[Bret Lawrence]

Angles matter to a golfers ego.  This method is just trying to say, stop trying to satisfy your ego and hit it in the fairway and away from hazards.  It’s basically saying even if you can make an eagle from that perfect angle 10 yards wide surrounded by trouble during Friday skins, don’t go for it.  Now, even if you have a 10% chance of hitting that spot are you going to go for it? If the answer is yes, it’s because of your ego.  It might not help your average score in your medalist match against yourself for the rest of your life, but if you pull that off and then the next two subsequent shots and come away with eagle, you will be richer than when you started the day. Your ego is willing to accept that trade-off. If you fail, and pick up your putt for 6 your ego is damaged, but your score is not really affected, because we are just playing skins. If you played without your ego, maybe you could have made a 3 or 4 too, but you could also make a 5 or 6.  It doesn’t guarantee you a better score in every situation, it just increases the probability and minimizes the risk to get there, over time.


Angle mitigation=risk mitigation.  That is all this statement is saying.  Before you make any of these decisions you are choosing between 50 degrees of angled instruments to counteract the angle on the ground.  Most of them have nicknames like 7 iron, why?  So you don’t have to think about all of those angles.


Angles were introduced on purpose to mess with your ego.  The Golden Age architects wrote about risk and reward to your ego, they didn’t always say one angle was better than the other for your score.  To make a truly strategic hole, you should be able to play successfully on more than one route.  If you give golfers decisions, their ego is usually going to get in the way.  Angles create decisions.  If you can make angles seem like they don’t matter then you have eliminated a major outside influence to your game. It’s all sports psychology, and in many instances, it’s easier said than done.


The catchphrase was well thought out, because if your ego thinks angles matter, you will chase this title.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff


That's interesting comment from your son but it seems to assume a binary choice of going for the pin or playing completely safe. From the correct angle he can choose to play somewhere in between. His chances of success of sinking a 15 ft putt are surely better than sinking a 30 ft putt ?


Maybe by playing in between he would slightly increase his chances of going in the hazard but then there might be a fair chance of getting up and down if he's a good player and let's also not forget that there is a much better chance of 3 putting from 30 ft than from 15 ft. There is such a thing as playing too safe.


Niall

Statistically, the difference in 15 and 30 foot putts is 0.2 strokes, from expected putts of 1.68 to 1.98. 


I'm not sure the choice is purely binary, as in lay up short.  Every stroke has a bit of nuance in it, as in aiming for the fat of the green, but adjusting grip or stance to get it to curve towards the pin a bit. 

[Niall C]

Jeff


That's the point I'm making, it is rarely totally binary. There is usually a sliding scale of how much risk a player will take on with a shot which will depend on their skill level, how well they are playing on the day etc.


Bret


I've read a lot of the ODG's on strategy and can't recall them discussing ego, however they certainly allowed for different levels of golfers getting to the green in different ways. MacKenzie's Lido hole being a case in point. I might add that their designs also had the players playing off the same tees.


Niall 

[Niall C]

That's interesting comment from your son but it seems to assume a binary choice of going for the pin or playing completely safe. From the correct angle he can choose to play somewhere in between. His chances of success of sinking a 15 ft putt are surely better than sinking a 30 ft putt ?

It's not really Jeff's son's take: that's what Lou has said all along as well: people play more conservatively when they have the "wrong" angle, which is actually roughly where they SHOULD play from any angle, but they'll typically aim closer from the "right" angle and short-side themselves or whatnot.

I'm surprised that nobody has tried to show that "angles matter" by looking at the stats and showing something like this… Let's say that from 150 yards in the fairway a class of player averages 3.12 shots from the "bad" angle and 3.15 shots from the "good" angle (so, a pretty good player). Those are so close it's basically a wash, but how they get those averages might be something like this, out of 1000 times played:

"Bad" Angle (4.12): 1 eagle, 111 birdies, 667 pars, 218 bogeys, and 3 doubles.
"Good" Angle (4.15): 3 eagles, 129 birdies, 592 pars, 265 bogeys, and 11 doubles.

That might show "angles matter" a little… because the scoring spread changes. One location results in more under-par scores but also more over-par scores with fewer pars. But then I'd counter to point out that these stats are derived only from shots hit from the fairway,  so if the "better" side of the fairway also has a fairway bunker over there, then that is going to massively affect the scoring, and that you shouldn't play for that angle you should play for safety first… and so on. Which is what Kyle and I have been talking about, ultimately.

That's why the ultimate target is often still basically the same on the green (or should be) regardless of where you're playing from… (as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions).

But you would have at least shown that even though the numbers can work out the same, the actual resulting angle might matter in that sense. It'd be looking at it a little too closely, and not seeing the bigger picture, but it'd still speak to the point a bit.

Erik


The bit in your post that jumps out at me is "as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions". That basically is the nub of the discussion. For instance, equally you could have argued that angles do matter except where the design and conditioning of the course negate the benefit of approaching from the "right" angle. It's pretty well the same conclusion but just coming at it from the other way.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Snooker or darts?
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

That's interesting comment from your son but it seems to assume a binary choice of going for the pin or playing completely safe. From the correct angle he can choose to play somewhere in between. His chances of success of sinking a 15 ft putt are surely better than sinking a 30 ft putt ?

It's not really Jeff's son's take: that's what Lou has said all along as well: people play more conservatively when they have the "wrong" angle, which is actually roughly where they SHOULD play from any angle, but they'll typically aim closer from the "right" angle and short-side themselves or whatnot.

I'm surprised that nobody has tried to show that "angles matter" by looking at the stats and showing something like this… Let's say that from 150 yards in the fairway a class of player averages 3.12 shots from the "bad" angle and 3.15 shots from the "good" angle (so, a pretty good player). Those are so close it's basically a wash, but how they get those averages might be something like this, out of 1000 times played:

"Bad" Angle (4.12): 1 eagle, 111 birdies, 667 pars, 218 bogeys, and 3 doubles.
"Good" Angle (4.15): 3 eagles, 129 birdies, 592 pars, 265 bogeys, and 11 doubles.

That might show "angles matter" a little… because the scoring spread changes. One location results in more under-par scores but also more over-par scores with fewer pars. But then I'd counter to point out that these stats are derived only from shots hit from the fairway,  so if the "better" side of the fairway also has a fairway bunker over there, then that is going to massively affect the scoring, and that you shouldn't play for that angle you should play for safety first… and so on. Which is what Kyle and I have been talking about, ultimately.

That's why the ultimate target is often still basically the same on the green (or should be) regardless of where you're playing from… (as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions).

But you would have at least shown that even though the numbers can work out the same, the actual resulting angle might matter in that sense. It'd be looking at it a little too closely, and not seeing the bigger picture, but it'd still speak to the point a bit.

Erik


The bit in your post that jumps out at me is "as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions". That basically is the nub of the discussion. For instance, equally you could have argued that angles do matter except where the design and conditioning of the course negate the benefit of approaching from the "right" angle. It's pretty well the same conclusion but just coming at it from the other way.


Niall

Except it doesn’t matter as much as we think even when the ball is rolling…. Or at least not to a big enough extent to chase those angles at risk (which after all is the nub of “strategy”).

[Mark Pearce]

Erik


The bit in your post that jumps out at me is "as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions". That basically is the nub of the discussion. For instance, equally you could have argued that angles do matter except where the design and conditioning of the course negate the benefit of approaching from the "right" angle. It's pretty well the same conclusion but just coming at it from the other way.


Niall

I guess I find it quite depressing that the ball rolling is considered a rare exception.  Golf is so much more fun when the ball rolls.  Is that (at least in part) because it makes angles matter?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The bit in your post that jumps out at me is "as long as the ball isn't rolling, and any other rare exceptions".

I've almost always had that in there, and where I haven't, it's just so it's not SO repetitive (and y'all have read it 100 times already).

For instance, equally you could have argued that angles do matter except where the design and conditioning of the course negate the benefit of approaching from the "right" angle. It's pretty well the same conclusion but just coming at it from the other way.

That'd be arguing for the minority position and saying "except" to the majority, PLUS this:

Except it doesn’t matter as much as we think even when the ball is rolling…. Or at least not to a big enough extent to chase those angles at risk (which after all is the nub of “strategy”).

Golf is so much more fun when the ball rolls.  Is that (at least in part) because it makes angles matter?

Yes. Again, consider the Presidents Cup at Royal Melbourne. The very first hole was a great example.

[Bret Lawrence]

Jeff


That's the point I'm making, it is rarely totally binary. There is usually a sliding scale of how much risk a player will take on with a shot which will depend on their skill level, how well they are playing on the day etc.


Bret


I've read a lot of the ODG's on strategy and can't recall them discussing ego, however they certainly allowed for different levels of golfers getting to the green in different ways. MacKenzie's Lido hole being a case in point. I might add that their designs also had the players playing off the same tees.


Niall

Niall, I think when they say “bite off as much as you can chew” they are talking about your ego.  No golf architect ever said that if you take the preferred line you will automatically win the hole. They just mentioned an advantage.  The advantage is perceived by your mind.  You still have three or four more shots before the final score is determined. Macdonald makes it clear in his book that golf courses shouldn’t be laid out for scoring competitions. Macdonald wanted to bring out golfers intuition, he wanted them to make decisions because he knew every decision was a chance at disaster or greatness.  Luck and ego are very difficult to measure with statistics, but they are still an important part of the game.


In my own experience I can think of times where I forego a better angle for a clearer look at the green.  On Yales 8th hole, I prefer to be way off to the right so I can see a sliver of the green.  The angle is not as good as it is from the left, but I can’t see the green from the left.  My ego tells me I want to see the green so I try to satisfy that.  The angle doesn’t matter to me in this situation as much as the clear look.  Other golfers may prefer the better angle with no look. College kids can hit over the hill and have a look from either side. That is an angle my game is unfamiliar with. In either case I score about the same from both places.  Neither one is such a penalty that I can’t still make a 4 or 5. However, even if I score well hitting from the “wrong” side all day I feel mentally worn out by the end of the day because my ego was rarely satisfied.

[Niall C]

Except it doesn’t matter as much as we think even when the ball is rolling…. Or at least not to a big enough extent to chase those angles at risk (which after all is the nub of “strategy”).

Ally


Don't matter as much as who thinks ? Who is the "we" you are referring to ? And if you think the risk isn't worth it, are you saying that there isn't any point to applying strategy ?


Erik


Whether one is the majority and the other the minority, or indeed the other way round, doesn't really matter because they are two sides of the same coin. The supposition in the OP was that angles don't matter however it appears we both agree that they can and do matter in certain situations. For me the question then becomes if they don't matter that much, as you and Ally argue, then what does that say about course designs and maintenance ?


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Whether one is the majority and the other the minority, or indeed the other way round, doesn't really matter because they are two sides of the same coin.

No. "Except" is for the exceptions, which are the minority.

[Mark Pearce]

Whether one is the majority and the other the minority, or indeed the other way round, doesn't really matter because they are two sides of the same coin.

No. "Except" is for the exceptions, which are the minority.

But "when the ball is rolling" is an exception.  The ball rolls in >50% of the golf I play in the Summer months.  I find it hard to consider that an exception.

[Sean_A]

Whether one is the majority and the other the minority, or indeed the other way round, doesn't really matter because they are two sides of the same coin.

No. "Except" is for the exceptions, which are the minority.

But "when the ball is rolling" is an exception.  The ball rolls in >50% of the golf I play in the Summer months.  I find it hard to consider that an exception.

This has been a major aspect of my point. I don't play many soft, flat, windless golf courses. I have been playing Cleeve Hill a ton this winter. Wrong angles can easily be a matter of 1 or 2 extra shots rather than .1. It's a huge difference to playing my home course which I agree, it's get the ball on short stuff time. Worry about the next shot later. The course simply isn't wide enough to consider many angles.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Except it doesn’t matter as much as we think even when the ball is rolling…. Or at least not to a big enough extent to chase those angles at risk (which after all is the nub of “strategy”).

Ally


Don't matter as much as who thinks ? Who is the "we" you are referring to ? And if you think the risk isn't worth it, are you saying that there isn't any point to applying strategy ?


Erik


Whether one is the majority and the other the minority, or indeed the other way round, doesn't really matter because they are two sides of the same coin. The supposition in the OP was that angles don't matter however it appears we both agree that they can and do matter in certain situations. For me the question then becomes if they don't matter that much, as you and Ally argue, then what does that say about course designs and maintenance ?


Niall

Correct Niall. Strategy is - in the traditional golf design use - a bit of a myth. I said as much back on page 1 of this thread.


But it is one element of design that everyone with an interest understands. So we hang on to it with all our might.


That’s not to say that it is impossible or that you can’t add choices or enjoyment in to golf holes through angles. Of course you can. And thus, I will keep striving to add various forms of strategy. And probably also proliferate the myth.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But "when the ball is rolling" is an exception.  The ball rolls in >50% of the golf I play in the Summer months.  I find it hard to consider that an exception.

It's the exception around the world. And unlike the "rolling a few inches" thing from earlier in the discussion, I'm talking about a reasonable amount of roll, not "hit a 7I that rolls out ten feet." I'm talking about "land your 7I eight yards short of the green so it bounces up and rolls on."

This has been a major aspect of my point. I don't play many soft, flat, windless golf courses. I have been playing Cleeve Hill a ton this winter. Wrong angles can easily be a matter of 1 or 2 extra shots rather than .1.

Unlikely. But your anecdata is great. Keep it coming. 

[Sean_A]

But "when the ball is rolling" is an exception.  The ball rolls in >50% of the golf I play in the Summer months.  I find it hard to consider that an exception.

It's the exception around the world. And unlike the "rolling a few inches" thing from earlier in the discussion, I'm talking about a reasonable amount of roll, not "hit a 7I that rolls out ten feet." I'm talking about "land your 7I eight yards short of the green so it bounces up and rolls on."

This has been a major aspect of my point. I don't play many soft, flat, windless golf courses. I have been playing Cleeve Hill a ton this winter. Wrong angles can easily be a matter of 1 or 2 extra shots rather than .1.

Unlikely. But your anecdata is great. Keep it coming. 

I am hardly going to provide a map and shot location for the past four months that will be mis-analyzed by a guy on the other side of the ocean that doesn't know the course or my game. A synopsis will have to do.  😎 It's fine that you don't trust or believe me. But I trust my experience far more than I do anonymous blobs on a graph. I do get it wrong sometimes and that's ok. In truth, the shorter my carry has become the more I rely on angles and the more I avoid courses and conditions which don't provide for angles.

It doesn't seem to occur to you that maybe your rare incidences of angles mattering is not so rare for a lot of golfers. But hey, I can tell myself angles don't matter after watching my ball roll 30 yards down from a green because I came up short trying to play over a ground feature. No, the blobs on the graph tell me that shot wouldn't have been far easier to execute from a better angle. No, seeing stuff like this happen hole after hole from our 4 ball is just a rare statistical blip. It's helpful to tell each other that for 4 hours as we record 25 points then do the same next week. 😕

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am hardly going to provide a map and shot location for the past four months that will be mis-analyzed by a guy on the other side of the ocean that doesn't know the course or my game. A synopsis will have to do.  😎 It's fine that you don't trust or believe me. But I trust my experience far more than I do anonymous blobs on a graph. I do get it wrong sometimes and that's ok. In truth, the shorter my carry has become the more I rely on angles and the more I avoid courses and conditions which don't provide for angles.

Ciao

Sean,


It would be interesting if you did track a hole where you think angles matter, as in play it ten times, with tee shot finding right and wrong side of fw, including shots that find hazards.  Then track your score.  Despite the title, the theory is that over 10 plays you would probably make 1 birdie from the favored side, but two bogeys from hitting a hazard on the right side.  Thus the aggregate is likely to be about equal over time, but not on any one shot.


The difference between 95 and 70 for players who average 75-80 is 18% attributable to birdies and 82% attributed to bogey avoidance. It is probably higher as handicaps raise.  In essence, birdies are rarer than bogeys for all players.  If you make bogey, you need two birdies to advance on par, similar to losing and then gaining 10% in the stock market......90% of $100,000 is $90,000, and 110% of 90,000 is $99,000, a slight loss.  I think that is what these stats say.  Good scoring is about bogey avoidance, first and foremost, however you get there.


As to ego that someone mentioned, I do think Mac said something to the effect that the player must know his own limitations and then execute.  That is sort of saying to tame your ego when playing, which is what these stats say, as well.  That we are in the information age and you can pre-measure carry distance in many ways, there is really little excuse for the average guy to try a carry of 220 yards when he knows he can only carry 215 with his best shot, probably closer to 200-205 on an average day.  And, I think these stats show that.  (I picked numbers that both you and I probably relate to.


Again, just because over time "the house wins" it doesn't mean that any individual decision you make to take on risk is necessarily wrong or that it won't work out.  It's just that it typically doesn't.

[Sven Nilsen]

I think the gist of what is being said is that sometimes angles can matter.  In my experience, it's a fairly significant "sometimes."


Some days you might feel it, and any risk is probably more worth it.  Somedays you know you don't have it, and you might want to play a bit more conservatively.


On some courses, the roll from a fast and firm surface might make lines off the tee (and club choice) extremely important, while on a nice soft course after a day of rain, hitting to the middle of the safe area is all you need to think about.


In a match where you're down going into 18, perhaps playing for a better angle is the best move.  And maybe in the opposite situation, you might want to just keep a ball safe after watching your opponent dump one into a hazard.


Golf is unpredictable, subjective, situational and never the same one day to the next.  Throwing out absolutes, or trying to use data taken from the collective to create rules for the individual isn't always going to work out.


Know yourself, and play within that game, and you'll score better.  Real golf IQ derives from understanding one's capabilities in a variety of conditions, and when it makes sense to stretch their limits.


No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player.

[Sean_A]

I am hardly going to provide a map and shot location for the past four months that will be mis-analyzed by a guy on the other side of the ocean that doesn't know the course or my game. A synopsis will have to do.   It's fine that you don't trust or believe me. But I trust my experience far more than I do anonymous blobs on a graph. I do get it wrong sometimes and that's ok. In truth, the shorter my carry has become the more I rely on angles and the more I avoid courses and conditions which don't provide for angles.

Ciao

Sean,

It would be interesting if you did track a hole where you think angles matter, as in play it ten times, with tee shot finding right and wrong side of fw, including shots that find hazards.  Then track your score.  Despite the title, the theory is that over 10 plays you would probably make 1 birdie from the favored side, but two bogeys from hitting a hazard on the right side.  Thus the aggregate is likely to be about equal over time, but not on any one shot.

This would take some time to include wind direction and seasons. It would also likely mean going to exact spots and hitting several balls from perceived angle differences.  That is not something I am going to do.    I have a good understanding of my limitations and am generally risk adverse if I am playing for something...which is rare. Usually the most I am playing for is my ball. I hate looking for it.

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player.

You sure about that?


The “I know it cause I know it” crowd sure seems to be struggling with the golf analytic crowd. Interestingly, this same thing happened in baseball, then basketball, and now football. Moneyball seems so old hat now, makes me wonder how all these people giving “data” to Erik (and Scott and Lou) will feel in a decade.


To be fair, I patently disagree with the Lou’s statement that I quoted to start this thread. Not because angles DO matter to scoring. No, more than not it’s been shown that it really doesn’t matter in regard to scoring. The reasons I dislike the quote is because I want architects to continue designing and using angles. I want golf to be a weird combination of challenge, fun, athletic, and cerebral. Strategic golf design is at the heart of that.


I’d implore the combatants here to go back and read Tom’s reply #67 in this thread.

[Sven Nilsen]

Ben:


Here are all the stats I need:


Approximately 400 rounds in all kinds of conditions by approximately 1600 golfers of varying abilities and around 200,000 shots observed per year.


"I know it" because I see it.


Sven

[Jeff_Brauer]

To be fair, avoiding hazards at all costs is a strategy, too. (See Tiger Woods and British Open)  As is bailing out, hitting to the fat part of the green, adding 2 clubs for wind instead of 1, playing up on a new set of tees, hitting it where you see it (or as you age, hitting it where you might remember it), etc.


And, in reality, I think most golfers see hazards out there as stop signs, not "hit it here challenges."  The challenge of the tee shot can be the shot itself, fitting it in a slot, using a turbo boost, finding a flat lie, laying up short of hazards, curving the ball to stay in play (statistically, again) and any number of things you might concoct.


So, if all a fw hazard does is challenge you to stay out of it, that is okay, too.  As I said before, taking the shortcut route at some risk really only works great on par 5 holes of a certain length, because you actually can gain a full stroke.  Taking a risk to save an average of 0.2 strokes on a par 4 is probably nearly always bad math.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There are loads of different strategies and uses of angles in golf and golf design. What the figures - and my experience - is really arguing against is the amount of influence the “strategic school of design” has on a round.


The strategic school is only about risk / reward chasing of angles.


In many ways, the heroic school is a much more influential school because it is actually about using an angle to reduce distance for the next shot rather than just to produce a better angle…. And there’s no denying that shorter approaches are better for scoring than longer approaches.


Ironic that the heroic school was a post-golden age product whilst the strategic school was the main calling card of the golden age.

[Thomas Dai]

Folks seem to be coming at this topic from different angles.
Atb

[Tim Martin]

And, in reality, I think most golfers see hazards out there as stop signs, not "hit it here challenges."  The challenge of the tee shot can be the shot itself, fitting it in a slot, using a turbo boost, finding a flat lie, laying up short of hazards, curving the ball to stay in play (statistically, again) and any number of things you might concoct.

I would bet that a greater percentage of players see hazards as a yellow caution rather than a red stop sign. If you take the card and pencil devotees out of the equation and apply human nature and emotion which in my experience have an outsized effect on the game many/most are willing to take on the risk regardless of what the statistics bear out. In match play which is the preferred game across the land medal score doesn’t mean much at the end if you shot the lowest score but are on the team that’s reaching into their wallet. I won’t argue that to make the statistically “smart” play will more often than not produce the best medal score but that’s not what delivers the most enjoyment for me day in and day out.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()