Leave the Flagstick In (and Tend it Too)

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Just saying they are on the tour and we aren't, not sure any of us are in a position to call them dumb for doing things that got them there.   

The decision on whether to leave the flagstick in or take it out is not "what got them there."

And if they can't visualize a shot being struck a little firmly and going in by hitting the flagstick, or staying close when it would have gone four+ feet by… I shared my opinion on that above. Learn to derive confidence in the fact that leaving the flag in gives you a better chance of making the shot or leaving it close to the hole.

[pumaAttack]

5 minutes ago, jamo said:

You can play your whole life, earn your PGA Tour card, and only have gained or lost let's say 10 strokes ever because of whether or not you left the pin in. It's not "what got them there" any more than it's what's holding you back.

I get that.

I am just saying we are not in a position to call them DUMB for leaving the flag stick in.  Maybe it helps their mental game, and they are the ones on the tour, not us.

Erik's loose science that it can help doesn't overweigh the tour pros individual preference.

Edited March 16, 2016 by pumaAttack

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

I am just saying we are not in a position to call them DUMB for leaving the flag stick in. … 

Erik's loose science that it can help doesn't overweigh the tour pros individual preference.

Beg your pardon?

And… I've said they're dumb when they take the flag stick out. I'm recommending that people leave the flag stick in.

Tony, if you're arguing just to argue as you often seem to want to do, just stop. The science is what it is, and the common sense and basic physics make sense as well.

Tour pros used to think (many still do) that the ball starts in the direction of the club's path and ended up where the face was pointing. They are (or were) wrong.

They (and many others) used to (or still do) think that putting was more important than driving, or approach shots. They were (or still are) wrong.

[pumaAttack]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Beg your pardon?

And… I've said they're dumb when they take the flag stick out. I'm recommending that people leave the flag stick in.

Sorry misspoke on that leaving in bit.

But your opinions on the matter do not make the tours pros DUMB or WRONG for taking it out.

[iacas]

Just now, pumaAttack said:

But your opinions on the matter do not make the tours pros DUMB or WRONG for taking it out.

They're not opinions. The ball has a higher chance of going in or staying close with the flag stick in. If the player wants to maximize his chances of holing the shot or keeping it close, he should leave the flagstick in.

As to what they want to believe or what their confidence issues are, I don't care if they wear orange underwear on Thursdays and purple on Fridays, or eat a blue M&M on every odd numbered hole, or whatnot. I can only share good information with people in the hopes that they can apply it and shoot lower scores.

If you want to believe in the power of blue M&Ms, by all means, be my guest. If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing, and believe despite ample evidence that Tour pros don't really know a whole lot about a lot of things… be my guest. But you don't get to call things like this "loose" or "opinions," certainly not without contradictory evidence, and arguing just for the sake of argument serves no purpose whatsoever here.

Tour pros - or anyone - who takes the flag stick out when it is not leaning toward them so far that a ball cannot fit are willingly giving up an advantage that the Rules of Golf afford to them. Call it whatever you want; I call it dumb. A mistake. A goof. An error. A booboo. Not the smart thing to do.

Take the advice to leave the flag stick in - based on the science - or leave it.

[pumaAttack]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

They're not opinions. The ball has a higher chance of going in or staying close with the flag stick in. If the player wants to maximize his chances of holing the shot or keeping it close, he should leave the flagstick in.

As to what they want to believe or what their confidence issues are, I don't care if they wear orange underwear on Thursdays and purple on Fridays, or eat a blue M&M on every odd numbered hole, or whatnot. I can only share good information with people in the hopes that they can apply it and shoot lower scores.

If you want to believe in the power of blue M&Ms, by all means, be my guest. If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing, and believe despite ample evidence that Tour pros don't really know a whole lot about a lot of things… be my guest. But you don't get to call things like this "loose" or "opinions," certainly not without contradictory evidence, and arguing just for the sake of argument serves no purpose whatsoever here.

You are saying that your science outweighs their own preference and ability to visualize a shot going in.  I strongly disagree with that.

I am going to side with the tour pro on this on.  Now it may be a smarter play, percentage wise, but that does not make it the universally better play.  Golf is about more than science, and if that feeling helps them, then who are you to call them dumb?

[iacas]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

You are saying that your science outweighs their own preference and ability to visualize a shot going in.  I strongly disagree with that.

I am going to side with the tour pro on this on.  Now it may be a smarter play, percentage wise, but that does not make it the universally better play.  Golf is about more than science, and if that feeling helps them, then who are you to call them dumb?

So you aren't leaving any room for the possibility that they're just ignorant of the facts here? You realize that you could be ascribing "confidence" to some act they simply do out of ritual, yes? All so, what, you can argue?

I would bet almost anything that Bill Haas (or any other PGA Tour pro) didn't know that his odds of making the shot or leaving it close to the hole would have gone up had he left the flagstick in. I would bet that if I was able to tell Bill Haas this, demonstrate it, show him the data, etc. that he would leave the flagstick in forevermore. I would bet almost the same thing with any PGA Tour  player on almost every type of shot they play from around the greens (because only Phil thinks to have the flagstick tended from 80+ yards out, which in his case was smart because he would be hitting a shot that could hit the flagstick high and which would have backspin on a back-to-front sloped green).

As I've already said, they could easily derive their confidence from the fact that the flagstick can only really HELP them, and they'd likely be more confident because it's based on a fact, not just a ritual that they only do because they saw other people doing it before them.

You don't seem to have hung around too many Tour pros. The amount of things to which they're just ignorant - and I mean that literally, as in they simply do not know or are completely unaware, and not in a judgmental way - is astounding. Justin Rose thought he had to work on his wedge game from 40-100 yards or something a few years back… until Sean Foley informed him that he was the best on the PGA Tour in that category. That kind of stuff happens all the time. It's happening a bit less, thankfully, as golfers get more curious and seek out every small edge they can get, as we get things like FlightScope and Trackman, as science begins to be a little more pervasive over old hunches and myths.

[pumaAttack]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

So you aren't leaving any room for the possibility that they're just ignorant of the facts here? You realize that you could be ascribing "confidence" to some act they simply do out of ritual, yes? All so, what, you can argue?

I would bet almost anything that Bill Haas (or any other PGA Tour pro) didn't know that his odds of making the shot or leaving it close to the hole would have gone up had he left the flagstick in. I would bet that if I was able to tell Bill Haas this, demonstrate it, show him the data, etc. that he would leave the flagstick in forevermore. I would bet almost the same thing with any PGA Tour  player on almost every type of shot they play from around the greens (because only Phil thinks to have the flagstick tended from 80+ yards out, which in his case was smart because he would be hitting a shot that could hit the flagstick high and which would have backspin on a back-to-front sloped green).

As I've already said, they could easily derive their confidence from the fact that the flagstick can only really HELP them, and they'd likely be more confident because it's based on a fact, not just a ritual that they only do because they saw other people doing it before them.

You don't seem to have hung around too many Tour pros. The amount of things to which they're just ignorant - and I mean that literally, as in they simply do not know or are completely unaware, and not in a judgmental way - is astounding. Justin Rose thought he had to work on his wedge game from 40-100 yards or something a few years back… until Sean Foley informed him that he was the best on the PGA Tour in that category. That kind of stuff happens all the time. It's happening a bit less, thankfully, as golfers get more curious and seek out every small edge they can get, as we get things like FlightScope and Trackman, as science begins to be a little more pervasive over old hunches and myths.

 

Again, you are claiming that these are 100% hard facts, when they are not.  You do not have a test that can possibly factor in all the possibilities at play and measure those along side a control. 

You can't take 100 chips shots and measure them at the exact same speed with and without the flag stick in.  You can't measure those same 100 shots but with the ball hitting the flag stick at a 45 degree angle instead of dead on.   Too many factors come into play to come to a complete distinct conclusion.  I know you think its 100% right but there is simply not enough data to proof this.  You have anecdotal evidence, just like they do.

Because there is no universal law at play, the tours pros feeling on this outweighs your science.  You are severely discrediting their mental game here.

[iacas]

Just now, pumaAttack said:

Again, you are claiming that these are 100% hard facts, when they are not.  You do not have a test that can possibly factor in all the possibilities at play and measure those along side a control.

Where's your data? Where's your refutation of what I've stated, or what Dave Pelz has stated?

Just now, pumaAttack said:

You can't take 100 chips shots and measure them at the exact same speed with and without the flag stick in. You can't measure those same 100 shots but with the ball hitting the flag stick at a 45 degree angle instead of dead on. Too many factors come into play to come to a complete distinct conclusion. I know you think its 100% right but there is simply not enough data to proof this.  You have anecdotal evidence, just like they do.

Do you know how Dave Pelz conducted his study? It involved thousands of shots, btw, at each of a set of different conditions.

Just now, pumaAttack said:

Because there is no universal law at play, the tours pros feeling on this outweighs your science.  You are severely discrediting their mental game here.

Okay dude.

Have a great day.

[pumaAttack]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Okay dude.

Have a great day.

Is that how you react when somebody doesn't just agree with you?  Not even gonna consider an alternative?  

 

From the study:

 

It was impractical to hit shots from the fringe, fairway, or rough because no human (not even Perfy, my putting/chipping robot) could hit the flagstick often enough or accurately enough to run the test in a reasonable amount of time. 

 

Yeah, that seems like a HARD science there.

Edited March 16, 2016 by pumaAttack

[mchepp]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

Is that how you react when somebody doesn't just agree with you?  Not even gonna consider an alternative?  

I guess I am struggling to understand what the alternative is? Are you saying the alternative is "feelings"? How in the world would we quantify that?

@iacas has said this is what the science says. You have not refuted or offered an alternative to the data. Currently you are saying you want him to consider "feelings". Science has a hard time with feelings.

[phillyk]

Just now, pumaAttack said:

Is that how you react when somebody doesn't just agree with you?  Not even gonna consider an alternative?  

There isn't an alternative that includes hard data.  The hard data at present indicates that leaving the pin in is beneficial regardless of who the player is and what mental game they may or may not have.  Until proven otherwise, this is what it is. 

Also this is pointless to debate as the odds of hitting the pin every round are slim to none, so the advantage over taking the pin out is slim, but it is there.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Is that how you react when somebody doesn't just agree with you?  Not even gonna consider an alternative?  

Tony, buddy, you have not presented an alternative. You have not refuted the study - hell, it does not appear that you even understand how the study (or the conclusion) was reached.

Edit: Yeah, basically what @mchepp had to say. And to that I mentioned that I would wager on how easily I could change those "feelings" if I was able to share data and/or demonstrate things to PGA Tour players. IMO, the vast majority are doing it out of ritual or habit or because they saw a guy do it once and thought "well, he does it, so it must make sense."

[Phil McGleno]

7 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Is that how you react when somebody doesn't just agree with you?  Not even gonna consider an alternative? 

No-To my eyes He responds by whipping your ass up and down the fairway with a heck of a lot more text than you quoted.

Are you reading what he is typing-You do not seem to. You just want to argue.

[pumaAttack]

Just now, iacas said:

Tony, buddy, you have not presented an alternative. You have not refuted the study - hell, it does not appear that you even understand how the study (or the conclusion) was reached.

Edit: Yeah, basically what @mchepp had to say. And to that I mentioned that I would wager on how easily I could change those "feelings" if I was able to share data and/or demonstrate things to PGA Tour players. IMO, the vast majority are doing it out of ritual or habit or because they saw a guy do it once and thought "well, he does it, so it must make sense."

You mean the study which said this:

It was impractical to hit shots from the fringe, fairway, or rough because no human (not even Perfy, my putting/chipping robot) could hit the flagstick often enough or accurately enough to run the test in a reasonable amount of time. 

 

and this:

 Once that was done, PGA Tour veteran Tom Jenkins, the former lead instructor at my short-game schools, did his best to duplicate those tests. Although Tom couldn't control his putts as precisely as the TruRoller, I felt it was important to compare machine and human results.

 

There simply isn't a completely controlled test you can do to claim this as a universal law.  The study used only putts on the green, which I said I wanted to see chip shots.  He set the machine two feet from the cup, when does that ever apply to actual golf??  This study is very loose science.

 

To claim this as fact and that is overweighs a Tour Pros preference is laughable. 

[jamo]

12 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Is that how you react when somebody doesn't just agree with you?  Not even gonna consider an alternative?  

 

From the study:

 

It was impractical to hit shots from the fringe, fairway, or rough because no human (not even Perfy, my putting/chipping robot) could hit the flagstick often enough or accurately enough to run the test in a reasonable amount of time. 

 

Yeah, that seems like a HARD science there.

I fail to see how it would matter where the shot were hit from.

[mchepp]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

The alternative is to not call the TOUR PROS dumb for playing a golf shot in a manner they prefer.  

Not sure what this comment has to do with alternatives. This is not an alternative. 

@iacas already went over earlier why he used the word dumb. He was restricted by the number of characters and was looking to make a point. He is not saying Bill Haas is dumb. In fact he says if he could show Bill the data, he thinks Bill would change his mind. A better description would be "ill-informed" but that wouldn't have much punch and would take up a lot of his 140 characters.

[iacas]

Present better evidence, then, Tony.

What have you got? Here's a bit of what I've got:

• Common sense/basic physics telling you that leaving the flagstick in is beneficial.
• Thousands of balls being rolled at various parts of the hole, with the flagstick in and out, at various speeds, uphill and downhill, which say that leaving the flagstick in is beneficial.
• A guy doing his best to replicate the test in the second bullet point also confirming that leaving the flagstick in is beneficial.
• My own tests at doing the same (pretty easy with a Perfect Putter, really).

What do you have on your side? An old superstition? What people think is the better choice?

I've got lessons to give.