Sweetens Cove #5: Strategy, Width, Angles, and Laying Up

[iacas]

Here's a generally good article on "width" and "strategy" in golf by the modern-day architecture geek (I mean that positively) Andy Johnson: http://www.friedegg.co/golf-courses/playability-width-strategy.

Here's a video in that post and why I said "generally" above.

I've discussed this type of stuff with Dave, and we think this type of thinking is outdated.

Scott Fawcett feels similarly:

There's a topic discussing this stuff (it started more with discussion of ESC/LSW type principles) on GCA, now, too.

---

At any rate, I'm curious what other people think here. Are width and angles over-rated?

(One thing Scott doesn't particularly care to note versus Dave and I are how bad amateurs are out of bunkers. Bunkers change the math a bit for amateur Decision Maps. Also, angles matter more and rough matters less to amateurs versus PGA Tour players.)

[dennyjones]

35 minutes ago, iacas said:

(One thing Scott doesn't particularly care to note versus Dave and I are how bad amateurs are out of bunkers. Bunkers change the math a bit for amateur Decision Maps. Also, angles matter more and rough matters less to amateurs versus PGA Tour players.)

Not an expert but I believe you've nailed myself and my friends.   

[saevel25]

The hole is 60 yards wide at the right green side bunker to the cart path. That is a big landing area for majority of golfers. It's only about 215 yards from the front of the back tee box. It might leave a difficult pitch if the pins is on the left half of the green, but if you consider that that part of the green is a difficult shot for any shot. I think a pitch shot is an easier shot to handle.

I don't most high handicap golfers hitting anything but driver on a hole with this much landing area.

I personally would hit 3-wood or hybrid from the back tees. I would tee up right and aim at the middle of the green. I would probably end up just short of that nasty bunker and have a pretty easy pitch shot to any pin location. I\

[DeadMan]

I think that a lot of CGA-geeks like Andy Johnson and Zac Blair absolutely do not understand correct strategy. Laying up for a better angle is a terrible idea for basically everybody, unless the course is super tricked up with slopes and/or bunkering. They also do not get that that you should be aiming at the center of the green on most of your approach shots. When they talk about the best angles to approach pins from over 100 yards, my eyes just glaze over. Virtually zero amateur golfers should care about where the flag is, period, so trying to set up the best angle to get that flag is pointless.

That said, I strongly prefer playing courses that are CGA-geek approved. They tend to be wider, and thus easier and more fun for me. It is also fun to be able to play a course and see what the architect wants me to do and the decision making that I'm supposed to go through. Plus, I hit a lot of drivers, and that's a lot of fun to do for me as well. For example, there's a Doak course called CommonGround by me that I really enjoy playing. It's probably my favorite course in the Denver area, actually! I understand what Doak wants me to do off the tee and where he wants me to put my shot. As an example, this is the par 5 11th hole:

Doak wants us to take that line off the tee. That line is about 250 yards, FWIW. That line gives us the shortest shot into the green. Then you have to decide whether you can carry the water on your second shot and get to the green. It's not the best angle, but the closer you get to that second bunker on the left, the shorter your shot will be. Although right is safe, it will leave you with the longer shot and virtually zero chance to get the green into unless you're a monster hitter.

The problem here is that it's stupid to purposefully play too far left. The fairway is about 60 yards wide past that bunker (which is only 230 to carry, i.e., not a problem for most okay golfers in Colorado) You don't want to be in that second bunker on the left, and you don't really have that significant of a penalty for being right. It's going to be a 3 shot hole for most people no matter what. There's not a decision to make if you understand proper strategy like in LSW. You're hitting driver, with the center of your shot zone in the center of the fairway. If you end up on the left side of the fairway, great! You might have a good shot to go for it. If you end up on the right side of the fairway, then that's not a problem. You just won't have much of a chance to get there in 2.

It's still a lot of fun, though. Hitting that perfect shot that ends up on the left hand side of the fairway is great! A good shot for me on the left side means I'll have a 5 iron for the approach shot to the green. Right just means I have to avoid that bunker in front of the green with my approach. Nothing wrong with the hole; it's still great fun. But there really isn't a decision to make off the tee at all as Doak intended. There are other holes at this course with similar "decisions" where the answer is, cool, give me my driver.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, DeadMan said:

I think that a lot of CGA-geeks like Andy Johnson and Zac Blair absolutely do not understand correct strategy. Laying up for a better angle is a terrible idea for basically everybody, unless the course is super tricked up with slopes and/or bunkering. They also do not get that that you should be aiming at the center of the green on most of your approach shots. When they talk about the best angles to approach pins from over 100 yards, my eyes just glaze over. Virtually zero amateur golfers should care about where the flag is, period, so trying to set up the best angle to get that flag is pointless.

That said, I strongly prefer playing courses that are CGA-geek approved. They tend to be wider, and thus easier and more fun for me. It is also fun to be able to play a course and see what the architect wants me to do and the decision making that I'm supposed to go through. Plus, I hit a lot of drivers, and that's a lot of fun to do for me as well. For example, there's a Doak course called CommonGround by me that I really enjoy playing. It's probably my favorite course in the Denver area, actually! I understand what Doak wants me to do off the tee and where he wants me to put my shot. As an example, this is the par 5 11th hole:

The problem here is that it's stupid to purposefully play too far left. The fairway is about 60 yards wide past that bunker (which is only 230 to carry, i.e., not a problem for most okay golfers in Colorado) You don't want to be in that second bunker on the left, and you don't really have that significant of a penalty for being right. It's going to be a 3 shot hole for most people no matter what. There's not a decision to make if you understand proper strategy like in LSW. You're hitting driver, with the center of your shot zone in the center of the fairway. If you end up on the left side of the fairway, great! You might have a good shot to go for it. If you end up on the right side of the fairway, then that's not a problem. You just won't have much of a chance to get there in 2.

The idea that most golfers are "picking a side of the fairway" on the PGA Tour is one of the things I think architects fail to understand. Unless trees or something are literally going to block a play from one side of the fairway (in which case they'll raise holy hell), PGA Tour players are just trying to send it on pretty much any hole. Yes, they're picking "lines" but their Shot Zones are still pretty damn wide. DECADE says 65 yards, and even if it's a little narrower, you're still talking about a width that's wider than virtually any fairway they'll play ever, let alone one "side" of a fairway.

To amateurs and players even like me, angles matter more, in part because rough matters less to us. On the PGA Tour, 70 yards is about the dividing line between a drive in the rough and one in the fairway, but to me and other amateurs, the angle can matter more than being in the fairway or rough because you can bounce a ball onto the green or not have to fly it over a bunker and stop it by a front pin.

Same is true in your picture from CommonGround. From the right side, you can still bounce your ball up toward the green. It may not make it, but even one that bounces up from the right side is okay. So for someone not getting home in two, right might be a better angle.

Assuming they can get over that bunker, of course.

[DeadMan]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

To amateurs and players even like me, angles matter more, in part because rough matters less to us. On the PGA Tour, 70 yards is about the dividing line between a drive in the rough and one in the fairway, but to me and other amateurs, the angle can matter more than being in the fairway or rough because you can bounce a ball onto the green or not have to fly it over a bunker and stop it by a front pin.

That's an interesting point. I have never really thought a ton about my approach angle into greens like that, but I should a little bit more. But yeah, for a PGA Tour player, if they're in the fairway, the angle probably doesn't matter too much because they can stop nearly any club quickly (and it's rare they're hitting anything more than a what, 6 iron?, into the green).

Quote

Same is true in your picture from CommonGround. From the right side, you can still bounce your ball up toward the green. It may not make it, but even one that bounces up from the right side is okay. So for someone not getting home in two, right might be a better angle.

Assuming they can get over that bunker, of course.

Yeah, I had that thought, too, while I was putting it together. The point is still that you're not going to care a ton about which side of the fairway you're on. It just affects where your lay up is going to be. But it's probably not going to be a major factor in your score.

Edited November 19, 2018 by DeadMan

[HJJ003]

I cant answer for the shot zones of others, but I just pulled up the hole on google earth and applied my shot zone to it from my most likely tees (Blues, just shy of 6200 yds) I cant see why I would hit anything other than driver here. I could would favor just left of center and would have almost all of my shot zone in a "safe area". I would almost eliminate the water on the right and would have fairly slim chances of finding the bunker on the right (unless I was having a push slice kind of day?). I think I would find fairway 60+% of the time, and would rarely if ever lose a golf ball. It's a driver hole for me. Angles are important no doubt, but cant sacrifice the distance for a guy like me. 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by HJJ003

[gjunkie57]

@DeadMan, if I get to denver and hitting 250 with my driver I would take line A on your course.  Then go right away from the water.  As a lefty I could push my shot into the drink. Laying up to 100 yards.  Then I can flag hunt if the pin is not tight otherwise I am just going to get it on the green and two putt. 

[HJJ003]

On 11/19/2018 at 10:38 AM, DeadMan said:

I think that a lot of CGA-geeks like Andy Johnson and Zac Blair absolutely do not understand correct strategy. Laying up for a better angle is a terrible idea for basically everybody, unless the course is super tricked up with slopes and/or bunkering. They also do not get that that you should be aiming at the center of the green on most of your approach shots. When they talk about the best angles to approach pins from over 100 yards, my eyes just glaze over. Virtually zero amateur golfers should care about where the flag is, period, so trying to set up the best angle to get that flag is pointless.

That said, I strongly prefer playing courses that are CGA-geek approved. They tend to be wider, and thus easier and more fun for me. It is also fun to be able to play a course and see what the architect wants me to do and the decision making that I'm supposed to go through. Plus, I hit a lot of drivers, and that's a lot of fun to do for me as well. For example, there's a Doak course called CommonGround by me that I really enjoy playing. It's probably my favorite course in the Denver area, actually! I understand what Doak wants me to do off the tee and where he wants me to put my shot. As an example, this is the par 5 11th hole:

Doak wants us to take that line off the tee. That line is about 250 yards, FWIW. That line gives us the shortest shot into the green. Then you have to decide whether you can carry the water on your second shot and get to the green. It's not the best angle, but the closer you get to that second bunker on the left, the shorter your shot will be. Although right is safe, it will leave you with the longer shot and virtually zero chance to get the green into unless you're a monster hitter.

The problem here is that it's stupid to purposefully play too far left. The fairway is about 60 yards wide past that bunker (which is only 230 to carry, i.e., not a problem for most okay golfers in Colorado) You don't want to be in that second bunker on the left, and you don't really have that significant of a penalty for being right. It's going to be a 3 shot hole for most people no matter what. There's not a decision to make if you understand proper strategy like in LSW. You're hitting driver, with the center of your shot zone in the center of the fairway. If you end up on the left side of the fairway, great! You might have a good shot to go for it. If you end up on the right side of the fairway, then that's not a problem. You just won't have much of a chance to get there in 2.

It's still a lot of fun, though. Hitting that perfect shot that ends up on the left hand side of the fairway is great! A good shot for me on the left side means I'll have a 5 iron for the approach shot to the green. Right just means I have to avoid that bunker in front of the green with my approach. Nothing wrong with the hole; it's still great fun. But there really isn't a decision to make off the tee at all as Doak intended. There are other holes at this course with similar "decisions" where the answer is, cool, give me my driver.

Not a guaranteed driver hole for me. From the white tees my driver should carry the bunker if I take the line you propose, but its a risk/reward for sure because I might not make it over if I don't have good contact. If I am hitting the ball well that day or getting a lot of extra distance due to elevation than I would take a line similar to the line drawn (probably a little more centered). If I am not making great contact I would likely hit 3 wood short of the fairway bunker and hit my second shot towards the green side bunker to avoid as much water as possible. 

[DeadMan]

2 hours ago, gjunkie57 said:

@DeadMan, if I get to denver and hitting 250 with my driver I would take line A on your course.  Then go right away from the water.  As a lefty I could push my shot into the drink. Laying up to 100 yards.  Then I can flag hunt if the pin is not tight otherwise I am just going to get it on the green and two putt. 

You'd be making a lot of unnecessary 6s. You should be aiming, at most, to the center of the fairway if you aren't going to go for the green in 2. That line is going to bring the other fairway bunker into play for you (plus some native grass to the left of the fairway), which would probably be a 6 at best if you end up in trouble over there. Being right also means you don't have to go anywhere near the water with your lay up. On the left, a mishit would bring the water into play.

(This is for another thread, but you shouldn't be flag hunting with your handicap from 100 yards.)

8 minutes ago, HJJ003 said:

Not a guaranteed driver hole for me. From the white tees my driver should carry the bunker if I take the line you propose, but its a risk/reward for sure because I might not make it over if I don't have good contact. If I am hitting the ball well that day or getting a lot of extra distance due to elevation than I would take a line similar to the line drawn (probably a little more centered). If I am not making great contact I would likely hit 3 wood short of the fairway bunker and hit my second shot towards the green side bunker to avoid as much water as possible.  

Add somewhere between 10-15% on your driver and you'll get your distance in Colorado. Most golfers with a handicap, unless they're senior golfers, will probably be able to get over that bunker fairly consistently. I'm also drawing that line from where the tees that play 6800 yards are. Probably more like 220 to carry that bunker if you play from the tees that are 6200 yards.

[HJJ003]

7 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Add somewhere between 10-15% on your driver and you'll get your distance in Colorado. Most golfers with a handicap, unless they're senior golfers, will probably be able to get over that bunker fairly consistently. I'm also drawing that line from where the tees that play 6800 yards are. Probably more like 220 to carry that bunker if you play from the tees that are 6200 yards.

Cool. I average 235-240 right now here at pretty much sea level. I have played in Colorado 2-3 times, but not enough to quantify my distance increase. 10% would put me near 260! Agreed, that bunker shouldn't be a problem if that is the case. I need to move to Colorado.....

[iacas]

This topic is not about the par five @DeadMan posted. Honestly it's not really even about Sweeten's Cove.

It's about how a lot of what we thought we knew about "architecture" and "strategy" is obsoleted by what we know about the sizes of Shot Zones, what we know about how to score, what we know about how golfers actually play the game best.

[DeadMan]

The one thing where Scott Fawcett loses me is in the youtube comments where he says:

 "I'm not always trying to shoot the lowest score, I want to see how the hole plays in a number of different manners." Pretty hard for me to win in a debate where a golfer says they aren't trying to shoot their lowest scores. LOLOLOLOOLOL

Sometimes golfers have fun doing things that won't necessarily lead to the lowest score. Sometimes it's fun to hit a shot that has a 1% chance of working. Sometimes its fun to trying to hit a stinger that's not the best shot. The guys at No Laying Up talk about doing stuff like that sometimes, and I'm sure Andy Johnson (who's a legit plus handicap - he played in the US Mid-Am recently) does stuff like that, too.

Bottom line, I think GCA geeks don't appreciate the best strategic thinking on a golf course. But I don't blame them for having fun and enjoying things that might not lead to the lowest scores.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

Sometimes golfers have fun doing things that won't necessarily lead to the lowest score.

I understand what he's saying, though, because he's stuck in the myopic view (not a bad thing here) of just having a system that's intent on shooting the lowest score. Just like Shot Zones, Decision Maps, etc. Same thing.

Viewed through that lens, there's not even an argument to be had when someone says they just want to have the most FUN, or do something different… it's not something that these systems can contemplate. Know what I mean?

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

The guys at No Laying Up talk about doing stuff like that sometimes, and I'm sure Andy Johnson (who's a legit plus handicap - he played in the US Mid-Am recently) does stuff like that, too.

In competitive rounds, though, he shouldn't.

I'm curious, though, if he was playing Sweeten's Cove in a competition that mattered (not a lighthearted charity type thing or anything), how he'd play #5.

I wonder if his "architectural bias" costs him strokes.

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

Bottom line, I think GCA geeks don't appreciate the best strategic thinking on a golf course. But I don't blame them for having fun and enjoying things that might not lead to the lowest scores.

I think they over-emphasize strategic thinking by over-emphasizing parts that are ultimately less important than they think. Things like angles, or leaving yourself below the flag (only matters on really sloped greens), or short-siding yourself (only matters in some cases where you're going to have trouble stopping the ball close).

[p1n9183]

I watched Scott Fawcett´s videos a few years back and as a math geek like him I studied this idea myself and put it into play on my home course and for courses i had to play that I never been before.

On my home course it helped a little bit because after a lot of rounds i already just figured out the best strategy for each hole off the tee. It helped the most in approach shots, aiming at areas in the green where the pin is but never to the pin itself. 

On away courses it helped me a lot. I stepped in courses I never played before and just with the help of google earth and it messure tool for the course i already defined the best strategy the day before i have to play in it. Either for the tee shots and approach shots.
In scratch tournaments i score better than players that have better ball strinking than mine (and similar short game).

Shot shapping it ins´t that important. Angles matter but our dispersion is too wide from the tee to think we can just pick a side in the fairway... just aim to the middle and sometimes the angle will be better and sometimes it will be worst to the ping. The most important thing it´s to to put it in play and as close as the hole you can.

Scott Fawcett´s target is scratch and pro players. It´s true average numbers (math) changes for player out of his range. If you are a bad player from the bunker you should consider it like it is a water hazard or even OB if you can get it out. But the formula it´s still the same and works great, you just need to adjust the values.

Currently i hit my driver 270 with roll. And 90% of my shots are inside 60 yards wide. If i play N°5 at sweeten Cove I will hit driver every day and I know that my average score will be lower than if i lay up to the 90 yards range.

[GolfLug]

Yeah, that level of geekery is lost on me. Not that it's not fascinating, but I just want to hit big high draws all day when I am playing well.. 

Having said that..to me arial angles matter greatly on drives. Not from an architectural or how-the hole-was-designed-to-be-played point of view though - which in itself is myopic to a large extent as to the designer's own game IMO.  

A big part of angles is how the hole sets up for me visually - how the tree line frames the hole, which may not necessarily be what the hole demands as the best line. For example I almost always try to hit a baby draw on a left to right dog legging hole even if it means challenging the big corner tree guarding corner cutters - not because I want to cut the corner but because it gives me a wider landing area and that I am a one -trick-pony with my driver. 

I am sure I am not unique in that every golfer is somewhat handicapped with their primary shot shape. In that sense design intent is lost on most golfers like me who really don't have any real variety in how they play shots unless they are advanced players who can vary the trajectory or curve. 

On @DeadMan's par 5, I would hit my drive to favor right edge of the fairway for two reasons - 1)  With a 100 yard wide shot zone with the driver, mission would be avoid water and get as far as I can to be inside of 250 yards for layup (or go for it in two since it's Denver and all..). 2) Gotta hit driver. I hit my driver all day no matter how badly I am hitting it. It's pathological.    

On par 3s, I admit I am bit of a flag chaser. I have don't have much fear of green-side bunkers. A short putt is the best type of putt to have. It's a bonus if it is up hill. Only time I take a second to think my shot is if both long and short are bad. That's about it.  

This is probably why I love linksy courses like Streamsong and recently Torrey Pines (ok, not as linksy, but not much arial framing of trees). I hope I take my last breath on one of them.  

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by GolfLug

[iacas]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

A big part of angles is how the hole sets up for me visually - how the tree line frames the hole, which may not necessarily be what the hole demands as the best line. For example I almost always try to hit a baby draw on a left to right dog legging hole even if it means challenging the big corner tree guarding corner cutters - not because I want to cut the corner but because it gives me a wider landing area and that I am a one -trick-pony with my driver.

Right, this speaks to the topic: that angles don't matter all that much. Golfers in general are not good enough to pick "a side of the fairway" into which to aim their driver. They should almost always be aiming at the center of a pretty darn wide "Shot Zone." On some holes without much trouble or with equal trouble left and right, that's the middle of the fairway. On other holes, with black death right, that might be the left rough line. But that's the "middle" of a wide, wide Shot Zone.

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

I am sure I am not unique in that every golfer is somewhat handicapped with their primary shot shape.

It's not a handicap.

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

On @DeadMan's par 5…

That's not the topic here. See post #12. The topic is ideally about how our new understanding of "strategy" and how to score well at golf has changed the way we view architecture and the "strategy" of playing certain holes.

[GolfLug]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

That's not the topic here. See post #12. The topic is ideally about how our new understanding of "strategy" and how to score well at golf has changed the way we view architecture and the "strategy" of playing certain holes.

Yeah, then the only thing I can say is that I whole heartedly agree that strategy would be dictated primarily by ones shot zones. This was my singular greatest take away from LSW. 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

It's not a handicap.

Sure, I meant that as a limit to shot options one can execute. Anyway, just my thinking. Can't be a bad thing if I could play a cut with as much confidence as a draw. But I cant.