score".

That is a far cry from what we have today as par is often references as the standard score and is not applicable to 90% of all players. As a "bogey" player from yesterday was better than we may relate, so is a bogey player of today. In practicality a modern bogey player would have a handicap of 16.

The USGA, I believe, defines a bogey golfer as having a course handicap of 20, not 16, on a course of average difficulty. His index would range between 17.5 and 22.4. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

A.G.

I've seen that statement from the USGA, it’s very limited in how it defines the player and does not take into account the potential aspect of the handicap system

The perfect bogey golfer, or a player who always shoots 18 over par on any course, would have an index around 20.0, and a course handicap of around 18. As they shoot the same score time and time again their handicap would reflect their current ability only.

But a common bogey golfer that we would find in the real world is not as consistent and they would record a range of scores that would all average to 18 over par. Because of how the handicap system is structured around a player’s potential, the worst 12 of 20 scores are thrown out of the calculation. So the handicap of the bogey golfer would only reflect their top 8 scores, which would infrequently include a score that was greater than or equal to 18 over par.

For a player to have an index of 20.0, you would anticipate that player would have an average score in the mid to high 90’s.

I don’t know why this conversation is devolving into a discussion of the bogey golfer. The overall theme of this topic is about angles. Whether it's a 10 handicapper, 15 handicapper, or 25 handicapper, the strategy derived from approach angles is an important aspect of their play. The only difference between those players is in the demand the angles place on that player’s shot and the score they are realstically trying to achieve.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.

I've seen that statement from the USGA, it’s very limited in how it defines the player and does not take into account the potential aspect of the handicap system

The perfect bogey golfer, or a player who always shoots 18 over par on any course, would have an index around 20.0, and a course handicap of around 18. As they shoot the same score time and time again their handicap would reflect their current ability only.

But a common bogey golfer that we would find in the real world is not as consistent and they would record a range of scores that would all average to 18 over par. Because of how the handicap system is structured around a player’s potential, the worst 12 of 20 scores are thrown out of the calculation. So the handicap of the bogey golfer would only reflect their top 8 scores, which would infrequently include a score that was greater than or equal to 18 over par.

For a player to have an index of 20.0, you would anticipate that player would have an average score in the mid to high 90’s.

I don’t know why this conversation is devolving into a discussion of the bogey golfer. The overall theme of this topic is about angles. Whether it's a 10 handicapper, 15 handicapper, or 25 handicapper, the strategy derived from approach angles is an important aspect of their play. The only difference between those players is in the demand the angles place on that player’s shot and the score they are realstically trying to achieve.

Ben,

1. You'll have to take up limits of the definition of a bogey golfer with the USGA; my point was that a bogey golfer is significantly worse than a 16 handicap by that definition. That matters when you launch a discussion of how a bogey golfer would handle approach angles.


2. This sentence is incorrect: "So the handicap of the bogey golfer would only reflect their top 8 scores, which would infrequently include a score that was greater than or equal to 18 over par."  Actually, the math of it would say that of the top 8 scores, 4 would have differentials below the index, and 4 would have differentials above the index; that's how averages are derived.  MOST of the scores of a bogey golfer would obviously be above 18 over par, including several of the 8 that counted toward the index.  I'm a decent example of how this works; as of this morning, three of my 8 differentials that count are below my index, and 5 are above. 


3.  The reason that so much of the discussion has become about bogey golfers is, I think, because you began the thread that way. If you didn't want a discussion of what a bogey golfer is or isn't, or what a bogey golfer can or cannot do, then I suppose I've missed the point.  Bogey golfers, TRUE bogey golfers, don't struggle nearly as much with course management and approach angles as they do with things like getting the ball airborne, or finding it afterward, or two-way misses, or the inability to get out of bunkers that they intended to aim away from, and on and on.  Find a 20 handicap and show them this thread; their eyes will glaze over pretty quickly.
h

[Ben Hollerbach]

2. This sentence is incorrect: "So the handicap of the bogey golfer would only reflect their top 8 scores, which would infrequently include a score that was greater than or equal to 18 over par."  Actually, the math of it would say that of the top 8 scores, 4 would have differentials below the index, and 4 would have differentials above the index; that's how averages are derived.  MOST of the scores of a bogey golfer would obviously be above 18 over par, including several of the 8 that counted toward the index.  I'm a decent example of how this works; as of this morning, three of my 8 differentials that count are below my index, and 5 are above.

Your mixing up a players index and their scoring average.

If a player has 20 logged rounds for their handicap that average to 18 over par, when their handicap index is generated using the top 8 of those 20 rounds how likely would it be that 4, or half of those top 8 rounds, be over their scoring average?

By using on the top 40% of rounds to generate a players handicap it is very unlikely that multiple round, let alone 50%, would be at or above the players 20 round average. There is a ~6.5% chance that a bogey golfers top 8 scores would include a round at or above a bogey average.
In the case of their index, yes you would anticipate ~4 rounds to be below their index and ~4 rounds to be above. But their index would always be below their 20 round average. For a bogey golfer who averages 18 over par, their index would always be below that 18 over average.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Perhaps the end result of this thread would be, "How do we teach bogey golfers to use strategy to lower their scores?"  I am of the impression that most don't give strategy much thought, except perhaps on recovery shots.


I designed a never built practice area the owner was going to call "Second Shot Golf."  The basic was nine shorter holes, no tee areas, and the start was where a good tee shot should land, but you played it twice so you could see if approaching from the left side or right side of the fw, or from flat ground vs rolling, or sand vs rough, etc. would work better for you.


I presume Erik teaches some strategery to his clients, but overall, how much of golf lessons are devoted to it, and is there a way to dramatize it so that strategy means something to the vast middle section of golfers?


Of course, that again supposes reasonable consistency, and I do believe some to most bogey players have some degree of that, even if it is a consistent fade, where using strategy and assuming they will hit a decent shot to implement it is worth it.

[A.G._Crockett]

2. This sentence is incorrect: "So the handicap of the bogey golfer would only reflect their top 8 scores, which would infrequently include a score that was greater than or equal to 18 over par."  Actually, the math of it would say that of the top 8 scores, 4 would have differentials below the index, and 4 would have differentials above the index; that's how averages are derived.  MOST of the scores of a bogey golfer would obviously be above 18 over par, including several of the 8 that counted toward the index.  I'm a decent example of how this works; as of this morning, three of my 8 differentials that count are below my index, and 5 are above.

Your mixing up a players index and their scoring average.

If a player has 20 logged rounds for their handicap that average to 18 over par, when their handicap index is generated using the top 8 of those 20 rounds how likely would it be that 4, or half of those top 8 rounds, be over their scoring average?

By using on the top 40% of rounds to generate a players handicap it is very unlikely that multiple round, let alone 50%, would be at or above the players 20 round average. There is a ~6.5% chance that a bogey golfers top 8 scores would include a round at or above a bogey average.
In the case of their index, yes you would anticipate ~4 rounds to be below their index and ~4 rounds to be above. But their index would always be below their 20 round average. For a bogey golfer who averages 18 over par, their index would always be below that 18 over average.

I’m not mixing up anything.  You are now assuming an index of 18 for a bogey golfer, contrary to what the USGA says, and that matters, certainly when compared to your original idea of a 16 index as a bogey golfer. And 18 is on the LOW end of the USGA range for bogey golf!




If you use a course rating of 70 on a par 72 course, a 20 handicap’s 8 scores that count will have an AVERAGE differential of 20. That’s 20 shots above the course rating of 70, which roughly means 18 over par.




Which means, in turn, that ~4 of those 8 scores will be ABOVE 18 over par. That’s hardly “infrequent”.




Bottom line? Bogey golfers aren’t nearly as good as you assume in this thread, and that matters when you discuss angles and probabilities.




I’m out.

[Ben Hollerbach]

If you use a course rating of 70 on a par 72 course, a 20 handicap’s 8 scores that count will have an AVERAGE differential of 20. That’s 20 shots above the course rating of 70, which roughly means 18 over par.

Much like the handicap system, looking at only a players 8 best scores focuses on their potential, not their actual average. You can't look at only the 8 top scores, you'd have to consider the full 20 rounds to understand their average performance.

So the player you're describing has the potential to be a bogey golfer, but in actuality would average between 94 and 95 over 20 rounds on the course you outlined.

A bogey golfer on this course, one who averages 90 over 20 rounds, would have an index between 15.2 and 17.9 and an average course handicap of 15.

You're attempting to undervalue the performance of the bogey golfer and discrediting them as a benchmark for discussion around playable angles. Rather, try to contribute to the overarching theme within the discussion concerning the consideration of angles as part of a players strategy.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Perhaps the end result of this thread would be, "How do we teach bogey golfers to use strategy to lower their scores?"  I am of the impression that most don't give strategy much thought, except perhaps on recovery shots.

To expand on that theme, I believe that all players would benefit from understanding their playing tendencies and incorporating them into their on course strategy. It's a big difference between playing golf and playing golf swing, It seems like too little instruction today is focused on the execution within golf and too much on simply the swing.

That practice area sounds fascinating and really too bad it wasn't built.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,


Yes, it's amazing how many react to the suggestion that since they always slice, maybe they should just try aiming left, rather than work on their golf swing all round long?

[Ben Hollerbach]

PGA tour players his about 60% of their fairways. Good amateurs hit fairways at about the same frequency as a tour pro and Bogey golfers (15-20 handicap) hit about 50% of their fairways.


Are you hitting enough Fairways? Improve your Golf Handicap - The Gint


How valuable is hitting the fairway, really? - Peter Sanders
 

This would indicate that bogey golfers are not that much more wild and unpredictable, in comparison to lower handicap players.

Maybe I’m misinterpreting some of the responses in this thread, but it seems that many think the bogey golfer is simply too inconsistent to interact with golf course architectural strategy. Why is a player that hits only 50% of the fairways too unpredictable to design for, but a player hitting 60% is capable of playing within architecturally designed strategy? It can't be the magnitude of their misses, tour pro's average fairway miss is 10 yards into the rough. Is hitting 1.5 more fairways a round that big of a deal in terms of ability to interact with strategic architecture?

Or is it some think that no player is predictable enough to design any architecture strategy around and that strategic architecture is a waste of time?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,


Surprising that driving accuracy is that close, but using other stats, it is easier to keep a shot within 35 yards when it is going 180 than when it flies 300, because missed are a function of dispersion angle.


Yeah, as I've mentioned, I think there are enough good, consistent, but shorter hitting golfers out there that you can design around.  Even if they are just hitting 50% of fw, they probably expect to hit more, and thus might use strategic thinking.  But, as with anyone else around here, it's a bit of a guess.  It seems pointless to design nothing of interest because you don't think average golfers will enjoy or understand it.


Golf course architects have to think like teachers.....if I affect the life of just one golfer, it will be worth it!