“Angles Don’t Matter”

[Joe Hancock]

 Have to wonder…..does the interpretation of data assume all shot results were as the golfer intended?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Have to wonder…..does the interpretation of data assume all shot results were as the golfer intended?

As soon as the golfers are able to hit only their intended shot, we can talk about that…

We know what the sizes of a golfer's Shot Zone or dispersion pattern are. It's not as small as many would think, even at the Tour level.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.


It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.


I play a mom and pop 9-holer that keeps the ground firm and bouncy (and slightly shaggy) such that I land most irons a little short and bounce them on, including knock-down wedges. It's an effing blast! And that course isn't even a little strategic. Just imagine how much fun a course with some hazards or strategy would be with the same conditions.

[Sean_A]

I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.


It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.


I play a mom and pop 9-holer that keeps the ground firm and bouncy (and slightly shaggy) such that I land most irons a little short and bounce them on, including knock-down wedges. It's an effing blast! And that course isn't even a little strategic. Just imagine how much fun a course with some hazards or strategy would be with the same conditions.

The 2nd reply hinted at this all those weeks ago. It’s always been understood that f&f conditions make angles matter more. I very rarely play courses and conditions where angles don’t matter. Hence my disagreement with angles don’t matter statement. I even saw angles matter at the last St Andrews Open.

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.


It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.


I play a mom and pop 9-holer that keeps the ground firm and bouncy (and slightly shaggy) such that I land most irons a little short and bounce them on, including knock-down wedges. It's an effing blast! And that course isn't even a little strategic. Just imagine how much fun a course with some hazards or strategy would be with the same conditions.

The 2nd reply hinted at this all those weeks ago. It’s always been understood that f&f conditions make angles matter more. I very rarely play courses and conditions where angles don’t matter. Hence my disagreement with angles don’t matter statement. I even saw angles matter at the last St Andrews Open.

Ciao

Warmer, warmer, disco!


The “angles don’t matter unless…” version of this debate could use some brevity. Angles do matter. As I’ve said before, shot tracking data in its current form has no way to account for a number of variables that have massive impacts to shot selection and result. And, what’s more, shot tracking data proponents have used really just one thing to assume validity of their data. The sheer size of the data set. But it’s still largely a two dimensional tool. We’re in shot tracking infancy and trajectory, ball speed, spin rate, firmness of turf, slope, etc etc ALL have a massive impact on how the shape of a golf hole and hazard placement affect golfers.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.


It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.


I play a mom and pop 9-holer that keeps the ground firm and bouncy (and slightly shaggy) such that I land most irons a little short and bounce them on, including knock-down wedges. It's an effing blast! And that course isn't even a little strategic. Just imagine how much fun a course with some hazards or strategy would be with the same conditions.

The 2nd reply hinted at this all those weeks ago. It’s always been understood that f&f conditions make angles matter more. I very rarely play courses and conditions where angles don’t matter. Hence my disagreement with angles don’t matter statement. I even saw angles matter at the last St Andrews Open.

Ciao

Warmer, warmer, disco!


The “angles don’t matter unless…” version of this debate could use some brevity. Angles do matter. As I’ve said before, shot tracking data in its current form has no way to account for a number of variables that have massive impacts to shot selection and result. And, what’s more, shot tracking data proponents have used really just one thing to assume validity of their data. The sheer size of the data set. But it’s still largely a two dimensional tool. We’re in shot tracking infancy and trajectory, ball speed, spin rate, firmness of turf, slope, etc etc ALL have a massive impact on how the shape of a golf hole and hazard placement affect golfers.

Ben, emotionally speaking, I don't disagree with what you and Sean say here, but I'm trying to stay cognizant of my biases, of which there are two big ones.

First is that I want angles to matter. I've been taught to think that way and I find it more aesthetically and philosophically pleasing.

Second is that on the Doak 2, 3, and 4 courses I tend to play, angles frequently don't matter. Not never, but we're talking once or twice a round in most cases. (I'd love to be playing some of the courses you and Sean are playing)

The second bias is why I pretty readily accepted the premise that angles don't matter as much as I'd thought (slash hoped). At a certain point I voiced the idea that at most courses, I could accept that angles didn't matter, because most courses weren't designed strategically. In response, Erik gave some examples where even strategic holes showed not much reason to believe that angles mattered (In honesty, I don't think enough data was given, which is why I'd like to see the stats for a large cross-section of golfers on holes that were recommended by architects for their strategic nature). But I could accept it given there was the following where everyone already seems to agree angles definitely matter: when the ball is rolling. The game is also more fun when the ball is rolling more.

Anyway, my journey on this has left me feeling like I was defending an ever-diminishing "god of the gaps". Which combined with the fact that at the average course (at least where I play) angles don't matter very often, is a bit deflating. That said, they do matter at least some of the time, so it's worth pressing strategic design still (along with the conditions that make sure it stays strategic).

[Craig Sweet]

Ben, the "angles don't matter" believers use "data" to suck the soul and magic from the game. They can believe what they want, but I will always look for the best angle and weigh the risk/reward because it is more fun, way more satisfying, and how I believe the game was intended to be played.

[Sean_A]

I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.


It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.


I play a mom and pop 9-holer that keeps the ground firm and bouncy (and slightly shaggy) such that I land most irons a little short and bounce them on, including knock-down wedges. It's an effing blast! And that course isn't even a little strategic. Just imagine how much fun a course with some hazards or strategy would be with the same conditions.

The 2nd reply hinted at this all those weeks ago. It’s always been understood that f&f conditions make angles matter more. I very rarely play courses and conditions where angles don’t matter. Hence my disagreement with angles don’t matter statement. I even saw angles matter at the last St Andrews Open.

Ciao

Warmer, warmer, disco!


The “angles don’t matter unless…” version of this debate could use some brevity. Angles do matter. As I’ve said before, shot tracking data in its current form has no way to account for a number of variables that have massive impacts to shot selection and result. And, what’s more, shot tracking data proponents have used really just one thing to assume validity of their data. The sheer size of the data set. But it’s still largely a two dimensional tool. We’re in shot tracking infancy and trajectory, ball speed, spin rate, firmness of turf, slope, etc etc ALL have a massive impact on how the shape of a golf hole and hazard placement affect golfers.

Ben, emotionally speaking, I don't disagree with what you and Sean say here, but I'm trying to stay cognizant of my biases, of which there are two big ones.

First is that I want angles to matter. I've been taught to think that way and I find it more aesthetically and philosophically pleasing.

Second is that on the Doak 2, 3, and 4 courses I tend to play, angles frequently don't matter. Not never, but we're talking once or twice a round in most cases. (I'd love to be playing some of the courses you and Sean are playing)

The second bias is why I pretty readily accepted the premise that angles don't matter as much as I'd thought (slash hoped). At a certain point I voiced the idea that at most courses, I could accept that angles didn't matter, because most courses weren't designed strategically. In response, Erik gave some examples where even strategic holes showed not much reason to believe that angles mattered (In honesty, I don't think enough data was given, which is why I'd like to see the stats for a large cross-section of golfers on holes that were recommended by architects for their strategic nature). But I could accept it given there was the following where everyone already seems to agree angles definitely matter: when the ball is rolling. The game is also more fun when the ball is rolling more.

Anyway, my journey on this has left me feeling like I was defending an ever-diminishing "god of the gaps". Which combined with the fact that at the average course (at least where I play) angles don't matter very often, is a bit deflating. That said, they do matter at least some of the time, so it's worth pressing strategic design still (along with the conditions that make sure it stays strategic).

Angles matter because they offer choice. Even if folks play the safe route, which they should likely do most of the time, angles matter because a choice was made. If folks want to play bowling alley courses with very few recovery options that’s cool…angles don’t matter. I am rarely interested in that type of golf even if I believe it has its place in modern architecture.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ben, the "angles don't matter" believers use "data" to suck the soul and magic from the game. They can believe what they want, but I will always look for the best angle and weigh the risk/reward because it is more fun, way more satisfying, and how I believe the game was intended to be played.

Craig,


I think that is fair enough. And whilst I genuinely think that angles matter less than all us golf architect nerds want to believe (because it’s such an easy touch point), I will always design and build a whole bunch of angles and “strategy” because even if it partially works - even just mentally - I agree it makes the game better.

[Niall C]

Ally


You are perhaps correct that angles maybe don't matter as much of the time as many think but would you agree that it is the gca's job to try and make them matter ?


Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally


You are perhaps correct that angles maybe don't matter as much of the time as many think but would you agree that it is the gca's job to try and make them matter ?


Niall

I do agree, Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree it seems sad, but like so many other things, time moves on.  In golf, equipment has made the game more straightforward and tilted the scales towards more (but still not enough) test of accuracy.


I mentioned angling fairways 10 degrees or so.  It sets up the advantage of hitting a certain shot pattern off the tee to maximize that shot's chance of success.  Statistically, there is no benefit to have an improved shot on the next one.  TOC is certainly a hole that requires placement in certain spots to avoid a near impossible shot, and probably any angled green has that to an extent, especially if the approach shot can come in over safe ground vs flying over a pond.  That said, my tendency as an architect was to widen a green that might logically suggest a shot coming in over water.


One more thing I have mentioned in the past and will repeat here.  When working with Jim Colbert (who would play any type of shot the architecture suggested in most cases) I noticed he actually thought that coming in from the bunkered side of the green was preferable.  Again, he wasn't worried about ground balls or low running shots.  To him, it was like teeing up close to OB on the tee - it widens your dispersion angle away from the OB side.  Coming in from the "good side" i.e., along the long axis of the green reduces the angle to lateral hazards from, say, 20 deg to 10 deg.  He would aim at the far side of the green and bring it back slightly (a la Jack) accepting a downhill putt if he didn't curve it enough and blaming himself if he overcooked it and went into the hazard.  Stats now show that he really couldn't control his miss left as much as he thought he would block out the hook.  (I have seen golfers do that and double cross it, going way left, but that must be outside of the 90% dispersion acceptance level.


Angles also mean something to the shortest players on tour on par 5 holes.  While the big names will fly a high iron into the green on their second, there are a lot of 280-290 hitters still on tour, and a par 5 of 550 yards or so still requires a fw wood with role for them to reach the green and compete.


Another case is the 45 degree angled greens, of which TOC 17 us a example.  They may not provide an advantage from one position or another, but you certainly have to match shot line and distance on those greens, also a strategy.


You may recall that Pete Dye ended up bunkering long par 4 holes on the inside at both LZ and green to make the hole play longer.  The old "bunker inside the LZ, bunker outside at the green" isn't the be all end all of golf course architecture.  It may work in both running situations, and perhaps on downwind holes, which take the spin off approach shots for most, making hitting the front of the green (and chancing the green hazard) more challenging from the wrong side.


So, there is still strategy related to angles and aim points, it's just less interrelated to the next shot, and more focused on hitting the current target, not the next one, which if you think about it, should be job 1 on the tee shot in any case.


And again, is there any reason to rely on something wrote in architecture golden age, but statistical dark ages?     For 100 years or so, everyone took those books at face value, never really proving them up via field testing.  Until recently!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm kind of surprised that we aren't seizing a little more on the "when the ball is rolling" part of the argument. As Erik (and others) have stated many times, "Angles don't matter unless the ball is rolling". It seems like a simple way to make angles matter as much as most of us want them to is a concerted effort to get the ball rolling.

I for one love fast, firm golf. Last year for about three weeks the course I play most often got really fiery. It was great. You could hit some low long-irons off tees and the ball would still roll out for quite a ways. You could still hit shots and stop them somewhat on the greens (though the first hop was still making that nice "thud" sound), but it changed the way the game was played. So fun.

It may be impossible to make courses firm and fast enough to get tour-level players to play along the ground, but I'm not really worried about them. For lower-trajectory, lower-spin players from the low-single-digits on up (i.e. most of the players on Earth), firm and fast conditions of the type that Ran and others have been advocating for decades would probably do the job.

Yup. But the USGA tried to get everyone else to be "down with brown," but the golfers out there still want their course to be their own Augusta National.

I loved what Pinehurst looked like in 2014… but it didn't even look like that in 2024.

I very rarely play courses and conditions where angles don’t matter.

You keep saying that, but… It's quite unlikely.

Angles do matter.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

And, what’s more, shot tracking data proponents have used really just one thing to assume validity of their data. The sheer size of the data set.

That's not really true. I mean, you need a large enough sample size to make relevant, valid conclusions, but you can look at how 5-7 handicappers play one specific hole. etc.

We’re in shot tracking infancy and trajectory, ball speed, spin rate, firmness of turf, slope, etc etc ALL have a massive impact on how the shape of a golf hole and hazard placement affect golfers.

I think you're saying that in high hopes, and I think you're going to be disappointed. The simple fact is whatever spin rates a player is generating, we capture the results of that shot.

Just saying things doesn't make it true, Ben.

Ben, the "angles don't matter" believers use "data" to suck the soul and magic from the game. They can believe what they want, but I will always look for the best angle and weigh the risk/reward because it is more fun, way more satisfying, and how I believe the game was intended to be played.

And you're welcome to do it. Sometimes I take on the shot that's not as strategically smart, just because I want to, as well.

Nearly 20 years ago I began sharing my opinion on Tobacco Road. I don't dislike TR, but my opinion really seemed to bother some people. My opinion boiled down to "there's a lot of visual stuff going on, and a lot of crazy shots you're begged to try to pull off… tempted to, goaded into… but if you could avoid doing that, and play pretty strategic golf, it was a golf course on which you could put together a pretty good round even if you're not playing your absolute best.

Is that the most FUN way to play Tobacco Road? Probably not. Lots of people love to go for the second shot on 11… or whatever. And that's all up to them.

The "angles" discussion has, from my side, almost always been about scoring. Not what you like or enjoy or find stimulating.

Also, it's not about "belief."

I think that is fair enough. And whilst I genuinely think that angles matter less than all us golf architect nerds want to believe (because it’s such an easy touch point), I will always design and build a whole bunch of angles and “strategy” because even if it partially works - even just mentally - I agree it makes the game better.

And, like I said in my ASGCA presentation… 95% of golfers aren't aware of this stuff, and won't be for a loooong time. The game's best are, and a good chunk of the serious golfers are, but even among them, there are still plenty out there who think that putting is how you get from a 5 to a scratch.

[Ben Sims]

Erik,


I’ll reiterate another way. I didn’t learn much in statistics but I did learn that specificity matters. Aggregate data is useful. I’m not arguing with you there. What I am arguing is that there is specificity missing from the two-dimensional results-only data for your position. Saying that the result is the result and that it takes into account the mountains of breadth from player to player ignores specific circumstances.


I had an offline conversation with Lou one time where I—at the time a 12 something handicap—screenshotted my distance data. He replied that I was in some crazy percentile, like 0.6% of players with that speed and that handicap. This admittedly anecdotal situation told me what I’d always suspected about applying aggregate data to specific players. 


In your example above, I’ll just say that not every 5-7 handicap is the same. I think our current version of shot tracking data supposes that that fact doesn’t matter. Everyone should revert to the mean over time and play accordingly. I am saying that isn’t correct. Applying the angles don’t matter position to two 12 handicaps, one with 85mph driver club head and one with 115 driver club head seems a bit reductive. No?

[Mark Pearce]

More than half the golf I play is links golf.  The ball usually rolls, even when it has been a bit wet.  I'm just really sad for all those for whom the ball rolling is unusual.

[Ally Mcintosh]

More than half the golf I play is links golf.  The ball usually rolls, even when it has been a bit wet.  I'm just really sad for all those for whom the ball rolling is unusual.

I’m with you, Mark. I reckon 90% of golf I play is on links courses (I’ve played 5 rounds out of 60 away from the links so far this year).


But, by far the firmest course I play is my own one and it is the only one where coming in from one side of the fairway to the other really matters… because on every other links course I play, I stop the ball quicker and it nullifies almost all approach strategy (at least when not severely downwind). And I’m a low spin player for a lowish handicap.


In other words, it needs to be REALLY firm to really make a big difference.

[Niall C]

Ally


You're a better player than most. But it's not just ability to stop the ball but also the ability to consistently get the ball up in the air and carry it the right distance to get over the hazard. It's possible to not hit the ball properly and see it run onto a green where the green is open but you don't have the same lee-way when the angle you've got means you have a bunker in the way.


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What I am arguing is that there is specificity missing from the two-dimensional results-only data for your position. Saying that the result is the result and that it takes into account the mountains of breadth from player to player ignores specific circumstances.

Kinda, but we can also look at specific things, too. Whether you want to call it narrowing the focus, or drilling down… whatever… the specific examples tend to line up with what we see generally.

He replied that I was in some crazy percentile, like 0.6% of players with that speed and that handicap. This admittedly anecdotal situation told me what I’d always suspected about applying aggregate data to specific players.

Give a specific thing if you want to talk about it, but also… there are of course exceptions out there. Doesn't mean they're necessarily worth discussing much.

In the past I've asked for examples, and people throw out holes where they're happy when they find themselves on the left or right side of a fairway, but they're still almost always holes where there's no way in heck you'd ever actually be smart to aim there.

In your example above, I’ll just say that not every 5-7 handicap is the same.

I think they're more alike than you might think. I think, as an outlier yourself, you're thinking there are more outliers than there are. If they were more plentiful, they wouldn't really be outliers.

I think our current version of shot tracking data supposes that that fact doesn’t matter.

That's not really true, as you can look at stats for individual golfers. With the Tour players we work with, we do just that. One of my guys is really good with his wedges. Another is tremendous at right pins (he plays a fade and his confidence is about 5x as much with a right pin). We adjust the strategy for them, but it's still… almost the same strategy. The same general tenets hold up. We're shifting lines and targets a little bit.

Everyone should revert to the mean over time and play accordingly. I am saying that isn’t correct.

I haven't said that either.

[Steve Burrows]

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

One wonders if you might ever concede the same from your own position. I don't think that anyone is doubting your data set. However, your interpretation of that data does not, in itself, constitute fact. What you have instead is just one of many theories about how to approach the playing of the game that is no more or less valid than any other. What separates us, in part, is that whereas my approach to the game involves spending time outside in the fresh air and hitting some shots with my buddies, your approach appears to have a more single-minded (borderline robotic) devotion to scoring. And whereas my focus is on hitting fun, or "dangerous," shots (because I don't too much care about my score), your paradigm seems cautions people AGAINST interacting with the various design features (all but dismissing the relevance of design professionals). Neither of us is wrong, but it's as though we're playing different games.

Put another way, angles can, should, and DO matter.

[Tim Gavrich]

Part of this debate/squabble seems tied up in the fact that there is some aura placed around words like "strategy" and "angles" that puts an emotional charge into them, so those of us with aggregated centuries and millions of golf shots' worth of experience of our own know that there is bone-deep truth around terms like those.


Ultimately, that's why "Angles Don't Matter" clickbait is effective. On that level, you have to hand it to Erik and Lou and others - they've figured out some good marketing copy in addition to their data.


But just because it's clever doesn't make it correct. After all, every golfer is "chasing angles" on every single shot of every round, even when playing by the data-driven rulebook. Any affirmative decision to aim a shot in a particular direction is presumably intended to set up the next shot from some sort of advantageous angle relative to the hole. Whether you choose to ignore your own tendencies and purely turn your golf brain over to the data is of course your choice as a golfer, but it's still Erik & Lou & Co. telling you to "chase" certain angles.


So it really isn't "Angles Don't Matter" at all. It's "Only Our Angles Matter," which, though less catchy, is closer to the reality of the data-as-God golf approach.

[Sean_A]

Part of this debate/squabble seems tied up in the fact that there is some aura placed around words like "strategy" and "angles" that puts an emotional charge into them, so those of us with aggregated centuries and millions of golf shots' worth of experience of our own know that there is bone-deep truth around terms like those.


Ultimately, that's why "Angles Don't Matter" clickbait is effective. On that level, you have to hand it to Erik and Lou and others - they've figured out some good marketing copy in addition to their data.


But just because it's clever doesn't make it correct. After all, every golfer is "chasing angles" on every single shot of every round, even when playing by the data-driven rulebook. Any affirmative decision to aim a shot in a particular direction is presumably intended to set up the next shot from some sort of advantageous angle relative to the hole. Whether you choose to ignore your own tendencies and purely turn your golf brain over to the data is of course your choice as a golfer, but it's still Erik & Lou & Co. telling you to "chase" certain angles.


So it really isn't "Angles Don't Matter" at all. It's "Only Our Angles Matter," which, though less catchy, is closer to the reality of the data-as-God golf approach.

I would take one step further which is one of the cornerstones of strategic golf design. You are playing for an angle even if avoiding or delaying risk. You are playing for an angle if you follow the numbers. Why? Because strategic design offers the choice. If a course is strategy designed, the vast majority of players can’t escape dealing with angles one way or another.

Ciao

[Michael Felton]

Part of this debate/squabble seems tied up in the fact that there is some aura placed around words like "strategy" and "angles" that puts an emotional charge into them, so those of us with aggregated centuries and millions of golf shots' worth of experience of our own know that there is bone-deep truth around terms like those.


Ultimately, that's why "Angles Don't Matter" clickbait is effective. On that level, you have to hand it to Erik and Lou and others - they've figured out some good marketing copy in addition to their data.


But just because it's clever doesn't make it correct. After all, every golfer is "chasing angles" on every single shot of every round, even when playing by the data-driven rulebook. Any affirmative decision to aim a shot in a particular direction is presumably intended to set up the next shot from some sort of advantageous angle relative to the hole. Whether you choose to ignore your own tendencies and purely turn your golf brain over to the data is of course your choice as a golfer, but it's still Erik & Lou & Co. telling you to "chase" certain angles.


So it really isn't "Angles Don't Matter" at all. It's "Only Our Angles Matter," which, though less catchy, is closer to the reality of the data-as-God golf approach.

I think the difference is in chasing an angle for where you want to play your next shot vs chasing a position to play your next shot from. The first is saying something like "the green is angled to the left, so it's better to play from the right side and I'll aim that way". The second is more like "I don't care what the green looks like - I want to keep my ball out of trouble and as close to where I'm going as I reasonably can".


Put another way, from a minimizing your score point of view, your tee shot strategy would be the same whether the green is angled left, angled right, angled straight or whatever. If a hole doglegs left or right then that would potentially change where you want to aim, but that's more from the perspective of hitting it as close to the hole as you can, rather than trying to find a specific side of the fairway.


I think Erik is right about the whole "when the ball is rolling" thing. There are for sure some people who can play for the angles we are discussing. One of my mother's friends was a decent golfer - she didn't hit it very far, but she hit it VERY straight. She could hit it within a few yards either side of her target with driver. She also hit it fairly low and the ball would roll (which goes hand in hand with the not hitting it very far thing). So she could absolutely play for an angle. Her shot pattern was probably 15 yards wide with her driver though.


PGA Tour players have a roughly 65 yard wide shot pattern (I think at around 95%), so for them, playing to a side of the fairway to get a better angle at the green is ill advised. Playing for a side of the fairway because the other side is serious trouble on the other hand is perfectly reasonable. Take 18 at Sawgrass. Half the players wind up in the right rough/trees there because the penalty of that is less than the penalty of hitting it in the lake. I wouldn't call that playing for an angle though. And if the best players in the world are picking their target based on where the trouble is rather than the angle to the green, then what in the world would make a long hitting 5-7 handicap think they should be chasing angles?


Having said all that, as Steve said, it's really about what your goals are. If you want to go out and take on trouble and get that rush of pulling off the hero shot, then have at it. No one is saying you can't do that. If your goal is to shoot the best score you can on a given day, then pick your targets appropriately and play to them. You'll score lower that way in the long run.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

One wonders if you might ever concede the same from your own position.

I have nothing to concede (that I haven't already)… and unlike many who are saying "angles DO matter," I've offered data, facts, and so on to support my side.

However, your interpretation of that data does not, in itself, constitute fact.

Oh boy.

What you have instead is just one of many theories

Riiiiiiight.

about how to approach the playing of the game that is no more or less valid than any other.

No. "Attack every pin regardless of your lie, the distance, the trouble, etc." is not as valid as the strategy I talk about and share with my golfers.

What separates us, in part, is that whereas my approach to the game involves spending time outside in the fresh air and hitting some shots with my buddies, your approach appears to have a more single-minded (borderline robotic) devotion to scoring.

That's the very nature of the conversation: it's entirely about scoring.

We're not talking about whether angles are visually appealing (they can be, and stuff like this was at the end of my presentation to the ASGCA last year). It's almost entirely talking about scoring. Sheesh.

Part of this debate/squabble seems tied up in the fact that there is some aura placed around words like "strategy" and "angles" that puts an emotional charge into them, so those of us with aggregated centuries and millions of golf shots' worth of experience of our own know that there is bone-deep truth around terms like those.

Tim, you've not aggregated centuries and millions of golf shots worth of experience of your own.

After all, every golfer is "chasing angles" on every single shot of every round, even when playing by the data-driven rulebook.

Except that's not the way anyone uses the term. Yes, even Scott Fawcett is aiming somewhere when he gets up on a tee of a par four.

Any affirmative decision to aim a shot in a particular direction is presumably intended to set up the next shot from some sort of advantageous angle relative to the hole.

No.

You are playing for an angle even if avoiding or delaying risk.

No, you're not.

I think the difference is in chasing an angle for where you want to play your next shot vs chasing a position to play your next shot from.

Yup. Put another way, it's "chasing an angle into the green" versus "choosing which lie is going to offer the best chance at a good approach shot" (i.e. fairway, not the deep bunker guarding the "good angle" into the green).

The first is saying something like "the green is angled to the left, so it's better to play from the right side and I'll aim that way". The second is more like "I don't care what the green looks like - I want to keep my ball out of trouble and as close to where I'm going as I reasonably can".

Yup. And I didn't quote the rest of what you said, but that… too.

I think Erik is right about the whole "when the ball is rolling" thing. There are for sure some people who can play for the angles we are discussing. One of my mother's friends was a decent golfer - she didn't hit it very far, but she hit it VERY straight. She could hit it within a few yards either side of her target with driver. She also hit it fairly low and the ball would roll (which goes hand in hand with the not hitting it very far thing). So she could absolutely play for an angle. Her shot pattern was probably 15 yards wide with her driver though.

I used my daughter as an example in my presentation, too. Especially when she plays from 6300 yards or so, she has hybrids into some greens, and is accurate enough with her driver that her dispersion pattern is pretty small. She can shade to a side of the fairway a bit.

PGA Tour players have a roughly 65 yard wide shot pattern (I think at around 95%), so for them, playing to a side of the fairway to get a better angle at the green is ill advised. Playing for a side of the fairway because the other side is serious trouble on the other hand is perfectly reasonable. Take 18 at Sawgrass. Half the players wind up in the right rough/trees there because the penalty of that is less than the penalty of hitting it in the lake. I wouldn't call that playing for an angle though.

Nor would I, or anyone other than the people who have tried recently and in the past to define everything as "an angle" so that they can conclude, despite ample evidence that it's not what anyone is actually saying, that they are right and that angles matter.

And if the best players in the world are picking their target based on where the trouble is rather than the angle to the green, then what in the world would make a long hitting 5-7 handicap think they should be chasing angles?

Architectural lore and nostalgia.

Having said all that, as Steve said, it's really about what your goals are. If you want to go out and take on trouble and get that rush of pulling off the hero shot, then have at it. No one is saying you can't do that. If your goal is to shoot the best score you can on a given day, then pick your targets appropriately and play to them. You'll score lower that way in the long run.

Yep. The angles discussion has always been about scoring. If you want to choose to play in a way that maximizes your idea of fun instead of your score… go for it. I couldn't care less. But the angles discussion has always been about scoring.

[Craig Sweet]

"The angles discussion has always been about scoring."  In your mind... Seems a bit arrogant on your part.  This site is about golf course architecture and angles DO MATTER in golf course design.


Feel free to start a thread "Golf Course Design Doesn't Matter"

[Rob Marshall]

Erik, you have now told everyone here that you made a presentation to the ASGCA at least 10 times across various threads. Perhaps you should post it here so we can read it or if it’s on video post a link.


Also, you keep saying we, who has collected the data you refer to? Arccos?