When is taking a risk vs playing safe really worth it?

[Gib_Papazian]

Jason,


I take serious issue with the stats that assert "chasing an angle" makes no difference. Maybe to a 12-16 handicap, they are not good enough with a short iron to make a significant difference, but give a reasonably good player a green-light angle - with extra putting surface to work with - you cannot tell me over 10 tries the average will be the same compared to trying to spin it close to a short-sided pin.


The other end of the discussion is the idea of aiming at the middle of the green from the fairway - and forgetting about the location of the pin. One time. we played Half Moon Bay Ocean course, the day before it officially opened. They had done a flyover and for some reason the Asst Super had removed all the flags.


Not knowing where the hole was located (though not out on a remote corner because they did flyover shots), we simply hit to the center of the green - with no temptation to cheat it to one side or the other. I think I hit 16 greens and shot 72, just lagging for leather . . . . . and hung an ace on the lip, with no clue it was close until we walked onto the putting surface.


       

[Mark_Fine]

I am late to this thread and it may have already been covered but to me this is all about temptation and risk/reward.  I have always believed the best golf courses (at least the most interesting ones which usually equates to the best) are filled with temptation and risk/reward situations on many/most of the golf shots.  As Pete Dye once said and I paraphrase, "get those dudes thinking".  The only time you really need to think is when the shot option isn't obvious.  You have to think when there are different avenues to the hole and different amounts of risk/reward.  If the hole is completely straight forward with no options, then you never really have to worry about taking a risk or playing it safe.  At the end of the day, many golfers (more than we all realize) are just trying to make solid contact and play the hole with the same golf ball.  But to those with the ability to make different shots - make them think and give them options/reasons to do so.  That is what makes for interesting golf and allows Jeff's question to even be asked. 


As for me, I tend to be an aggressive player on the golf course but as with most decent golfers, it all depends on the situation as to how I approach risk vs reward. I like to envision "golf shots" and I get more satisfaction visualizing a tough shot and pulling it off then "playing it safe".  If I was playing for a living, I might be more into calculating the odds/percentages knowing the cost of failing to execute a risky play.  Again this all comes back to having the ability as well as the design presenting interesting shot options.  Clearly even the most mundane courses can present options (you hit your drive behind a silly tree and you can chip back out to the fairway or attempt a low 30 yard hook shot under and around the tree but I am not sure that is what Jeff is getting at. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


I am asking the question, and maybe not 100% sure of what I am getting at, other than my oft stated contention that no one ever really measured designs of those Golden Age masters to see how often players took the risk of hitting near the hazard.  Certainly, from the good players I know, most will focus on hitting the middle of the fw most times.


As one for instance, I really doubt that all of Mac's 6 routes on his prize winning hole would have been taken in equal amounts.  Heck, I have seen (and designed) several clear cut alternate route holes, where the challenge route is rarely taken for one reason or another.


As we are (again) in very cost conscious era, with bunker reductions, turf reductions, etc., I find myself wondering whether building alternate route holes make sense, if only 1% of players actually use them?  For that matter, do we ask a super to maintain 65 yards of fw when only a few would ever consider playing to the outer edges?  Even on more mundane, single fw holes, why keep building holes where the prime angle comes from being near a bunker, if most golfers believe it's better to be safe in the fw, regardless of angle to the green?


Granted, I anticipated the correct "it depends on a lot" responses and I agree.  I also agree with the design to create "stories to tell" aspect, especially at resort courses, but also useful at any other course.


However, Ben H seems to understand my point.  If we are going to "efficiently" design strategic features to be used often, I suspect the same as him - later in the round more likely to be tempting.  Par 5 holes, where a stroke or two can be gained, also most likely to be used.  Possibly a short par 4 for the strong player not afraid of rough might make someone take a chance.


All that said, this is a discussion group, so I thought we would discuss an idea that is outside the typical "groupthink" mindset of this group, you know, just for fun.

[Michael Felton]

Jason,


I take serious issue with the stats that assert "chasing an angle" makes no difference. Maybe to a 12-16 handicap, they are not good enough with a short iron to make a significant difference, but give a reasonably good player a green-light angle - with extra putting surface to work with - you cannot tell me over 10 tries the average will be the same compared to trying to spin it close to a short-sided pin. 

It’s not that it doesn’t make any difference. It’s that it doesn’t make enough difference to make it worth your while going for it. If it saves you 0.1 shots each time you play it but you hit it OB 10% of the time then it’s a bad idea to go for the angle.

[Gib_Papazian]

Michael,


I'm going to "hit it OB" trying for a better angle about .01% of the time, but trying to finesse a short iron from the wrong spot usually requires flirting with a bunker - or risk rolling off the back because there is not enough putting surface to work with from the wrong spot.


Look, the essence of solid golf architecture falls under the "pay me now, or pay later" philosophical ethos. Spyglass has always epitomized the idea of 18 different questions, not the same question 18 times in a row (read: Nicklaus course) - and #4 is the poster child for the importance of playing the angles.


In fact, putting aside #17, PGA West Stadium can be put on that list - along with NGLA.






 

[Joe Zucker]

I think the answer is almost never, because risks in golf are often much larger in magnitude than rewards.  Anyone who has spent time around good players knows that they play an extraordinarily conservative form of golf.  Most good golf comes from not making doubles, rather than making birdies.


Several people have commented on DECADE and Brodie and how they advocate angles being less important.  Playing "correctly" according to DECADE means sometimes aiming into the left rough if there is a close hazard on the right side of the fairway.  If you're playing for a score, it rarely makes sense to take on hazards that involve a penalty shot.


The benefit of pulling it off marginally increases a chance for birdie, but missing guarantees a bogey.  I'm never going to take that on.  The most interesting courses (and the ones that promote angles the most), like Pinehurst #2 and St. Andrews, have the lowest costs for missing an aggressive shot.  You might be left with a wild up and down that is near impossible, but there will be no penalty strokes. 


If you want to make angles matter more, I think the costs beed to be decreased.  The chance of an up and down makes the temptation greater.  The temptation is easy to fight if I'm always challenging a water hazard.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,


As to reducing "cost" I fully agree, having been an advocate for moderately deep bunkers that offer a chance of escape, whereas most here would clamor for bunkers that really blow up a score, knowing that from time to time, tour players will yell at a ball to "get in the bunker."  They also seem to like the idea of hazards being prone to being in a footprint, etc.  But, I'm with you.  I would be more likely to challenge sand knowing there is a good chance I may get up and down, and not being worried about ballooning to an 8 or something.


In that case, design is more about "setting up shot" for them to play, not punishing them.  In any case, when the hazard is OB or water (i.e., 2 strokes to potentially none) I bet any rational golfer would tend to just try to miss those, and that, even well before DECADE told them to, LOL.


Your point about only marginally increasing the chance of birdie is well taken, as well.  Even for pros, the make ratio inside the 20 foot distance is pretty small.   So, if you have a 20% chance of taking a 2 stroke penalty off the tee to gain a 5% chance of making a birdie, it doesn't seem right to try, unless the match is really on the line, i.e., last few holes. 


Granted, some golfers never learn and like the thrill of trying the near impossible, which I think we all do every once in a while..  That said, if very few actually do that, we should at least consider that long held mantras around here might have to be rethought a bit.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm struggling to understand your issue here.

Its one thing to impose a very penal shot that says you must hit it here, or else, with no other alternatives.

...and quite another to tempt the player to hit a heroic shot with a big reward or punishment, but still leave other options to at least get par and maybe birdie.

Isn't this one of the primary reasons for this website?  To evangelize implementing features with real choices? Isn't this good for the game and what actually makes for fun golf? 

IMO Tobacco Road is a fairly boring golf course from a strategic standpoint if you're just trying to shoot the lowest score on average. Thus, I feel it's over-rated and that many people rate it so highly because, unlike me, they get a big thrill from trying the hero shot ten times.

I am surprised at your thoughts on Tobacco Road.  I have always viewed it as one of the greatest designs in the game...simply because Stranz tempted players to do something really stupid...and how many react by doing exactly that (including moi the first couple of times I played it).

Some of us find it much easier to avoid that temptation.

My take on Tobacco Road is that that it presents cool visuals but ultimately less compelling golf.

That's almost exactly my take, too.

And I'm not anti-Strantz. I love Caledonia. I like True Blue quite a bit, too.

I wish that Scott would put out a book vs the subscription thing. I bought Broadies book thinking it would have more strategy that stats.

It would be a pamphlet. 

I take serious issue with the stats that assert "chasing an angle" makes no difference. Maybe to a 12-16 handicap, they are not good enough with a short iron to make a significant difference, but give a reasonably good player a green-light angle - with extra putting surface to work with - you cannot tell me over 10 tries the average will be the same compared to trying to spin it close to a short-sided pin.

You have that closer to backward than you have it closer to correct.

Angles matter… when the ball is rolling. That often means on firm, fast courses (like at RM for the 2019 Presidents Cup) or for the higher handicappers who can't fly the ball to the target and stick it.

We did some calculations, and so did Lou. Here you go:

I'm going to "hit it OB" trying for a better angle about .01% of the time, but trying to finesse a short iron from the wrong spot usually requires flirting with a bunker - or risk rolling off the back because there is not enough putting surface to work with from the wrong spot.

This is why angles don't matter to good golfers (including PGA Tour level players): they fly the ball to a spot and stop it pretty close to that spot. The ball doesn't roll. Angles matter when the ball is on the ground. The rest of the time, when golf is an aerial game, angles don't matter much at all.

[Gib_Papazian]

Erik,

Whenever possible, I avoid golf courses that "ask the same (aerial) question 18 times."

And low-ball hitters, who don't spin their wedges like Greg Norman used to, HAVE to play angles - because unless the green is soaked, our balls actually roll a bit, even coming off an 8 or 9 iron.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm struggling to understand your issue here.

Its one thing to impose a very penal shot that says you must hit it here, or else, with no other alternatives.

...and quite another to tempt the player to hit a heroic shot with a big reward or punishment, but still leave other options to at least get par and maybe birdie.

Isn't this one of the primary reasons for this website?  To evangelize implementing features with real choices? Isn't this good for the game and what actually makes for fun golf? 

IMO Tobacco Road is a fairly boring golf course from a strategic standpoint if you're just trying to shoot the lowest score on average. Thus, I feel it's over-rated and that many people rate it so highly because, unlike me, they get a big thrill from trying the hero shot ten times.

I am surprised at your thoughts on Tobacco Road.  I have always viewed it as one of the greatest designs in the game...simply because Stranz tempted players to do something really stupid...and how many react by doing exactly that (including moi the first couple of times I played it).

Some of us find it much easier to avoid that temptation.

My take on Tobacco Road is that that it presents cool visuals but ultimately less compelling golf.

That's almost exactly my take, too.

And I'm not anti-Strantz. I love Caledonia. I like True Blue quite a bit, too.

I wish that Scott would put out a book vs the subscription thing. I bought Broadies book thinking it would have more strategy that stats.

It would be a pamphlet. 

I take serious issue with the stats that assert "chasing an angle" makes no difference. Maybe to a 12-16 handicap, they are not good enough with a short iron to make a significant difference, but give a reasonably good player a green-light angle - with extra putting surface to work with - you cannot tell me over 10 tries the average will be the same compared to trying to spin it close to a short-sided pin.

You have that closer to backward than you have it closer to correct.

Angles matter… when the ball is rolling. That often means on firm, fast courses (like at RM for the 2019 Presidents Cup) or for the higher handicappers who can't fly the ball to the target and stick it.

We did some calculations, and so did Lou. Here you go:

I'm going to "hit it OB" trying for a better angle about .01% of the time, but trying to finesse a short iron from the wrong spot usually requires flirting with a bunker - or risk rolling off the back because there is not enough putting surface to work with from the wrong spot.

This is why angles don't matter to good golfers (including PGA Tour level players): they fly the ball to a spot and stop it pretty close to that spot. The ball doesn't roll. Angles matter when the ball is on the ground. The rest of the time, when golf is an aerial game, angles don't matter much at all.

Erik,


I hate to sound dense, but what exactly are the 5 numbers at each distance signifying?  If you said in your post, I must have missed it.  It seems like the center of the has the highest values in general.  Thanks.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,


I take serious issue with the stats that assert "chasing an angle" makes no difference. Maybe to a 12-16 handicap, they are not good enough with a short iron to make a significant difference, but give a reasonably good player a green-light angle - with extra putting surface to work with - you cannot tell me over 10 tries the average will be the same compared to trying to spin it close to a short-sided


     

Gib.


According to the data it makes virtually no difference. Look up Lou Stegner on Twitter.


The shift seems like a flawed strategy in baseball to me. Data shows otherwise.

[Gib_Papazian]

Jason,


Data is a fictional character in Star Trek.


Golfers are all wildly different - and once you get into single digits especially - the idea of failing to "tack your way" (or "Line of Charm") to the putting surface, flies in the face of everything we know about deciphering and attacking an architect's strategy.


Maybe on a Rees Jones course, with absolutely nothing to but repetitious vapidity of bunker right, bunker left . . . . . but try ignoring the angles at Pacific Dunes and you'll crawl off the 18th green with a cattle prod proctoscope shoved in your rectum


A straight line is rarely the most efficient way to bring home the bacon.


   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Whenever possible, I avoid golf courses that "ask the same (aerial) question 18 times."

And low-ball hitters, who don't spin their wedges like Greg Norman used to, HAVE to play angles - because unless the green is soaked, our balls actually roll a bit, even coming off an 8 or 9 iron.

I don't know what you want here…  Good players generally don't worry about angles because they play an aerial game. I wasn't making a value judgment about your game, whether aerial is more fun or "better," etc. I was just pointing out some facts.

I hate to sound dense, but what exactly are the 5 numbers at each distance signifying?  If you said in your post, I must have missed it.  It seems like the center of the has the highest values in general.  Thanks.

Strokes gained (or lost). If you want to find significance in a few hundredths of a stroke, be my guest: nobody's accurate enough to play for 1/3 of the fairway.

Golfers are all wildly different

Except they really aren't.

 - and once you get into single digits especially - the idea of failing to "tack your way" (or "Line of Charm") to the putting surface, flies in the face of everything we know about deciphering and attacking an architect's strategy.

A lot of these old things we thought were true are bogus. They're landing in the waste bin right next to "drive for show, putt for dough."

Maybe on a Rees Jones course, with absolutely nothing to but repetitious vapidity of bunker right, bunker left . . . . . but try ignoring the angles at Pacific Dunes and you'll crawl off the 18th green with a cattle prod proctoscope shoved in your rectum

The ball rolls there, no?

[Gib_Papazian]

Yes Erik, "the ball rolls there."


But let's see you get it close from the angle on #2 or #4 . . . . . for instance . . . . . or #16!


Yeah, go right ahead and pop that 3-wood right in front of the green - and let's see you figure out a way to keep it on the putting surface. There are only two possible outcomes playing that hole - birdie or double . . . . or worse.


How about #10 at Bandon? Go straight at it and ignore the angles. I'll tell you what, we will go play it 10 times, you pound your driver and try to hit the skinny, perpendicular angle green from the back of that wall of grass and I'll hit my tee shot to the left and hold my approach shot against the summer breeze - with an extra 40 feet of putting surface to work with. 

[Mike_Clayton]

The most important thing is that every player has to define “risk” for themselves.


Jack Nicklaus told me his definition was being 100% sure that if he hit a good shot, it would work out.  Obviously he didn’t always hit a good shot, but he wouldn’t try a shot if he had any doubts about it.  I feel like Tiger had the same test.  He would try to hit all kinds of shots under pressure, but he had faith in those shots.


I’m guessing that ethic would have them being more aggressive than the generic formulas say.

Interesting. Pete Coleman caddied for Bernhard Langer for many years including the 1985 Masters told me this story.
Langer was way back on Saturday with a big decision to make on 13. He went with the 3 wood and thinned it. "It was always going in the creek" said Pete. It landed short of the water, skipped over and he made the 25-footer for a 3 - a break that in retrospect won him the tournament


After that Pete said, if he had, on a risky shot, a 4 in 10 chance or better of making it, Langer would generally go for it. Of course, as Pete pointed out "it helped that his short game was like mustard"
The context of the conversation was Chip Beck laying up in 1993 - when he was playing with Langer.
"I looked at Bernhard and said, he's not even trying to beat us"

[Rob Marshall]

Erik,

Whenever possible, I avoid golf courses that "ask the same (aerial) question 18 times."

And low-ball hitters, who don't spin their wedges like Greg Norman used to, HAVE to play angles - because unless the green is soaked, our balls actually roll a bit, even coming off an 8 or 9 iron.

Good older players are looking to run the ball on the green on longer holes. The older you get the more the ground becomes your friend. All good golfers aren’t the same.


I would love to read the pamphlet…………do you have any respect for anyone other than yourself?

[Mike_Clayton]

Angles matter more the harder and faster the greens are and the windier it is.
It'd be interesting to put two players on the preferred and non-preferred side of the fairways at, say Firestone and then do the same at Royal Melbourne.
My guess is the scoring differential would be greater at Royal Melbourne.


Of course it depends on how far from the green they are. Angles matter less with short irons than longer clubs - as anyone who has played with hickory will know. Would DECADE be as useful if he ball was rolled back 30 yards for the best players? Bryson was brilliant at Winged Foot gouging it out of the rough with short irons - but how effective would that strategy have been with 6 irons?

[Michael Felton]

Angles matter more the harder and faster the greens are and the windier it is.
It'd be interesting to put two players on the preferred and non-preferred side of the fairways at, say Firestone and then do the same at Royal Melbourne.
My guess is the scoring differential would be greater at Royal Melbourne.


Of course it depends on how far from the green they are. Angles matter less with short irons than longer clubs - as anyone who has played with hickory will know. Would DECADE be as useful if he ball was rolled back 30 yards for the best players? Bryson was brilliant at Winged Foot gouging it out of the rough with short irons - but how effective would that strategy have been with 6 irons?

I would note that Bryson hit more fairways than the field average despite hitting it so far. He won that tournament with good strategy and playing incredible golf.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
99% of golfers would take anywhere on the fairway and anywhere on each green in regulation almost 100% of the time.  I'm a +1 index and I would take my chances with that IF I could pull it off but at the same time what fun is that?  Also a course that "asks 18 different questions" doesn't necessarily mean it is full of risk and temptation e.g. one par three requires a 150 tee shot and another requires a 170 yard tee shot.  Those are two different questions but there is not necessarily a risky shot and a safe shot option on each.  I think you are talking about architecture that presents a variety of risk/reward shot options that a player can contemplate trying to pull off.  But as I said before, the far majority of golfers are really just trying to make solid contact and play the same ball the entire hole.  However, even a 10 handicapper loves to be tempted to play shots that they might only pull off only 10% of the time.  That is part of what makes golf fun.  We don't want to take the fun out of the game but making every hole or even most holes very ordinary and not thought provoking. 

[Mike_Clayton]

Angles matter more the harder and faster the greens are and the windier it is.
It'd be interesting to put two players on the preferred and non-preferred side of the fairways at, say Firestone and then do the same at Royal Melbourne.
My guess is the scoring differential would be greater at Royal Melbourne.


Of course it depends on how far from the green they are. Angles matter less with short irons than longer clubs - as anyone who has played with hickory will know. Would DECADE be as useful if he ball was rolled back 30 yards for the best players? Bryson was brilliant at Winged Foot gouging it out of the rough with short irons - but how effective would that strategy have been with 6 irons?

I would note that Bryson hit more fairways than the field average despite hitting it so far. He won that tournament with good strategy and playing incredible golf.

No doubt- but he hit fewer than 50% of fairways and it was a strategy predicated around missing on the right side of the hole (whether it be in the fairway or the rough) and being able to gouge the ball out of the rough and onto the greens with short irons.
Put him 30 yards further from the green in the same rough and how does that strategy work?
That, and it'd be interesting to see the fairways hit % for Hale Irwin and Fuzzy Zoeller in their wins at Winged Foot.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yes Erik, "the ball rolls there."

Then angles matter there. As I've said… when the ball is rolling…

I would love to read the pamphlet…

The point is it's not a complex system. Nor is what we put out there in LSW.

But keep assuming stuff…

[Rob Marshall]

I don’t need to assume anything with you, it’s all out there for everyone to see.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don’t need to assume anything with you, it’s all out there for everyone to see.

Once again, thank you for furthering the conversation with your assumptions, your attacks, your nonsense.

[Rob Marshall]

I don’t need to assume anything with you, it’s all out there for everyone to see.

Once again, thank you for furthering the conversation with your assumptions, your attacks, your nonsense.

I made a statement to another poster wishing there was a Decade book. You used it to take a shot at the Decade system.


Sorry, but there was no conversation.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I made a statement to another poster wishing there was a Decade book. You used it to take a shot at the Decade system.

It (still) wasn't a shot.