Why 2 stroke penalty for hitting flagstick?

[bkuehn1952]

This was a good discussion.  It is somewhat ironic after batting the rationale for the 2 stroke penalty back & forth, that now the USGA/R&A may ultimately decide to just leave the flagstick in the hole.  From 2 stroke penalty to possibly "no problemo" in the course of a few weeks.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, bkuehn1952 said:

This was a good discussion.  It is somewhat ironic after batting the rationale for the 2 stroke penalty back & forth, that now the USGA/R&A may ultimately decide to just leave the flagstick in the hole.  From 2 stroke penalty to possibly "no problemo" in the course of a few weeks.

Which is being discussed here, FWIW:

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/93123-modernized-rules-discussion-areas-of-the-course/

[Aflighter]

If your good enough to hit the stick putting then it shouldnt help you unless you have serious speed control issues because you obviously have the accuracy down. Even with stick in , im not gonna try to hit  putt any harder because  if it doesnt hit pin its gone. The advantage is not enough t make a big deal about. Playing everything as lateral hazards is different story.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Aflighter said:

If your good enough to hit the stick putting then it shouldnt help you unless you have serious speed control issues because you obviously have the accuracy down.

That logic does not fly.

If you were allowed - or are allowed in the future - to putt with the flagstick in, players will adjust their approach to putting shorter putts outside gimme range and inside 8 feet or so. They will adjust then their strategy from 30+ feet too.

Since the flag in does not often ever hurt, leaving it in only gives you an advantage. Even PGA Tour players miss the speed slightly on six footers now and then.

3 hours ago, Aflighter said:

Even with stick in , im not gonna try to hit  putt any harder because  if it doesnt hit pin its gone. The advantage is not enough t make a big deal about.

I don't agree, and I've done some tests which support that.

It's significantly easier to make 3-6' putts with the flagstick in, and similarly to two-putt from longer ranges then as well.

[dedalus101]

Alflighter, wish I could have warned you....iacas is a true believer that flagsticks always help. Ask him why most pros take it out he will tell you they aren't that smart, ask him why the USGA and the R&A think the flagstick makes no difference in scoring and they will send you to a website opposing the new rule ...which I suspect iacas might even be involved with again claiming that the flagstick will make it much easier to sink putts. Bottom line do what your experience tells you to do. It will be interesting if the new proposed rule is enacted to see what people's experience will be. I personally have bounced off flagsticks much more often than getting a "save" from a flagstick ...but that is just my experience.

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, dedalus101 said:

Alflighter, wish I could have warned you....iacas is a true believer that flagsticks always help. Ask him why most pros take it out he will tell you they aren't that smart, ask him why the USGA and the R&A think the flagstick makes no difference in scoring and they will send you to a website opposing the new rule ...which I suspect iacas might even be involved with again claiming that the flagstick will make it much easier to sink putts. Bottom line do what your experience tells you to do. It will be interesting if the new proposed rule is enacted to see what people's experience will be. I personally have bounced off flagsticks much more often than getting a "save" from a flagstick ...but that is just my experience.

The R&A and USGA changed the rule in 1968 IIRC because they felt it was an advantage. They didn't do it because it would speed up play or looked nicer on TV. They knew from years of observation that it was an advantage.

There is actual science and data behind the premise that the flag stick makes it slightly easier to hole putts and also makes the second putt on a miss shorter. It is not opinion, it is tested fact. People took the time to do controlled studies on it to answer the question. And no one is saying it is 50% easier, but slightly easier. So if you had to make a putt for $1,000,000 and the odd were 5% better you could hole the putt with the flag in, you wouldn't leave it in?

Do you have data that shows most pros take the flag stick out?. Please provide this data. My observation is that more keep the flag stick in because it will slow down a faster off green putt or chip. They keep it in for bunker shots, pitches from the rough, all almost all around the green shots. We see these all the time. If it wasn't an advantage or could hurt their chances, they would have the caddy take it out.

[iacas]

15 hours ago, dedalus101 said:

Alflighter, wish I could have warned you....iacas is a true believer that flagsticks always help.

There are two things wrong with just that statement.

First, I'm not a "believer." A "believer" is someone who doesn't have facts or knowledge. It would be far more correct to say I "know" things to be true, not that I "believe" them to be true. I don't "believe" that the earth is round, and I don't "know" that cherry is the best flavor of slushy (it is for me, but others can have a different opinion).

Second, I've never said the flagstick always helps. I've said it helps far more often than it hurts, and people are well advised to leave it in except in the two cases where it can hurt you. Those two cases have nothing to do with "I have awesome incredible distance control."

Simply put, @dedalus101, the facts are on my side on this one.

15 hours ago, dedalus101 said:

Ask him why most pros take it out he will tell you they aren't that smart

If they knew that the flagstick helped them more often than hurt them, they'd leave it in more often. PGA Tour pros do a lot of dumb things; for example, laying up to 110 yards even though they could safely get their ball to 40 or 50 yards (though that's becoming less and less common).

15 hours ago, dedalus101 said:

ask him why the USGA and the R&A think the flagstick makes no difference in scoring and they will send you to a website opposing the new rule…

The USGA/R&A haven't conducted any actual tests. I've encouraged them to do so. They "believe" that the flagstick doesn't help or hurt, but they've not conducted the tests that let them know this yet. I have. Dave Pelz has.

15 hours ago, dedalus101 said:

which I suspect iacas might even be involved with again claiming that the flagstick will make it much easier to sink putts.

It's my website. I haven't hid that fact from anyone. I think that proposed rule will drastically change golf and I do not want to see it instituted.

15 hours ago, dedalus101 said:

Bottom line do what your experience tells you to do.

Ignore facts and reason! Do what you think is right even in the face of logic! </sarcasm>

15 hours ago, dedalus101 said:

It will be interesting if the new proposed rule is enacted to see what people's experience will be.

Those who adapt, should the rule be put into place, will find it much easier to make putts. Like Mike:

15 hours ago, dedalus101 said:

I personally have bounced off flagsticks much more often than getting a "save" from a flagstick ...but that is just my experience.

Your experience lies to you. If the shot hit the flagstick so hard it didn't go in, it almost certainly wasn't going in anyway. Again, these are facts, not guesses or conjecture.

[Vinsk]

Such an eloquent, well written dismantling of dedalus101's post. Too add, I did a little experiment of my own as suggested by Mike and similar to his. I saw the light. Iacas is right. There's still room at the table dedalus101. Join us,have a seat, pass the wine and enjoy the meal. 

[dedalus101]

sigh....a brief word a bout "science."  All science is just theory until proven to the satisfaction of the great majority of scientist involved in the issues at hand.  Iacas is a true believer because the definition of true believer fits him to a tee:  true believer. noun. One who is deeply, sometimes fanatically devoted to a cause, organization, or person: “a band of true believers bonded together against all those who did not agree with them” (Theodore Draper). I mean come on he even has a website to argue with the USGA and R&A claiming that he is right and they are what? Dumb? Stupid? Uninformed? 

 

And yes posting a video of some guy slamming putts into a hole with a flagstick is not science, its a nice video but hey you could just as easily have posted a video of someone slamming putts into a nice welcoming hole without a flagstick, aka not science. Iacas claims to have done studies to prove his theory but also frankly it is not good science to trust statement of those who are (pardon the expression) true believers. And for the sake of those who missed the earlier point David Pelz is one hell of a putter and his study, good as it was,  was not a study of "does the flagstick help or hurt in all cases" it was a study of "does the flagstick help when you don't have decent distance control." I say this because one third of the putts in his study were hit hard enough to go three feet past the hole (Pelz himself claims the best distance to aim for is 18" past the whole), one third were hit hard enough to go six feet past the hole and one third hard enough to go 9 feet past the hole. So scientifically speaking that study seems to conclude that there is a marginal benefit to leaving the flagstick in if you suffer from poor to terrible distance control.

Perhaps, if iacas is sufficiently annoying to the USGA and the R&A who are now proposing to eliminate the two stroke penalty and just leave the flagstick in for those who want it, they will actually get down to business and do a real study that includes many more variables and then perhaps we will learn something definite but until then it is just irritating to hear someone say "I'm right and you, the USGA, the R&A, a goodly gaggle of pro golfers and frankly anyone who agrees with you....are wrong". 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

sigh....a brief word a bout "science."  All science is just theory until proven to the satisfaction of the great majority of scientist involved in the issues at hand.

I've got a few degrees in the sciences. I know what "science" is, thank you. And @boogielicious is a working scientist. I'm pretty sure he knows the definition of "science" as well.

Try this on for size: physics (a science) says that with the flagstick materials used today, the ball is more likely to go in the hole with the flagstick in than out. Go ahead - run the calculations. Be my guest.

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

Iacas is a true believer because the definition of true believer fits him to a tee:

I addressed your "believer" nonsense above. This rises to the level of fact, or very nearly does so, and you have only your misguided experience to counter-act it.

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

One who is deeply, sometimes fanatically devoted to a cause, organization, or person

Dude, this is not a "cause." It's just physics.

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

I mean come on he even has a website to argue with the USGA and R&A claiming that he is right and they are what? Dumb? Stupid? Uninformed?

Uninformed. They've not conducted their own tests, so they're guessing, as you are.

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

And yes posting a video of some guy slamming putts into a hole with a flagstick is not science,

Nobody here has claimed that it is. But notice how none of those putts were kicked out. Even the ones with the flagstick leaning toward Mike, and even those he didn't hit dead center.

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

And yes posting a video of some guy slamming putts into a hole with a flagstick is not science, its a nice video but hey you could just as easily have posted a video of someone slamming putts into a nice welcoming hole without a flagstick, aka not science.

If he hit them too hard, without a flag they'd miss, and with a flag they'd go in. Physics.

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

Iacas claims to have done studies to prove his theory but also frankly it is not good science to trust statement of those who are (pardon the expression) true believers.

I'm not a "believer." I tested the theory. I proved it beyond my standards.

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

And for the sake of those who missed the earlier point David Pelz is one hell of a putter and his study, good as it was,  was not a study of "does the flagstick help or hurt in all cases" it was a study of "does the flagstick help when you don't have decent distance control."

You're missing the point that the approach people take, particularly for 3-6' putts, will change because they'll discover it's beneficial to take out some break and hit balls firmly at the stick, allowing it to help them hole the putt.

Really, this has been made pretty clear, both here and in the Rules forum thread ("Areas of the course").

You keep harping on this "good distance control" thing, but here's the fact there: no putt hit with good distance control will be kept OUT of the hole unless those two conditions I mentioned above are true: a) the flag is jostling around because it's windy, or b) the flagstick is leaning so far toward you a ball won't fit.

Absent those two conditions, the flagstick can only help you. A ball hit with good distance control will go in whether the flagstick is in or out, and if you happen to hit it a little too firmly, it may miss with the flagstick out and go in with the flagstick in.

You're clinging to this "good distance control" thing, but even good putters don't have perfect distance control with all their putts. And if the proposed rule goes through, good putters especially will find it's advantageous to take out some break, hit the ball firmly (4'-5' past speed or so), and use the flagstick to help them hole more putts.

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

I say this because one third of the putts in his study were hit hard enough to go three feet past the hole (Pelz himself claims the best distance to aim for is 18" past the whole), one third were hit hard enough to go six feet past the hole and one third hard enough to go 9 feet past the hole. So scientifically speaking that study seems to conclude that there is a marginal benefit to leaving the flagstick in if you suffer from poor to terrible distance control.

Three feet past is not exactly "terrible" or even "poor" distance control.

And again:

• Players will learn the advantages and will hole more putts by hitting them 4' or so past the cup speed with less played break,
• The flagstick doesn't hurt you when you have perfect distance control, but can help you quite a bit when you don't, and
• Not everyone has perfect distance control on all putts,

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

Perhaps, if iacas is sufficiently annoying to the USGA and the R&A who are now proposing to eliminate the two stroke penalty and just leave the flagstick in for those who want it, they will actually get down to business and do a real study that includes many more variables and then perhaps we will learn something definite but until then it is just irritating to hear someone say "I'm right and you, the USGA, the R&A, a goodly gaggle of pro golfers and frankly anyone who agrees with you....are wrong". 

I'm sorry that the facts don't align with your perception of your experiences.

But should the USGA/R&A conduct such a study, I'm confident they'll find what I've discovered: that, particularly if you adapt the strategy involved in putting particularly from 3-6', one can make a significant amount more putts with the flagstick in than out.

I highly doubt, should that happen or should the proposed rule be rescinded, that you'll come back here to admit that you were wrong.

---

Let's put it this way:

• I've got Dave Pelz on my side.
• I've got my own tests on my side (which included rolling putts as little as 2' past the cup - admittedly the advantage there is slight as the hole is effectively about 1.9" wide at that point, and a putt hitting the 0.95" mark is only overlapping a 0.5" thick flagstick by 0.14").
• I've got physics on my side (hitting the flagstick dampens the speed of the ball by a greater factor than it reduces the time the ball is over the hole and thus able to fall by diverting the path of the ball).

What do you have on your side?

• Your experiences, which may very well lie to you particularly if you want to see things the way you clearly seem to want to see them, and
• Calling those who disagree with you and present reason and logic as "true believers"?

I'll stick with what I've got over your experience. Sorry.

[Aflighter]

Iacas, Dedalus, I have  a tournament tomorrow along with CY Fairway.Before I will hit some putts on the practice green with the lil flagstick that goes in em if they have them, cant remember. I will notify everyone of the results. By the way, I watched that video above and I cant see any putts but maybe 1 that actually touched the flagstick.That guy is helluva putter cause he was hitting hole dead center.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

Iacas, Dedalus, I have  a tournament tomorrow along with CY Fairway.Before I will hit some putts on the practice green with the lil flagstick that goes in em if they have them, cant remember. I will notify everyone of the results. By the way, I watched that video above and I cant see any putts but maybe 1 that actually touched the flagstick.That guy is helluva putter cause he was hitting hole dead center.

That won't be terribly scientific either (nobody's claimed Mike's video is), but record it. Record all of it.

You'll have to commit to actually hitting the ball firmly. It's a very different mindset that I don't know if you can turn on that quickly, particularly before a tournament that you're playing in (might I suggest you do it afterward instead?).

You'll find that if you take out the break, hit the ball about 4' past speed, you'll have the middle 2 to 2.2" or so to get the ball to drop.

It can be tough to get the mindset right. Heck, I have spent 20 years playing a LOT of break on putts, so even I just blow it high at first. It's tough to play so little break and to commit to hitting the ball that firmly.

P.S. @mvmac from a conversation today: "I was fooling around with the short putts without the flagstick in the other day, yes the hardest part is hitting it firm enough, feels so weird." He can attest to how hard it is to change your mindset in an instant. I will again suggest you don't do it before your tournament.

[dedalus101]

Iacas your argument is evolving...now it involves an entirely new putting style which is bang it had and hit the stick. I actually would agree that if you are going to hit it that hard you 'd be better off with the flagstick in, but that raises yet another issue apparently not yet scientifically resolved by your studies and that is what if you happen to be one of the vast majority of golfers who occasionally (or perhaps more than occasionally) push or pull putts. In that case the entire new "style" would almost certainly leave you far worse off. Just a note on your posting style as opposed to your putting style. It would be much more convincing if you tried to sound a little more "scientific" as in "From my study and experiments the evidence shows....."  Sounds much more believable than "Its Physics...I'm right." In fact the more someone insists they are right and everyone else is wrong the less credibility you have. I am more than willing to be convinced by facts so lets hope you can nudge the USGA and the R&A into doing some comprehensive studies because I personally would hate to see putting become a "smash the flagstick operation."

[RandallT]

4 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

 

Iacas your argument is evolving...now it involves an entirely new putting style which is bang it had and hit the stick.

 

I guess you've missed the many times he has written quite clearly that this is a central problem. 

In fact, this is one of the most persuasive and innovative things about the debate that the USGA/R&A has not addressed. 

But seriously, did you not see this part of the argument before?

[dedalus101]

RandallT this thread started long before the proposed changes to the rules and the central point was not "hit it hard and hit the flagstick" but according to iacas "leaving the flagstick in is always beneficial... unless the flagstick is leaning towards you." That issue I am not at all convinced of, avoiding having to watch golfers smashing putts into flagstick is another issue altogether.

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

Iacas your argument is evolving...now it involves an entirely new putting style which is bang it had and hit the stick.

That's not an evolution. When you started this topic it was talking about taking the flagstick out when you were off the green. Now you're talking about the proposed rule change, and I'm talking about putting particularly from 3-6'.

They're different topics. The flagstick is rarely 3-6' from the fringe.

So no, I'm not "evolving." You're changing the topic, and I'm responding to the different topic.

Like @RandallT says, I've maintained this thing the whole time. It basically says:

• If you hit the ball with perfect speed the flagstick will not keep out a ball that would have otherwise gone in (unless the two rare conditions are present).
• If you hit the ball too firmly the flagstick will most often help you.

The putting from 3-6' thing is simply a recognition of that fact, and the fact that if you can take out break and hit the ball firmly and rely on the second bullet point, you can make more putts from short range than if you had to have a combination of a very good line and speed.

I'll put it this way:

• Without the flagstick in, you have to have a very good line with very good speed.
• With the flagstick in, you can have a wider variety of speeds and a reasonably good line. The line is easier to detect because you can take out break and hit it pretty firmly.

18 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

I actually would agree that if you are going to hit it that hard you 'd be better off with the flagstick in, but that raises yet another issue apparently not yet scientifically resolved by your studies and that is what if you happen to be one of the vast majority of golfers who occasionally (or perhaps more than occasionally) push or pull putts.

Then you're going to miss hitting it softly, too. And if you're not crushing it eight feet past the cup, the come-backer from four or five feet will be easier, too.

I'm not suggesting people hit the putt so it goes 12' past the cup. I'm suggesting that the change in mentality is to hit the putts with 3-4' past capture speed, take out some break, and smack the ball into the flagstick a little.

With the flagstick in, the 3-4' comeback putt will basically become a tap-in. So again the golfer loses nothing (they'll two-putt when they push or pull the putt, just as they would otherwise), and they'll make more of their first putts.

18 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

It would be much more convincing if you tried to sound a little more "scientific" as in "From my study and experiments the evidence shows....."

Dude, I don't really care. You're not going to be convinced. I knew that from the second post you made. You think your experience trumps studies and physics.

18 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

In fact the more someone insists they are right and everyone else is wrong the less credibility you have.

Whatever you say dude.

Every time you post you're insisting that you're right. No?

18 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

I am more than willing to be convinced by facts so lets hope you can nudge the USGA and the R&A into doing some comprehensive studies because I personally would hate to see putting become a "smash the flagstick operation."

The only facts out there support my position. There are no facts which support your position.

[dedalus101]

Dude you really should care because it would make you look a little less like a self important jerk. despite your assurance the "science" is not conclusive. Here's hoping it gets there.

[iacas]

27 minutes ago, dedalus101 said:

Dude you really should care because it would make you look a little less like a self important jerk. despite your assurance the "science" is not conclusive. Here's hoping it gets there.

Yeah, we don't allow people to call others names here. Grow up.

This has nothing to do with "self importance." It's a discussion. Clearly you're taking it far, far more seriously than I am if you're so riled up that you're resorting to name-calling.

What facts, studies, and physics exist support my side of things. There's enough of it that I'm pretty much in the "know" camp. I've said the same things in several different ways. You have presented nothing beyond "your experience" to support your position in all of this.

Peace out, yo.

P.S. I'll seemingly never understand how personally people take a difference of opinion (or fact).