[Erik J. Barzeski]

Pace always matters more.

https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1505315269492752387

"Distance control is THE thing to learn if you want to be a good putter. It affects your reads and your second putts. Learn to control your distances/speed first and foremost."


I have made many tweets, posts, etc. about the importance of pace before that one from almost a year ago, too.

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.

The discussion, my point, whatever… was not about whether pace/distance is more important than green reading.

[Sven Nilsen]

I have made many tweets, posts, etc. about the importance of pace before that one from almost a year ago, too.

Good for you.  I'm sure the small percentage of golfers that learns the game from Twitter appreciates it.

You can read that tone however you like.

"I have many leather-bound books..."

-Ron Burgundy

[Ira Fishman]

Erik,


Thank you for your response to mine about PN. It is the first time I have been grateful for my slow club head speed.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thank you for your response to mine about PN. It is the first time I have been grateful for my slow club head speed.

Heh.    Yeah, if your dispersion pattern is small (most people under-estimate the size of their actual pattern), you can play to slightly different targets. For sure.


Sven:

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven:

Erik:

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik:

I think you missed the point. You made a straw man argument; I wasn't calling you a straw man.

[Sven Nilsen]

Erik:

I think you missed the point. You made a straw man argument; I wasn't calling you a straw man.

Guess it wasn't plain text.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Could someone please speak as they might to a small child or a golden retriever and explain how the following individual factors may influence the impact a shot's angle of approach will have on a player's scoring potential for any given hole?

Ball Flight:

• Decent Angle
• Spin
• Shot Shape

Ground Conditions At Shot Landing Site:

• Firmness
• Grass Height
• Slope
• Moisture
• Hazard Proximity

Player Characteristics:

• Consistency
• Aggressiveness

If these factors have little to no influence, please explain why. If there are other factors that have greater influence, please elaborate on them as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Also not touched upon, but I believe the type of match might influence this, i.e., in match play you only lose one hole no matter what, which limits the negative effects of finding a fw hazard or green hazard and increased the possibility that angles might help.


Just a thought.

[Rob Marshall]

I would love to hear Matt Cohn or Jeff Warne’s take on this topic rather than a condescending know it all.

[Max Prokopy]

Rich Hunt, who publishes the annual "Pro Golf Synopsis", would be an interesting person to have a take. 


I think the par 3 #6 at Tobacco Road would be a great case study in angles.  Strantz built tees about 75 yards apart so the hole can play to a long/skinny green or to a wide/shallow green depending on the daily set-up.  I thought the concept was pure genius...do any of the angles folks think the hole plays easier in a particular configuration?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’m going to have one more go here before I move on:


Those that are arguing for angles seem to think that the against lot aren’t being deep enough in their considerations. I tend to think we’ve gone deep and then further. Anyway, my position is talking only about classic strategic design 101 which is - in its simplest form - about rewarding a riskier drive with a more desirable angle in to the green. I concede all the nuances. I live them all the time on the golf course (actually one thing that hasn’t been mentioned is how we tend to execute a better shot when we feel comfortable visualising that shot’s outcome).


So, taking Strategic Design 101 on a par-4, there is a part A and a part B:


PART A: THE DRIVE.
As Eric has demonstrated quite well in Reply 193 to Ira, it - almost always - makes no sense to aim for one side of the fairway or another. Even on the most strategic courses, I will be aiming down the middle of the fairway (unless there’s a centreline bunker in which case I will choose one of the two split fairways to aim down the middle of / lay back from etc….). This I always knew, partly because skill levels aren’t high enough and partly because I suspected PART B to a certain extent.


PART B: THE APPROACH
Part of the reason it’s better to aim down the fairway is that apparently - and I didn’t know this - there isn’t much difference to scoring from the good side of the fairway than the bad side of the fairway. Now I haven’t studied the stats and personally, I still like coming in from a more “comfortable” angle. It makes me feel more confident. But I’ve known all along that there is a small enough difference in scoring that I don’t go chasing that comfortable angle because the risk outweighs the reward. If I aim it down the middle, I’m going to end up on the good side by chance quite often.


You don’t have to explain temptation, lines of charm, diagonal carries, wind, ground movement etc… etc… to me or I suspect the others. I know all that. This is about scoring. If you are just going out to hit golf shots and have fun, take it all on… but then, as I remember one argumentative thread many moons ago, is that golf or just practicing for golf?

[Niall C]

PART B: THE APPROACH
Part of the reason it’s better to aim down the fairway is that apparently - and I didn’t know this - there isn’t much difference to scoring from the good side of the fairway than the bad side of the fairway. Now I haven’t studied the stats and personally, I still like coming in from a more “comfortable” angle. It makes me feel more confident. But I’ve known all along that there is a small enough difference in scoring that I don’t go chasing that comfortable angle because the risk outweighs the reward. If I aim it down the middle, I’m going to end up on the good side by chance quite often.

Ally


Do you know for a fact that is what the survey/data says ? I asked the question in another post and don't think I received a reply.


Niall

[Rob Marshall]

"PART A: THE DRIVE.[/size]As Eric has demonstrated quite well in Reply 193 to Ira, it - almost always - makes no sense to aim for one side of the fairway or another. Even on the most strategic courses, I will be aiming down the middle of the fairway (unless there’s a centreline bunker in which case I will choose one of the two split fairways to aim down the middle of / lay back from etc….). This I always knew, partly because skill levels aren’t high enough and partly because I suspected PART B to a certain extent."


Are you taking into account the curve of the drive? [/size]

[Ally Mcintosh]

PART B: THE APPROACH
Part of the reason it’s better to aim down the fairway is that apparently - and I didn’t know this - there isn’t much difference to scoring from the good side of the fairway than the bad side of the fairway. Now I haven’t studied the stats and personally, I still like coming in from a more “comfortable” angle. It makes me feel more confident. But I’ve known all along that there is a small enough difference in scoring that I don’t go chasing that comfortable angle because the risk outweighs the reward. If I aim it down the middle, I’m going to end up on the good side by chance quite often.

Ally


Do you know for a fact that is what the survey/data says ? I asked the question in another post and don't think I received a reply.


Niall

No, hence words like “apparently”, “I didn’t know this” and “I haven’t studied the stats”. I would have thought that was obvious!


But I did - through common sense in knowing my own game - suspect the difference was small, hence my general application of Part A.


Rob, not sure what you’re asking with the curve of the drive? If I aim down the middle, sometimes I’ll end up on the “good” side, sometimes I’ll end up on the “bad” side, sometimes I’ll miss altogether. But crucially, I’ll miss less often than if I head down one side or another…. (This is talking about finishing point, discounting natural shot shapes which I’m sure we all account for to one degree or another when aiming).

[Niall C]

Ally


Yes, I could have framed my question a bit better. I was really trying to find out what the data purports to show beyond the simple "Angles Don't Matter". For instance, is the suggestion that it doesn't matter whether you approach from an angle with the green open or with it well guarded, in that the scores will be more or less the same ? Your part B seems to suggest that's the case. Did you get that from Erik or from some other analysis of the data ?


Niall

[Brett Meyer]

Ally


Yes, I could have framed my question a bit better. I was really trying to find out what the data purports to show beyond the simple "Angles Don't Matter". For instance, is the suggestion that it doesn't matter whether you approach from an angle with the green open or with it well guarded, in that the scores will be more or less the same ? Your part B seems to suggest that's the case. Did you get that from Erik or from some another analysis of the data ?


Niall

I don't think anyone has established this. I was trying to do this a few pages back when I eyeballed the scores from the good/bad side of the layup zone on 10 at Riviera. It looks like the scoring is lower from the good angle side, but you can't actually calculate it in the link that Erik posted. I suspect that it isn't a huge difference, though. And that's just one case, one only involving the pros.

It may be pedantic in the real world where we should just be trying to avoid hazards off the tee, but I'd like to see how the scoring averages would differ if we put different skill level players on the good/bad side of the fairway (so controlling for hazards on the drive) at various distances when the angle should matter. Because if the good angle matters, maybe one of the things we should be doing is designing holes where we want the angle into the green to matter to have minimal hazards off the tee--the point that I was trying to make in my other thread.

But it's also possible that even in this best case scenario, the angle wouldn't really matter because players will be more likely to aim for safety when they have a bad angle and/or get too aggressive from the good angle. Hell, you might even get a counter-intuitive result--that scores are lower from the bad angle.

I'd like to know this and I think it'd be important, at least for golf course architecture enthusiasts, to know this. Maybe all of the interesting theory about using the angles of greens, hazard placement, and slopes to create 'good angles' just doesn't matter much. I--and we--might have to reassess some of what we think makes golf courses better and worse if we do the proper tests and get no result or a counter-intuitive one.

[Bret Lawrence]

Brett,


The reason I brought up ego earlier in the thread was because it’s been mentioned in so many responses but not recognized as such.  When you  have a tendency to play more aggressively from a good angle or more conservatively from a poor angle that is because of your ego. The diagonal hazard always has been and will continue to be an effective tool for golf architects to use, because their job is to test a golfers perceived ability against their actual ability.  Perceived ability is your ego.  Even though you’ve cut the corner 10 out of 10 times this year doesn’t mean that angled hazard never matters.  If you miss a shot or if the wind freshens as you hit your tee shot, maybe that carry isn’t as attainable as it was last week.  Just because statistical averages say angles don’t matter doesn’t mean they can’t matter in real situations.  The “outliers” mentioned earlier are actually part of the data, they aren’t outliers to the data, they are just outliers to the statement “Angles Don’t Matter”. These “outliers” were part of the data used to come up with the average.


I keep reading the assumption that if players chase angles they do it on every tee shot on every hole.  I think this is a poor assumption, because I don’t play golf with anyone that cuts every corner and chases every angle.  Golfers generally pick their spots.  They may find one corner to cut in the round that gives them a real distance advantage. Maybe they feel lucky? Maybe their personal statistics are better than the National Average that day.  For whatever reason they only want to cut one corner, they aren’t taking on everything on every hole. If they are cutting corners all day unsuccessfully,  I think even intuitive golfers would recommend they work on their course management.


The question we should be asking ourselves, is how much do probability statistics matter to our game?  A good example not involving angles would be when you are invited to a fancy country club and are given a caddy you have never met before. You come up short on your approach and you grab the wedge visualizing the shot you want to hit, but then the caddy stops you and hands you the putter.  He is offering you the statistically better play regardless of the shot you just visualized.  Do you take the putter (even if you never practice that shot) or do you go with the shot you visualized? If you do go with the putter against your will, do you feel satisfied after the shot? If the answer is no, then statistics probably don’t matter either!


Bret

[Rob Marshall]

PART B: THE APPROACH
Part of the reason it’s better to aim down the fairway is that apparently - and I didn’t know this - there isn’t much difference to scoring from the good side of the fairway than the bad side of the fairway. Now I haven’t studied the stats and personally, I still like coming in from a more “comfortable” angle. It makes me feel more confident. But I’ve known all along that there is a small enough difference in scoring that I don’t go chasing that comfortable angle because the risk outweighs the reward. If I aim it down the middle, I’m going to end up on the good side by chance quite often.

Ally


Do you know for a fact that is what the survey/data says ? I asked the question in another post and don't think I received a reply.


Niall

No, hence words like “apparently”, “I didn’t know this” and “I haven’t studied the stats”. I would have thought that was obvious!


But I did - through common sense in knowing my own game - suspect the difference was small, hence my general application of Part A.


Rob, not sure what you’re asking with the curve of the drive? If I aim down the middle, sometimes I’ll end up on the “good” side, sometimes I’ll end up on the “bad” side, sometimes I’ll miss altogether. But crucially, I’ll miss less often than if I head down one side or another…. (This is talking about finishing point, discounting natural shot shapes which I’m sure we all account for to one degree or another when aiming).

What I'm getting at is that I play a draw. If I aim down the middle I'm going to spend a lot of time in the left rough or worse. I use angles on the tee box and start line to get my ball in the fairway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I thought it had been mentioned, so I include a part of the Lou Stagner Tweet from earlier this month.


But Geez, you aren't trusting 581 million shots as enough to be conclusive?  The images don't post, presumably for copyright reasons.  You can see yourself at https://golfstatpro.us21.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f14910584d0a34c8ff08be313&id=f8d8878c61&e=a1395c42f5





<blockquote>

So, Should You Play For The Better Angle? [/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t] For as long as the game has been played, people have been saying you should play for the better angle. The hole is cut on the right? You should try to hit it up the left-side. The advice is as old as the game itself. Is the advice accurate? Is it easier to score when you have the "better angle"? To answer this question I took a deep-dive into the Arccos database. There are 581 million shots in the database, so there isn't a question Arccos can't answer. [size=inherit][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/size]What Shots Were Selected? [size=inherit][/color][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/size][size=inherit][/color]For a shot to be used, it had to meet the following criteria:[/size] [size=inherit][/color]Second shot on a par 4[/size] [size=inherit][/color]Fairway was at least 30-yards wide where the ball was[/size] [size=inherit][/color]Hole was cut 6-yards or less from the right/left edge of the green[/size] [size=inherit][/color]A shot on the "side" of a fairway needed to be close to the edge (20% or less of the fairway width)[/size] [size=inherit][/color]For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 6-yards or less from the side-edge of the fairway[/size] [size=inherit][/color]A shot in the center needed to be in the middle 25% of the fairway[/size] [size=inherit][/color]For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 3.75-yards or less from the center of the fairway[/size] [size=inherit][/color]No penalty hazards in-play around the green [/size] [size=inherit][/color]Shots from the rough were not recovery shots[/size] [size=inherit][/color]Shot was +/- 2-yards from the target yardage[/size] [size=inherit][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/size]Results [size=inherit][/color][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/size]Bottom line: The "better" angle is not better for scoring.  For the yardages used in this study, across all skill levels: [size=inherit][/color][/size]Center of the fairway was the lowest score 77.5% of the time [size=inherit][/color][/size]The "bad" angle was the lowest score 17.5% of the time [size=inherit][/color][/size]The "good" angle was the lowest score 5.0% of the time [size=inherit][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/t][/color][/size] If you only compare the "good" side of the fairway to the "bad" side: [size=inherit][/color][/size]The "bad" angle was the lower score 59% of the time [size=inherit][/color][/size]  If you compare the "good" side of the rough to the "bad" side: [size=inherit][/color][/size]The "bad" side of the rough was the lower score 66% of the time [size=inherit][/color][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/size]My Thoughts [size=inherit][/color][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/size][size=inherit][/color]For shots from the fairway, the center is the best location for scoring almost 80% of the time! Why? I think it's the Goldilocks principle. Players tend to be:[/size] [size=inherit][/color]Too aggressive when they have the "good" angle[/size] [size=inherit][/color]Too conservative when they have the "bad" angle[/size] [size=inherit][/color]Not too aggressive and not too conservative when in the center  [/size] [size=inherit][/color]The fairway is the best angle to score from 78% of the time. Players are finding the sweet spot between too aggressive and too conservative. They have stumbled into an optimal target. Note #1 We are typically not looking at huge deltas from one side of the fairway to the other. The biggest deltas are between fairway and rough.  Note #2 In every situation in this study, being anywhere in the fairway was better than being in the rough.[/size] [size=inherit][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/size]What Does This Mean For You? [size=inherit][/color][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/size][size=inherit][/color]Is the better angle sometimes better? Yes (but rarely). Should you intentionally play for the better angle? No. Playing for the better angle means you need to have a target that is closer to trouble (e.g. rough, bunker, trees, etc...). Having a target closer to trouble means any benefit you gain from *sometimes* having the better angle is offset by finding yourself in trouble more often. Does this mean you should try to ONLY center your shot pattern over the center of the fairway? No. Sometimes the optimal target is shifted well away from the center of the fairway to avoid a bunker or a penalty hazard. All the data is below. Thanks again for reading this week! Have a safe and happy new year!  - Lou[/size] [size=inherit][/color][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/t][/size] [size=inherit][/color][/size]The

[Ally Mcintosh]

Bret L, Rob, this is about the second shot angles, not the drive angles. The discussion only refers to the drive in relation to how it affects the second shot angle.


Bret L: I stated earlier in the thread that ironically, the type of angle you are referring to (cutting corners to reduce distance) which epitomises the “heroic school of design” may be much more relevant in modern golf than the second shot angles associated with the “strategic school of design” which is the Golden Age bedrock.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

Thank you for posting one of the things I was looking for.  And they can't be serious right?  All those conditions had to be met?

What Shots Were Selected?
For a shot to be used, it had to meet the following criteria:
 - Second shot on a par 4
AND
- Fairway was at least 30-yards wide where the ball was
AND
- Hole was cut 6-yards or less from the right/left edge of the green
AND
- A shot on the "side" of a fairway needed to be close to the edge (20% or less of the fairway width)
For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 6-yards or less from the side-edge of the fairway
AND
- A shot in the center needed to be in the middle 25% of the fairway. For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 3.75-yards or less from the center of the fairway
AND
- No penalty hazards in-play around the green
AND
Shots from the rough were not recovery shots
AND
Shot was +/- 2-yards from the target yardage

I could play several rounds and never incur those precise criteria.  Talk about cherry picking data....this is completely laughable.  Especially when they say holes with hazards around the green are excluded, which is perhaps the primary reason one would play for the better angle!

Only took 9 pages to get here, but thank you! 

[Mike Bodo]

But it's also possible that even in this best case scenario, the angle wouldn't really matter because players will be more likely to aim for safety when they have a bad angle and/or get too aggressive from the good angle. Hell, you might even get a counter-intuitive result--that scores are lower from the bad angle.

Anything's possible, but say a ball is on the right side of a fairway 160 yds. to a diagnoal green with a middle back right pin fronted by a bunker on that section. For me it's a 7 iron to the middle or front left portion of the green if its the safer play, whereas a pro or even a low single digit handicapper that can crush it will most likely take flag directly on with a pitching wedge, as the trap is little more than a visual impediment to them. Of course, other factors, such as wind come into play, but club selection and one's confidence in their ability to execute certain shots often trumps what playing angles attempt to dictate. If presented the same situation but a 110 yds. away vs. 160, it changes my decision making process entirely, as now I'm taking the flag on given I have a much higher lofted club in my hand.


What directional playing angles can never completely account for are varying ball flight angles and their impact on strategy and decision making. The sad thing with so many golden age courses becoming obsolete for tournament golf is that the original archies didn't design them from a strategic standpoint with the understanding that one day players would be hitting full and flip wedges into the majority of greens.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,

Thank you for posting one of the things I was looking for.  And they can't be serious right?  All those conditions had to be met?

What Shots Were Selected?
For a shot to be used, it had to meet the following criteria:
 - Second shot on a par 4
AND
- Fairway was at least 30-yards wide where the ball was
AND
- Hole was cut 6-yards or less from the right/left edge of the green
AND
- A shot on the "side" of a fairway needed to be close to the edge (20% or less of the fairway width)
For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 6-yards or less from the side-edge of the fairway
AND
- A shot in the center needed to be in the middle 25% of the fairway. For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 3.75-yards or less from the center of the fairway
AND
- No penalty hazards in-play around the green
AND
Shots from the rough were not recovery shots
AND
Shot was +/- 2-yards from the target yardage

I could play several rounds and never incur those precise criteria.  Talk about cherry picking data....this is completely laughable.  Especially when they say holes with hazards around the green are excluded, which is perhaps the primary reason one would play for the better angle!

Only took 9 pages to get here, but thank you!

Kalen,


A lot of the criteria on there are set up to assist angles mattering, not the other way around:


- More than 30 yard wide fairways
- Pins cut tight to the edge
- Shot at side needed to be close to the edge


Etc… There will still be huge data points. Their criteria doesn’t seem obviously set to meet an agenda at all.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Thank you for posting one of the things I was looking for.  And they can't be serious right?  All those conditions had to be met?

What Shots Were Selected?
For a shot to be used, it had to meet the following criteria:
 - Second shot on a par 4
AND
- Fairway was at least 30-yards wide where the ball was
AND
- Hole was cut 6-yards or less from the right/left edge of the green
AND
- A shot on the "side" of a fairway needed to be close to the edge (20% or less of the fairway width)
For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 6-yards or less from the side-edge of the fairway
AND
- A shot in the center needed to be in the middle 25% of the fairway. For example, on 30-yard wide fairway, the ball needed to be 3.75-yards or less from the center of the fairway
AND
- No penalty hazards in-play around the green
AND
Shots from the rough were not recovery shots
AND
Shot was +/- 2-yards from the target yardage

I could play several rounds and never incur those precise criteria.  Talk about cherry picking data....this is completely laughable.  Especially when they say holes with hazards around the green are excluded, which is perhaps the primary reason one would play for the better angle!

Only took 9 pages to get here, but thank you!

I think it says "Penalty Hazards" meaning water or O.B., rather than green side bunkers.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()