Does DECADE demand an architectural response?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jim, there is a wealth of information here. You just need to know where to look.

Rob, good example of your typical post: adds nothing to the discussion except to be petty and personal. In the words of the Rocket Mortgage girl actor: "So cool!" 

Like I said to Jim, you'd all be wrong to assume it's not by choice.

[Steve Lang]

   trying to get Back on topic... if DECADE is essentially artificial intelligence (AI) and its seeking order, then I can't see it demanding architectural response when nature (wind, earth, and water) are so at play in course design for the range of players entertained over the life of a course.  Would AI be better applied to revising course ratings and slope ratings? 


After all, is DECADE making everyone scratch players or just better than when they started using it and learning some basic playing smarts?
   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Also… a lot of our work with golfers at the higher levels in particular deals with understanding the situational statistics. If you're two outside the cut line, firing at flags can become a smarter thing to do because there's no real harm to be had in going to three outside the cut line… unless you have two par fives or something to finish. It deals with understanding what is a "hot streak" of sorts with just a little luck (i.e. there are days you're hitting it better, and there are days you pull one shot to a left flag, you push one to a right flag, and you appear to be hot, but if you truly look at what your actual targets are you might realize you're a bit looser that day, you just timed the correct miss at the right time).

The game is more complex than some systems make it out to be, too, because again sometimes a tee shot doesn't suit a player's eye. Or a hole location. Or a wind. Or whatever.

We teach our players how to understand when to take on a bit more risk than you'll get from a fairly rigid system. Sometimes you need to increase the chances of making birdie at the risk of making a bogey, because par doesn't help you as much in that situation. There are times when you can play one way and make par 80% of the time and average 4.01 on a hole, or you can average 4.2 on a hole but make birdie 30% of the time.

Though I play almost all of my golf by the system I've co-developed… few other regular golfers really do. Even those who understand our system will deviate from it more often than they "should" IF their goal is to shoot the lowest average score. Because that's not always their goal. Or it may be their goal for the first 14 holes, but they have to know how to deviate if they're down one or two in a Nassau with four to play.

I played at Tobacco Road recently, and wasn't playing particularly well, but shot 69. The guy I was playing with said "I can see how this is a boring course for a good player." And it is a bit to me, because I can avoid the temptations. But that's why so many people love it: because it's not a boring course, because they eschew what the system(s) say(s) and they take on risk. To them, pulling the shot off (even if they fail six other times, they'll remember the one they pulled off) is fun for a lot of players.

So, if you wanted to really kinda change architecture based on these types of systems… you're never really going to be able to do it, but if you were… your best chances are at the edges: make a driving zone appear to be wider or narrower than it is (whether by slopes or just optical tricks, though the latter can be seen in an overhead or a GPS map or something). Put holes in places that reward the slightly more aggressive shot and push the slightly safer shot even farther away. TEMPT people to say "bah, screw the system, I want to take this shot on because it looks fun!" You won't get everyone, but you'll get a lot of people that way.

After all, is DECADE making everyone scratch players or just better than when they started using it and learning some basic playing smarts?

The systems just tell you what club to hit and where to try to hit it. They don't make a 5 a scratch. It's often a shot or even a partial shot a round at the lower end of the handicap scale. It also tends to help eliminate the really bad rounds, so scoring (anti-handicap type rounds) come down closer to the counting (handicap) rounds.

[Rob Marshall]

Jim, there is a wealth of information here. You just need to know where to look.

Rob, good example of your typical post: adds nothing to the discussion except to be petty and personal. In the words of the Rocket Mortgage girl actor: "So cool!" 

Like I said to Jim, you'd all be wrong to assume it's not by choice.

Sorry, I’ll try to be more condescending like you. It’s a true statement. There is a wealth of information on this board.


How is the system you created different or better than decade? I would like to shoot a few boring 69’s.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sorry, I’ll try to be more condescending like you.

There's no tone in text. You seem to take different opinions personally, and can't seem to separate facts from opinion. IMO.    And rather than further the discussion, you often simply take personal pot shots. But you do you, buddy.

How is the system you created different or better than decade? I would like to shoot a few boring 69’s.

The topic isn't about comparing the systems, and I've elaborated above about how Scott's is more rigid than what we tend to teach, so… that's one way.

[Ben Hollerbach]

If DECADE is golf strategy broken down into probabilities and then optimized, it would essentially be the proper strategy for stroke play (not match play) and therefore it would be worthwhile for architecture to understand and study it. As long as architecture desires golf to continue as a game of strategy. By qualifying hazards as true hazards or window dressing DECADE would appear to tear apart architecture to its core elements, and in doing so has shown so few hazards actually play as such. A hole with a 40 yard wide fairway and no extremely punishing hazards is essentially strategy-less for a good player. There is little decision making at hand, it’s Driver down the middle every time. The same for green complexes that do not encourage players from aiming away from the middle, there isn’t a decision to be made.

Golf architecture becomes interesting when features within the course cause the optimal strategy to deviate from the base strategy. A hole that has enough danger off the tee / into the green to disrupt the default driver down the middle / iron to middle of the green base strategy becomes interesting to play. When the hole can disrupt base strategy for both shots, you have an interesting hole. When base strategy is severely disrupted, you have a great hole.

Consider the 8th at Augusta. The fairway bunker is deep enough to prevent players from reaching the green from the sand, but playing away from the bunker to the left and the player is also unlikely to reach the green in 2. The tall trees that border the hole down the left, forming the corner of the corridore near the green, and the uphill approach to the green all limit attacking the pin from this side of the fairway. So for a player playing the hole, DECADE may tell them to avoid the bunker and play to the left, but that could leave them with a compromised angle. Or DECADE may tell them to lay up short of the bunker, taking away any chance of reaching the green in 2.

The player standing on the tee now has options and a decision to make. This creates an interesting strategic moment for the player, in which the player is asked to weigh certain tradeoffs in scoring potential against their skill set as a player. If a player has a stellar wedge game they may elect the easiest driving strategy to set up their best 3rd shot scoring potential. If another player is a stellar driver of the ball they may elect to attack the bunker off of the tee to set up the best angle to attack the green in 2. The hole’s architecture and varying skills of a player creates interest in play.

Think Tiger at Hoylake in 2005. His tee shot strategy for the whole week was to avoid the bunkers at all cost, even if that meant playing well short of them. No other player in the field that week attempted the same strategy, but for Tiger it was his optimal strategy. He determined that the penalty for going into a bunker was too high, and the self imposed penalty of laying back off of every tee could be overcome by his superior iron play. For others, that trade off to avoid the bunkers would not have been correct. Architecture through DECADE, and similar thought processes, isn’t just creating individual strategies for players, it also helps to reward and identify the most skilled players.

DECADE was created by evaluating the impact of architecture on scoring, so it would only make sense that in return the concepts of DECADE absolutely should be re-applied to golf architecture. Inherently it would appear the best courses in the world are filled with holes that already confound DECADE and cause players to weigh multiple decisions. With possibly no better example than St. Andrews. Forcing a player to make a decision is the essence of strategy.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A hole with a 40 yard wide fairway and no extremely punishing hazards is essentially strategy-less for a good player.

Did anyone ever think there was? It's strategy-less for everyone.

A friend of mine just said: "I’ve only really ever played one course where every hole had wide fairways, was pretty straight, and only one water hazard on the entire course with circular greens everywhere. It was always empty because it’s a really boring course. I don’t think these are the gotcha problems he thinks they are. Those design elements already made for a boring and easy golf course, and the strategy methods didn’t change anything about that."

A hole that has enough danger off the tee / into the green to disrupt the default driver down the middle / iron to middle of the green base strategy becomes interesting to play.

Whether it's what I teach or what Scott espouses or whatever other methods are out there, the strategies handle all of these situations.

When the hole can disrupt base strategy for both shots, you have an interesting hole. When base strategy is severely disrupted, you have a great hole.

Can you describe a hole where "base strategy is severely disrupted"? Or are you defining "base strategy" as just "driver down the middle," because there are lots of interesting holes where the base strategy given that definition is disrupted but the hole isn't all that interesting (depending on your definition or level for "interesting" I guess).

Think Tiger at Hoylake in 2005. His tee shot strategy for the whole week was to avoid the bunkers at all cost, even if that meant playing well short of them. No other player in the field that week attempted the same strategy, but for Tiger it was his optimal strategy.

You don't know that. It's the strategy he used. True. He won the event. True. You still don't know that it was the optimal strategy.

Inherently it would appear the best courses in the world are filled with holes that already confound DECADE and cause players to weigh multiple decisions.

Neither Scott's system nor my system are "confounded" by these types of things. For every situation, there's an optimal play or strategy.

I could have gotten behind your argument a bit if there were two fairly different plays that resulted in a small difference of expected average score and in which a player could, in the moment, choose the slightly less optimal one. Someone above mentioned about how things could be made to visually look different (i.e. make a hazard appear to be > 60 yards away if using DECADE, but in reality it funnels balls into it or is much closer, or the opposite), so that's an "option," too, but one that's overcome by either having played a practice round and been observant and/or looking at an aerial/overhead map of the hole to measure out the actual or playing distances.

[Michael Felton]

Right - at the end of the day, for every player and every shot there is an optimal strategy. Club choice, aiming direction and intent. It's probably different for every player on the planet for every shot, but the key point is that they're pretty similar. What Erik's LSW book and DECADE do is help a player figure out perhaps not exactly what that is, but something close. I think one of the biggest benefits of DECADE is it eliminates that doubt of "am I doing the right thing?" It doesn't guarantee that you're doing the right thing, but it does give you something you can believe in and it's not going to be far wrong from optimal.


That said, there are aspects of it that I think are a little rigid and should be a little more flexible. So I make them a little more flexible. It doesn't come up often, but 8 at Augusta is a reasonable example. I think if you follow the decision tree there, it would say lay up (assuming you can reach the bunker with driver, but not 3 wood), but I don't think laying up is a good play, because the penalty provided by the bunker (having to lay up with your second) is basically the same as the penalty of hitting it in the fairway short of the bunker, so you're losing all the times you can reach with your second if you hit driver and it's not really costing you much to go for it, so go for it. I doubt if Scott would say otherwise. If anyone's interested, it's because the shots to complete the hole drops faster as you get closer to the hole between 300 and 200 than it does between 200 and 100. Going from 270 to 230 makes it go from 2 shots to 1 shot to get on the green, where 170 to 130 is still one shot, just a different club. So the slope is steeper and therefore a little more risk to gain distance is worth it more between 300 and 200 than it is between 200 and 100. This is too complicated for a generic "how to" for the whole world though, so it's simplified to make it workable. It's up to the player to take that and make it work for themselves.

[Ben Hollerbach]

DECADE, and other similar strategy systems, will always produce what it thinks is an "optimal" solution. This isn't an issue. What's important is how much more "optimal" this solution is than others. Is the optimal strategy clear, or is there a close second or third?  If a hole's optimal strategy is significantly better than all other strategies, odds are the hole has little complexity and many players not using DECADE would devise a similar strategy on their own. The hole may have plenty of visual "interest", but if it's easy to see how to play it, it becomes strategically boring. In contrast, if a hole's optimal strategy is only slightly better than the 2nd or 3rd best strategy, then even the players using DECADE will feel conflicted about the hole's strategy, questioning if the solution presented is actually the proper course of play.

For a large majority of courses around the world DECADE can probably generate the true optimal strategy with a high success rate. There are other courses, other holes, where this will not be the case, where the optimal strategy may not be significantly better than others strategies. Design focus should be on those courses where the optimal strategy is not clearly superior to others. Within architecture we can study what design aspects and features reduce the optimal strategy's superiority to a minimum. Creating doubt about what one may see as "optimal" and forcing re-evaluation can generate true strategic interest. 

[Michael Felton]

Based on comments I've seen on Twitter, TOC is doing a pretty good job of confounding the strategists. The 12th hole in particular, but it's really because it's a minefield with bunkers dotted around all over, so every time you adjust a target line you bring in some other trouble. Same thing on some other holes too. There are bunkers out there that are basically perfectly placed to confound things, such that it's not clear whether it's worth taking one on or not. I think Collin Morikawa said he'd played the 12th fifteen different ways and still hadn't figured out which one he would be using in the tournament proper.


Ben - if you subscribe to the DECADE ideology, then it doesn't matter whether it's "close" to other strategies. What matters is that you believe you have selected the correct target and that you commit to it. You'll never wonder if another strategy was better because you trust the process. The driver decision tree has one decision where it says "it's probably not a good idea to drop down to an iron unless it leaves you with wedge or less". That's really the only place where there's a slight question.

[Ben Hollerbach]

if you subscribe to the DECADE ideology, then it doesn't matter whether it's "close" to other strategies. What matters is that you believe you have selected the correct target and that you commit to it.

Michael,

You just identified the weakest link in the whole scenario, the player.

If the strategy for a particular hole is obvious, it is easy to commit to it. But if the "optimal" strategy in not clearly superior to other strategies, the more the player will doubt that strategy's validity. Commitment will be brought into question. This is only exacerbated by the other factors swirling around in the players head; how well they're hitting the ball that day, what the wind is doing, where do they stand in the match, etc...

What you're describing is golfs version of the Economic Man. A theoretical someone who only acts rationally and always makes decisions that are in their best interest. In reality the Economic Man rarely, if ever, exists. People habitually do not act rationally and selectively do not make decisions that are in their best interest. When it comes to the golf course, The more conflicted a player becomes about a particular hole's strategy the less likely the would act rationally and the less they would fully commit to an "optimal" solution. Which is exactly what we're striving for.

[Michael Felton]

The issue is the cloudiness of the size of the advantage of going for the optimal strategy. There is not really any way for a player to know in the moment what the optimal strategy is or what the expectation is of choosing a less optimal strategy. Because you don't know what's the "right" option, it's fairly easy to commit to *an* option, especially if you believe it is optimal or close to it. That's what Scott and Erik enable you to do is figure out what their process tells you is the optimal solution. But either you trust it or you don't. If you don't, that's on you.

Which is exactly what we're striving for.

Why?

[Scott Warren]

It amazes me that people pay money for this trash.


https://birdiefire-decade.s3.amazonaws.com/TheOldCourse22.pdf

[Buck Wolter]

It amazes me that people pay money for this trash.


https://birdiefire-decade.s3.amazonaws.com/TheOldCourse22.pdf

Scott Fawcett on Twitter: "THIS is why I laugh my ass off when my 6 handicap GCA haterz argue that great architecture forces players to hunt angles. Trying to gain a specific angle for an approach shot is a fools errand. Let variance give you the angle occasionally & play smart when out of position #DECADE https://t.co/DHJl6Yv0ZL" / Twitter

[Scott Warren]

“This tweet has been deleted”.


Pretty standard Scott Fawcett areas, both the incoherent rant and the resulting deletion.

[Tom_Doak]

Scott Fawcett on Twitter: "THIS is why I laugh my ass off when my 6 handicap GCA haterz argue that great architecture forces players to hunt angles. Trying to gain a specific angle for an approach shot is a fools errand. Let variance give you the angle occasionally & play smart when out of position #DECADE https://t.co/DHJl6Yv0ZL" / Twitter

What I don't get is, if the players are all on board that they are aiming at a 60-yard wide area and not a specific dime-sized landing spot, then how can they complain about a bad bounce like they were just a foot or two away from perfection and got screwed? 

[Buck Wolter]

“This tweet has been deleted”.


Pretty standard Scott Fawcett areas, both the incoherent rant and the resulting deletion.

It was a picture of the shot tracer lines from 17 tee showing a shotgun variation of drives -- my guess is the image might have run afoul of somebody.

[Buck Wolter]

Scott Fawcett on Twitter: "THIS is why I laugh my ass off when my 6 handicap GCA haterz argue that great architecture forces players to hunt angles. Trying to gain a specific angle for an approach shot is a fools errand. Let variance give you the angle occasionally & play smart when out of position #DECADE https://t.co/DHJl6Yv0ZL" / Twitter

What I don't get is, if the players are all on board that they are aiming at a 60-yard wide area and not a specific dime-sized landing spot, then how can they complain about a bad bounce like they were just a foot or two away from perfection and got screwed? 

I assume they are still aiming at a small spot but understand that they should take variation into consideration when picking that spot. You don't want a 2% chance of a double cross going OB or into a hazard, that's a stroke and distance penalty every tournament. Rory would probably have the smallest variation to consider at 300+ yards which should pay off by having a smaller cone between hazards. Cam Young had an unplayable at 9 that cost him a playoff, how far offline did he hit that from his aim point?

I didn't hear too many complaints though there seemed to be alot of luck once the ball hit the ground, balls just skirting bunkers that there's no way you could plan for. Would be interesting to see a Shots Gained luck for the week. Cam S could have easily lost it Saturday with that crazy play when he was standing in the bunker hitting it like a baseball, he got lucky that next shot was playable in a bush and he only ended up with a Bogey.

[Rob Marshall]

Scott Fawcett on Twitter: "THIS is why I laugh my ass off when my 6 handicap GCA haterz argue that great architecture forces players to hunt angles. Trying to gain a specific angle for an approach shot is a fools errand. Let variance give you the angle occasionally & play smart when out of position #DECADE https://t.co/DHJl6Yv0ZL" / Twitter

What I don't get is, if the players are all on board that they are aiming at a 60-yard wide area and not a specific dime-sized landing spot, then how can they complain about a bad bounce like they were just a foot or two away from perfection and got screwed? 

I assume they are still aiming at a small spot but understand that they should take variation into consideration when picking that spot. You don't want a 2% chance of a double cross going OB or into a hazard, that's a stroke and distance penalty every tournament. Rory would probably have the smallest variation to consider at 300+ yards which should pay off by having a smaller cone between hazards. Cam Young had an unplayable at 9 that cost him a playoff, how far offline did he hit that from his aim point?

I didn't hear too many complaints though there seemed to be alot of luck once the ball hit the ground, balls just skirting bunkers that there's no way you could plan for. Would be interesting to see a Shots Gained luck for the week. Cam S could have easily lost it Saturday with that crazy play when he was standing in the bunker hitting it like a baseball, he got lucky that next shot was playable in a bush and he only ended up with a Bogey.

Pretty sure he made dub but he followed it up with birdie.

[Buck Wolter]

Scott Fawcett on Twitter: "THIS is why I laugh my ass off when my 6 handicap GCA haterz argue that great architecture forces players to hunt angles. Trying to gain a specific angle for an approach shot is a fools errand. Let variance give you the angle occasionally & play smart when out of position #DECADE https://t.co/DHJl6Yv0ZL" / Twitter

What I don't get is, if the players are all on board that they are aiming at a 60-yard wide area and not a specific dime-sized landing spot, then how can they complain about a bad bounce like they were just a foot or two away from perfection and got screwed? 

I assume they are still aiming at a small spot but understand that they should take variation into consideration when picking that spot. You don't want a 2% chance of a double cross going OB or into a hazard, that's a stroke and distance penalty every tournament. Rory would probably have the smallest variation to consider at 300+ yards which should pay off by having a smaller cone between hazards. Cam Young had an unplayable at 9 that cost him a playoff, how far offline did he hit that from his aim point?

I didn't hear too many complaints though there seemed to be alot of luck once the ball hit the ground, balls just skirting bunkers that there's no way you could plan for. Would be interesting to see a Shots Gained luck for the week. Cam S could have easily lost it Saturday with that crazy play when he was standing in the bunker hitting it like a baseball, he got lucky that next shot was playable in a bush and he only ended up with a Bogey.

Pretty sure he made dub but he followed it up with birdie.

That's right -- would have made bogey at worst if he chipped out but made double

[Ben Hollerbach]

“This tweet has been deleted”.


Pretty standard Scott Fawcett areas, both the incoherent rant and the resulting deletion.

It was a picture of the shot tracer lines from 17 tee showing a shotgun variation of drives -- my guess is the image might have run afoul of somebody.

Did the tweet only cover the spread of the drives? That sounds like half the equation. Was there any talk about scoring difference between drives played down the right side of the hole vs. the left? It would be great to know if chasing an angle down the right truly was a fools errand this week, or if there was a representative disadvantage in playing it safe down the left.

[Tom_Doak]

Was there any talk about scoring difference between drives played down the right side of the hole vs. the left? It would be great to know if chasing an angle down the right truly was a fools errand this week, or if there was a representative disadvantage in playing it safe down the left.

Ben:


You could get that if you have access to the PGA TOUR's Shotlink data.  They show where every tee shot landed each day of the event, and the dots are color-coded to whether players made birdie or par or bogey.  Whenever I'm working on a course that hosts a Tour event, I am looking at those dots to see if (a) players do better from one side of the fairway and (b) whether players are favoring that side of the fairway because they know it's an advantage. 


I've seen a lot more of (a) than of (b), but, the average Tour venue is not as nasty around the greens as the major championship venues are.  It makes a lot more difference at majors, especially regarding second-shot misses.  But not that many players sort through it all.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Did the tweet only cover the spread of the drives? That sounds like half the equation. Was there any talk about scoring difference between drives played down the right side of the hole vs. the left? It would be great to know if chasing an angle down the right truly was a fools errand this week, or if there was a representative disadvantage in playing it safe down the left.

There was not, and one of the responses pointed out mockingly "math is hard" or "yeah, why worry about what numbers have to say?" or something like that.

Scott is mostly right that the angles don't matter… but ignores when they do: when the ball is rolling. And the ball was rolling at the Old Course.