TW: "Chasing Angles" and Dancing Around Agreement

[Kyle Harris]

I think most people drawn to golf are capable of finding their own thrills in their own ways if the golf architect is trying. That bar is likely lower than we tend to think on here, but even the third rate guys still get work for a reason - there's a market for what they're designing. No sense in yucking that yum.

Personally, beginning to look at the game in this way has added thrill, if perhaps taken away some unknowns. I started to hit Driver every time on Streamsong Blue #13, for instance, since I could move my dispersion pattern closer to the putting green and address the big bunker left with the tee shot instead of with the second. Far better to be one to the good around the green than have a second shot dispersion pattern, that while tighter, still have similar possible outcomes.

So now I at least have the chance at the thrill of driving the green (I never aim for it, but right of it) as opposed to playing out into the fat of the fairway with a 5-iron.

For what it's worth, Blue #13 was my last birdie on the ringer score for both Red/Blue and it was four years after we opened!

Really, the handicap-marker is likely going to be thrilled with making good contact and the result of that. The temptation/thrill lies just as much in the "will this be the swing that sends it" question as it does with the "I've cut the corner and carried the bunker" question. The architect has little control over when the former happens and perhaps maybe too much control over the latter.


The true art of it all is designing those 0.1 to 0.5 shot variances that only truly reveal themselves on repeated play. Are most golfers willing to ascribe those swings to skill or luck or whatever? What are you, the architect, doing to facilitate that? The obvious thrills come from overcoming things like bunkers and water but the less obvious ones are bounces and awkward lies.

I'd posit that a golfer finds "fun" as a direct correlation to how good the architect is at hiding their involvement in those less obvious swings, while giving the obvious ones in spots where they're not damaging. All while taking away in the spots where the golfer is contributing to their own demise or success, ostensibly.

Memorial Park is a case-study in the very idea.

[Kyle Harris]

I also think we tend to underestimate the intellgence of golfers in terms of playing safe.

I don't know which way you mean that to say. They play too safely or they don't play safely enough?

A lot of the times the statistics will tell you to attempt to get all the risk out of the way in the first shot instead of splitting into two.

There's a lot more to it than that. There's "danger" on every shot, risk on every shot, just to varying amounts. A simple par four with a fairway bunker left and a greenside bunker right… your target is generally away from both bunkers. And it's generally "full send" because that leaves a shorter second shot. But if the bunker is HORRIBLE and the corridor narrow, and hitting a 3W keeps you short of it, and still leaves a short iron in, you haven't really pushed off the danger, you've just slightly increased the danger of the greenside bunker because you'll have an extra 20 yards or whatever in to it.

And I know you know all of that, so I'm not saying that to "tell" you that.

There's an interesting wrinkle here that hasn't been addressed yet...

What does the individual golfer consider danger?

I can probably count on one hand the amount of bunkers on any given golf course I would actively avoid. I just generally don't fear sand shots.

Other players are likely different.

Your play style is going to do as much to move the dispersion pattern as a OSFA rote strategy.

[Matt Schoolfield]

My formal education is in analytic philosophy, with at least a mild focus on logic, so I want to point out some concerns I have here with the argument. (Edit: note, I'm being absurdly nitpicky here, please don't take this is criticism of the general thesis, just point out some technical issues with the argument):

We can all agree that the primary challenge in golf is the fact that we are manuevering a ball by playing a stroke across a distance. The farther Point A it from Point B the more potential strokes we need to play to get there.

This does not actual follow. You have slipped in an axiom that more distances implies more potential strokes. Imagine we have a 400 yard wide open par 4, and a 125 yard par 3 that is an island green with the diameter of approximately one yard. There could be times when terrain dominates distances with regards to potential strokes. If you are going to make this argument, you need to set it as "all things being equal more distance means more strokes" which is still dubious in practice (I find a 60 yard shot to be more challenging than a 125 yard shot, but my short game is terrible), but I'd generally agree to the axiom.

Therefore, it is axiomic that golf is judged by using the least strokes per unit distance - whatever that may be. This can also be stated that the higher the average distance per stroke, the better the score.

This proposition does not follow directly, it will only follow "all things being equal," that is "given the exact same course at different distances, golf is judged by using the least strokes per distance," which is a very different statement. The argument will eventually form "distance is always an advantage", whereas here I think what follows is actually "closeness is always an advantage," which are two subtly different things.

You have no control over your luck - but you do have control over your expectations

There is a long conversation here about what you mean by luck, but seeing as you mean luck-in-dispersion-pattern, I think the statement is fine

which is why avoiding penalty shots becomes an axiom,

I know I'm being absurdly pedantic, but axioms are by definition arbitrary. Trying to justify them will be circular. I think point you're trying to make here doesn't necessarily follow. I can think of some strange ways in which taking a red/yellow-stake penalty would be optimal vs playing it safe.

In the above Road Hole situation for me, the target on the approach really only changes as my disperson pattern changes with the club I'm hitting into the green, ceteris parabis, however, the angle from which I'm approaching that target may move the number of favorable possible outcomes farther away from the hole. Regardless of the location from the fairway I would still be selecting a target based on the left edge of my disperson pattern being away from penalties/lost balls. The only thing that changes is whether or not that dispersion pattern is more likely to yeild a tighter approach or not.

The thing that changes the disperson pattern is the club. The thing that changes the club, ceteris parabis, is the distance from the hole.

Distance. Always. Is. An Advantage.

Again, I don't think this actually follows. I think what would follow is that "all things equal, closeness to the hole is always is an advantage" if we assume that shorter shots/clubs always have a tighter dispersion pattern.

Anyway, I hope this is taken as friendly. I'm not trying to be an outrageous pedant, it's just how my brain works.

[Charlie Goerges]

I hate to say this, because I love philosophy, but I think you're being too nitpicky here Matt. When people make statements like Kyle's, I think the idea "all other things being equal" is pretty much implied (notwithstanding he stated it later as well).


And, while true, the closeness vs. distance thing is nearly a distinction without a difference. All other things being equal, you need more distance to get more closeness. If you're talking about a dogleg hole, all other things are not equal.


That said, in the real world there is what I refer to as the All things being equal fallacy, which just acknowledges that generally all other things are never quite equal.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I hate to say this, because I love philosophy, but I think you're being too nitpicky here Matt.

I completely agree. I tried to make very clear that I'm being deeply pedantic, which I agree is incredibly annoying.

What I do think is relevant is that distance isn't free, and the things that create distances (swing speed, spin rates, launch angle) can all be targeted by the course designer (with wind, forced shot shaping, contours that lend themselves to running shots over high shots, etc.). If those things can be targeted, then distance carries a risk profile when closeness does not.

[Kyle Harris]

My formal education is in analytic philosophy, with at least a mild focus on logic, so I want to point out some concerns I have here with the argument:

We can all agree that the primary challenge in golf is the fact that we are manuevering a ball by playing a stroke across a distance. The farther Point A it from Point B the more potential strokes we need to play to get there.

This does not actual follow. You have slipped in an axiom that more distances implies more potential strokes. Imagine we have a 400 yard wide open par 4, and a 125 yard par 3 that is an island green with the diameter of approximately one yard. There could be times when terrain dominates distances with regards to potential strokes. If you are going to make this argument, you need to set it as "all things being equal more distance means more strokes" which is still dubious in practice (I find a 60 yard shot to be more challenging than a 125 yard shot, but my short game is terrible), but I'd generally agree to the axiom.

Therefore, it is axiomic that golf is judged by using the least strokes per unit distance - whatever that may be. This can also be stated that the higher the average distance per stroke, the better the score.

This proposition does not follow directly, it will only follow "all things being equal," that is "given the exact same course at different distances, golf is judged by using the least strokes per distance," which is a very different statement. The argument will eventually form "distance is always an advantage", whereas here I think what follows is actually "closeness is always an advantage," which are two subtly different things.

You have no control over your luck - but you do have control over your expectations

There is a long conversation here about what you mean by luck, but seeing as you mean luck-in-dispersion-pattern, I think the statement is fine

which is why avoiding penalty shots becomes an axiom,

I know I'm being absurdly pedantic, but axioms are by definition arbitrary. Trying to justify them will be circular. I think point you're trying to make here doesn't necessarily follow. I can think of some strange ways in which taking a red/yellow-stake penalty would be optimal vs playing it safe.

In the above Road Hole situation for me, the target on the approach really only changes as my disperson pattern changes with the club I'm hitting into the green, ceteris parabis, however, the angle from which I'm approaching that target may move the number of favorable possible outcomes farther away from the hole. Regardless of the location from the fairway I would still be selecting a target based on the left edge of my disperson pattern being away from penalties/lost balls. The only thing that changes is whether or not that dispersion pattern is more likely to yeild a tighter approach or not.

The thing that changes the disperson pattern is the club. The thing that changes the club, ceteris parabis, is the distance from the hole.

Distance. Always. Is. An Advantage.

Again, I don't think this actually follows. I think what would follow is that "all things equal, closeness to the hole is always is an advantage" if we assume that shorter shots/clubs always have a tighter dispersion pattern.

Anyway, I hope this is taken as friendly. I'm not trying to be an outrageous pedant, it's just how my brain works.

I’m here for any and all pedantia, as my Twitter followers can attest. I aspire to your grace on the matter.


I would suggest that your cases, while correct, are not *required* for golf.


All you need in golf is a start and end point with some distance in between.


What happens between that distance is completely irrelevant as it pertains to golf in its most atomic form. There’s no requirement for water or bunkers or even fairway or grass.


We can argue over the size of the teeing ground and the hole. And that’s about it. There needs to be a surface, too, I suppose. I imply that by assuming we are playing golf on Earth.


Golf shots being discrete units of 1 do not help either. There’s no way to make a tenth of a shot. So that has to live in the aggregate.

[Charlie Goerges]

I hate to say this, because I love philosophy, but I think you're being too nitpicky here Matt.

I completely agree. I tried to make very clear that I'm being deeply pedantic, which I agree is incredibly annoying.

What I do think is relevant is that distance isn't free, and the things that create distances (swing speed, spin rates, launch angle) can all be targeted by the course designer (with wind, forced shot shaping, contours that lend themselves to running shots over high shots, etc.). If those things can be targeted, then distance carries a risk profile when closeness does not.

This second paragraph probably needs its own thread at some point. The efficacy of those ideas should be discussed.

[Ken Moum]

One thing nobody's mentioned  re. the "thrill" factor is that when a player is faced with a challenge that's beyond their capabilities,  or just stupid to take on, there's a pretty good jolt of dopamine still available.


Making a plan that avoids a disaster while still leaving the possibility of saving par, then executing that plan well WILL deliver the dopamine.


If it beats the irrational risk taker...even better.

[Ira Fishman]

We also all agree that the point is to manuver the ball around the course in the fewest stroke possible.


*****************
I went back to the OP for the above asserted axiom. I actually do not agree that the point is as stated. I may be in the minority, but not “all” of us agree. Golf is way more faceted than just being about the score.

[Kyle Harris]

We also all agree that the point is to manuver the ball around the course in the fewest stroke possible.


*****************
I went back to the OP for the above asserted axiom. I actually do not agree that the point is as stated. I may be in the minority, but not “all” of us agree. Golf is way more faceted than just being about the score.

I'd argue it ceases to be golf as a game, then.

Sport? Absolutely. But the game, defined as simulated conflict, implies score.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I went back to the OP for the above asserted axiom. I actually do not agree that the point is as stated. I may be in the minority, but not “all” of us agree. Golf is way more faceted than just being about the score.

I'd argue it ceases to be golf as a game, then.

Sport? Absolutely. But the game, defined as simulated conflict, implies score.

Oh my, we've moved from philosophical treatise, to existentialism, to prescriptive linguistics. 

[Kyle Harris]

I went back to the OP for the above asserted axiom. I actually do not agree that the point is as stated. I may be in the minority, but not “all” of us agree. Golf is way more faceted than just being about the score.

I'd argue it ceases to be golf as a game, then.

Sport? Absolutely. But the game, defined as simulated conflict, implies score.

Oh my, we've moved from philosophical treatise, to existentialism, to prescriptive linguistics. 

I mean, sure, but game as simulated conflict isn’t all that uncommon of a definition.


And there are things which can exist in a golf space, like Ira is implying, and then there is golf.


If you’re not out there for score, not much of this matters anyway. So, if you’re not going to buy the premise, this really isn’t a conversation in which you’ll be interested. Just like I generally shut off when you’re taking mulligans or rolling the ball to preferred lies.


Plenty of tables in the Grill Room.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I mean, sure, but game as simulated conflict isn’t all that uncommon of a definition.

And there are things which can exist in a golf space, like Ira is implying, and then there is golf.

If you’re not out there for score, not much of this matters anyway. So, if you’re not going to buy the premise, this really isn’t a conversation in which you’ll be interested. Just like I generally shut off when you’re taking mulligans or rolling the ball to preferred lies.

Oh, I just mean I'm getting a kick out of the conversation because it's a great golf-themed recreation of a lot of the discussion that happened in some periods of philosophy. I generally agree that golf should have some point (rules) such that we engage in it in the first place, but at the same time we play games because they are entertaining, so there is like a meta rule that may conflict with the rules.

These types of conversations really scratch an itch for someone like me.

[Kyle Harris]

I mean, sure, but game as simulated conflict isn’t all that uncommon of a definition.

And there are things which can exist in a golf space, like Ira is implying, and then there is golf.

If you’re not out there for score, not much of this matters anyway. So, if you’re not going to buy the premise, this really isn’t a conversation in which you’ll be interested. Just like I generally shut off when you’re taking mulligans or rolling the ball to preferred lies.

Oh, I just mean I'm getting a kick out of the conversation because it's a great golf-themed recreation of a lot of the discussion that happened in some periods of philosophy. I generally agree that golf should have some point (rules) such that we engage in it in the first place, but at the same time we play games because they are entertaining, so there is like a meta rule that may conflict with the rules.

These types of conversations really scratch an itch for someone like me.

Likewise.


But I’m in a position where I have to parse through the validity of opinions and feedback and often times there are little ground rules I have to determine what is actionable.


Your golf community must generally be rowing in the same direction or it isn’t going to work.


It loses something with me if you’re not trying to do *something* to the best of your ability or improve on that.


By golly, some day it may all come together for you and I’d hate to see that ruined.

[Ira Fishman]

Kyle,


Our perspectives diverge in this respect. You define your interaction with what the architect has created through the lens of your definition of golf. I define my interaction through multiple lens. Mine is no more or no less valid than yours unless you believe that your definition of golf is so provably true that it requires me to call the space on which I interact something other than golf course architecture except on the days on which I choose to keep score. You can assert it to be true, but you cannot prove it to be true at all times for all conditions. I can assert that my definition allows one to have a greater appreciation of the architecture (and have more fun interacting with it), but I cannot prove that assertion to be true.


The leap from your definition of golf to the assertion that it is an axiom that the purpose of interacting with golf course architecture is to maneuver the ball in the fewest number of strokes is just that—a leap.


I am just a much a Kantian (threw that in for Matt) as you, but the category of my imperative is broader than yours. Yes, I know that I am being facile with the concept, but that is something of my point.


There are indeed a lot of chairs in the grill room, and I appreciate the inclusion. I just hope that I would be welcome at your table.


Ira

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,


Our perspectives diverge in this respect. You define your interaction with what the architect has created through the lens of your definition of golf. I define my interaction through multiple lens. Mine is no more or no less valid than yours unless you believe that your definition of golf is so provably true that it requires me to call the space on which I interact something other than golf course architecture except on the days on which I choose to keep score. You can assert it to be true, but you cannot prove it to be true at all times for all conditions. I can assert that my definition allows one to have a greater appreciation of the architecture (and have more fun interacting with it), but I cannot prove that assertion to be true.


The leap from your definition of golf to the assertion that it is an axiom that the purpose of interacting with golf course architecture is to maneuver the ball in the fewest number of strokes is just that—a leap.


I am just a much a Kantian (threw that in for Matt) as you, but the category of my imperative is broader than yours. Yes, I know that I am being facile with the concept, but that is something of my point.


There are indeed a lot of chairs in the grill room, and I appreciate the inclusion. I just hope that I would be welcome at your table.


Ira

Welcome at the table, absolutely, but that welcome may just end at taking your money in the Pro Shop and pointing you toward the first tee.

You don't sit down at any table and try to change a conversation already started. We'd have to agree to something in order to have meaningful conversation. The USGA/R&A publish a document every few years that seems like a more-than-reasonable place to start with that. I can't speak to your view of golf because it is (might be) just as much Ira-Ball as it is what the Governing Bodies Publish.

If you're removing the imperative of hitting ONE shot from a situation in golf we simply won't agree. You're not playing golf if you can game the result of the stroke you play from a situation to your liking. I'll stand firm on that one, too. Golf is a succession of singular shots/strokes. Counting those shots is implied by succession. Everything else is either practice or some other, fundamentally different, pursuit. The only guarantee lies between the bottom of the cup and the next teeing ground.

And for me, professionally, I may just have to rank your experience behind that of someone else. Communities, by definition, cannot serve the needs of all. They are defined by their common goals.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira Ball has a nice ring to it. It operates in the meta rule universe (pun fully intended) that Matt properly pointed out almost certainly exists.


As the great Walter Hagen said, "We are here only for a short visit. Don't hurry, don't worry. And be sure to smell the flowers along the way."

[Kyle Harris]

Ira Ball has a nice ring to it. It operates in the meta rule universe (pun fully intended) that Matt properly pointed out almost certainly exists.


As the great Walter Hagen said, "We are here only for a short visit. Don't hurry, don't worry. And be sure to smell the flowers along the way."

Inspired by conversations I had with another contributor on this board, whose work has been praised here quite universally, about how they were not good enough golfers to evaluate golf courses with their talent and that would play a version of the game where cancelling and replaying a shot was okay.

I struggle with how they could do that while taking the risk out of it - regardless of how well they struck the shot - because sometimes even the mishits work out and that's part of architecture, too.

I'd love to work with them at some point.

[Kalen Braley]

Great convo all in all, interesting stuff.

I think there is another aspect when it comes to scoring which IAN was alluding to and the analogy i'll use is our career.  In general I ascribe to the 10-80-10 rule when its comes to people in their careers.  10% care about everything and will do whatever its takes to be the absolute best at what they do, while the bottom 10% couldn't care less.  The 80% in the middle thou are somewhere between good performers and lousy ones, but at the end of the day they will still care about doing enough to remain gainfully employed, even if they don't obsess about maximizing how well they do.

I think there is a similar effect for golfers.  IMO the vast majority of golfers are interested in having a 'good' round without grinding over every last detail and trying to get every little last bit out of their round.  (I'm guessing most of us aren't interested in playing with the Patrick Cantalay kind of guy who plays slow and deliberates to the nth degree, much less being that guy). But I don't think this means the average golfer doesn't care about their score, most are just looking for something in a range that suits their expectations whether that be an 82 or 86 for a standard mid capper. etc.  They will probably still go home happy either way.