[Mike Bodo]

The calculus isn't whether to risk a stroke by firing at the flag. Risk today is more defined as, "I'm not taking the risk of losing another $5 golf ball." 

Great analysis, Jeff and there's a lot of truth to this. I plead guilty of the crime myself, as I've intentionally avoided carries over water even when I've had a decent angle to the pin for fear of losing another $5.00 ball in a round, when I'd already lost two prior. When you pay $50.00 - $75.00 for a round of golf and lose 3 or 4 balls in the process, it becomes an expensive day.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think it probably bothers many here that the USGA and RTJ in 1951 were actually right......they knew the designs of those Golden Age courses really weren't cutting it.


Wasn't it Flynn who (or was it Langford?) that design should favor accuracy, then length?  Turns out, he had it backward.......and RTJ designed courses that demanded both from tee shots.

[Sven Nilsen]

Brett, Mark, Ben and Jeff:


Thanks for your dose of sanity in the last round of posts.  If not a termination of the thread, perhaps a reset is in order.


My main issue, as someone mostly in the angles matter camp, has more to do with the study itself.


Correct me if I’m wrong, but the shots examined exist only in the vacuum of approaches from different locations.  There isn’t any connection to how those shots got to either the good side or the bad side.  For example, are a number of the bad shot pinpoints the result of the player aiming to the good aide, but knowing if they missed to the other side of the fairway they’d still be in play.


Its the concept of only examining one segment of the play of the hole that doesn’t sit right with me.  When you stand on the tee, often you just plan on how to keep a ball in play on that shot, but many times you’re thinking about how the entire hole will play out.


I’d be interested in seeing a deeper breakdown, one that encompasses all of the nuances above.  It seems to me that where people were trying to get to with their tee ball is an important variable that hasn’t been brought into the equation.


The gist of the theory we’re talking about is that because golf is erratic, it is always better to play safe.  But sometimes you have it, and two shots are going to go pretty much like you planned.  Part of the skill in this game is knowing when you’ve got it going, and when you don’t.


The other factor not discussed is tee ball club selection.  I’d like to see a breakdown of less club on an aggressive line versus more club on a safer line.


And of course, all of this needs to somehow account for the other variables such as wind, firmness, trajectory, etc.


All the best,


Sven

[Tim Martin]

The calculus isn't whether to risk a stroke by firing at the flag. Risk today is more defined as, "I'm not taking the risk of losing another $5 golf ball." 

Great analysis, Jeff and there's a lot of truth to this. I plead guilty of the crime myself, as I've intentionally avoided carries over water even when I've had a decent angle to the pin for fear of losing another $5.00 ball in a round, when I'd already lost two prior. When you pay $50.00 - $75.00 for a round of golf and lose 3 or 4 balls in the process, it becomes an expensive day.

I remember a friend remarking that “it would have been cheaper to lose three ways plus two birdies in the $5 and $2 nassau game than the four ProV1’s I lost.”

[Brett Meyer]

The calculus isn't whether to risk a stroke by firing at the flag. Risk today is more defined as, "I'm not taking the risk of losing another $5 golf ball." 

Great analysis, Jeff and there's a lot of truth to this. I plead guilty of the crime myself, as I've intentionally avoided carries over water even when I've had a decent angle to the pin for fear of losing another $5.00 ball in a round, when I'd already lost two prior. When you pay $50.00 - $75.00 for a round of golf and lose 3 or 4 balls in the process, it becomes an expensive day.

...and that's why seniors invented the water ball 

[Sean_A]

The calculus isn't whether to risk a stroke by firing at the flag. Risk today is more defined as, "I'm not taking the risk of losing another $5 golf ball." 

Great analysis, Jeff and there's a lot of truth to this. I plead guilty of the crime myself, as I've intentionally avoided carries over water even when I've had a decent angle to the pin for fear of losing another $5.00 ball in a round, when I'd already lost two prior. When you pay $50.00 - $75.00 for a round of golf and lose 3 or 4 balls in the process, it becomes an expensive day.

I remember a friend remarking that “it would have been cheaper to lose three ways plus two birdies in the $5 and $2 nassau game than the four ProV1’s I lost.”

Jeff isn't wrong, even though I play with $3 balls 😎

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There isn’t any connection to how those shots got to either the good side or the bad side.  For example, are a number of the bad shot pinpoints the result of the player aiming to the good aide, but knowing if they missed to the other side of the fairway they’d still be in play.

That's kinda beside the point. And Lou's data, my data, etc. is an amalgamation of thousands or millions of shots across many, many holes.

The primary goal on almost any tee shot, heck, any shot of any kind is to advance the ball safely. That means if there's bunker in the right side of the fairway and light rough to the left, a smart player looking to shoot the lowest score overall will take that into consideration and, generally, aim toward the left-center.

Whether their ball ends up with the "better angle" near the bunker in the fairway or in the left side of the fairway with the "worse" angle is irrelevant: as we've said a few times, they shouldn't be playing toward the bunker much anyway.

If I'm "aiming" down the middle of the 9th hole at Pine Needles, I'm not going to be there all the time. My shot pattern will look somewhat like a bell curve… the middle 68% will be in the fairway maybe, 95% will be in the "corridor," and maybe (hopefully less!) 5% will be outside the corridor left and/or right. Maybe the bell curve will be "leaning" one way or the other… but I'm still looking to get as many of my shots as I can in the middle of the corridor.

The gist of the theory we’re talking about is that because golf is erratic, it is always better to play safe.  But sometimes you have it, and two shots are going to go pretty much like you planned. Part of the skill in this game is knowing when you’ve got it going, and when you don’t.

We have data on how often players "have it." I think you'd lose any related bets here, but…

Do players feel like they have it sometimes? Yes. But we also don't hear very often from the player who feels like he has it… then hits a lousy shot. On the Tour or in our personal lives.

I shared that with Lou and he said: "Tell me you don’t understand anything about probability without telling me you don’t understand anything about probability."

[Sven Nilsen]

I’ll follow up with more later, but we often hear players say something like they loved the way a shot set up right after messing up?

[Ira Fishman]

My conclusion is that both Erik and Sven are correct. When you look at millions of data points that flatten out particular factors such as weather and player capability on a given day (and excluding when the ball is rolling), the probabilities say that angles do not matter for scoring. However, when you are looking at an individual golfer on a particular course, those factors may overcome the overall probabilities. Not for all rounds and all courses/holes, but for enough to matter, even when the ball is not rolling (which as an aside is an exception that swallows the rule on links courses).


But at the end of the day, Hogan, as he often does, proves why both Erik and Sven are correct. The 11th at ANGC (yes, I know that it is not about a tee shot chasing the angle) and the 6th at Carnoustie. Probabilities rule over the long term, but genius is genius.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But at the end of the day, Hogan, as he often does, proves why both Erik and Sven are correct. The 11th at ANGC (yes, I know that it is not about a tee shot chasing the angle) and the 6th at Carnoustie. Probabilities rule over the long term, but genius is genius.

Okay, let's try this. Now, I know it's not average players, but here is shot data from all shots 180-219 in the fairway at ANGC's 11th from 2019-2021. There are 91 shots on the "B" side of the line (the line may not be exactly right - it's shots closer to the left side of the fairway than the right) and 86 shots from the "A" side.



As you can see, only the hole locations close to the water were used to accentuate the angle.

Take a guess what these factors are from A and B:

Stat                 A         B
----------------   -----     -----
  Scoring Avg.:
         GIR %:
Avg. Proximity:
    % < 40 ft.:
    % < 20 ft.:

If you don't want to fill out the chart with actual guesses, just guess which one was higher or lower.

Edit to add this: 199.8 average from B, 199.3 average from A.

P.S. Lou wishes to join the site. I've told him to email Ran.

[Sven Nilsen]

What is the difference in the lies between the A side and the B side.  Where are you more likely to have a hook lie.


Do the stats account for every variable? 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What is the difference in the lies between the A side and the B side.

They're all fairway.

What are your guesses?

[Sven Nilsen]

And here’s the crux of it.  There are a ton of variables in this game.  Lies matter, perhaps sometimes more than angles.  Wind matters. Trajectory matters.


The stats game makes it all static, which it rarely is.

[Brett Meyer]

But at the end of the day, Hogan, as he often does, proves why both Erik and Sven are correct. The 11th at ANGC (yes, I know that it is not about a tee shot chasing the angle) and the 6th at Carnoustie. Probabilities rule over the long term, but genius is genius.

Okay, let's try this. Now, I know it's not average players, but here is shot data from all shots 180-219 in the fairway at ANGC's 11th from 2019-2021. There are 91 shots on the "B" side of the line (the line may not be exactly right - it's shots closer to the left side of the fairway than the right) and 86 shots from the "A" side.



As you can see, only the hole locations close to the water were used to accentuate the angle.

Take a guess what these factors are from A and B:

Stat                 A         B
----------------   -----     -----
  Scoring Avg.:
         GIR %:
Avg. Proximity:
    % < 40 ft.:
    % < 20 ft.:

If you don't want to fill out the chart with actual guesses, just guess which one was higher or lower.

Edit to add this: 199.8 average from B, 199.3 average from A.

P.S. Lou wishes to join the site. I've told him to email Ran.

Glad to hear that Lou wants to join the site! Looking forward to more of these types of conversations.

This would be a good case to get a bit more sophisticated with our data analysis, which would allow us to address some of the issues that have come up in this thread, like conditions and how well the player is playing. The outcomes that you've specified are good, as is the focus on left pins, although I'd be especially interested in the results for the back-left pin, which is where the angle should matter most.

I would run regressions of your outcome variables on distance from the ideal point in the fairway, let's say 2 yards from the right rough. What we should find is that the further you get from the ideal point, the higher the scoring is.

I'd control for a variety of things. First, I'd drop all observations from the rough. I don't know if there's data on the slope of the fairway from all points but if there is, you could control for this. You could control for wind generally, but probably not the exact conditions when the player played their shot. Most important, you could control for how well the player has been driving the ball up to this point by using strokes gained driving either for this tournament or for the year--because those up the left side might be driving the ball worse than those up the right side and we need to separate this out from the pure effect of the good angle. You might also want to control for strokes gained approach to separate out how well the player is playing with their irons.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The stats game makes it all static, which it rarely is.

That's a cop-out. Everything you're saying right now is a cop-out. If angles matter on the 11th at Augusta National in the Masters, then they matter. If the other things all matter so much more, then angles really don't here.

What are your guesses?

[Tim Martin]

My question after eleven pages is how much of the “data” is a revelation versus what you already know from experience? Isn’t a fair amount of the information just common sense dressed up as “millions of shots” leading to the conclusions put forth by the proprietors? Finally is a manifesto required for the amateur player to succeed with the scorecard?

[Sven Nilsen]

The stats game makes it all static, which it rarely is.

That's a cop-out. Everything you're saying right now is a cop-out. If angles matter on the 11th at Augusta National in the Masters, then they matter. If the other things all matter so much more, then angles really don't here.

What are your guesses?

Erik:

Not a cop out.  You just picked a bad example.  There are way too many factors going on at 11 for this exercise to have any validity. 

Probably most importantly, the strategy at 11 is to hit it far enough to get to the speed slot, thus getting some extra rollout and a shorter club in your hand, which makes a big difference on this hole.  11 is an example of where a long ball on the safest line is most likely going to result in better results.  Perhaps you can break this one down for every drive under 300 and every drive over 300, and we'll see how it plays out. 

And there are a bunch of other factors here that need to be looked at.  Where the pin is for each of those shots also makes a difference.  What the wind was doing on each of those shots makes a difference.  Augusta might not be your best example, as many of the shots are played for a lie, not necessarily just an angle (go read Damon Green's breakdown of Zach Johnson's strategy on the course). No one wants to be hitting into 11 (or many of the other holes there) with a ball way above or below their feet.  If you want to pick a hole to examine at ANGC, perhaps 18 would be better.

I'd like to see a study that tracks not just one shot, but the entire play of a hole.  Set it up for a variety of different classes of players (those that primarily hook the ball, those that fade, short hitters, long hitters, etc.).  Break it down on whether it was into or with the wind.  Throw out any instances where someone ends up in a divot or gets some other bad break.  And run control groups for those playing for an angle, and those playing the safest line off the tee.  Do this on longer holes and on shorter holes.  Do it for holes where the best perceived approach angle is near a hazard, and when it is away from a hazard.  Do it for holes with water, and holes where you're just negotiating bunkers.  Do it on 30 yard wide fairways, and do it on 100 yard fairways (there are a few of those out here, believe it or not).  Have people hit a few different clubs off the tee if doing so is going to take tee ball trouble out of play (either long or short of it).

Do it for one player only.  Because isn't that really the issue?  How is that individual player going to fare?  What use are stats for the atypical golfer?  Not every player is going to have the same ideal spot, so how can you decide if a pinpoint is actually in the proper category?

Or just hire a good caddie. 


“On the approach, the left hole locations are closer to the water but are easier to deal with because bail-out shots to the right still find the green. It’s those middle-right hole positions that are the most difficult. You don’t want to play left of them because of the water, but if you miss the green right, you have a testy chip. If the ball rolls more than three feet past the hole, it’s likely to go another 20 feet past.”

Jordan Spieth

[Ben Sims]

And here’s the crux of it.  There are a ton of variables in this game.  Lies matter, perhaps sometimes more than angles.  Wind matters. Trajectory matters.


The stats game makes it all static, which it rarely is.

Sven,

I think theres an argument to be made that with 630M shots (and counting) recorded, that variables like lie, wind, and trajectory are aggregated and taken into account. That seems to be the opposite of static wouldn’t you say? It’s an evolving and living collection of data.

In my job, we talk a lot about the lowest level of acceptable risk. That risk assessment is absolutely not a static determination. It is a safety mindset taken in aggregate of all the factors and it can be calculated.

I don’t see how using golf analytics for decision making on the course is much different.

[Sven Nilsen]

Your Arccos button takes into account wind, lie, trajectory, etc.?


Need to get me one of those.


I can see this kind of stat gathering being done for the tour guys, but we’re not just talking about those guys and the courses they play.

[Ben Sims]

Your Arccos button takes into account wind, lie, trajectory, etc.?


Need to get me one of those.


I can see this kind of stat gathering being done for the tour guys, but we’re not just talking about those guys and the courses they play.

I don’t have arccos.


And you know as well as I do that they don’t take into account those variables.


What I am arguing is that due to the sheer amount of data, it is already aggregating lie/wind/trajectory. Do you think the shot tracking only tracks when it’s flat and windless?

[Sven Nilsen]

Ben,


No, I don’t.  But those factors might change how you take on a shot, or influence the outcome. 


Sven

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Not a cop out.  You just picked a bad example.  There are way too many factors going on at 11 for this exercise to have any validity.

I didn't pick the example. Ira did (IIRC). And it is a cop-out, because your new plan is just to apparently claim "too many factors going on." Well, if there are too many other factors that affect this, when are those NOT a factor, and where does "the angle" rank in that list? Because, if it's way after whatever you listed (and some things you probably didn't list), then I'm again going with "don't matter much at all*."

There were likely good lies of the 86 shots on the one side, and good lies on the 91 shots on the other side. And bad lies on both sides. And so on. "You Cannot Reason People Out of Something They Were Not Reasoned Into"

Probably most importantly, the strategy at 11 is to hit it far enough to get to the speed slot, thus getting some extra rollout and a shorter club in your hand, which makes a big difference on this hole.

These are where most people hit their tee shots on #11 (that hit the fairway).

11 is an example of where a long ball on the safest line is most likely going to result in better results. Perhaps you can break this one down for every drive under 300 and every drive over 300, and we'll see how it plays out.

What's that got to do with angles? Let's say we look at tee shots that left 140-180 in to the green. You know what you'd see? Way fewer tee shots. Lower scoring averages (duh), more GIR (duh), more shots inside 20 and 40 feet (duh).

This is where many players hit their tee shots. And on a longer shot, the angle should matter more, because the ball will not be flying and stopping as quickly, and it's a more difficult shot anyway with a larger Shot Zone. What you proposed has no value at all and is not on topic here at all - it's just talking about players who had a shorter club in than other players.

And there are a bunch of other factors here that need to be looked at. Where the pin is for each of those shots also makes a difference.

They're all the left pins by the water. The hole locations that exaggerate the effects (supposedly) of the angle with the water right there.

What the wind was doing on each of those shots makes a difference.

Those come out in the wash.

Augusta might not be your best example

It wasn't my example.

If you want to pick a hole to examine at ANGC, perhaps 18 would be better.

I didn't "pick" #11.

I'd like to see a study that tracks not just one shot, but the entire play of a hole. And run control groups for those playing for an angle

What does it matter if they "played" for an angle but then didn't achieve it, or if they weren't playing for an angle and did achieve it?

Tour players aren't generally playing for angles! More and more, they're realizing that what I wrote in 2014, what Mark Broadie wrote in 2014, what Scott's been teaching since late 2014 or 2015 or whatever… is true. They're realizing that what Jack Nicklaus said about how he plays is true. They're realizing that they need to avoid penalties (bad bunkers, trees, horrible rough) first and foremost, try to get it in the fairway second, and forget anything else, really. Aggressive with distance off the tee (so long as they can avoid stuff for the most part), and then conservative into the greens. Tour players aren't often "attacking" pins — regardless of what you hear on TV — from 180 out regardless of their lie or the wind or anything like that. They're just not. Especially with water close by. Do you recall where Scottie — to a right pin — hit his second on Sunday? Short right. Because a bogey doesn't kill him, but a double or triple might.

, and those playing the safest line off the tee.  Do this on longer holes and on shorter holes. Do it for holes where the best perceived approach angle is near a hazard, and when it is away from a hazard.  Do it for holes with water, and holes where you're just negotiating bunkers.  Do it on 30 yard wide fairways, and do it on 100 yard fairways (there are a few of those out here, believe it or not).  Have people hit a few different clubs off the tee if doing so is going to take tee ball trouble out of play (either long or short of it).

We have. You'll never guess what it shows! 

Do it for one player only.

We've done that too (we've consulted with Tour players since 2013). For faders and drawers. You know what it shows? Faders score a little better when the hole is cut on the right, and drawers score a little better when the hole is cut to the left… but there's basically no difference whether they're hitting from the right side or the left side of the fairway, or the right rough or the left rough.

Because isn't that really the issue?  How is that individual player going to fare? What use are stats for the atypical golfer?  Not every player is going to have the same ideal spot, so how can you decide if a pinpoint is actually in the proper category?

Or just hire a good caddie.

We've consulted with caddies, too (you can't consult with a Tour player these days without the caddie being involved). They're helping their players score better by understanding this stuff. They're not just riffing on decades-old stuff.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No, I don’t.  But those factors might change how you take on a shot, or influence the outcome.

Those factors might affect HOW you play a shot (into the wind maybe you hit a knockdown 8, downwind maybe you rip a PW for the height and spin, etc…), but they don't really affect the "angles" — they don't affect where the optimal center of your Shot Zone is and thus where you're trying to put the ball.

[Sven Nilsen]

Not a cop out.  You just picked a bad example.  There are way too many factors going on at 11 for this exercise to have any validity.

I didn't pick the example. Ira did (IIRC).


Ira may have picked it, but you ran with it. 


And it is a cop-out, because your new plan is just to apparently claim "too many factors going on." Well, if there are too many other factors that affect this, when are those NOT a factor, and where does "the angle" rank in that list? Because, if it's way after whatever you listed (and some things you probably didn't list), then I'm again going with "don't matter much at all*."


The short answer is that 11 is one hole that players don't think about an angle.  They think about staying safe off the tee.  These were factors specific to 11.

There were likely good lies of the 86 shots on the one side, and good lies on the 91 shots on the other side. And bad lies on both sides. [size=78%]And so on.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]You never addressed the question as to what side of 11 produces flatter lies.  Although it won't influence where players aim off the tee on this particular hole, it will influence the results of the shots into the greens. [/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]"You Cannot Reason People Out of Something They Were Not Reasoned Into"[/size]
[/size]
[/size]Unnecessary. [size=78%][/font]

Probably most importantly, the strategy at 11 is to hit it far enough to get to the speed slot, thus getting some extra rollout and a shorter club in your hand, which makes a big difference on this hole.

These are where most people hit their tee shots on #11 (that hit the fairway).


Most Tour Players?  You do see the issue with that, don't you?

11 is an example of where a long ball on the safest line is most likely going to result in better results. Perhaps you can break this one down for every drive under 300 and every drive over 300, and we'll see how it plays out.

What's that got to do with angles?


Nothing, it has to do with the strategy that players (specifically Tour Players) take on this particular hole where I've already stated they don't play for an angle off the tee.


Let's say we look at tee shots that left 140-180 in to the green. You know what you'd see? Way fewer tee shots. Lower scoring averages (duh), more GIR (duh), more shots inside 20 and 40 feet (duh).


Are the "duhs" necessary?

This is where many players hit their tee shots. And on a longer shot, the angle should matter more, because the ball will not be flying and stopping as quickly, and it's a more difficult shot anyway with a larger Shot Zone. What you proposed has no value at all and is not on topic here at all - it's just talking about players who had a shorter club in than other players.


Which is entirely what the players want.  Here's Larry Mize on the 11th - "[/size]“With the tee shot. There’s a point in the fairway, if you can reach it, where you can get a little more run and get a shorter club in your hand into that green. Makes a big difference.”[/color]

Again, you're the one who wanted to talk about angles on 11.  I said it was a bad example.

And there are a bunch of other factors here that need to be looked at. Where the pin is for each of those shots also makes a difference.

They're all the left pins by the water. The hole locations that exaggerate the effects (supposedly) of the angle with the water right there.


See the Jordan Spieth quote at the end of my post noting the middle and right pin positions are harder.  But then again, no need to digress further on a hole where the players don't play for an angle.

What the wind was doing on each of those shots makes a difference.

Those come out in the wash.


Does it?  If there's anywhere on earth where a sudden gust of wind can seemingly change fortunes, it is probably Amen Corner.

Augusta might not be your best example

It wasn't my example.


Again, you ran with it.

If you want to pick a hole to examine at ANGC, perhaps 18 would be better.

I didn't "pick" #11.


Ditto.

I'd like to see a study that tracks not just one shot, but the entire play of a hole. And run control groups for those playing for an angle

What does it matter if they "played" for an angle but then didn't achieve it, or if they weren't playing for an angle and did achieve it?


How do you know there isn't a difference in the results if you haven't run the study?  You expect there's a difference, but you don't know it.

Tour players aren't generally playing for angles!


Provably wrong.  There are many instances, including on Augusta National, where they are playing for an angle.  The layup on 15 is one glaring example.


More and more, they're realizing that what I wrote in 2014, what Mark Broadie wrote in 2014, what Scott's been teaching since late 2014 or 2015 or whatever… is true. They're realizing that what Jack Nicklaus said about how he plays is true. They're realizing that they need to avoid penalties (bad bunkers, trees, horrible rough) first and foremost, try to get it in the fairway second, and forget anything else, really. Aggressive with distance off the tee (so long as they can avoid stuff for the most part), and then conservative into the greens. Tour players aren't often "attacking" pins — regardless of what you hear on TV — from 180 out regardless of their lie or the wind or anything like that. They're just not. Especially with water close by. Do you recall where Scottie — to a right pin — hit his second on Sunday? Short right. Because a bogey doesn't kill him, but a double or triple might.


As mentioned earlier, everything is situational.  You can't tell me the guys who are two and three back on Sunday aren't firing at pins.

, and those playing the safest line off the tee.  Do this on longer holes and on shorter holes. Do it for holes where the best perceived approach angle is near a hazard, and when it is away from a hazard.  Do it for holes with water, and holes where you're just negotiating bunkers.  Do it on 30 yard wide fairways, and do it on 100 yard fairways (there are a few of those out here, believe it or not).  Have people hit a few different clubs off the tee if doing so is going to take tee ball trouble out of play (either long or short of it).

We have. You'll never guess what it shows! 


You just said you don't run control groups for the entire play of a hole for those playing for an angle, which is what all of these variables are talking about.

Do it for one player only.

We've done that too (we've consulted with Tour players since 2013). For faders and drawers. You know what it shows? Faders score a little better when the hole is cut on the right, and drawers score a little better when the hole is cut to the left… but there's basically no difference whether they're hitting from the right side or the left side of the fairway, or the right rough or the left rough.


I thought we settled the Tour Players only issue earlier in the thread.  I'm not just talking about Tour Players.

Because isn't that really the issue?  How is that individual player going to fare? What use are stats for the atypical golfer?  Not every player is going to have the same ideal spot, so how can you decide if a pinpoint is actually in the proper category?

Or just hire a good caddie.

We've consulted with caddies, too (you can't consult with a Tour player these days without the caddie being involved). They're helping their players score better by understanding this stuff. They're not just riffing on decades-old stuff.

Again, you're talking about Tour Players and their caddies.  But during this entire thread you've talked about the applicability of the premise to all players. 

[Sven Nilsen]

No, I don’t.  But those factors might change how you take on a shot, or influence the outcome.

Those factors might affect HOW you play a shot (into the wind maybe you hit a knockdown 8, downwind maybe you rip a PW for the height and spin, etc…), but they don't really affect the "angles" — they don't affect where the optimal center of your Shot Zone is and thus where you're trying to put the ball.

You don't think wind, lies, trajectory, etc. are going to influence how much risk you might want to take on on a particular shot?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()