“Angles Don’t Matter”

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

That's what you often see from the data: let's imagine a bunker short right. The "good" side of the fairway (left) results in slightly more aggressive shots and often more short-sided shots and a higher scoring average (and plenty of people still miss the shot in the bunker). The "worse" angle leads to more conservative approach shots (plenty still mis-hit it into the bunker). The latter often leads to a smaller scoring spread (fewer doubles, fewer birdies) while the former leads to, due to the aggression, more birdies… with more bogeys and doubles.

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.

Nobody's (except you?) is talking about start line. It's where the ball finishes.

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

They should not. Their dispersion pattern is still quite large from 160.

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

Yup.

[Brett Meyer]

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

Jeff,

This just takes me right back to my first post on the issue (somewhere in one of the early pages of this thread), where I noted that one of my problems with big data is that it pools very different kinds of holes together, obscuring effects that might exist for some types of holes. I suspect that these numbers would be different on a subset of holes designed for angles to really matter, i.e. ones with angled greens, pitched toward the proper fairway angle, and with testing hazards on the short side. Most of what Lou Stagner has specified in his criteria here is good, except for 'no penalty hazards in play around the green,' which is a big exception. But the criteria can't differentiate holes by the other conditions I've mentioned.

Still, I'm convinced that as a practical matter, we shouldn't chase angles unless there's almost no cost to doing so. That's why I started the other thread. I also agree with Mike Nuzzo's point in his thread about sloping greens and Bret's point about how even if there's no difference or a counter-intuitive difference in scoring, this doesn't mean that angles don't matter because they still might have a psychological effect. So I think that we should be trying to 'break' our finding that the good angle doesn't matter by testing cases in which it's most likely to matter. And if it still doesn't matter, some people might need to rethink their ideas about designing for angles.

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.

That's what you often see from the data: let's imagine a bunker short right. The "good" side of the fairway (left) results in slightly more aggressive shots and often more short-sided shots and a higher scoring average (and plenty of people still miss the shot in the bunker). The "worse" angle leads to more conservative approach shots (plenty still mis-hit it into the bunker). The latter often leads to a smaller scoring spread (fewer doubles, fewer birdies) while the former leads to, due to the aggression, more birdies… with more bogeys and doubles.

I still want to see this for different types of holes as described above. But I'm much less confident than I was when I wrote my first post on this that it would make a difference even in the case of minimal driving hazards and almost completely convinced that it wouldn't make a difference if there's any type of significant driving hazard on the good angle side. You and Lou Stagner have changed my priors, so thanks for replying to my posts.

[Sven Nilsen]

Brett:


That is a well reasoned and concisely delivered post.


I'd suggest the break down should continue further and differentiate between players with different kinds of ball flights.  Not everyone hits the high ball that stops quickly.  The "when the ball is rolling" disclaimer probably applies to a greater number of players than folks on this discussion want to admit.


Sven

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I suspect that these numbers would be different on a subset of holes designed for angles to really matter, i.e. ones with angled greens, pitched toward the proper fairway angle, and with testing hazards on the short side.

Broadly, and as quickly as I can:

• The fairway would have to be REALLY wide for a player to play into an angled green from the left side versus the right side and for that to have much effect at all. Or have a short shot in, in which case the angle can actually widen out.
• Ditto a green pitched toward the right or left or whatever. You'd need a really wide fairway for that angle to possibly get wide enough to matter.
• We've done the stats on greens with a testing hazard on one side. I replied above, or in another topic. The scoring spread is wider from the "good" side, but still tends to be about the same. More birdies, but more bogeys and doubles.

And again, nobody's said AFAIK that an angle "doesn't" matter… after you've hit your tee shot. But any discussion of angles has to include the tee shot that gets you there, and whether it's worth trying to achieve that angle over just hitting it into the fairway.

Still, I'm convinced that as a practical matter, we shouldn't chase angles unless there's almost no cost to doing so.

Basically, yeah.

I still want to see this for different types of holes as described above. But I'm much less confident than I was when I wrote my first post on this that it would make a difference even in the case of minimal driving hazards and almost completely convinced that it wouldn't make a difference if there's any type of significant driving hazard on the good angle side. You and Lou Stagner have changed my priors, so thanks for replying to my posts.

I can say this… Lou and I have the data there, and it mostly shakes out the same… for the same reasons.

Let's do a little math… Let's assume a 160-yard approach shot, and a fairway that's 30 yards wide. How much is the "angle" from the middle of the green different if you're talking about being 4 yards from the left side or 4 yards from the right side? The answer… is less than 8°. A single minute on a clock is 6°, so you're talking about the difference between 12:00 and 12:01:18.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Also, all y'all are missing the really obvious hole here… amateurs are almost never actually playing golf following my system or DECADE or whatever. Despite rarely breaking 90 (or 80, or whatever), they're almost all just trying to hit the ball toward that stick with the piece of cloth atop.

Edit to add: I'm not saying they're not aiming away from a pond or away from a really bad bunker. I'm saying that they aren't doing it enough. They're not employing any sort of system at all - they (generally, as almost always) under-estimate the size of their shot pattern (Shot Zone) and over-estimate their carry yardages/skill. That 1-minute difference in approach shot angle is swallowed up by the dispersion pattern from 160 yards.

P.S. I chose 160 because it's a distance at which an amateur might be hitting a 7-iron. Any shorter than that and we're not getting into a lot of roll-out, and any longer than that and the angle just gets smaller and smaller. It seemed to me like a reasonable distance.

[Mike Wagner]

My take away is angles don't matter ... until they matter .. which is much of the time .. or none of the time .. depending on your angle.

[Sven Nilsen]

P.S. I chose 160 because it's a distance at which an amateur might be hitting a 7-iron. Any shorter than that and we're not getting into a lot of roll-out, and any longer than that and the angle just gets smaller and smaller. It seemed to me like a reasonable distance.

I know you said "might," but there's a wide swath of players who will get plenty of roll on a 160 yard shot (and even less) because they (a) have to hit a club with much lower loft than your hypothetical 7-iron or (b) just don't hit the ball that high.  Some of these people are also deadly accurate with just about every club in their bag.  (Granted, there are plenty of amateurs who can hit the ball high and far, just not wit much control, which seems to cover your way your broad brush is using the term.)


These are the same people that are going to tick tack their way around a course because they never want to have to hit over a bunker or hazard.  They're not just willy-nilly aiming at the flag.


The applicability of the general theory is highly slanted to the playing style of a better player.  But in the general scheme of things, angles are going to always matter for a large class of players.  Their approach to the green might be on their 3rd or 4th shot, but it is still an approach shot.


PS - I know the response here is the "when the ball is rolling caveat," but for a lot of people the ball is always rolling.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,


I checked Gene Parent's distance, carry and roll guide, and you are right about shorter hitters.  The 55-75MPH swing speed players will have 20-25 yards of roll on a 160 yard shot, using anywhere from driver to 5 wood. 


So yes, on most par 4 holes, their angle on the second shot matters. On the tee, I presume hitting the fw is all that matters.  The second might be a layup or go for the fat of the green with open front type consideration.  If they are aiming at the flag on the third shot, then their roll under 100 yards is reduced to 8-15 yards (slower swing speed higher)


I'm 68 and have lost a lot of swing speed, and my typical 85-90 swing speed should produce loft of 24 yards/72 feet and roll of 8 yards to hit it 160.  So I would probably have to aim at least 9 yards past any bunker lip, and also consider my lateral dispersion.  I think it still works for many of us senior golfers who can still lift a shot to use the system.  Perhaps on the third shot as you say....(more and more LOL NOT!)

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff:


If you can lift a 160 yard shot 72 feet in the air, you're not who I'm talking about.


Sven

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,


I understand that, which is why the bulk of the post is giving typical carry/roll figures for the slowest swing speed players, who typically have more roll.  But, I know a lot of senior golfers like me who still get spin and height.  It seems the really slow swingers are super seniors and women recreational players, probably also of a certain age.  It confirms what you said, and what I believe has long been generally known that many players do need that frontal opening, which is why most architects leave one on most greens.


I don't know that I have the stats on who plays by age or by swing speed, but that would be handy data to have!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I know you said "might," but there's a wide swath of players who will get plenty of roll on a 160 yard shot (and even less) because they (a) have to hit a club with much lower loft than your hypothetical 7-iron or (b) just don't hit the ball that high.

You have read my "disclaimer" about the ball rolling billions of times by now (I may be exaggerating slightly).

Some of these people are also deadly accurate with just about every club in their bag.

It's highly unlikely they're more accurate from certain distances than a Tour player.

The applicability of the general theory is highly slanted to the playing style of a better player.

Not really, no. The strategy stuff holds up into the higher handicaps pretty well. They can't play for angles any more than a lower handicap player. Their Shot Zones are bigger AND they're worse at getting out of trouble.

But in the general scheme of things, angles are going to always matter for a large class of players.

So you're just going with the way of arguing where you just state "this is so, because I say it." 

Strategy becomes less and less important the worse the golfer. What's "strategy" when your Shot zone is 80 yards by 60 yards with a 6-iron? Just have fun playing golf, and try to get the ball in the air and moving forward more often.

[Sven Nilsen]

I know you said "might," but there's a wide swath of players who will get plenty of roll on a 160 yard shot (and even less) because they (a) have to hit a club with much lower loft than your hypothetical 7-iron or (b) just don't hit the ball that high.

You have read my "disclaimer" about the ball rolling billions of times by now (I may be exaggerating slightly).

Which is why I included it in my PS, which you neglected to include in my text that you quote here.

Some of these people are also deadly accurate with just about every club in their bag.

It's highly unlikely they're more accurate from certain distances than a Tour player.


Please don't put words in my mouth.  I didn't say that.  But even you would have to admit that an accurate player who hits driver 180 is going to have a smaller dispersion factor than a tour pro that hits it 320.

The applicability of the general theory is highly slanted to the playing style of a better player.

Not really, no. The strategy stuff holds up into the higher handicaps pretty well. They can't play for angles any more than a lower handicap player. Their Shot Zones are bigger AND they're worse at getting out of trouble.


Which is why many of the think about angles even more.  They want to avoid trouble at all costs.

But in the general scheme of things, angles are going to always matter for a large class of players.

So you're just going with the way of arguing where you just state "this is so, because I say it." 


No, I'm arguing this because I see it on nearly a daily basis.  Call it an unintended occupational benefit.

Strategy becomes less and less important the worse the golfer. What's "strategy" when your Shot zone is 80 yards by 60 yards with a 6-iron? Just have fun playing golf, and try to get the ball in the air and moving forward more often.


You continue to use the same broad brush you've used all along.  Not every high-handicapper fits this description.  There are many who can hit a fairly straight shot on repeat, yet they can't get the ball in the air enough to consistently be able to take on trouble head on.  And this is just one example of an outlier from your "average amateur."

There are plenty of other caveats to your general premise, including (a) courses with enough width to make a decision on a side worth considering and (b) playing in wind strong enough to make you have to think about rollout.  I happen to work on courses where both of these factors come into play.  Not every round of golf is played on a soft, narrow fairway, parkland course on a windless day.  Not every fairway is only 30 yards wide.  Not all rough is bad to play from.  And not every shot is going to stop on a dime.

You're talking to someone who has to offer suggestions on where players should attempt to hit the ball thousands of times over a week.  My data set is pretty solid.  There is no cut and dried rule of thumb for every player or every shot, everything is situational.  Much of the time, depending on the player, the conditions, what kind of round they have going, where things stand in a match or just on that hole and the lay out of a hole, it absolutely makes sense to think about setting up angles.

But we're talking in circles here.  You keep on believing what you think the stats are telling you, and I'll keep on going with what my on course experience has taught me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,


I think the point of the stats is that Tour Players (to start) aren't as accurate as we tend to think.  How can we expect average players to be?  You might experience one player with 14 tee shots, and you might conclude that he is pretty accurate, but it's not a statistically valid sample, even if you caddy for them 3 days in a row.


I think tour player dispersion to contain 2/3 of their shots is about 10% of shot length, scratch players about 11.25%, and bogey golfers are right at 15%.  I think the stats guys probably tell their clients to use 80-90+% plus (obviously you can't plan on hitting one of your worst shots ever, or you would likely be too conservative) to pick their line.  I think they recommend drivers not be hit unless the LZ is over 65 yards wide, which is 21.67% of 300 yards.  If the ratios hold, I suspect that is about 22% and 30% for those lower level players.  As you note, due to the shorter length of tee shots, 30% of 200 yards is 60 yards, so yes, they need an equal or slightly narrower corridor to really tee it up.  (Now, that is handy for designers.....)


Sure, some are a bit less or more, but I doubt your "dead straight" decent am is much less than, say, 90% of average dispersion.  At 160 yards, to use Erik's example, he would probably tell a scratch player to play for a dispersion of 15-20% or 24-32 yards, or 12-16 yards from the key hazard, if any.  For a bogey golfer, probably about 48 yards, or 24 yards from the key hazard.


Just asking, but how do you advise your line of play to a first time C or D player at Bandon?  And yes, I think all systems or ideas would account somehow for the wind, etc.  But, are you comfortable after a few holes telling the player to aim at the flag on certain holes?  Or to flirt with a fw bunker by playing less than 30 yards from it to gain an advantage?  I know Erik wouldn't be.  It would illustrate to me just how much more conservative he is or how much more aggressive you are as to lines of play.


Again, I think the stats world would just tell you that over the course of a week or season, playing more aggressively would cumulatively lead to slightly higher scores.  And, let's face it, while I enjoy taking the risk sometimes as well, overall, higher scores generally lead to unhappier golfers.


As always, just my take.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff: 


Trust me Jeff, I know exactly how inaccurate golfers of all levels can be.



I couldn’t begin to give you a general answer as its all situational, as I noted above.  Does the guy miss right or left, can he get it in the air, is there an easy carry or is it pushing the capabilities, is it the end of the day and everyone is getting armsy? 


But there are plenty of times where I’m asking a player to favor one side or the other of the fairway for a very specific reason.  And not every shot setting up an angle is necessarily any more agressive than other options.  Its sometimes just the better play.


If you want a bit of a breakdown see the conversation on 8 at Pac on the other thread.  Just off the top of my head, you could add the following to the list of holes where position makes a difference:


Bandon - 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 17.


Pacific - 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18.


Trails - 4, 7, 13, 14 and 15.


Old Mac - 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18.


Sheep Ranch - 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 18.


The problem with the premise is that it will be looked at as a general rule.  Part of my job is knowing when the risk is worth taking, after examining all of the factors.


For many players, playing extremely safe is the only way they’ll finish the hole.  Fir some, sometimes you just have to be Joel from Risky Business.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sven,

You're relying on your experiences. I'm relying on the data from millions of shots.

Are there accurate amateurs? Sure. I've talked about how my own daughter will play to angles on holes where she has a longer shot in. I've never said there aren't exceptions.

I think we disagree on how frequently they occur. And on the definition of "data" since yours is likely just your recollection of what you think to be true.

Have a good day.

[Sven Nilsen]

I’ll let you go ahead and delete that last paragraph.  If it wasn’t your intention for it to come across dripping of condescension, I can forgive the lack of self-awareness.  If it was, which by your track record I suspect is the case, I can only feel sorry for you.


Sven

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I’ll let you go ahead and delete that last paragraph.  If it wasn’t your intention for it to come across dripping of condescension, I can forgive the lack of self-awareness.  If it was, which by your track record I suspect is the case, I can only feel sorry for you.

Once again, I will point out that there is no tone in text except whatever you add in your mind when you read it. It literally says "Have a good day." Did you consider that though we disagree, I hope you have a good day? If not, perhaps you should have. Because even though we disagree on some of this stuff, we're still both human beings who derive some sort of joy from this silly sport/game/activity/whatever. And this stuff really, really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It's just golf.

On top of that, you don't know me.

The comments you have made and continue to make toward me are, without any tone at all, far more disrespectful.  And what actually bothers me more than that… they don't advance the discussion. They're just petty personal commentary. Meta commentary. Why waste the time?

But I'm glad to know you "feel sorry for me." (There's your sarcasm, I suppose.) What a thing to say.

Have a good evening. (Genuinely)

[Sven Nilsen]

No sarcasm, I do feel sorry for you.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No sarcasm, I do feel sorry for you.

The sarcasm was mine. I'm not actually "glad" to know that. I thought that was kinda obvious, but I guess not.


I'm done discussing this "meta" stuff now. It's off topic.

[Sven Nilsen]

I thought that was kinda obvious, but I guess not.

You just can’t help it, can you?

[Ben Sims]

This has been a good thread but perhaps it’s time to let it go. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at the lack of self-awareness from main players. Fellas, no one has the market cornered on knowing what golfers do and don’t do. Lou Stagner’s twitter quote that I used to start this thread is absolutely provocative. As it applies to architecture, I like what Tom said much earlier in the thread. Paraphrasing, he doesn’t care. He has to do his job and golfers have to do theirs.


From my point of view, the blowback towards the more prominent golf analytics folks is kinda creepy. I don’t really understand why.

[Mark Pearce]

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at the lack of self-awareness from main players.

............

From my point of view, the blowback towards the more prominent golf analytics folks is kinda creepy. I don’t really understand why.

I think you do.  At least one of them, for all the value he adds, comes across as basically rude.  Not saying he has a monopoly on that but I think a more reasonable tone (and yes, text can have tone) might lead to better debate.


I genuinely think I've learned quite a lot from this thread but stopped participating a while ago because I don't enjoy being talked down to.

[Jeff_Brauer]

This has been a good thread but perhaps it’s time to let it go. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at the lack of self-awareness from main players. Fellas, no one has the market cornered on knowing what golfers do and don’t do. Lou Stagner’s twitter quote that I used to start this thread is absolutely provocative. As it applies to architecture, I like what Tom said much earlier in the thread. Paraphrasing, he doesn’t care. He has to do his job and golfers have to do theirs.


From my point of view, the blowback towards the more prominent golf analytics folks is kinda creepy. I don’t really understand why.

Ben,


You are probably right.  There are many ways to view and assess golf and architecture, some falling in the older, somewhat romantic view, but more and more, IMHO, many adopt more scientific views as time goes on.  It seems to be human nature to try to understand things better and better,i.e., medicine has progressed from bloodletting, to surgery, to micro noninvasive surgeries, etc.


I remember a lot of blow back when Jack measured courses, vs. Sam Snead and that generation playing by eye.  Again, in my view, if you use a yardage book you have accepted a certain amount of new style tech in making your shot selections.  It's just that the newer versions of those now consider more than the distance to flag and front edge, they are considering likely shot dispersion.


And in fact, the idea that lower scores are best achieved by hazard avoidance is not new.  JN has said that for years.  The idea that more GIR is the quickest way to lower scores also isn't new, nor the idea that you are much more likely to attain GIR when hitting from the fairway (in most cases)


In reality,  Sean and Erik aren't that far apart and both have the mentality to help "their" golfers.  Perhaps it should be said that angles do matter in architecture, it's just that we now know that most golfers really aren't able to actually master them, and take advantage via their golf game when they have a good angle. 


Again, IMHO, golf has probably evolved as it should or had to, and literally, billions of golf rounds have shown that hitting fw and greens is both hard and usually more profitable than risk taking.   


The debate about what that means for architecture could seemingly be done without being really personal. 


The good news is, no animals are hurt when using either classic design principles or some new tactic.

[Brett Meyer]

This has been a good thread but perhaps it’s time to let it go. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at the lack of self-awareness from main players. Fellas, no one has the market cornered on knowing what golfers do and don’t do. Lou Stagner’s twitter quote that I used to start this thread is absolutely provocative. As it applies to architecture, I like what Tom said much earlier in the thread. Paraphrasing, he doesn’t care. He has to do his job and golfers have to do theirs.


From my point of view, the blowback towards the more prominent golf analytics folks is kinda creepy. I don’t really understand why.

I agree that at least from my perspective, it's about time to let it go because it's clear to me what the remaining questions are and that they apply at best to a small percentage of cases.

Maybe it's fair to characterize some of the responses to Lou and Erik as blowback, but we're being confronted with new findings that challenge some pretty strongly held conceptions that are based on pretty good theories. It's not surprising that this generates strong feelings. Some of us may be overdoing it a bit with the rhetoric, but I think most of us are honestly trying to figure out where the new findings leave us and what remains of the topic. There's nothing wrong narrowing the theory and pressing for evidence about special cases of it. That back-and-forth between theory development and empirical tests is a core part of scientific inquiry.

I think it's good that principles of golf architecture are being subject to tests. I'm not sure that Lou Stagner cares much about golf architecture but if not, I hope that someone who does (and has access to Arccos data) will investigate other long-standing golf architecture theories.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brett,


I have seen the as yet unreleased USGA Distance insights project.  One takeaway is that while architects like to give strategic choices, like "should I feather it into the back right pin position or play for the middle?"  in reality, average golfers simply bail out at surprisingly (to me) short distances.  The 175 yard par 3 with a pond really presents no choice for the average golfer, as they tend to bail out at much over 145 yards.  Ponds near greens probably ought to be restricted to very short holes or approach shots.


That's another thing that has changed in modern golf.  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."