GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
Does DECADE demand an architectural response?
David Harshbarger:
Scott Fawcet’s DECADE system uses Mark Broadie’s Strokes Gained methodology to determine optimal club selection and aim point based on individual’s shot dispersion patterns.
DECADE represents a new frontier in data-driven golf as it replaces “strategy” with a robust mathematical decision process. Architectural features such as bunkers, hazards, and rough are reduced to expected strokes values. For any club/aim point combo, the collection of expected stroke values under that shot’s dispersion pattern are summed. The optimal shot is then the club and aim point combo that has the lowest aggregate expected strokes remaining.
The methodology has seen significant success at Pro level. Adherents include Will Zalatoris and Bryson DeChambeau.
My question is does awareness of these strategy optimizing tools, which will become the norm, demand an architectural response for courses that are intended for high level play? An architectural response, for example could be where mathematically optimal play is projected on designs and the designs are altered to remove clear optimal aim points.
Interested in thoughts on this.
Dave
Erik J. Barzeski:
--- Quote from: David Harshbarger on June 29, 2022, 08:46:18 PM ---Scott Fawcet’s DECADE system uses Mark Broadie’s Strokes Gained methodology to determine optimal club selection and aim point based on individual’s shot dispersion patterns.
--- End quote ---
I mean… kinda. It uses the same idea we wrote in Lowest Score Wins (which pre-dates DECADE and…) - that aiming for your shot variance to slightly safer sides of targets is the best way to create the lowest average score.
--- Quote from: David Harshbarger on June 29, 2022, 08:46:18 PM ---DECADE represents a new frontier in data-driven golf
--- End quote ---
Someone drank the Kool-Aid. :)
--- Quote from: David Harshbarger on June 29, 2022, 08:46:18 PM ---My question is does awareness of these strategy optimizing tools, which will become the norm, demand an architectural response for courses that are intended for high level play?
--- End quote ---
I think we've had this discussion before here.
--- Quote from: David Harshbarger on June 29, 2022, 08:46:18 PM ---An architectural response, for example could be where mathematically optimal play is projected on designs and the designs are altered to remove clear optimal aim points.
--- End quote ---
Thing is… there's still going to be an optimal play even if you shift it around. It'll just be different than it was before you created a bunker here, or shifted some tall grass from over there, or whatever.
Colin Sheehan:
As a college golf coach, I appreciate what Scott has done to brand smart, rational, decision-making. I have spent enough time scrutinizing the data to appreciate that they have simplified it in a way that is very helpful to those aspiring to improve and cut strokes, but the principles aren't anything novel. We were all subjected to years and years of Ken Venturi telling the audience that Hogan always aimed away from the flag on the 11th green at Augusta. People can learn the essence of Decade naturally from playing competitive golf...whether they are capable of grasping it intuitively is another matter.
Michael Felton:
I'm not sure that's a great idea. For the most part DECADE is about minimizing your expected score in a given situation. For approach play, that's likely to err on the conservative side. To tempt someone using this more, you have to lower the expected score by going for the flag. That means either you move the flag more into the green or you soften the penalty for missing. I don't think softening the penalty is a good idea and if you move the flags to the middle of the greens, then you're squashing strategy as a whole.
I'd think the best way to counter it is to increase the penalty for missing on the fat side of the green. There are a handful of greens out there where you're better off missing them than hitting them but in the wrong spot. DECADE would need to be more nuanced to deal with that. At present it's a decision tree, which is somewhat simplified to enable players to make decisions on the fly. It would be quite challenging to rework it such that it handled an awkward green well, but was still digestible for the rank and file player.
Having said that, I think you can still ask questions of a player who's using that. Tempt them with a carry that they can make 70% of the time. The other thing is to make it as firm as possible, so angles do start to matter more.
David Harshbarger:
--- Quote from: Michael Felton on June 29, 2022, 10:05:30 PM ---I'm not sure that's a great idea. For the most part DECADE is about minimizing your expected score in a given situation. For approach play, that's likely to err on the conservative side. To tempt someone using this more, you have to lower the expected score by going for the flag. That means either you move the flag more into the green or you soften the penalty for missing. I don't think softening the penalty is a good idea and if you move the flags to the middle of the greens, then you're squashing strategy as a whole.
I'd think the best way to counter it is to increase the penalty for missing on the fat side of the green. There are a handful of greens out there where you're better off missing them than hitting them but in the wrong spot. DECADE would need to be more nuanced to deal with that. At present it's a decision tree, which is somewhat simplified to enable players to make decisions on the fly. It would be quite challenging to rework it such that it handled an awkward green well, but was still digestible for the rank and file player.
Having said that, I think you can still ask questions of a player who's using that. Tempt them with a carry that they can make 70% of the time. The other thing is to make it as firm as possible, so angles do start to matter more.
--- End quote ---
This makes sense to me, to create more uncertainty on the good misses on approaches with more punitive features than their strokes gained expectation would suggest.
I wonder if anyone has experience with designs that frustrated sound decision making that either were clearer when a formulaic process was applied, or were worse? Pete Dye designs are said to frustrate many pros, does the algorithmic approach “see” his courses more clearly?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version