[Sean_A]

I thought a lot about this when we were working on the redesign of Memorial Park.  The younger players told me that angles didn't matter, but the older guys said to keep doing what I was doing . . . that the angles DID matter, even if the young guys weren't willing to play for them.

The basic gist of my presentation to the ASGCA at the annual meeting last fall was that angles don't matter… if the game is played point-to-point. If you fly the ball to a point and stop it relatively quickly, angles are irrelevant, because the ball isn't "interacting" with the stuff on the ground. (Harbor Town might be an exception with its aerial hazards — trees).

But when the ball is rolling… lower skilled players, firmer conditions, recovery shots, etc.… angles can matter. (The 12th at ANGC is one of the rare times angles matter point-to-point.)

Also… angles matter esthetically. But… that's not really strategy related (unless you use "angles" to deceive, mislead, or steer players into making certain choices, which I think Pete Dye was pretty good at doing).

Erik


That seems to me a heavy caveating of your previous position on the Angles Don't Matter thread. Would you agree that for the great majority of golfers who can't stop a ball dead, or don't have exacting distance control, and are playing on anything than soft conditions, that angles do indeed matter ?

Niall

I await the reply. Meanwhile, angles continue to matter for me. 😎

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

I also think for the "average golfer" err that would me, I'm under a lot less pressure when I'm looking down a green than when I have to land it over a piece of water or a bunker - even when my (sky)caddie gives me the same distances. Plus its in the less pressure situation which is more forgiving if I don't execute properly.




Earllier in the thread grain ("nap"?) was mentioned as something were not so concerend about these days.  From talking with older players they often say that greens (I talk to a lot of links players) got very fast in hot summers. "Like Glass". This may be relative to what they were used to, but clearly not all greens were stimping 7, all the time.  Also they liked to have 'hard' greens approached with less 'spinny' balls that didn't fly so high.  So yes, back in the day, for a variety of reasons strategy was nescessarily different.

[Mike_Young]

Have you ever played a round of golf with no flags?  Most would be surprised how much their score would improve...

[Peter Bowman]

Hooper and nearly all Wayne Stiles courses I have played is well-known for their steep sloped greens and false fronts.  Hooper's Holes 1, 4, 6, 9, are pretty testy.  If youre above the hole or hole high for your putt on these greens, even from 5 feet, you may be looking at a 3 putt if you cant make your 8 foot uphill 2nd putt.

I doubt they were intended to play that way in 1927

[David Cronan]

Have you ever played a round of golf with no flags?  Most would be surprised how much their score would improve...

I can attest to the above. When I was a member at a club in Northern Michigan (Lochenheath), I was preparing for the Michigan Mid-Am. The Head Pro at the time, a darn fine player, went out with me as the last group out. Unbeknownst to me, he had instructed the greens crew to remove all flags. When we arrived at my opening tee shot, I thought I was losing my sight because for the life of me, I couldn't see the flag/pin. He then told me what he'd done and said, "There's no shame in hitting at the center of the green. It's not like your family is depending on you bringing home a paycheck from this tournament."


After about 4-5 holes, the mental block was gone and it became a good lesson.


Sage advice then, sage advice now.

[jeffwarne]

With even lots of public course greens running at 10+ and tournament greens sometimes 12+, staying below the hole and not short siding oneself are really important parts of proper strategy, especially in tournament play.


Was that a big thing 75 or 100 years ago? When Bobby Jones was winning, I imagine greens were running, what, 5 or 6? Certainly if I were playing greens at those speeds, I wouldn’t care if my putt was downhill, and I would be more aggressive on approach shots because any recovery I left myself would be a lot simpler.


So I’m curious if this emphasis on not short siding and staying below the hole is relatively new Or if Bobby Jones and Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan emphasized as much as we do now.

Exactly backwards.(and staying below the hole was way more emphasized 40 years ago then it ever is now.
nearly any event I play in, no matter how fast the greens are, a pin isn't placed unless you can stop a ball near it due to the minimal slope around the cup placements 1-1.5% slopes. This makes puttin and approaching EASIER as I know that a ball can still be stopped from above the hole.
75-100 years ago greens had much more slope and tilt 5-8% and 3-4 % at cups, and the players were often playing out of much longer grass, making a short sided shot even harder with the ability to spin the ball muted, unless in drought and/or hardpan conditions.
Put another way-stopping a ball from a tight fairway hitting to a green stimping 12.5 and sloping 1-2% away is way easier than pitching to a green stimping 7 that slopes away 3-5%, because of the effect of the first bounce on the greater slope-to say nothing of the lessened ability to create spin off longer grass.
I got a very stern reminder of this Monday when I played my beloved Goat Hill where they have expanded the greens a bit exposing some really tilted/sloped positions. The greens were running 6 maybe 7 and I had some of the most challenging putts and pitches I've had in years, and that includes an event at a forgettable course I played twice in the last 3 weeks where the greens were running 14.
At The Goat I had a 2 footer I played 6 inches of break and firmed it in,
Pin high resulted in some impossible putts. Above the hole was impossible on multiple holes.




fast green speeds have eliminated greens with real tilt and slope, unless you count the silly tiers that architects have been forced to work into sloped greens lately.


many think faster greens with less slope are the same as slower with more slope, but they completely forget about the effect of more slope on a pitch or approach, and these slower highly sloped greens can also be kept firmer/drier due to less fear of losing them in warmer conditions.


Now my point is moot if you are talking about an unchanged course over 75 years, but those really don't exist-certainly not the same pin placements (newer speeds would negate certain pins) or fairway agronomy.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I doubt they were intended to play that way in 1927

I remain extremely confused by this thread, so I will bring this up once more. Everyone keeps talking about downhill putts, as if putting is the only thing that green speeds affect, but when I put myself in a historic mindset of strategic thinking, I keep coming back to approach contours. I promise I'll leave this thread alone if what I'm saying isn't relevant.

So, slower green can have larger contours and shorter distances between hole locations and those contours. Now, these contours could be focused on making putting challenging (yes, I'm all in agreement there), but architects can also build contours that defend against approach shots.

In 1927, shots we much lower and more running, and these contours could be built to funnel balls away from certain pin positions. However, even in 2024 large contours could still deflect spinny, high-lofted shots away from certain pin positions. In both cases, an approach from a bad angle can eject balls that land just feet away from certain pins, and send them off the green altogether.

The slower the greens are, the more exaggerated (more effective) these defensive contours can be, which means they can force players to concern themselves more with position. The slower green speed might mean less concern with being below the hole for putting (debatable but I'll concede the point), but they still mean more concern with holding the green altogether on the approach.

Now, as a mid-handicapper, this stuff affects me all the time. I don't know how big the error bars are for a player with Matt Cohn's exceptional skill, but I know that, in regards to the modern game, the subtleties of a double plateau are probably lost because high-skilled players can stop a short iron on all three plateaus fairly trivially. However, the defensive contours that I'm talking about have been around for years, think #4 Gingerbeer at the Old Course, but the ball flight gets higher in the modern era, the contour needs to be pushed back onto the green for it to be effective, rather than be in front of the green.

My thesis here is that the modern game is defined bit higher, longer shots, that stop quicker, which is a different strategy, but to bring back some of the older strategies we can build slow greens, with more tiers, with bigger defensive contours between those tiers. This would reward smarter angles, while making thoughtless bomb and gouge approaches more risky, by basically putting a big dangerous threat in the middle of the green (one that can be avoided by hitting into it instead of across it).

Why I bring this up repeatedly is that this thread is about historic green speeds. I play a lot at Gleneagles SF, and the 9th/18th has a massive contour across the center of the green. Even though the greens don't run too quick there, it's enough for any putt down the contour to send the ball off the front of the green, which is a testament to the greens being significantly slower when it was built in 1962. I really think that greens have been softened dramatically (again, 2015 neutering of #11 High In), and the running approaches that were a strategic concern (Ginger Beer) have been lost.

Hope I didn't miss some big point here that went over my head.

Edit: whoops, I guess I had some very bad post timing as Jeff seems to be making a similar point just above:

many think faster greens with less slope are the same as slower with more slope, but they completely forget about the effect of more slope on a pitch or approach, and these slower highly sloped greens can also be kept firmer/drier due to less fear of losing them in warmer conditions.

Now my point is moot if you are talking about an unchanged course over 75 years, but those really don't exist-certainly not the same pin placements (newer speeds would negate certain pins) or fairway agronomy.

[jeffwarne]

Matt, it is the misunderstanding of your point and mine, as well as the financial rewards of fueling an agronomic and playing equipment arms race, that have led to the lack of strategy and even understanding of strategy by the majority of golf participants and especially decision makers.
The fact that I can play a perfectly conditioned(IMHO)firm golf course, in The Hamptons, that yields the FASTEST putts you will ever see,(downhill) where drive placement, approach play placement and putting are paramount, for $25 and have NOT ONE SINGLE other group on the course, shows me how little today's golfers care about the conditions that I believe make the game the most fun, thought provoking and engaging.


Pity because they even sell hoodies now.....

[Ken Moum]

So I’m curious if this emphasis on not short siding and staying below the hole is relatively new Or if Bobby Jones and Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan emphasized as much as we do now.

One thing that seldom considered in talking about slow greens is the grain. When I was at GCSAA a couple of experienced superintendents took me to task when I mentioned how fast the greens were in N. Minnesota when I was young.


They, rightly,  pointed out that mowers back then couldn't get that low.  At first I was baffled,  because there were some truly scary downhill putts. Being below the hole was mandatory.


Then it dawned on me, at those heights the bentgrass laid down with the water flow, creating a massive difference in uphill vs. downhill speed.


We used to see it in Kansas where we could play through the winter, but the greens rarely got mowed.


Bermuda apparently was different,  but even grainier.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What percentage of golfers fly the ball point to point and stop it relatively quickly?

Is it more than 2-3%?

Way more, yes.

I don't literally mean stopping the ball within inches of where it lands. But if a ball stops within even five to ten yards, it qualifies as pretty point-to-point because greens are deeper than 5-10 yards.

That seems to me a heavy caveating of your previous position on the Angles Don't Matter thread.

It is not. It's the same thing I've always said: angles don't matter… except when the ball is rolling. That hasn't changed in > 10 years.

Would you agree that for the great majority of golfers who can't stop a ball dead

See the above. It doesn't require "stopping the ball dead."

The other thing is, too… bad golfers who don't hit the ball high and stop it relatively quickly… can't really "play" for angles because their dispersion is also quite large. So, while you might be grateful to have a "good angle" when you get it, that doesn't mean you should play for that angle off the tee (or wherever).

[Craig Sweet]

If you have ever been a good golfer (0-10 handicap) you know how important it is where you place your tee shot. Angles do matter to some golfers.  Your weekend warrior that typically shoots 90-100 , and has never been that good, simply wants to be in the fairway.


And this applied 50 years ago as much as it does today.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If you have ever been a good golfer (0-10 handicap)

I've been better than that for the last 15 years. But that's really not important, because good players get some things "wrong" all the time. On the instructional side, their feels are often no more "real" than a 10 handicapper's feels.

you know how important it is where you place your tee shot.

Somewhere between the ropes. Dispersion patterns are large, and golfers cost themselves strokes by aiming for "the left side of the fairway" or "close to that bunker so I have a good angle into the flag." The better the golfer, the less the angles do matter, because they're more likely to be point-to-point (or capable of it).

Angles do matter to some golfers.

I've never said they never matter.

Your weekend warrior that typically shoots 90-100 , and has never been that good, simply wants to be in the fairway.

Angles actually matter a bit more to them (while they're also less capable of playing to them) because their balls spend more time rolling/bouncing.

And this applied 50 years ago as much as it does today.

I would tend to agree… but not in the way that you seem to think I would.

Craig, this isn't really a matter of opinion anymore. We have millions of shots of data to back these things up. Arches alone is approaching a billion shots.

[Craig Sweet]

Well, actually, the better golfers that aren't hitting it 300 yards do care about angles because that is all they have. They are not going to carry that bunker so they have to hit the ball somewhere that gives them a better angle to the green.  Whether they can execute that shot every time does not change their intent.

[Sean_A]

Well, actually, the better golfers that aren't hitting it 300 yards do care about angles because that is all they have. They are not going to carry that bunker so they have to hit the ball somewhere that gives them a better angle to the green.  Whether they can execute that shot every time does not change their intent.

Angles are often more about playing to a safer area  rather than chasing an optimal angle. People try to pigeonhole the concept of angles, but it is highly nuanced especially if the golfer knows a course well.

I often find hole locations less meaningful these days in terms of avoiding downhill putts. In any case, my bigger fear on contoured and/or sloped greens was to be hole high.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Well, actually, the better golfers that aren't hitting it 300 yards do care about angles because that is all they have. They are not going to carry that bunker so they have to hit the ball somewhere that gives them a better angle to the green. Whether they can execute that shot every time does not change their intent.

Craig, I'm not going to get into it here, as the topic is barely related to this topic and I've already talked about it many, many times. Suffice to say the facts here don't align with what you seem to think is true. You should read my book.

[Craig Sweet]

LOL..."You should read my book."   

[Michael Felton]

I think the fact pattern and this discussion depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to hit shots to specific spots to give yourself a "better" angle, then sure - go ahead. If your goal is to shoot the lowest score that you can, then trying to hit it to a spot to give yourself an angle is suboptimal a lot of the time. How much that is does depend on what the architect has laid down on the ground.


For example: take 17 on the Old Course. The approach shot is definitely easier from further to the right. Right is where the OOB is, so trying to hit it to the right is not a good idea. It puts too much of your tee shot pattern in the OOB, which is basically two shots added to your score and then you still have the same problem. So you should be aiming your tee shot such that very few shots will end up OOB, but some of them are going to end up on the right side of the fairway. That means that by chance some of the time you'll get the good angle and some of the time you'll get the bad one. When you get the bad one, you have to do what you can from there, probably aiming your approach to the right side of the green and trying to get up and down or two putt from distance (depending on where the flag is obviously). Probably also worth remembering that even the best players in the world aren't losing a whole lot of ground making 5 on that hole. But if your goal is to hit it to the right side of the fairway and you are willing to risk hitting it OOB, then sure - go for it. The fact that the better angle is where the trouble is is what makes it a good hole. If the better angle was from the left, then everyone would just hit it to the left and it would be rather more boring.


I think as far as Erik is concerned, the point is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest shots possible (on average), which means that sometimes he'll get the angle that is better, but he's not trying to get that angle. Craig probably views it that the good angle is worth the trouble of reteeing.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think the fact pattern and this discussion depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to hit shots to specific spots to give yourself a "better" angle, then sure - go ahead. If your goal is to shoot the lowest score that you can, then trying to hit it to a spot to give yourself an angle is suboptimal a lot of the time. How much that is does depend on what the architect has laid down on the ground.


For example: take 17 on the Old Course. The approach shot is definitely easier from further to the right. Right is where the OOB is, so trying to hit it to the right is not a good idea. It puts too much of your tee shot pattern in the OOB, which is basically two shots added to your score and then you still have the same problem. So you should be aiming your tee shot such that very few shots will end up OOB, but some of them are going to end up on the right side of the fairway. That means that by chance some of the time you'll get the good angle and some of the time you'll get the bad one. When you get the bad one, you have to do what you can from there, probably aiming your approach to the right side of the green and trying to get up and down or two putt from distance (depending on where the flag is obviously). Probably also worth remembering that even the best players in the world aren't losing a whole lot of ground making 5 on that hole. But if your goal is to hit it to the right side of the fairway and you are willing to risk hitting it OOB, then sure - go for it. The fact that the better angle is where the trouble is is what makes it a good hole. If the better angle was from the left, then everyone would just hit it to the left and it would be rather more boring.


I think as far as Erik is concerned, the point is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest shots possible (on average), which means that sometimes he'll get the angle that is better, but he's not trying to get that angle. Craig probably views it that the good angle is worth the trouble of reteeing.

Michael,


This is a nice, simple way of putting it. Thank you.


Some might remember that I fell closer to Erik’s argument the last time we had the extended “angles” debate. That does not mean that architects should stop designing variety and strategy in to a hole through angles.


I tend to agree with Sean’s last point. Angles are more often about choosing a safer area to hit. Classic strategy is implemented but less often than one might think.

[Ian Andrew]

Then and now..not sure that 95 percent of golfers even consider strategy when playing...JMO

Mid handicap players just struggle to hit decent shots. I think you have to get into single digit level competency to think about strategy and different shot options.

[/size][size=78%]I find the opposite, they try to employ strategic play, they just fail to accomplish the task more than a better player does. They like angles and carries, often more than their skill set might support. But that doesn’t mean they don’t see the possibilities.[/size]


That’s my take.


Ian

[Erik J. Barzeski]

LOL..."You should read my book."

You should. We've learned a lot about how to score, how to get around the golf course. If you were in the ASGCA you could have attended my presentation last October, too.

Some might remember that I fell closer to Erik’s argument the last time we had the extended “angles” debate. That does not mean that architects should stop designing variety and strategy in to a hole through angles.

The end of my talk also pointed out that even the smart golfer can be suckered sometimes, and those smart golfers — golfers who understand the proper strategy and generally make the smart play — are a small minority. The great majority still seem to think that "oh, you want to hug that bunker so you have a great angle into the green."

So, yes, I agree that architects should continue to create angles, etc. It's thrilling to skirt the bunker (even if somewhat accidentally) and have a better angle into the green… even if you weren't playing for that specific angle.

Anyway, this isn't an angles thread. The ball rolled less with slower greens. #FirmAndFast

[Sven Nilsen]

Angles matter when the ball rolls.


The ball rolls when its windy.


Nay wind nay golf.


Therfore, angles matter.


QED

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The ball rolls when its windy.

Not necessarily.

[Sven Nilsen]

You're right, I should have said that the "ball rolls more when it is windy."


Eagerly awaiting your next book - "Golf in a Vacuum, Taking Mother Nature Out of the Game."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Eagerly awaiting your next book - "Golf in a Vacuum, Taking Mother Nature Out of the Game."

The wind blowing 10 MPH might change your lines but your strategy isn't all that different. I appreciate the sarcasm, but it falls flat.

[Sven Nilsen]

All good, Erik.  The joke wasn’t meant for your benefit.  I wouldn’t dare presume someone without a sense of humor would find anything humorous.


As an aside, I liked the old days when this site was truly commercial free. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()