Leave the Flagstick In (and Tend it Too)

[pumaAttack]

6 minutes ago, jamo said:

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

Seriously?

Because you can't even have the flagstick in on a putt, yet that is all this study did....

The only times this comes into play, chips, fairways and rough, there is no data.  How is that conclusive?

Edited March 16, 2016 by pumaAttack

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

Seriously?

Because you can't even have the flagstick in on a putt, yet that is all this study did....

The only times this comes into play, chips, fairways and rough, there is no data.  How is that conclusive?

They changed that rule in 1968 because it was an advantage to the putter. Back then the greens were rougher and players knew the stick would help them, so they were more aggressive. 

Again, if it wasn't an advantage, there would not be a rule against it.

[Phil McGleno]

2 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Seriously?

Because you can't even have the flagstick in on a putt, yet that is all this study did....

The only times this comes into play, chips, fairways and rough, there is no data.  How is that conclusive?

Hey Genius-How is a ball going to go in the hole if it is in the air because it is flying by?-The ball is rolling when it goes in 99% of the time, so they re-created the part of the shot where the ball hits the hole or the flagstick. Not sure what is difficult to get about that.-Are you just being obstinate?

Also the OP or the tweet or whatever showed Bill Haas putting from the fringe-BTW.

[jamo]

Just now, pumaAttack said:

Seriously?

Because you can't even have the flagstick in on a putt, yet this is all the is study did....

The only times this comes into play, chips, fairways and rough, there is no data.  How is that conclusive?

When the ball is hitting the flagstick, how the hell does it know what length grass it was hit out of?

If it's bouncing, it's definitely not going to go in the hole with the flagstick out. It might go in the hole with the flagstick in.  

[pumaAttack]

Just now, boogielicious said:

They changed that rule in 1968 because it was an advantage to the putter. Back then the greens were rougher and players knew the stick would help them, so they were more aggressive. 

Again, if it wasn't an advantage, there would not be a rule against it.

But that does not change this study.  It simply doesn't apply.

Chips shots coming into the green are not putts.  Its a pretty loose study to claim because a two foot putt reacted one way, a 20 yard chip shot will react the exact same way.  

[boogielicious]

Just now, pumaAttack said:

But that does not change this study.  It simply doesn't apply.

Chips shots coming into the green are not putts.  Its a pretty loose study to claim because a two foot putt reacted one way, a 20 yard chip shot will react the exact same way.  

Of course it applies. It applied to longer putts on crappier greens. A 20 yard chip, which you are trying to get to go in the hole, is going the same speed as a 20 foot putt, which you are trying to get to go into the hole, when they both reach the hole. It absolutely applies.

You're not trying to do a 40 yard chip on and 20 yard shot.

[Phil McGleno]

3 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

But that does not change this study.  It simply doesn't apply.

Chips shots coming into the green are not putts.  Its a pretty loose study to claim because a two foot putt reacted one way, a 20 yard chip shot will react the exact same way.  

At the end of a chip shot what is the ball doing?-Rolling.

AT the end of a putt what is the ball doing?-Rolling.

If a ball is bouncing and will not even hit the hole, guess what-It is not going to go in. If it hits the flag stick a few inches up, it might go in or sit closer to the hole.

You are arguing just to argue at this point.

[Golfingdad]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

...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).

You're referring to Torrey Pines a few years ago?  (I ask because I'm sure Phil has done this more than once, but that's the one I remember)  He had to make that shot to have a chance to win, and I get the impression that he's not exactly the type of guy that cares if he finishes 2nd or 3rd or 4th, so what difference would it make if he hit the flagstick high and it went into the water?  Wouldn't he have been better off using the stick to help him make it than having it tended to help him be closer for his next shot?

---

And I agreed with @pumaAttack way up thread that the twitter post wording seemed harsh.  In fact, I think that's exactly the word I used.   Science or no science, look at the shot he's playing; even if leaving the flag in helped him, how many times, honestly, do you think that he's hitting a putt that's relatively flat from 20-25 feet where it's going to matter?  1 in 1000?  Maybe even less?

I would also like to see/hear more study on this.  Not because I dispute it, but just because when it comes to science, more data is always better.  Also, flagsticks aren't all the same either.  I've seen them of different diameters, some that fit very snugly in the hole, and some that are loose and probably provide a lot more dampening.

[pumaAttack]

Just now, Phil McGleno said:

At the end of a chip shot what is the ball doing?-Rolling.

AT the end of a putt what is the ball doing?-Rolling.

If a ball is bouncing and will not even hit the hole, guess what-It is not going to go in. If it hits the flag stick a few inches up, it might go in or sit closer to the hole.

You are arguing just to argue at this point.

You are ASSUMING that to be true because there is no study.  I can do the same thing with my hypotheticals:

A ball is bouncing and hits the back of the cup and drops.  That same bouncing ball instead hits the pin and goes flying off 10 feet leaving a side-hill putt.

A ball catches the edge and lips in.  That same ball catches an edge, hits the pin and misses.  

The point is that there is no UNIVERSAL LAW to this.  Its all anecdotal.  The Tour Pros do what they prefer, and that does not make them dumb or wrong in this case.

[boogielicious]

5 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

You are ASSUMING that to be true because there is no study.  I can do the same thing with my hypotheticals:

A ball is bouncing and hits the back of the cup and drops.  That same bouncing ball instead hits the pin and goes flying off 10 feet leaving a side-hill putt.

A ball catches the edge and lips in.  That same ball catches an edge, hits the pin and misses.  

The point is that there is no UNIVERSAL LAW to this.  Its all anecdotal.  The Tour Pros do what they prefer, and that does not make them dumb or wrong in this case.

There has been study and lots and lots of data. You are refuting data with arbitrary hypotheticals. It is not anecdotal, is a model based on lots and lots of data. The odds are significantly in your favor to leave the flagstick in.

Do whatever you want. Take the flag stick out when you're at the tee on a 450 yard par 4 if it makes you feel better. But you are incorrect on your conclusions.

[jamo]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

You are ASSUMING that to be true because there is no study.  I can do the same thing with my hypotheticals:

A ball is bouncing and hits the back of the cup and drops.  That same bouncing ball instead hits the pin and goes flying off 10 feet leaving a side-hill putt.

A ball catches the edge and lips in.  That same ball catches an edge, hits the pin and misses.  

The point is that there is no UNIVERSAL LAW to this.  Its all anecdotal.  The Tour Pros do what they prefer, and that does not make them dumb or wrong in this case.

• Think of all the places a bouncing ball could land. All of the places around the hole. For that one place you listed, having the pin out is advantageous. (And even that, I'd argue, is a maybe. If the ball is really bouncing high enough that it would go 10 feet away, it'll probably hit the bottom of the cup and bounce out, as it presumably would in most bouncing-ball situations.) Can you think of any others?
• If a ball is going slow enough that it would catch a lip and fall in, the flagstick isn't going to bounce it out. On the opposite site, if a ball is going fast enough along the edge that it would hit the pin and miss, it's not going to fall in. See: capture speed.
• No one is saying that you cant possibly come up with a scenario in which leaving the flagstick in could hurt you. Just look at Tiger at Augusta a few years ago. But those situations are extremely rare compared to the times when it helps you. And because they're extremely rare and impossible to predict, it makes statistical sense to play the odds and leave the stick in. THAT'S what the research about this topic is saying.

[pumaAttack]

Just now, boogielicious said:

There has been study and lots and lots of data. You are refuting data with arbitrary hypotheticals. It is not anecdotal, is a model base on lots and lots of data. The odds are significantly in your favor to leave the flagstick in.

Do whatever you want. Take the flag stick out when you're at the tee on a 450 yard par 4 if it makes you feel better. But you are incorrect on your conclusions.

You are not reading the study then... Because that data point has not been included.  There is no data on chip shots from a controlled study.  The study is for 2 FOOT putts.  

Again, nowhere did I say it is WRONG.   You all are just assuming that is what I am arguing.  I am simply stating it is not a fair criticism to call a tour pro DUMB because some loose science stated he was wrong.  If the tour pro prefers the flag out, whether it is because of a preferred visual or that he thinks its helps his odds, then who are we to argue that?  

[Phil McGleno]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

You are not reading the study then... Because that data point has not been included.  There is no data on chip shots from a controlled study.  The study is for 2 FOOT putts.

Oh my goodness-What is a chip doing at the end?-ROLLING. Same as a putt. Who cares how it got to that point?

Me and @jamo addressed this and you just soldier on ignoring things.

[pumaAttack]

2 minutes ago, jamo said:

• Think of all the places a bouncing ball could land. All of the places around the hole. For that one place you listed, having the pin out is advantageous. (And even that, I'd argue, is a maybe. If the ball is really bouncing high enough that it would go 10 feet away, it'll probably hit the bottom of the cup and bounce out, as it presumably would in most bouncing-ball situations.) Can you think of any others?
• If a ball is going slow enough that it would catch a lip and fall in, the flagstick isn't going to bounce it out. On the opposite site, if a ball is going fast enough along the edge that it would hit the pin and miss, it's not going to fall in. See: capture speed.
• No one is saying that you cant possibly come up with a scenario in which leaving the flagstick in could hurt you. Just look at Tiger at Augusta a few years ago. But those situations are extremely rare compared to the times when it helps you. And because they're extremely rare and impossible to predict, it makes statistical sense to play the odds and leave the stick in. THAT'S what the research about this topic is saying.

I get what you are saying and even agree that is probably helps.  All I am saying is that it is not 100% accurate 100% of the time.  @iacas would have you believe otherwise by calling a 7-time PGA winner dumb for taking out the flag.  

All I have stated is that there is more to golf than science, and the pin out can HELP a golfer more than hurt him.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

You're referring to Torrey Pines a few years ago?  (I ask because I'm sure Phil has done this more than once, but that's the one I remember)  He had to make that shot to have a chance to win, and I get the impression that he's not exactly the type of guy that cares if he finishes 2nd or 3rd or 4th, so what difference would it make if he hit the flagstick high and it went into the water?  Wouldn't he have been better off using the stick to help him make it than having it tended to help him be closer for his next shot?

---

And I agreed with @pumaAttack way up thread that the twitter post wording seemed harsh.  In fact, I think that's exactly the word I used.   Science or no science, look at the shot he's playing; even if leaving the flag in helped him, how many times, honestly, do you think that he's hitting a putt that's relatively flat from 20-25 feet where it's going to matter?  1 in 1000?  Maybe even less?

I would also like to see/hear more study on this.  Not because I dispute it, but just because when it comes to science, more data is always better.  Also, flagsticks aren't all the same either.  I've seen them of different diameters, some that fit very snugly in the hole, and some that are loose and probably provide a lot more dampening.

In the car on the way to the lesson, but quickly (if Siri can get this right):

• Phil's ball had to fly past the hole, hit, and spin back on a very unique steep slope green. Hitting the ball on the fly on the way past the first time would result in bad things.
• Why does it matter how many times it would help Bill? Tour pros are, what, 15% from twenty feet? If leaving the flag in makes that 17% do you not think for a chance to win a PGA Tour event, he would take it?
• A flagstick will always take speed off the ball, and by rule they're small enough for a ball to fit between it and the cup. I listed four bullet points above and all support it. The only contrary "evidence" thus far is "some Tour pros take the flagstick out."
• I already addressed the word choice. It was a dumb choice. He could have increased his chances of making it but chose not to.

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

A ball catches the edge and lips in.  That same ball catches an edge, hits the pin and misses.

This doesn't happen with standard pins. There is room for the ball to fall in between the pin and the cup.  If the putt has the speed to loop around and fall in then the flag will not interfere with it.

19 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

A ball is bouncing and hits the back of the cup and drops.  That same bouncing ball instead hits the pin and goes flying off 10 feet leaving a side-hill putt.

The odds of this happening are very slim. If the ball is moving fast enough to end up 10 feet after striking the pin its nearly astronomically unreasonable to think it would go in if the pin was out.

 

27 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Chips shots coming into the green are not putts.  Its a pretty loose study to claim because a two foot putt reacted one way, a 20 yard chip shot will react the exact same way.

Actually most of the time they act as putts. In the end most chips and pitches are rolling towards the hole. So in reality they are just putts. On rare occasion you might get the slam dunk, or one hop and in situation. Most hole-outs are when the ball rolls, aka a putt.

4 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 @iacas would have you believe otherwise by calling a 7-time PGA winner dumb for taking out the flag.

The Pope use to think the world was flat. Come on, winning on the PGA tour doesn't make them right 100% of the time. Faldo is a multi-major winner and he was constantly wrong about the ball flight laws. Winning does not equal actual statistical comprehension.

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

 

Yet they are on the PGA Tour and we aren't...   

 

2 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

 

Maybe, just maybe, there is more to golf than science alone?  

 

 

1 hour ago, pumaAttack said:

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

 

1 hour 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. Golf is about more than science, and if that feeling helps them, then who are you to call them dumb?

 

56 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

 

51 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

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.

 

40 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

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:

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

 

30 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

Seriously?

Because you can't even have the flagstick in on a putt, yet that is all this study did....

The only times this comes into play, chips, fairways and rough, there is no data.  How is that conclusive?

 

24 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

But that does not change this study.  It simply doesn't apply.

Chips shots coming into the green are not putts.  Its a pretty loose study to claim because a two foot putt reacted one way, a 20 yard chip shot will react the exact same way.  

 

15 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

You are ASSUMING that to be true because there is no study.  I can do the same thing with my hypotheticals:

A ball is bouncing and hits the back of the cup and drops.  That same bouncing ball instead hits the pin and goes flying off 10 feet leaving a side-hill putt.

A ball catches the edge and lips in.  That same ball catches an edge, hits the pin and misses.  

The point is that there is no UNIVERSAL LAW to this.  Its all anecdotal.  The Tour Pros do what they prefer, and that does not make them dumb or wrong in this case.

 

5 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

You are not reading the study then... Because that data point has not been included.  There is no data on chip shots from a controlled study.  The study is for 2 FOOT putts.  

 

 

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

All I have stated is that there is more to golf than science, and the pin out can HELP a golfer more than hurt him.

These aren't the post of someone who is agreeing with the data. 

[Phil McGleno]

5 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

@iacas would have you believe otherwise by calling a 7-time PGA winner dumb for taking out the flag.  

Dustin Johnson is dumb as a box of rocks.-Actually, I might give the edge to the box of rocks on that one.