Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ira Fishman on March 07, 2023, 11:54:57 AM
-
I accept that when the data is aggregated across all courses and all holes (with the caveats I won’t bore you by repeating) that chasing angles is a negative for good scoring.
But do angles of all varieties matter when it comes to recognizing a good design? And I do not mean the non-scoring aspects of good design.
Ally asked a version of this question on the first page of the other thread by specifying what the data say for particular categories of courses.
I did not see it answered so I pose it again.
Ira
-
Ira
Not that it addresses your main question but I don't think your basic statement in the first sentence is a given. It would be better to say that chasing angles so not to short side yourself with the approach doesn't make a difference in scoring terms (although I suspect that's debateable). Angles do matter in architecture, not just for scoring but for interest and for fun.
Niall
-
I accept that when the data is aggregated across all courses and all holes (with the caveats I won’t bore you by repeating) that chasing angles is a negative for good scoring.
But do angles of all varieties matter when it comes to recognizing a good design? And I do not mean the non-scoring aspects of good design.
Ally asked a version of this question on the first page of the other thread by specifying what the data say for particular categories of courses.
I did not see it answered so I pose it again.
Ira
Ira,
Absolutely yes. I’ll keep ringing the bell that Tom rang first in post 67 on the angles thread. I hope architects never stop trying to position green sites, hazards, and prundently use contour to confuse and question our games.
-
But do angles of all varieties matter when it comes to recognizing a good design?
Well, good design is entirely a matter of opinion.
Conventional wisdom on the topic has always been that angles are important, and they do create the "line of charm" that was discussed here many years ago. I used this quote from George Thomas in my first book:
"The spirit of golf is to dare a hazard, and by negotiating it reap a reward, while he who fears or declines the issue of the carry, has a longer or harder shot for his second; yet the player who avoids the unwise effort gains advantage over one who tries for more than in him lies, or who fails under the test."
Today it appears that most of that is moot as far as good players go. They know the carry and almost never take one on they aren't sure of making. And even if they avoid it, they don't gain much advantage from having a better line for the second shot!
But maintaining the spirit of golf is still probably the most important goal for architects. Without it, the game will be reduced to checkers or darts, and then banished as an enormous waste of resources.
-
Tom commented on the "Line of Charm" which is exactly what I first thought.
[/size][/color]
[/size]I would add that the visual interest of a hole is elevated when angles are added. Interrupting not just the line-of-play, but also the line-of-sight lends credence to the need to angles. It enhances the overall aesthetics of the course and compliment the land upon which the course is routed. [/color]
-
Today it appears that most of that is moot as far as good players go. They know the carry and almost never take one on they aren't sure of making. And even if they avoid it, they don't gain much advantage from having a better line for the second shot!
Right. It's mostly moot.
Until you can make the "better" angle SO much better, it's simply not worth it. The "better angle" has to be worth more than the additional strokes taken from hitting into the hazard (bunkers, ponds, whatever…).
And that's nearly impossible to do.
-
Today it appears that most of that is moot as far as good players go. They know the carry and almost never take one on they aren't sure of making. And even if they avoid it, they don't gain much advantage from having a better line for the second shot!
Right. It's mostly moot.
Until you can make the "better" angle SO much better, it's simply not worth it. The "better angle" has to be worth more than the additional strokes taken from hitting into the hazard (bunkers, ponds, whatever…).
And that's nearly impossible to do.
So.... Where does the Hinkle tree concept fit in this discussion?
-
They matter, but they pale in comparison to playing over fun, interesting, and varied terrain. That's not quite right, varied terrain does create strategies, some of which are angle-related, but I just think of them as slightly different than the "challenge a hazard" type that Tom mentions. Maybe I shouldn't think of that kind of angle-based strategy differently, I'm open to ideas there.
That said, I'm always on the side of strategy because I absolutely don't want to return to the Victorian type of architecture that I think a lot of the fairness-mongers would probably be perfectly fine with.
-
I fear that I have failed in my question. Statistics always revert to the mean because it is not possible for everything to be above average.
However, we generally accept that some courses are better than others from an architectural perspective. I am not looking to rehash whether Erik is the sage of the Average Player on the Average Course. I grant that he is. I am looking for any data that either does or does not show that there is a dispersion (pun intended) across the generally accepted view of high quality courses (pick those in all of the Top 100 of GM, GD, and Top100). And to be precise, I mean data for all shots, not just chasing angles off the tee.
Perhaps I am a romantic, but I do believe some courses are better than others, and I mean from how one scores based on the strategy that the course embeds.
Thanks.
-
I fear that I have failed in my question. Statistics always revert to the mean because it is not possible for everything to be above average.
However, we generally accept that some courses are better than others from an architectural perspective. I am not looking to rehash whether Erik is the sage of the Average Player on the Average Course. I grant that he is. I am looking for any data that either does or does not show that there is a dispersion (pun intended) across the generally accepted view of high quality courses (pick those in all of the Top 100 of GM, GD, and Top100). And to be precise, I mean data for all shots, not just chasing angles off the tee.
Perhaps I am a romantic, but I do believe some courses are better than others, and I mean from how one scores based on the strategy that the course embeds.
Thanks.
I suspect the data that reveals angles don't matter also reveals the opposite. That is if all the variables have been kept. The thing about data is that for it to be meaningful it requires
interpretation and the specific questions asked of the data which then allow for meaningful interpretation.
Ciao
-
Ira,
I too believe that some golf courses are objectively better than others. But I think that people believe “strategy” is a much bigger differentiator than it is when evaluating why one course is better than another.
Which Top-100 courses are actually more strategic than other lower down courses? Would everyone agree?
The truth is that the “strategy” of a course has very little to do with how it is perceived. And if it does, it is usually an overestimation of how much that “strategy” really effects the playing of the course.
-
Appreciate that this question has been rephrased here and my sloth weighing in on the intitial thread is countered.
I have played golf 62 years; lotta tournament golf and lotta focused rounds also played for fun. Been involved in rules and coaching as well as a student of design. Hell you have to study golf to deal with all the variables thrown at you if one truly chases the sport.
I could play early on but only felt I had gained some control of my game when I realized that in order to initiate the muscle memory practice builds the first principle was to arrive at a target for each shot, be confident one has processed the shot desired, and is confident the correct choices are in play.
Most of us are aware of all those variables we strive to apprehend that lead us to choose the line of charm for existing conditions.If the design is good the course offers up disecernable features that allow us to vision a target that provide distinctive targets to direct along those lines of charm for that round.
What I am trying to say is that angles matter for good players to unlock their skill and play a focused game that is the most sure way of scoring optimally. But every player whether, they knowingly focus this way or not, will play better and enjoy a round more if these angles are play. I have never played Firestone but I recall hearing many holes are treelined straightaways for example. How unexciting facing flattened landing zones directly in front of one. YAWN
What I am describing seems to me to be the soul of the game; not conditioning, not degree of difficulty, not even really the setting or soil or the many other elements that are tweaked for effect.
Hope this makes sense
Pax
-
I accept that when the data is aggregated across all courses and all holes (with the caveats I won’t bore you by repeating) that chasing angles is a negative for good scoring.
But do angles of all varieties matter when it comes to recognizing a good design? And I do not mean the non-scoring aspects of good design.
Ally asked a version of this question on the first page of the other thread by specifying what the data say for particular categories of courses.
I did not see it answered so I pose it again.
Ira
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.
-
They matter, but they pale in comparison to playing over fun, interesting, and varied terrain. That's not quite right, varied terrain does create strategies, some of which are angle-related, but I just think of them as slightly different than the "challenge a hazard" type that Tom mentions. Maybe I shouldn't think of that kind of angle-based strategy differently, I'm open to ideas there.
.
1. I really like what you are saying here. I customarily play a Willie Park old course, whose through-the-green terrain, I believe, gives the course its charm, rather than any particularly tempting placement of hazards. The course often requires me to tell myself "hit the drive to Y position, if you want your ball to end up in X position". That's a type of strategic thinking, without angles entering into it. So to find the center of the fairway, you don't aim there. So perhaps Mr. Barleski's position doesn't mean the end of interesting golf.
2. I've also played some MacRaynorBanks courses, with their classic tempting placement of hazards. I am usually delighted with them, because I hit it a bit shorter than a lot of fellows. Accordingly, I'm able to hit right at the tempting hazards without fear--I'm just short enough that I know I won't roll into the bunker, but I'll enjoy a really nice angle into the green. So, playing for angles without real risk might make "angles matter". Once you take risk out of the equation, you are really just asking yourself which side of the fairway would you prefer, and is the center always best? [I know that aiming for one side of a fairway tempts the rough, but if you're coming from a good angle (open green), the extra roll that the rough imparts doesn't particularly bother me.]
-
When I’m approaching a green where the bunkers are parallel or perpendicular to the line of play I’m just disinterested. I see no strategy only penalty.
The variety of angled bunkers by angled greens is such a more intriguing idea. Flynn did this a lot.
-
When I’m approaching a green where the bunkers are parallel or perpendicular to the line of play I’m just disinterested. I see no strategy only penalty.
The variety of angled bunkers by angled greens is such a more intriguing idea. Flynn did this a lot.
Mike,
How do you feel about the short holes at Sleepy Hollow or NGLA? Or what about holes like the #4 at St. Georges?
-
Ben,
I have only been to NGLA and it was 20 years ago. Generally the template holes are violators of my rule.
The Redan was angled and I love that.
I more prefer angles than I despise the alternative.
You make me think that larger and more complex greens can overcome the parallel problem though.
-
When I’m approaching a green where the bunkers are parallel or perpendicular to the line of play I’m just disinterested. I see no strategy only penalty.
You probably hate about 75% of the greens in America (by my estimate) that are guarded by bunker left, bunker right, even when designed by guys who say they design strategic angles of play. :)
-
When I’m approaching a green where the bunkers are parallel or perpendicular to the line of play I’m just disinterested. I see no strategy only penalty.
You probably hate about 75% of the greens in America (by my estimate) that are guarded by bunker left, bunker right, even when designed by guys who say they design strategic angles of play. :)
Sounds about right. But it is not hate but a strong preference for angled bunkers and greens.
-
Ira,
I too believe that some golf courses are objectively better than others. But I think that people believe “strategy” is a much bigger differentiator than it is when evaluating why one course is better than another.
Which Top-100 courses are actually more strategic than other lower down courses? Would everyone agree?
The truth is that the “strategy” of a course has very little to do with how it is perceived. And if it does, it is usually an overestimation of how much that “strategy” really effects the playing of the course.
Ally,
I am not a good enough player to execute on the strategy, but I thought the following had a high degree of strategy in terms of the angles for playing holes successfully:
CPC
Woking
Pac Dunes
SS Blue
Bandon Trails
Royal Dornoch
PH2
Somerset Hills
As noted in my OP, my definition is not limited to chasing the angle off the tee. When I look at the list, the angle of greens relative to the fairway, the hazards on such greens, and the green contours factor quite a bit into my list.
Ira
-
Ira,
I too believe that some golf courses are objectively better than others. But I think that people believe “strategy” is a much bigger differentiator than it is when evaluating why one course is better than another.
Which Top-100 courses are actually more strategic than other lower down courses? Would everyone agree?
The truth is that the “strategy” of a course has very little to do with how it is perceived. And if it does, it is usually an overestimation of how much that “strategy” really effects the playing of the course.
Ally,
I am not a good enough player to execute on the strategy, but I thought the following had a high degree of strategy in terms of the angles for playing holes successfully:
CPC
Woking
Pac Dunes
SS Blue
Bandon Trails
Royal Dornoch
PH2
Somerset Hills
As noted in my OP, my definition is not limited to chasing the angle off the tee. When I look at the list, the angle of greens relative to the fairway, the hazards on such greens, and the green contours factor quite a bit into my list.
Ira
Thanks Ira,
To the first point, where I was probing is whether the courses you mention are actually any more strategic than many other courses or whether it might just be perception. I think variety in hole type, beauty and topography have much more impact to our actual analysis of quality than strategy does.
For instance - and I pick this only because I know them well - Portmarnock is much more strategic than Royal County Down. People consider strategy in rating courses when they want to and disregard it when they don’t, partially because it really isn’t a big differentiator.
To your second point - and going back to where I was getting at in the other thread - I completely agree. There are all sorts of cool angles in golf and golf design, ones that assist the way you play without necessarily always just being about strategy of the approach.
-
Ally,
I think that mostly we are in agreement. I do think that my list is more strategic than other, less well regarded courses, but I am a green site/green contour junkie so I agree that most people put more emphasis on the other factors you mention. Woking for me is probably the strongest case in point.
Having said that, I have several courses not listed higher up on my personal favorites than some on the list because of the factors you mention plus quirk (which I guess is a subset of topography).
Thanks.
Ira
-
I’m with you Ira. But to pick on one point, when do cool green contours materially affect strategy? They can, don’t get me wrong. But do Woking’s? Most of them not at all. They just have cool contours that are great to play on and look at.
People think they are rating courses on strategy when they aren’t really. Other things are trumping their perception.
(EDIT: All my comments on these threads on strategy, angles etc… are probably making people think I don’t believe in that aspect of design. Nothing could be further from the truth. I LOVE everything to do with strategy and angles. I’m just questioning the cliches that tend to get trotted out repeatedly. See also Mythbuster threads.)
-
Ally,
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.
Ira
-
When I’m approaching a green where the bunkers are parallel or perpendicular to the line of play I’m just disinterested. I see no strategy only penalty.
You probably hate about 75% of the greens in America (by my estimate) that are guarded by bunker left, bunker right, even when designed by guys who say they design strategic angles of play. :)
I hate them, for exactly those reasons. If you are not loading up one side a bit more than the other, what are you even doing?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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,
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
A good thread about what KVV calls "mechanics" and "artists."
https://twitter.com/KVanValkenburg/status/1633982791334469633 (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.
-
A good thread about what KVV calls "mechanics" and "artists."
https://twitter.com/KVanValkenburg/status/1633982791334469633 (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 ..
-
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
-
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.
-
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…
-
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.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO0Qg9ZW4AISFdI?format=jpg&name=900x900)
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?
-
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.
-
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.