[Ben Hollerbach]

and angles matter more to them, but at what point do the trends suggested in the PGA Tour graphic diminish?

Good luck with that. There's no point, it's a sliding scale, and I don't know how you define "diminish." As I've said, my daughter is a +1 and angles matter to her, but to most male +1s, they often do not. Unless they're playing somewhere firm, or somewhere where the ball will roll. Otherwise golf is often an aerial endeavor.

You're typically the advocate for the game that most of us play, often saying that we shouldn't focus on the top of the top 1% of players. I'm just trying to get a bearing on how much this PGA Tour data is relatable to the average player.


If playing angles can impact the play of a low handicap female player, it would be safe to presume that playing angles impact the play of nearly all female players. And if playing angles will also impact high handicap male players, it appears that they are still important to the play of a large portion of amateur players. To what degree is the real question.


While it may be a sliding scale as to how much approach position may impact a player's scoring, if the same Shotlink style data existed for scratch, 5 hdcp, 10 hdcp, 15 hdcp, etc... players I'd imagine at some point that diminishing threshold would become clear.

[jeffwarne]

AS Erik suggests, angles certainly matter with lower clubhead speed players.
Such players absolutely need a decent angle to hold greens whenever a hazard has to be played over or the terrain slopes away or tilts from one side-magnified of course by firmer conditions.


The good news is, it is far easier to hit a ball on the preferred side(a place where you can approach and hold a green or roll up a shot) of a 50-60 yard wide fairway when your tee ball is only travelling 140 yards, than it is if your ball is travelling 320 yards.


It's an interesting topic, and one that Erik is correct in stating angles matter less for higher speed low handicap golfers.
A one handicap player who drives it 220 will need more room to stop it than a one handicap person who drives  it 300.
Therefore a bad angle will making holding that green harder for the 220 driver, due to the lack of spin and height they can impart.
BUT, that 220 driver will have an easier time fitting the 220 yard shot into one side of the fairway, than a 320 driver.


When speaking about elite players,Scott Fawcett is nearly correct when he says angles don't matter(or they're not worth taking the risk to get)but firmer conditions and minor penalties for wide misses(not water , trees or deep rough) on preferred angles can make the risk worth the reward.


Back on topic, it would seem the challenge lies in finding ways to make anges matter architecturally by
1. contouring the greens such that they don't have to be rock hard to have them release (i.e. heat/humidity/budget/rain can ruin or make impractical any chance of consistent firm and fast-or at least firm) Have more greens that are tilted to favor the approach from one side, and or have the green run away form the player-OR at least have LESS tilt toward the player than most have


2.On fairway targets approaching greens with angle demanding tilt, make the risk reasonable on the preferred side(i.e. no one's tempting OB, lost ball or even water for a better angle, but they might for light rough, more fairway or a waste area, or even a highly maintained modern no lip perfect fairway bunker-if we must:().




Honestly, I think it comes down to students of architecture liking courses that allow them  to employ a reasonable risk/reward strategy of playing to angles or rewarding shaping the ball(i.e. less penal and more forgiving) vs. a course that demands nearly every shot be played safely,generlly with one shot shape, a strategy that often forces romantics like myself to play better, but is zero fun, and white knuckle boring.
A course that demands the white knuckle precision generally reveals a player's ball striking/management ability, but that's not really something we all want to know or even do, and really isn't a whole lot of fun to play, or, in my opinion, to watch.


IMHO adding more ball eating hazards and decreasing the margins of playability, only makes the golf more boring to watch and play, eliminating creativity and imagination.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm just trying to get a bearing on how much this PGA Tour data is relatable to the average player.

Me sharing this data doesn't change my point of view on rollbacks… I've used it to illustrate that for good players, angles don't matter.

I don't think you can relate it to the average player, for many reasons.

If playing angles can impact the play of a low handicap female player, it would be safe to presume that playing angles impact the play of nearly all female players.

Twilight Zone stuff here. 

The good news is, it is far easier to hit a ball on the preferred side(a place where you can approach and hold a green or roll up a shot) of a 50-60 yard wide fairway when your tee ball is only travelling 140 yards, than it is if your ball is travelling 320 yards.

Yep.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I'm just trying to get a bearing on how much this PGA Tour data is relatable to the average player.

Me sharing this data doesn't change my point of view on rollbacks… I've used it to illustrate that for good players, angles don't matter.

I don't think you can relate it to the average player, for many reasons.

I'm not trying to relate any of this discussion to rollback, I'm not sure why you would have made that assumption.

 Playing width and preferred angles is a commonly held fundamental on this message board for good design. I don't disagree that is is often overly weighted in design evaluation today. It is not as important in today's game as it may have been 100 years ago. My main curiosity is to find out how little/much it matters and for whom. In hickory it matters a great deal, even for the best players, but that's because the equipment does not allow you to spin the ball nearly as much. This would lend credence as to why the golden age architects held width and angles in high esteem during their time.

If playing angles can impact the play of a low handicap female player, it would be safe to presume that playing angles impact the play of nearly all female players.

Twilight Zone stuff here. 

Do typical female players have a more difficult time stopping the ball on the green than a typical male player of the same handicap range? When comparing the PGA Tour to the LPGA Tour, it would appear that is a resounding yes. If a player's ability to stop the ball quickly is directly related to their need to play angles why would my statement above not be correct?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not trying to relate any of this discussion to rollback, I'm not sure why you would have made that assumption.

It's not an assumption. That's the context in which I have said "I do not think golf should be ruled by the 1%." (Or variations of that.)

The game is aerial for more than PGA Tour players. It's still mostly aerial, and thus angles don't matter much, for even scratch players, and even some low single digit players.

If a player's ability to stop the ball quickly is directly related to their need to play angles why would my statement above not be correct?

Oy. That's not what "Twilight Zone" means. It means, in nearly every post I've made on this, that I've said that angles matter when the ball rolls. And yet people keep saying it back to me as if I am not saying it at all.

Basically, I think these are generally true statements:

• Angles don't matter much to "good players."
• The point at which that line is drawn (where angles "matter") is a bit different for men vs. women due to their ability to stop the ball quickly. For women you might draw the line at scratch, and for men, maybe at 6, depending on when you draw the "angles matter" line.
• The point at which that line is drawn is again slightly different on different types of courses and conditions.
• Angles matter when the ball is rolling, and the ball might be rolling because…:
• • Players aren't as good (can't generate the height, speed, landing angles, spin, etc.).
  • The turf or conditions are firmer.
  • The ball is coming out of the rough.
  • Severe slopes make the ball roll out rather than coming to rest (ANGC?).
  • Etc.

[Michael Felton]

In essence, the theory goes that you should hit driver into a 65 yard wide window about 95% of the time. 5% of the time you'll be outside that and it'll cost you a penalty of some description (maybe). A 1 or 2 stroke penalty 5% of the time is worth it if you're 50 yards closer to the green 95% of the time, because that 50 yards closer is worth maybe 0.25 strokes per time. Then there is the slightly higher likelihood of being in the rough the further you hit it and everything and 65 yards is the point where it makes sense to go long. Scott's theory basically breaks down to:

Is 65 yards/95% of the time something like an average across all players?  My home course is very narrow, and my sense is that there are several holes where treeline-to-treeline is less than 65 yards.  I'll have to measure next time I'm out there.

65 yards at 300 is roughly where he pegs elite players. It’s not treeline to treeline though. It’s penalty area to penalty area. Treeline might effectively be OB but a lot of the time it’s still playable. In that instance it’s 40 yards that’s the measure. I’m guessing that’s about 3/4 of shots wind up inside 40 yards. If it’s over 65 yards between penalty areas but less than 40 between bunkers/trees, then it’s three wood if that comes up short of the bunkers. If it doesn’t then it’s still driver.


Incidentally this is an example of somewhere I don’t necessarily agree with Scott. Not all bunkers are the same and if hitting three wood means you can’t get there in two then I think it makes more sense to take it on unless it’s really narrow.

Mike if three wood still gets you in the bunker why wouldn’t you hit hybrid if that keeps you short of the bunker?

Hybrid is leaving you probably 50-60 yards further back than driver. You'd have to hit it in the bunker a lot for it to be worthwhile laying back that far. Scott's thing goes on to say it's probably not hybrid or 2-iron unless that will leave you with no more than a wedge in. You won't always hit the fairway with a long iron and you won't always miss with a driver. On the occasions you either hit the fairway with driver or miss with the iron, you're gaining so much by hitting driver that it beats the higher fairway percentage of the iron. Unless you're throwing penalty strokes in the mix.

[Rob Marshall]

Thanks, interesting. It wouldn’t bother me to hit Hybrid 7 or 8 iron. I’m not going to miss a lot of greens with those but I get the point.

[Sean_A]

I'm not trying to relate any of this discussion to rollback, I'm not sure why you would have made that assumption.

It's not an assumption. That's the context in which I have said "I do not think golf should be ruled by the 1%." (Or variations of that.)

The game is aerial for more than PGA Tour players. It's still mostly aerial, and thus angles don't matter much, for even scratch players, and even some low single digit players.

If a player's ability to stop the ball quickly is directly related to their need to play angles why would my statement above not be correct?

Oy. That's not what "Twilight Zone" means. It means, in nearly every post I've made on this, that I've said that angles matter when the ball rolls. And yet people keep saying it back to me as if I am not saying it at all.

Basically, I think these are generally true statements:

• Angles don't matter much to "good players."
• The point at which that line is drawn (where angles "matter") is a bit different for men vs. women due to their ability to stop the ball quickly. For women you might draw the line at scratch, and for men, maybe at 6, depending on when you draw the "angles matter" line.
• The point at which that line is drawn is again slightly different on different types of courses and conditions.
• Angles matter when the ball is rolling, and the ball might be rolling because…:
• • Players aren't as good (can't generate the height, speed, landing angles, spin, etc.).
  • The turf or conditions are firmer.
  • The ball is coming out of the rough.
  • Severe slopes make the ball roll out rather than coming to rest (ANGC?).
  • Etc.

In other words, angles do matter. You guys are arguing if the glass is half full or half empty.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In other words, angles do matter. You guys are arguing if the glass is half full or half empty.

For the majority of average golfers, yep.

[Michael Felton]

I'm not trying to relate any of this discussion to rollback, I'm not sure why you would have made that assumption.

It's not an assumption. That's the context in which I have said "I do not think golf should be ruled by the 1%." (Or variations of that.)

The game is aerial for more than PGA Tour players. It's still mostly aerial, and thus angles don't matter much, for even scratch players, and even some low single digit players.

If a player's ability to stop the ball quickly is directly related to their need to play angles why would my statement above not be correct?

Oy. That's not what "Twilight Zone" means. It means, in nearly every post I've made on this, that I've said that angles matter when the ball rolls. And yet people keep saying it back to me as if I am not saying it at all.

Basically, I think these are generally true statements:

• Angles don't matter much to "good players."
• The point at which that line is drawn (where angles "matter") is a bit different for men vs. women due to their ability to stop the ball quickly. For women you might draw the line at scratch, and for men, maybe at 6, depending on when you draw the "angles matter" line.
• The point at which that line is drawn is again slightly different on different types of courses and conditions.
• Angles matter when the ball is rolling, and the ball might be rolling because…:
• • Players aren't as good (can't generate the height, speed, landing angles, spin, etc.).
  • The turf or conditions are firmer.
  • The ball is coming out of the rough.
  • Severe slopes make the ball roll out rather than coming to rest (ANGC?).
  • Etc.

In other words, angles do matter. You guys are arguing if the glass is half full or half empty.

Ciao

Is anyone arguing that they don't? I think the question is not do angles matter, but do angles matter enough that it's worthwhile chasing them from the tee? Most of the time I don't think so. On most courses if you're bringing in more likelihood of rough/bunkers/penalty areas/OB, then you'll lose more when you go in them than you'll gain from having the better angle. None of us are good enough that we can reliably hit a specific third of the fairway. Aiming at the middle (absent penalty areas/OB close by) gives you the most margin for error and half the time you'll wind up on the side that gives you the better angle anyway. Not by design, but by chance.


I'm also not saying you can't chase angles. Have at it. Just saying that your average score would tend to improve by not chasing them.

[Rob Marshall]

"Is anyone arguing that they don't? I think the question is not do angles matter, but do angles matter enough that it's worthwhile chasing them from the tee? Most of the time I don't think so. On most courses if you're bringing in more likelihood of rough/bunkers/penalty areas/OB, then you'll lose more when you go in them than you'll gain from having the better angle. None of us are good enough that we can reliably hit a specific third of the fairway. Aiming at the middle (absent penalty areas/OB close by) gives you the most margin for error and half the time you'll wind up on the side that gives you the better angle anyway. Not by design, but by chance."


Mike, Probably semantics but if you hit a draw or a fade you usually aren't going to "aim" at the middle. I would be aiming inside the right rough line looking to draw the ball to the middle. The goal is the middle.[/size][/color]

[Michael Felton]

"Is anyone arguing that they don't? I think the question is not do angles matter, but do angles matter enough that it's worthwhile chasing them from the tee? Most of the time I don't think so. On most courses if you're bringing in more likelihood of rough/bunkers/penalty areas/OB, then you'll lose more when you go in them than you'll gain from having the better angle. None of us are good enough that we can reliably hit a specific third of the fairway. Aiming at the middle (absent penalty areas/OB close by) gives you the most margin for error and half the time you'll wind up on the side that gives you the better angle anyway. Not by design, but by chance."


Mike, Probably semantics but if you hit a draw or a fade you usually aren't going to "aim" at the middle. I would be aiming inside the right rough line looking to draw the ball to the middle. The goal is the middle.

Yes - semantics - I'm saying aim to mean where you want to center your shot pattern, not your body lines or where you are pointing the clubface at address.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again, just in the context of what I hear from golfers of all levels, most don't consider fw hazards to be "invitations" they (probably rightly) consider them to be stop signs.  I suspect only those of us who have read those old architecture theory books think otherwise.....


And mostly, if golfers think strategically, they have told me things like, "You have a bunker left, telling me to hit right off the tee, but then you make me come over a bunker from that side of the fw, so what's up with that?"  Most, don't accept my "Golden Age" based explanation......


BTW, yes, angles matter, but as suggested, more in certain situations for certain players, and less than some may think statistically.  I think long time golfers are like long time football coaches.  When young, they may go for it on 4th and 1, as the age, remembering all the failures, they tend to punt most of the time.

[Ben Hollerbach]

And mostly, if golfers think strategically, they have told me things like, "You have a bunker left, telling me to hit right off the tee, but then you make me come over a bunker from that side of the fw, so what's up with that?"  Most, don't accept my "Golden Age" based explanation......

We often talk about a good hole makes you think about it in reverse, starting from the green and plotting your play backwards. Your observation describes an opposite way of thinking. One in which each challenge is considered in succession without looking ahead. I would imagine this tee-to-green way of thinking is the most common in the game, especially among the weekend warrior crowd.


I'm not sure if this is derived from a lack of awareness and forethought on the player, or simply that few players have had a strong course management mindset even introduced to them. As an architect, how do you balance trying to build strategically minded holes that still resonate with a casual player who may lack in strategic awareness?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff Warne said:


Back on topic, it would seem the challenge lies in finding ways to make angles matter architecturally by

1. contouring the greens such that they don't have to be rock hard to have them release (i.e. heat/humidity/budget/rain can ruin or make impractical any chance of consistent firm and fast-or at least firm) Have more greens that are tilted to favor the approach from one side, and or have the green run away form the player-OR at least have LESS tilt toward the player than most have.

Yes, this is an interesting topic to me. 

If a green angles right to any substantial degree, say, +30 degrees or more, (setting up preferred angle from the left) the back left is usually the high side, just for visibility reasons, which tends to tilt the green a bit to the right, helping stop shots from those angles. I understand that if I tilted the green away from the right side, it would really reinforce coming in from the left play-wise.

Also, most greens are longer than wide, meaning the golfer from the off side must come in over a hazard, to a shallower target, and if you add a reverse slope, in many cases it would be impossible to hold the green, or, only possible by top flight players with high lofts and more spin.

I have built exactly two right angled greens that drain left, and it really doesn't seem to work visually.   Also, setting up the preferred angle seems to reward longer, better golfers almost as their pure length does.

But then the question remains if that is what we really want?  If contours work to make the approach from the left the only realistic option for play, is that penal or strategic?  Or, do we want the shot from the "wrong (in this case right) side of the fw harder, but doable?

Ways to do this are to make sure the left to right cross slope is lower, say less than 2%, to help the approach shot from the right stop a bit less, and/or not provide any backing mounds that help contain a roll out shot from that side.  Or, some combo where part of the back left of the green is narrower, flatter, has some hazard behind, etc., but there would also be some kind of bail out target on or on the fringe of the green from that side, i.e., the equivalent of a relatively open side and Sunday Pin side (which would usually be somewhere right.

Frankly, I have always figured that the angle itself, essentially coming in across the length of the target rather than with it is punishment enough, and the back left flare up is based more on what I need to make the back edge of the green visible than any play considerations, i.e., it may be pretty flat on a downhill approach where we can maintain visibility, but steeper as needed on uphill or level approaches.

It's that fine balance of giving an advantage to one angle, while not shutting the other one down completely to create a strategy.  Again, if you can only hit the green from a narrow band of fw on the left third, is the tee shot any more strategic than a tee shot to the middle of an RTJ style narrow fw with bunkers on both sides?

[Sean_A]

I'm not trying to relate any of this discussion to rollback, I'm not sure why you would have made that assumption.

It's not an assumption. That's the context in which I have said "I do not think golf should be ruled by the 1%." (Or variations of that.)

The game is aerial for more than PGA Tour players. It's still mostly aerial, and thus angles don't matter much, for even scratch players, and even some low single digit players.

If a player's ability to stop the ball quickly is directly related to their need to play angles why would my statement above not be correct?

Oy. That's not what "Twilight Zone" means. It means, in nearly every post I've made on this, that I've said that angles matter when the ball rolls. And yet people keep saying it back to me as if I am not saying it at all.

Basically, I think these are generally true statements:

• Angles don't matter much to "good players."
• The point at which that line is drawn (where angles "matter") is a bit different for men vs. women due to their ability to stop the ball quickly. For women you might draw the line at scratch, and for men, maybe at 6, depending on when you draw the "angles matter" line.
• The point at which that line is drawn is again slightly different on different types of courses and conditions.
• Angles matter when the ball is rolling, and the ball might be rolling because…:
• • Players aren't as good (can't generate the height, speed, landing angles, spin, etc.).
  • The turf or conditions are firmer.
  • The ball is coming out of the rough.
  • Severe slopes make the ball roll out rather than coming to rest (ANGC?).
  • Etc.

In other words, angles do matter. You guys are arguing if the glass is half full or half empty.

Ciao

Is anyone arguing that they don't? I think the question is not do angles matter, but do angles matter enough that it's worthwhile chasing them from the tee? Most of the time I don't think so. On most courses if you're bringing in more likelihood of rough/bunkers/penalty areas/OB, then you'll lose more when you go in them than you'll gain from having the better angle. None of us are good enough that we can reliably hit a specific third of the fairway. Aiming at the middle (absent penalty areas/OB close by) gives you the most margin for error and half the time you'll wind up on the side that gives you the better angle anyway. Not by design, but by chance.

I'm also not saying you can't chase angles. Have at it. Just saying that your average score would tend to improve by not chasing them.

I envision a lot of angle chasing being about a choice of a low percentage shot at a green or layup to a spot where there is a choice for the pitch or half shot to be played low or high. Even touring pros are faced with this choice usually a few times a round.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Here is an example that might prove interesting and I use it often with many of my restoration/renovation projects.  Prior to the expanding of the fairways, the head pro of the club (a Flynn course) took note of all the handicaps of the members.  There was much talk that the architect was “making the course too easy” by expanding the fairways.  A year after the fairways were expanded, the head pro shared the results with the membership.  The average single digit handicappers actually went up almost a full stroke, e.g. if you were a 6 you were now a 7.  The mid to high handicappers actually dropped over a stroke on average so if you were a 18 you were now a 17.  The way he explained it was spot on.  Before the fairway expansion, many of the bunkers/hazards on certain holes were left languishing out in the rough, well away from the fairway.  Good players didn’t even see these hazards as there was no reason to play near them.  Higher handicappers were the ones ending up in the rough and/or in the bunkers/hazards that were out in the rough.  When the fairways were expanded, the higher handicappers loved it.  They still ended up in those hazards but now at least had a much larger area to land in.  The lower handicappers also had more area to land in but certain hole locations were better approached from areas closer to the bunkers/hazards that before the expansion were well away from the fairways.  All of a sudden, these features were back in play and the temptation/potential reward to play closer to them was restored and the better players were ending up in more trouble some of the time as that option was given back to them.  There was no more griping about the architect making the course too easy


Many classic courses were best played down the edges vs down the middle (if you were capable). Same goes for greens that shrink.  When this happens, the most interesting/tempting hole locations get lost with them.   

[Michael Felton]

Here is an example that might prove interesting and I use it often with many of my restoration/renovation projects.  Prior to the expanding of the fairways, the head pro of the club (a Flynn course) took note of all the handicaps of the members.  There was much talk that the architect was “making the course too easy” by expanding the fairways.  A year after the fairways were expanded, the head pro shared the results with the membership.  The average single digit handicappers actually went up almost a full stroke, e.g. if you were a 6 you were now a 7.  The mid to high handicappers actually dropped over a stroke on average so if you were a 18 you were now a 17.  The way he explained it was spot on.  Before the fairway expansion, many of the bunkers/hazards on certain holes were left languishing out in the rough, well away from the fairway.  Good players didn’t even see these hazards as there was no reason to play near them.  Higher handicappers were the ones ending up in the rough and/or in the bunkers/hazards that were out in the rough.  When the fairways were expanded, the higher handicappers loved it.  They still ended up in those hazards but now at least had a much larger area to land in.  The lower handicappers also had more area to land in but certain hole locations were better approached from areas closer to the bunkers/hazards that before the expansion were well away from the fairways.  All of a sudden, these features were back in play and the temptation/potential reward to play closer to them was restored and the better players were ending up in more trouble some of the time as that option was given back to them.  There was no more griping about the architect making the course too easy


Many classic courses were best played down the edges vs down the middle (if you were capable). Same goes for greens that shrink.  When this happens, the most interesting/tempting hole locations get lost with them.

Given this, do you think it's a good or bad idea for your score to aim close to the hazards to get a better angle?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

BTW, yes, angles matter, but as suggested, more in certain situations for certain players, and less than some may think statistically.  I think long time golfers are like long time football coaches.

Perhaps a better way of putting this all is… "Angles sometimes matter (ball rolling stuff), but that doesn't mean you're advised to chase after them except in some pretty rare cases."

Those rare cases might be…

• You're good enough, the fairway is wide enough, or the shot is short enough that you can play to a small enough portion of a fairway or whatever. Basically, "there's room."
• The danger in not trying to play to an angle is incredibly large (OB probably, water possibly…).
• Etc. (maybe?)

We often talk about a good hole makes you think about it in reverse, starting from the green and plotting your play backwards. Your observation describes an opposite way of thinking. One in which each challenge is considered in succession without looking ahead. I would imagine this tee-to-green way of thinking is the most common in the game, especially among the weekend warrior crowd.

It's also, arguably, the better way of doing it - tee to green.

You don't know what shot you're even capable of hitting in to the green if you don't know how long the hole is, or where your tee shot is likely to end up.

Just because you're plotting the tee shot doesn't mean you're not thinking about the second shot. We gave an example in the book of a tree blocking approach shots from the left side of the fairway, and thus, shading that side of the fairway a shade of grey… meaning that golfers should favor the right side of the fairway with a large chunk of their Shot Zone in the right rough (given a large enough tree of course, as shown in the book).

We often talk about a good hole makes
I'm not sure if this is derived from a lack of awareness and forethought on the player

This seems to assume that "from the green backward" is the ideal strategy.

Many classic courses were best played down the edges vs down the middle (if you were capable). Same goes for greens that shrink.  When this happens, the most interesting/tempting hole locations get lost with them.

Doesn't your story say the opposite? If the better players just kept playing down the middle, their handicaps would have not gone up, no?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Erik,


You bring up another good situational point, similar to mine about par 5's where you can really gain a stroke, later holes, etc.  I was speaking with another Tour Pro acquaintance just now, and basically, he said there is no reason to take a chance if the "safe route" approach shot is under 160 yards, because his accuracy is about equal up to that point. 


I have heard others use 180 as a cut off for taking a chance on a tee shot to get a shorter approach.  I suppose another way to say that is that longer hitters really don't need to take as many chances.


Another pro I know got his grandson on the golf team, and then after seeing him hit a 3 wood second shot on a par 5 into bunkers that flanked the second landing zone, told the coach to bench him for his strategic "offense" since he saw no reason to take a chance on those bunkers when laying back still offered a sub 160 yard approach.


Off the tee, I do get tired (in a theoretical way) of the strategy to fit a tee shot into a 30 yard fw or just lay up, which seems over used in an attempt to make courses harder for great players.  But again, that strategy would only work where the driver tee shot would yield a 130-160 approach shot and laying back might put it over 160-180 (player would decide for themselves.)

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You bring up another good situational point, similar to mine about par 5's where you can really gain a stroke, later holes, etc.  I was speaking with another Tour Pro acquaintance just now, and basically, he said there is no reason to take a chance if the "safe route" approach shot is under 160 yards, because his accuracy is about equal up to that point. 

I have heard others use 180 as a cut off for taking a chance on a tee shot to get a shorter approach.  I suppose another way to say that is that longer hitters really don't need to take as many chances.

Another pro I know got his grandson on the golf team, and then after seeing him hit a 3 wood second shot on a par 5 into bunkers that flanked the second landing zone, told the coach to bench him for his strategic "offense" since he saw no reason to take a chance on those bunkers when laying back still offered a sub 160 yard approach.

Without specifics, those examples don't seem to track. There's a 0.17 shot difference from being 180 out in the fairway (3.08) and 60 out in the rough (2.91) let alone the 0.38 strokes from the fairway at 60 yards (2.70). Even being in a bunker 40 yards from the green is 2.82 (and from 60 yards, is 3.15 - so even if you were in the sand 100% of the time you went for it, you'd lose 0.07 strokes).

160 in the fairway is still 2.98 strokes or so, and if you imagine a 280-yard shot to a par five… what Tour pro is going to hit two 140-yard shots? Either I'm misunderstanding your points here or… they're choosing sub-optimal strategies (and yeah, maybe they're horrible at 30-60-yard shots so they avoid them like the plague).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Erik,


Sorry, but when I added my previous points about par 5 holes, they had nothing to do with the stats I gave.  I believe they were talking about using a driver for a shortcut, carry for an easier angle, what have you, and saying that on any par 4, the difference had to be 2-3 clubs shorter, and make the difference between a sub 160 shot in and an over 160 shot in (one pro.... another said 180 was where he started feeling uncomfortable on the length of the approach.)


Interpolating from the few stats in your last post, it seems pretty linear an increase.  Your chart seems to show a bump in shots gained from 124-150 yards, with a bit of fall off from 150-175.  I guess they just go by feel, and maybe haven't converted to stats based shot choices at this time.  Like the umps, I just call them like I see (hear) them, LOL>

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jeff, thanks for the clarification. The stats are a generalization, an average, and don't account for individuals. But, people consistently seem to under-value the importance of being even 20 yards closer. That's why DJ or Rory's driving is so much of an advantage — they're 20 or 30 yards closer every tee shot (nearly), even if they miss an extra fairway or two per round, it's still a net win.

Odds are, I think, that the kid going for the green actually made the right call. Even a bad bunker shot will often get as close or closer than a typical approach shot.

[jeffwarne]

Another pro I know got his grandson on the golf team, and then after seeing him hit a 3 wood second shot on a par 5 into bunkers that flanked the second landing zone, told the coach to bench him for his strategic "offense" since he saw no reason to take a chance on those bunkers when laying back still offered a sub 160 yard approach.

I'm not sure which part of this paragraph bothers me more...

[Ben Hollerbach]

We often talk about a good hole makes you think about it in reverse, starting from the green and plotting your play backwards. Your observation describes an opposite way of thinking. One in which each challenge is considered in succession without looking ahead. I would imagine this tee-to-green way of thinking is the most common in the game, especially among the weekend warrior crowd.

It's also, arguably, the better way of doing it - tee to green.

You don't know what shot you're even capable of hitting in to the green if you don't know how long the hole is, or where your tee shot is likely to end up.

Just because you're plotting the tee shot doesn't mean you're not thinking about the second shot. We gave an example in the book of a tree blocking approach shots from the left side of the fairway, and thus, shading that side of the fairway a shade of grey… meaning that golfers should favor the right side of the fairway with a large chunk of their Shot Zone in the right rough (given a large enough tree of course, as shown in the book).

It seems you are saying that a player must initially consider the condition at the green. Realizing that the tree protecting the left portion of the hole will present a less than ideal approach shot from that side of the fairway, the player would then be encouraged to play a tee shot down the right side of the hole. This appears to be a textbook example of the green-to-tee way of thinking. What am I missing?

It is also Interesting that you selected an example on the importance of angles that does not involve a ball rolling on the ground.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()