Do Angles Matter for Good Architecture?

[Tom_Doak]

Of course angles matter. They matter much more in the moment of a single shot than they do vs data of thousands of shots. Let's look at, say Pacific Dunes #17 (only because it's the one that popped in my head .. must be where it happens the most). Someone will ask what I hit or "what should I hit." For simplicity purposes, just imagine no wind. My response is it depends on your flight. The entire hole is an "angle" .. what's your comfortable ball flight? Sometimes I'm going to try to fly it more, sometimes I'm going to use the land .. it depends how and what I'm feeling that day in that moment.  I can have the choice of 3 or 4 different clubs for the same shot ... yes, angles matter .. gravity matters ... it all matters .. as much as you want it to.

Thank you for this comment.  This is more how I think about design.


The saddest part of it is that the guys who say "angles don't matter" also try to talk great players out of using their shotmaking abilities, and just always play the same shot with which they are most consistent.  And that may be the correct approach statistically, but it is just taking all the life out of the game. 


The greatest players, when they are playing well, are unafraid to throw out the percentages and play the shot that comes into their heads, because they know it is the correct response to the problem.  That approach may well have cost Phil Mickelson a couple of major championships, but it has won many others.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom,


I think you’re being too black and white: “Angles don’t matter” was just a headline for discussion.


For me, it was only ever a conversation about “The strategic school of design matters less than we think”.


Rather than obsessive focus on strategy, designers are better served focusing on providing as much variety as possible. That might come in the shape of strategic, penal and heroic hazards. (I think I’ve promoted the “chaos theory of golf design” on here in the past: Close your eyes and drop 70 bunkers on the master plan)….


It should also come in using features (both natural and built) in various ways and from various angles…


…And also the use of micro-contour adds infinitely more variables to the shots that might have to be played by any one individual on any one given day.


Not to mention the mental side of how all of the above affects the way you see a shot or how confident you are in trying to take it on.


Of course angles matter. But in a much more instinctive and individual way than some simplistic theory of strategy that actually doesn’t hold up that well.

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:


I do agree with you that this discussion is 2-D thinking for a 3-D world.  But, that's generally how the professionals tackle things, too.  One of the things I noticed in working on Sebonack was that Jack Nicklaus' first instinct was to flatten things out so that he could apply certain dimensions to the design of a green, instead of just working with the terrain and, say, making it bigger if it was going away from you.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


I get why Pros teach the statistical method. Even 15 handicappers want to improve their score. But my guesses are (a) the improvement in score is very marginal statistically (b) they might actually score better if they learned a variety of shots and (c) they would have a lot more fun if they embraced (b).


This is another area in which technology has affected golf adversely. It is much more difficult to curve (angle) the ball, and GPS/Range Finders undermine making decisions.


Ally,


I concur that variety matters a lot, but what course(s) on the my list that I posted sacrifice variety for strategy? Maybe RD because Numbers 5, 8, and 17 are similar, but the variety of the rest of the holes more than makes up.


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ira,


Variety and strategy are not mutually exclusive in the slightest. In fact, I’m saying it is variety that creates strategy, not some standard school of thinking that relies on one kind of angle. Strategy (with a capital S) does not create variety.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,


Variety and strategy are not mutually exclusive in the slightest. In fact, I’m saying it is variety that creates strategy, not some standard school of thinking that relies on one kind of angle. Strategy (with a capital S) does not create variety.

Ally,


What architect has or does rely on one kind of angle?


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

What architect has or does rely on one kind of angle?

Pete Dye, in large part, relied on one kind of angle, repeated left and right throughout the course.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


I have only played three of Mr. Dye’s courses, but if he only used one angle, he certainly still created a lot of variety.


As previously stated, I am hard pressed to think of a good architect who sacrificed variety in the pursuit of the “Strategic School of Design”.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I hit a lot of pitches and chips so the way I am coming into a green with exterior and interior contours matters a lot for me. As noted, I understand the basic point in the other thread, but for me the exception of “except when the ball is on the ground” swallows the rule. I did not mention Hope Valley where we are members, but it is Ross design and has several holes where depending on your angle the green runs quite a bit away from you.

Hitting a pitch shot for your birdie is not the way to score. Yes, there are better places to leave a shot off the green if you're going to miss the green, but often that's just "don't short-side yourself" without as much concern about the angle.


If y'all want to take this as a claim toward "see, angles matter…" you're skipping ahead too far. You can still evaluate the "trouble" around the green and play to the safest spot. In LSW terms, that's just the "lightest" colored Shot Zone. Because… you're still just trying to hit the green, with a little bit of preference for where you might miss it (same way as if there was a pretty big target with a bunker intruding, you'd shade away from it a little in favor of missing the ball in the rough or something).

The saddest part of it is that the guys who say "angles don't matter" also try to talk great players out of using their shotmaking abilities, and just always play the same shot with which they are most consistent.  And that may be the correct approach statistically, but it is just taking all the life out of the game.

That is two different things.


If a fade player wants to try to hit a draw to a left pin… he's still best advised to hit it in the same place in the fairway, and honestly he's still best advised to hit his fade… but he's welcome to try to hit a draw… and it still doesn't change the math on the "angles don't matter much" stuff.


So, yes, players are best advised to play one shot shape. Master that, and hit it just about everywhere you can. But that is different than the angles talk.

For me, it was only ever a conversation about “The strategic school of design matters less than we think”.

Much less so. It used to matter more, but… we've figured out the math. Just as basketball has figured out the math, and baseball, and football…

I get why Pros teach the statistical method. Even 15 handicappers want to improve their score. But my guesses are (a) the improvement in score is very marginal statistically (b) they might actually score better if they learned a variety of shots and (c) they would have a lot more fun if they embraced (b).

No to A and B. Who can say with regards to C, but a lot of people enjoy shooting lower scores more than they do "learning a variety of shots" (and many don't have the time to learn a variety of shots).

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A good thread about what KVV calls "mechanics" and "artists."

https://twitter.com/KVanValkenburg/status/1633982791334469633

Tiger was an artist, but unless you're Tiger… It also explains why JT is friends with Tiger, and may explain why JT has under-performed in the minds of many. Compared to Collin Morikawa, who may be this generation's best "mechanic" per KVV.

[Mike Wagner]

A good thread about what KVV calls "mechanics" and "artists."

https://twitter.com/KVanValkenburg/status/1633982791334469633

Tiger was an artist, but unless you're Tiger… It also explains why JT is friends with Tiger, and may explain why JT has under-performed in the minds of many. Compared to Collin Morikawa, who may be this generation's best "mechanic" per KVV.

Math doesn't understand how hard golf is or "the moment." Those many minds that think Justin Thomas has somehow "under performed" .. um, you lost me there too ..

[Ira Fishman]

I hit a lot of pitches and chips so the way I am coming into a green with exterior and interior contours matters a lot for me. As noted, I understand the basic point in the other thread, but for me the exception of “except when the ball is on the ground” swallows the rule. I did not mention Hope Valley where we are members, but it is Ross design and has several holes where depending on your angle the green runs quite a bit away from you.

Hitting a pitch shot for your birdie is not the way to score. Yes, there are better places to leave a shot off the green if you're going to miss the green, but often that's just "don't short-side yourself" without as much concern about the angle.


If y'all want to take this as a claim toward "see, angles matter…" you're skipping ahead too far. You can still evaluate the "trouble" around the green and play to the safest spot. In LSW terms, that's just the "lightest" colored Shot Zone. Because… you're still just trying to hit the green, with a little bit of preference for where you might miss it (same way as if there was a pretty big target with a bunker intruding, you'd shade away from it a little in favor of missing the ball in the rough or something).


Erik,


I am not missing greens on purpose to try to set up chips or pitches for birdie. Like most shorter hitting 15 handicappers, I just know that I am going to miss a lot of greens even if I follow your advice to avoid hazards off the tee (which I do try to do). And I agree that on most courses, finding the safe place to miss a green is best. The point of this thread was to see if others thought that on excellent courses some kinds of angles matter in creating both interesting architecture and promoting scoring. I knew what your answer would be even if you are not offering the course by course data that Ally requested early on in the other thread. My hypothesis/contention is there are courses where angles (again, not chasing them off the tee) make for compelling architecture because they provide strategy that is meaningful for interest and scoring. I even listed some examples from my own experience.


I particularly think my hypothesis about quality architecture and angles holds true because for most players in the 10-20 handicap range (and perhaps lower) the ball is on the ground a lot which is the major exception to your rule.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I am not missing greens on purpose to try to set up chips or pitches for birdie.

I didn't say you did.

I knew what your answer would be even if you are not offering the course by course data that Ally requested early on in the other thread.

I'm not sure what info Ally requested, but I imagine if he wanted something too specific, it's proprietary and that it likely shows pretty much the same stuff as anywhere else.

My hypothesis/contention is there are courses where angles (again, not chasing them off the tee) make for compelling architecture because they provide strategy that is meaningful for interest and scoring.

If you had stopped at "interest" you might be right. You're unlikely to be so with "for scoring" unless the courses you're talking about are quite firm (or the level of golfer you're talking about is not capable of stopping a ball before it rolls a decent distance).

I particularly think my hypothesis about quality architecture and angles holds true because for most players in the 10-20 handicap range (and perhaps lower) the ball is on the ground a lot which is the major exception to your rule.

I think our definition of "a lot" is fairly different.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Because Ira is referring to it, on Page 1 of the “Angles Don’t Matter” thread, I asked if data could be broken out in to the below four categories of course:


- PGA Tour courses
- US Top 100 courses built before WWII
- Every course built by TD or C&C
- The Top 100 links in GB&I


I didn’t mean just for Tour players, I meant for everyone.


The conversation moved on…

[Bryan Izatt]

Erik,


Back in the other thread you posted a link to this analysis to show that angles don't matter, on average, for the second shot on a par 4 to an angled green.



One thing I find interesting is that it appears to be almost statistically insignificant whether the second shot is from 110 yards or 190 yards.  In other words if I keep laying back to 190 yards it'll only cost me a stroke total over four rounds on that hole than if I always play from 120 yards.  Seems counterintuitive to me and my game.  it reminds me of that old saying - lies, damn lies and statistics.

I'd go with Ira, that angles can mean a lot to me when I (often) have to play 3rd shots into par 4 greens and par 5 greens or 2nd shots into par 3 greens.  As an 11 index I have to do that quite a lot.  Sadly I do not have enough talent to control where I end up on those shots all or even most of the time.  The statistical averages concerning the one kind of angle situation doesn't really apply to me on an individual shot basis.  Perhaps over a hundred plays of a specific hole the angle of the second shot might average out to no difference but I remain skeptical.  All kinds of angles matter to me and my scoring as a (better than) "average" player.  And, all kinds of angles make playing both interesting and challenging so hopefully architects will keep them coming.

As a tangential thought - Arccos claims that using their product and associated app caddy and analytical approach will lower your handicap by 5 shots in fairly short order (20 games, was it).  It seems like a stretch to me.  Is that marketing hype or is there statistical evidence of that result?

 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

One thing I find interesting is that it appears to be almost statistically insignificant whether the second shot is from 110 yards or 190 yards.

Whoa Nelly (Korda?)! 1/5 of a shot is nowhere near "statistically insignificant." And, that data is for Tour players.

I'd go with Ira, that angles can mean a lot to me when I (often) have to play 3rd shots into par 4 greens and par 5 greens or 2nd shots into par 3 greens.

That's not "angles." That's just leaving yourself in a decent spot, seeing as how you're actually trying to hit the green and not miss it.

Sadly I do not have enough talent to control where I end up on those shots all or even most of the time.

Exactly. Your goal is still the same: evaluate the trouble, and the lightest "Shot Zone," and play to that. Often that's near the middle of the green, but in the case of a penalty close by (water, a horrible bunker, etc.) that often shifts away from the center of the green. Even a horrible spot to leave the ball in grass can shift the aiming point away… regardless of the angle from which you're coming in to the green.

The statistical averages concerning the one kind of angle situation doesn't really apply to me on an individual shot basis.

Yes, they do.

Perhaps over a hundred plays of a specific hole the angle of the second shot might average out to no difference but I remain skeptical.

How do you think you accumulate those hundred plays? By making the right (or wrong) decision 100 times.

If someone offers you a chance to pick 5-6 (combined) or pick 1-4 (any number 1-4 as a group) on a regular die… you'd be dumb to pick the 5-6 bet, even though on one roll it may come up 5 or 6 and you might feel good about yourself. You'd be advised, every time, to pick 1-4.

[Mark Pearce]

I think you’re being too black and white: “Angles don’t matter” was just a headline for discussion.


For me, it was only ever a conversation about “The strategic school of design matters less than we think”.


Of course angles matter. But in a much more instinctive and individual way than some simplistic theory of strategy that actually doesn’t hold up that well.

Ally,


Your contribution to this thread has been excellent and informative, thank you.  Here, though, I think you're being rather generous to the more extreme "angles don't matter" advocates, who have been quite absolutist in their approach and have been resistant to the sort of nuance that others have embraced.  Your summary in quotes above is an excellent summary of the message I am taking away.