GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
DECADE vs. Golf Course Architecture
Philip Hensley:
Interesting article in Golf Digest about Scott Fawcett and a summary of his DECADE system. Normally would not be directly related to architecture, but this article discusses architecture in shot making decisions and also includes replies from Andy Johnson.
Has this data nerd created a golf cheat code? | Golf News and Tour Information | GolfDigest.com
I don't think data and architecture necessarily conflict, in fact data may better help us understand how to design courses that challenge the best/better players while making it more playable for the worse golfer at the same time.
One of the interesting thoughts that came from the Memorial Park project was Tom Doak saying that Koepka told him (paraphrasing) that when there's too much trouble he just aims at the middle of the green. And Tom said that he wanted to figure out ways to keep the pros from just aiming at the middle of the green, or figure out a way to make them think the middle of the green is safe but make it so that it's not safe.
Tom has made a few comments on here in recent years that makes me think he either has looked into some of this data stuff, or has talked with enough players to be ahead of the curve in regards to understanding what the data is actually telling us. Or maybe he just intuitively figured it out.
In the article the author says that following the DECADE system has taken out some of the "romantic" side of golf for him. That is, to play optimal golf according to data in an effort to shoot the lowest score possible, by leaving all the decision-making to the numbers, is not as fun.
Kyle Harris:
The entire point of playing competitive golf is to integrate with as little of the architecture as possible.
Whatever it takes to eliminate doubt is the only path to success.
Tom_Doak:
Hi Philip:
My initiation to this stuff was working for Pete Dye, and in particular talking through the design of the Stadium course at PGA West. Pete had watched the Tour players plenty by then, and he taught me how conservatively they played. There is not much that Scott Fawcett is teaching that Jack Nicklaus didn’t do intuitively. (When we were playing the opening round at Sebonack, Jack mentioned he would never go for the green on a par-5 unless he was 100% sure a good shot would get there.)
Pete also had me spend a bit of time analyzing the USGA’s new Slope System to see what it told us about the different misses for bogey golfers vs scratch players. Basically that boils down to, low handicaps are much better at distance control with their long clubs, so make longer approaches about accuracy, and only short approaches about distance control.
I have also had the Tour’s ShotLink data for a couple of the courses where we consult (Cherry Hills and Waialae), and if you are looking as an architect, it’s pretty easy to see if the players are favoring one side of the fairway for certain hole locations, or even just whether they should be. (If all the birdies came from left of center, that’s a hole worth emulating, because it rewards the players who recognize that.)
I’ve worked on projects with Jay Siegel and Mike Clayton and Jack Nicklaus and Brooks Koepka, and now Padraig Harrington is going to be my sounding board for some tweaks to The Renaissance Club. And I have talked with lots of others over the years. I’ve never got to spend time w Tiger Woods, but I agree with Fawcett that he had his attack points mapped out in his head more precisely than anyone - because his circle of good shots was tighter than anyone else’s.
I only read Mark Broadie’s book two years ago, when I realized that’s how most of today’s players are taught to think. Like Mr Dye, my interest is in figuring out how to use their approach against them. One example of that is greens with contour in the middle, where being short-sided is not as bad as having to putt over the contours, and aiming at the middle of the green is essentially aiming where a contour might kick you the wrong way. The players know they shouldn’t do that, either, and then they get confused. I am really challenging them to be more aggressive, in a way that rewards them if they can pull it off.
It’s funny that this data driven method has become SO accepted that if we put a hazard in the middle of the landing area, there’s not 70 yards to either side, so now the players’ reaction is THAT’S UNFAIR! And the Tour will try to talk you out of doing it. The contour in the middle of the 18th fairway at Memorial Park was much discussed; when they couldn’t talk me out of building it, they tried to convince my client, and then they went to Brooks to tell him it would be too controversial. Luckily I had warned them both that would happen at some point, and they had my back.
I have talked about this with Andy Johnson a lot, too, and I agree with him that the data is overrated, unless your goal is to finish T-12 every week. As we were discussing on another thread just yesterday, on Sunday the guys you’re watching are playing at their best. Their circle for a miss is tighter, they feel more comfortable hitting a draw or a fade or going for a certain flag that fits their eye. The averages no longer apply. Also, the system would have told Ballesteros never to go for the 10th green at The Belfry, but thank God, Seve was not there to lay up and cash a check for T-8. The system will not beat a player who’s in good enough form to aim at the pins and not make many mistakes.
Philip Hensley:
--- Quote from: Tom_Doak on June 14, 2021, 07:35:37 PM ---Hi Philip:
There is not much that Scott Fawcett is teaching that Jack Nicklaus didn’t do intuitively. (When we were playing the opening round at Sebonack, Jack mentioned he would never go for the green on a par-5 unless he was 100% sure a good shot would get there.)
--- End quote ---
Interesting that you say that, and Scott also says, that the greats of the game always played this way, we just didn't have data to show that it was "right" (other than all the wins :) )
--- Quote from: Tom_Doak on June 14, 2021, 07:35:37 PM ---
I have talked about this with Andy Johnson a lot, too, and I agree with him that the data is overrated, unless your goal is to finish T-12 every week. As we were discussing on another thread just yesterday, on Sunday the guys you’re watching are playing at their best. Their circle for a miss is tighter, they feel more comfortable hitting a draw or a fade or going for a certain flag that fits their eye. The averages no longer apply. Also, the system would have told Ballesteros never to go for the 10th green at The Belfry, but thank God, Seve was not there to lay up and cash a check for T-8. The system will not beat a player who’s in good enough form to aim at the pins and not make many mistakes.
--- End quote ---
This makes sense.
One thing that the data shows is that bogey (or worse) avoidance is more important than making birdies. You can't force birdies to go in, but you can force yourself not to take a risk that if it doesn't pay off, costs you strokes. Limiting your downside keeps you from taking yourself out of it, which Nicklaus said his goal was to be in it and let the other guys shoot themselves out of it.
It also limits the effects of your bad golf, when you are not in good form. The quote "golf is about how good your bad shots are" seems to apply here.
Peter Pallotta:
Luckily the many Decade dogmatists and data-crunching dilettantes and the loud sweaty grunts of pumped-up long-hitting disciples are still offset by champion ball-striking youngsters like Morikawa hitting elegant draws into tight pins, and by lanky 21 year olds from South Africa getting 200 mph ball speeds seemingly with little effort and even less drama. And luckily too, a winning game still demands that you make most all of those 5 footers for par, and more than your share of birdies from 10-20 feet. Scott F might very likely be describing *his* game, and mine and yours and 50 million other games -- but I'm not nearly sure that he's describing the best of all games.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version