[Ally Mcintosh]

Absolutely Tim,


I agree that everything you said forms part of the enjoyment. I’m not sure anyone disagrees with that… I think the general gist of the thread is that people get really enthused about classic strategy when in reality it has (or should have for the discerning golfer who plays to win) a comparatively small role to play.


It definitely has a role though. I would hate to see strategic design reduce. Just don’t hang your hat on it.

[Joe Hancock]

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

I get it, just so you know this didn’t go unnoticed…..

[Rob Marshall]

This may have been covered but isn’t cutting a shot into a right side pin or drawing into a left side pin using angles? Or is it making up for having a bad angle for your natural shot shape.

[Kalen Braley]

This may have been covered but isn’t cutting a shot into a right side pin or drawing into a left side pin using angles? Or is it making up for having a bad angle for your natural shot shape.

Rob,

How dare you even suggest people use "strategy" to play to the strengths of their game. As we all know it rarely if ever comes into play on anything you do on the course.    [size=78%]  [/size]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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

That's decidedly inaccurate.

[Jim_Coleman]

   This discussion is reminiscent of the whether to take the flag out issue.  There are supposedly conflicting studies on both sides. As far as I’m concerned, my 60 years of experience is far better than any study, and leaving the flag in hurts way more often than it helps.   
    Likewise, the combined experiences of this crowd are more persuasive than the study being addressed.  And the crowd seems to have spoken - angles matter. Maybe not to touring pros, but to the rest of us.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There are supposedly conflicting studies on both sides.

Show me the conflicting studies here.

my 60 years of experience is far better than any study

Science schmience!

[Jim_Coleman]

Eric:  I don’t know how to paste an article here, but I just Googled the question. Pelz says leave it in; Mace and others say take it out.  I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen the pin reject a good shot. I guess the pros agree, as they look for every advantage and 90+% take it out.

[Rob Marshall]

Jim, Pelz says to leave it in not take it out. I leave it in over 20’ out inside 20’. No science just depth perception for me.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don’t know how to paste an article here, but I just Googled the question.

I was asking for the conflicting studies about "angles."

I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen the pin reject a good shot.

It doesn't happen as often as you think it does. Even a ball rolling 5' past the hole has to hit almost the exact middle of the hole to go in. But that's OT for this topic.

[Sven Nilsen]

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

That's decidedly inaccurate.

Of course you'd say that.  It's your business, we get it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Of course you'd say that. It's your business, we get it.

No, I'm an instructor for the most part. There is a reason PGA Tour players are employing "stats geeks" - it helps them score better, which is how one defines "better golfer." It's a smart business decision for many of them, to understand expectations, percentages, etc.

Your statement is provably false.

[Sven Nilsen]

Of course you'd say that. It's your business, we get it.

No, I'm an instructor for the most part. There is a reason PGA Tour players are employing "stats geeks" - it helps them score better, which is how one defines "better golfer." It's a smart business decision for many of them, to understand expectations, percentages, etc.

Your statement is provably false.

We know, you've said it before, ad naseum.


What you aren't acknowledging is that there are way more golfers out there than the guys on tour.  Stats might help .001% of the people who play the game, but they're not going to help the majority of golfers.  In the greater scheme of things, it's negligible, a concept you've enjoyed throwing around in this thread.


Golf IQ, for the majority of players, isn't derived from stats.  It's derived from experience.  The smartest players know the limits of their abilities, not from stats, but from self awareness.  They know when a little more club is better than a little less, when playing down the middle makes more sense than playing close to trouble, etc.  And there are a ton of factors that go into each and every one of those calculations.  I know, because I help people make these calculations on the course on a daily basis.


I understand where you are coming from.  You are selling an ideal, one that people see every week on TV.  Unfortunately, most people's problem is that they don't realize that they'll never measure up to that ideal, that of the "better player," and that if they want to shoot lower scores they should play smarter. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sven,


I am 100% a “feel” player. I play all my golf at links courses, my home course is one of the firmest, fastest and strategic courses there is. I have low launch and use the ground a lot. I don’t check distances (another topic - I should of course). I love angles, I try and design for them wherever possible.


And I agree with Erik: Generally speaking, we  place too much emphasis on traditional “strategy” (there are all types of other strategy). All types of golfers tend to score better by playing safely than by risking the hazards that come with chasing angles from the tee. This is because finding the hazards loses more shots than the shots gained from occasionally playing from the “right” side of the fairway. And that is partly because there isn’t as big an advantage gap between the “right” and “wrong” sides of the fairway as our imagination would like us to believe. Not to mention that most people can’t hit the “right” or “wrong” side even if they try.


This isn’t just for tour players.

[Tim Martin]

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

That's decidedly inaccurate.

Of course you'd say that.  It's your business, we get it.

Sven-Erik has been trying to hawk his “system” since he appeared on the scene here at GCA. Sometimes it’s overt while other times more nuanced depending on the topic. I’ve never gotten the sense that he has any sort of admiration for architecture or the golf courses themselves but rather sees his sign on as another business opportunity.

[Ira Fishman]

Ally,


I completely accept that the penalty for chasing an angle unsuccessfully is greater statistically than the reward for being successful. But Sven and others have made the point that there are lots of ways angles come into play strategically. Take for example number 9 at Pine Needles. The fairway is wide, and there is no hazard that needs to be played away from. But if you are coming in from the right, it is a significantly more difficult shot than from the left. My memory is fuzzy but I think the same is true at Royal Dornoch 5 given the angle (that word again) of the green.


Sven can probably give some examples at Bandon where playing a tee shot that looks to be at a safe angle away from a bunker actually is not a smart play. I found out the hard way several times when I did not execute on his advice.


Ira

[Sven Nilsen]

And I agree with Erik: Generally speaking, we  place too much emphasis on traditional “strategy” (there are all types of other strategy). All types of golfers tend to score better by playing safely than by risking the hazards that come with chasing angles from the tee. This is because finding the hazards loses more shots than the shots gained from occasionally playing from the “right” side of the fairway. And that is partly because there isn’t as big an advantage gap between the “right” and “wrong” sides of the fairway as our imagination would like us to believe. Not to mention that most people can’t hit the “right” or “wrong” side even if they try.


This isn’t just for tour players.

Ally,


I understand that point.  The nuance you are missing is that the "right side of the fairway" can be different for different players.  The best path for every golfer is not always the same path.


How can you apply a very generalized statistical analysis to what is going to work for each individual golfer, on any given day, under one of a myriad of different conditions.


My main issue here is that you and others are simplifying the concept of strategy to that of an ideal.  Your concept works under that premise.  But there's way more to strategy than two connecting straight lines on a par 4.


Sven

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We know, you've said it before, ad naseum.

If you know, why do you continue to say stupid things like "No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player."?

What you aren't acknowledging is that there are way more golfers out there than the guys on tour.

When did you fall in love with making such wildly inaccurate statements? Where have I failed to acknowledge this simple fact?

Stats might help .001% of the people who play the game, but they're not going to help the majority of golfers.

Incorrect.

If you can't break 120, you probably aren't going to get much out of strategies based on statistics. But if you can plot a reasonable Shot Zone, you can apply what I teach to play better golf.

Golf IQ, for the majority of players, isn't derived from stats. It's derived from experience.

That doesn't mean it has to be. Scott named his system DECADE in part because it forms a goofy acronym, but also in part because he says it shaves a decade off learning these types of things.

You can say "green reading is an experience," or you can take an AimPoint class and greatly accelerate that learning.

The smartest players know the limits of their abilities, not from stats, but from self awareness.

And yet… PGA Tour players are hiring statistical consultants.

They know when a little more club is better than a little less, when playing down the middle makes more sense than playing close to trouble, etc. And there are a ton of factors that go into each and every one of those calculations.  I know, because I help people make these calculations on the course on a daily basis.

What do you think statistical analysis and Shot Zones and what I call "Decision Maps" and stuff are?

I understand where you are coming from.  You are selling an ideal, one that people see every week on TV.

No.

Unfortunately, most people's problem is that they don't realize that they'll never measure up to that ideal, that of the "better player," and that if they want to shoot lower scores they should play smarter.

Ummmmm…

I understand that point.  The nuance you are missing is that the "right side of the fairway" can be different for different players.  The best path for every golfer is not always the same path.

I've never said it is.

How can you apply a very generalized statistical analysis to what is going to work for each individual golfer, on any given day, under one of a myriad of different conditions.

We don't do that. Everyone's Decision Map is different.

If that misunderstanding lead to what you wrote a bit earlier, that makes a little more sense to me how you could be so far off base. In talking online, you have to talk pretty generally. When talking about a specific golfer, you can be more specific. Most of the conversation here is very generalized. Kyle's done it, too. It's the only real way to talk about things, unless everyone is going to talk about and understand ONE specific thing.

Tim, your post is entirely bogus. And probably doesn't even deserve that much of a comment.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Take for example number 9 at Pine Needles.

Great. A specific example, and one we can talk about a bit more specifically (there are still going to be modifications based on player strengths, the tees they play, any "fears" or great weaknesses they have, etc.).

Here is the hole from the yardage book:
https://share.getcloudapp.com/kpuA1p0y

Here it is from Google Earth with some measurements on it:
https://share.getcloudapp.com/jkuAgz5b

A few statements were made:

The fairway is wide

Ah, but it is not, really. At about 245 or so, it's a little under 30 yards wide:



That's significantly less wide than the average golfer's shot dispersion. In fact, shot dispersion is still about 60-80 yards for a wide range of players. As they get better, they hit it more "accurately" (by degrees from center), but also farther (2° offline at some distance will be just as far from center as 3° at a shorter distance).

The corridor, from the second image linked to above, is only about 55 yards. Let's be generous and call it 65 yards, and pretend that you don't mind playing off pine straw and sandy scrub areas too much.

Just establishing some measurements.

and there is no hazard that needs to be played away from.

There are no "hazards" but there are hazards. See below.

But if you are coming in from the right, it is a significantly more difficult shot than from the left.

Let's assume that Ira is correct and that playing from the left side of the fairway is easier than playing from the right. (I actually prefer to be right so I can hit away from the swale to the right of the green, not to the left hitting toward the fall-off, but let's go with the "left is best" approach here).

There are basically no golfers alive who should be aiming here if they want to score their best on that hole in the long term:



Because, as I kinda said above… there is a hazard that needs to be played away from on this hole: the freaking TREES. They're on both sides of the fairway, and it's not worth it for almost anyone to play to a "side" of the fairway for the small fraction of a stroke an "easier" approach shot might save him by risking whole strokes hitting it into the trees more often.

The advice, the "strategy" here, is to aim down the middle of the alleyway (which may not be the exact middle of the fairway). When you find yourself to the "bad" right side, you say "awww, shucks, I rolled a 5 this time, but at least I'm in the fairway" and you try to hit the green. And when you find yourself to the left, maybe that's the time you say "ah, variance fell my way this time" and you feel good about having rolled a 6 on the dice that time. And then you try to hit the green.

This all ignores that whether a golfer is right or left in the fairway, they're probably going to score about the same. It may change how you feel about the approach shot, but… it probably won't affect scoring all that much. The fairway is not wide, nor is the corridor itself all that wide. You should not "pick a side" of the fairway to hit here. You should aim down the corridor and let your Shot Zone or pattern fall where it will.

Kyle's been saying the same things, too. Thank you, Ira, for the example. Specific examples that we can all look at and be on the same page allow us to talk in more specifics.

[Sven Nilsen]

Eric:


The "ad naseum" comment was about you telling us you're an instructor.  We get it.


If you can't recognize that my "stat geek" comment was the same kind of generalized statement you discuss late in your last post, so be it.


And if you want to give lessons in how to have discussions on line, perhaps we should start with the concept of tone.


As for the rest of your last post, most players are going to learn more from interacting with a good caddie over one round than they are with five range lessons talking about theoretical "decision maps" and a couple of aim point sessions on the putting green.  When the former relationship is at its best, we're guiding players in the thought process of each shot and encouraging them to offer their own solutions, not just telling them where to go.


Sven

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If you can't recognize that my "stat geek" comment was the same kind of generalized statement you discuss late in your last post, so be it.

That's not the same. Plus you said "No stat geek" not "most" or "few" or anything like that.

And if you want to give lessons in how to have discussions on line, perhaps we should start with the concept of tone.

There's no tone in plain text, Sven. Only what you add when you read it in your mind. How many insults could one read into your posts, or Tim's? The sentence "No stat geek from the institute of confusing bull crap is going to make you a better player."? could be seen as having three alone (in addition to, as noted, being incorrect on the whole.)

As for the rest of your last post, most players are going to learn more from interacting with a good caddie over one round than they are with five range lessons talking about theoretical "decision maps" and a couple of aim point sessions on the putting green.

Oh brother. I disagree, go figure. To pick at just one example there… two hours of instruction and a little self practice learning AimPoint can set someone up for a lifetime of improved green reading.

[Niall C]

From the most recent posts, am I correct in saying that the stats are based on par 4's where for the position for the approach shot with the best angle to the green being guarded by some sort of hazard ie. bunker ? What of holes where not being in position is the penalty ? Maybe where a combination of line and length off the tee is required to find the best path to the green. Presumably they aren't in the stats or is the suggestion that in that instance also the angle of approach doesn't matter ?


Niall

[Sven Nilsen]

Oh brother. I disagree. To pick at just one example there… two hours and a little self practice learning AimPoint, for example, can set someone up for a lifetime of improved green reading.

We'll agree to disagree.  Most players would be better served focusing on pace as opposed to an aiming system for lines that they can't hit anyway. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We'll agree to disagree.  Most players would be better served focusing on pace as opposed to an aiming system for lines that they can't hit anyway.

That's not a counter-argument as we're not talking about which matters more or most.

[Sven Nilsen]

We'll agree to disagree.  Most players would be better served focusing on pace as opposed to an aiming system for lines that they can't hit anyway.

That's not a counter-argument as we're not talking about which matters more or most.

I am. 


Pace always matters more.  Unfortunately most players ignore it because they're too wrapped up in trying to figure out whether it's a 2 or 3 percent slope on a putt that breaks three times before it gets to the hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()