.........If accurate, this data undermines the fundamental concept underlying strategic design - tempt a hazard to gain an advantage.....
My take on this is that some of the old guys wrote that in their books (which they may have believed, but the books were mostly for marketing) but there really was never any "proof of concept." 100+ years later, modern statistics allow that to happen.
I don't challenge fw hazards often (there is no rule that is absolute, of course) as a relatively straight driving average golfer. Neither do most ams.
None of the tour pros I have worked with did, nor club pros, nor top ams, nor average players. When asked which side of a fw they would aim for in designing or redesigning a hole most said, "The middle." Jim Colbert (a grinder who tried to hit the shot required rather than play his stock shot pattern) often preferred to come in from the side of the greenside hazard. He reasoned it was like teeing off with OB on one side, i.e., that you double the safety angle by aiming away from the hazard compared to coming in from the open front side. I have heard Jack Nicklaus say the key to playing a hole was to miss the fw hazards.
Sure, there are holes where it really matters, but like most public discussions, the discussion seems to lean towards the exceptions, not the middle ground. In reality, challenging a player on the tee with temptation probably only works on par 5 holes where a true full stroke might be gained and/or perhaps a hole late in the round where a gamble might allow them to a last ditch effort to catch up to an opponent.
I don't even think those Golden Age designers thought about it and applied it religiously. After all, if they did, would there be such a percentage of greens from that (or any other era) with what Colt called "wing bunkers" both right and left at the green? Bunker left, bunker right hardly seems strategic, unless staggered front and back.
Ross wrote, "There is the hole. Play it any way you please." The first Masters program with the article "by Bobby Jones" was really written by MacKenzie, and people I trust have told me there is a radio interview with Jones where he said, "Mac wrote that, but if there is a hazard, I play as far away from it as possible to avoid it." I can't recall Colt's writings, other than the wing bunkers I already mentioned.
On the other hand, there isn't much new in those stats, just things most folks knew and are very refined. We know that tour pros miss 50% at 8 feet, but that even at 100 yards, the average distance to the flag is 19.5 feet. Aiming at the tucked flag has been shown statistically to be a loser, i.e., why risk hazards to possibly gain a 50% chance of birdie? Then, statistically, the number of made putts from 15-50 feet is about 0.1% difference, so please aim at the fattest and deepest part of the green. Jack, Tiger, and the other top players stood out with what would be called "course management" which is really code for missing hazards.
The same has always been touted for ams (i.e., aim for the fat part of the green) because they have similarly consistent shot dispersions, albeit at greater angles. If tour pros are about 13% (6.5 yards on either side for a 100 yard shot) then ams must be about 25% (I don't recall that offhand, but could look it up.) As pros have taught for years, ams are nearly always better off playing to the safest area possible.
As to what that all may mean for design, I don't know. Talking with those who support this system and design courses, they don't say they design greens much differently, following the land and using aesthetics as the basic principles. Where angles do matter is on the tee shot, as when Pete Dye alternated left and right angled fairways.....but that was to encourage or reward a certain shot type, not necessarily to set up an angle. I believe most tee shots should be designed the same way to test various skills.
Basically, your score is 90-95+% skill and/or execution, and at best <5-10% strategy. Of course, aiming at the biggest targets is a strategy in itself, perhaps cloaked as course management. As many have mentioned, when you factor in how you are playing that day, wind, conditions, roll, etc., strategy has always been more about nuance than the simplistic idea of trying to hit a target that gives you and open front green.
And, if my understanding is correct, the best way to create strategy is to undulate at 3-5% fairways in the 300-350 range, since hitting off different fw lies makes golfers create a shot that is different each time. Those same undulations in shallow rough really complicate things for better players and are probably the best investment in toughening the course for them, vs more expensive sand bunkers only 1% of golfers will find.
We had Scott Fawcette at our ASGCA winter meeting and the reaction from our members was about as miffed as the reactions from those here. Some of us also looked at those Stagner stats, and the reaction was similarly miffed or confused.
And, as always, just MHO.