Modernized Rules Discussion: Areas of the Course

[jkelley9]

I'm leaning toward the side of rejecting this rule change (flagstick) but I'm curious where the data is that shows putting is 'significantly' easier with the stick in? I may not have a good grasp of the physics of this but I feel like even from 3-6 ft it's not going to help me. And yes, I'm saying this not so much challenging it because I believe you guys and am giving you the benefit of the doubt... but I just don't see it. It'd be nice to see this in some type of data set.

I don't like the "backboard" example. From 6 ft. can't you hit the speed of a putt the equivalent of 10+ ft. past  the hole in the center and it still go in? I feel like the limited space around the "non-center" of the hole is now a more compromised region in that you can deflect off the flagstick and jump out of the hole. 

Of course, I always keep the flagstick in if I'm off the green and it's not severely tilted towards my putt line 

Edit: oh, on the speed of play side, I don't think this is going to speed up play and do agree it could slow down play in many instances. Remember, you can only go as fast as the slowest group ahead of you. So if even one group decides to do the flag in, flag out thing multiple times it will slow everyone down behind them.

Edited March 14, 2017 by jkelley9

[Asheville]

The only "proof" most of us have is from Pelz. However, we tend to find therein conclusions which confirm our existing views. 

People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. - Blaise Pascal, 1658

[Fourputt]

20 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

I'm leaning toward the side of rejecting this rule change (flagstick) but I'm curious where the data is that shows putting is 'significantly' easier with the stick in? I may not have a good grasp of the physics of this but I feel like even from 3-6 ft it's not going to help me. And yes, I'm saying this not so much challenging it because I believe you guys and am giving you the benefit of the doubt... but I just don't see it. It'd be nice to see this in some type of data set.

I don't like the "backboard" example. From 6 ft. can't you hit the speed of a putt the equivalent of 10+ ft. past  the hole in the center and it still go in? I feel like the limited space around the "non-center" of the hole is now a more compromised region in that you can deflect off the flagstick and jump out of the hole. 

Of course, I always keep the flagstick in if I'm off the green and it's not severely tilted towards my putt line 

Edit: oh, on the speed of play side, I don't think this is going to speed up play and do agree it could slow down play in many instances. Remember, you can only go as fast as the slowest group ahead of you. So if even one group decides to do the flag in, flag out thing multiple times it will slow everyone down behind them.

I've never done any testing using scientific method, but just from many years of playing, and particularly warming up on various practice putting greens, leaving the peg in the hole is a significant benefit.  

When I'm warming up before a round, I usually leave those little baby flagsticks in the hole and I can play 2 or 3 longish putts, miss, then walk up and just slap the ball in the hole without consideration for break or speed.  I can whack 3 or 4 balls into the hole from 4 feet and all I do is aim at the middle of the hole, hitting hard enough to remove any break.

If I practice or warm up a little more seriously and take the stick out, more of those short putts will lip out or miss the hole entirely because I have to consider the breaks and reduce the speed so that the hole will accept the ball as it would if I was putting on course.  Even though I use less speed, I still have more putts lip out, and for me that is the significant factor.  

If the flagstick was not helping, then hitting the putts harder should result in more, not fewer, lip outs.

[jkelley9]

4 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I've never done any testing using scientific method, but just from many years of playing, and particularly warming up on various practice putting greens, leaving the peg in the hole is a significant benefit.  

When I'm warming up before a round, I usually leave those little baby flagsticks in the hole and I can play 2 or 3 longish putts, miss, then walk up and just slap the ball in the hole without consideration for break or speed.  I can whack 3 or 4 balls into the hole from 4 feet and all I do is aim at the middle of the hole, hitting hard enough to remove any break.

If I practice or warm up a little more seriously and take the stick out, more of those short putts will lip out or miss the hole entirely because I have to consider the breaks and reduce the speed so that the hole will accept the ball as it would if I was putting on course.  Even though I use less speed, I still have more putts lip out, and for me that is the significant factor.  

If the flagstick was not helping, then hitting the putts harder should result in more, not fewer, lip outs.

But if you're attempting to take advantage of that, are you that confident in a lag putt that you'll hit the stick?? If not, your ball is going to go sailing by.

Also the 'pegs' (didn't know they were called that lol) on practice greens (at least in my area) are a lot thinner so I think they're a different animal. Maybe yours are regulation size though, just shorter?

[Fourputt]

Just now, jkelley9 said:

But if you're attempting to take advantage of that, are you that confident in a lag putt that you'll hit the stick?? If not, your ball is going to go sailing by.

Also the 'pegs' (didn't know they were called that lol) on practice greens (at least in my area) are a lot thinner so I think they're a different animal. Maybe yours are regulation size though, just shorter?

But I'll be a lot more likely to make a longer, 4-5 foot 2nd putt.

[dsc123]

I agree with Asheville re brevity.

Also, I wonder if there's a bit of an inconsistency in arguing that the flagstick is almost universally beneficial to the putter and at the same time that you argue the new rule will slow play.  Once players get this, won't they leave it in nearly all of the time?  They would ONLY go through the pull/replace dance if the flag is leaning towards one of the players.  And the Pelz article I found says a lean is helpful regardless of the direction, unless its so extreme that your ball won't fit:

•  

Quote

 

• Perhaps most surprising, when the flagstick leans either slightly toward the golfer or away, the odds of it helping to keep the ball in the hole increase: With the flagstick leaning away from the golfer, the hole becomes effectively larger; when the flagstick leans toward the golfer, the ball rebounds downward, again helping shots find the hole.
•  
• Only in the most obvious case, when the flagstick is leaning so far toward the golfer that there isn't enough room for the ball, is leaving the flagstick in a bad idea.

http://www.golf.com/instruction/flag-or-out

 

 

 

 

 

[Fourputt]

12 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

I agree with Asheville re brevity.

Also, I wonder if there's a bit of an inconsistency in arguing that the flagstick is almost universally beneficial to the putter and at the same time that you argue the new rule will slow play.  Once players get this, won't they leave it in nearly all of the time?  They would ONLY go through the pull/replace dance if the flag is leaning towards one of the players.  And the Pelz article I found says a lean is helpful regardless of the direction, unless its so extreme that your ball won't fit:

•  

 

 

 

That information has been available for a long time, yet still about half the guys I play with will always have the flagstick removed when putting from the fringe.  You just can't convince some folks, and that is what will happen if they keep that new rule.  

At least until it's proven that it takes less precision if you leave the stick in the hole.  And by then it will be too late - the genie will be out of the bottle and changing back will create a storm of protest.

[dsc123]

3 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

That information has been available for a long time, yet still about half the guys I play with will always have the flagstick removed when putting from the fringe.  You just can't convince some folks, and that is what will happen if they keep that new rule.  

At least until it's proven that it takes less precision if you leave the stick in the hole.  And by then it will be too late - the genie will be out of the bottle and changing back will create a storm of protest.

Yeah, you'd definitely need to spread the word.  But I think Pros would adapt quickly and you'd hear announcers and everyone talking about it.  I think word would spread fast. But you never know.  And I definitely agree that the pull/replace dance is worse.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

Yeah, you'd definitely need to spread the word.  But I think Pros would adapt quickly and you'd hear announcers and everyone talking about it.  I think word would spread fast. But you never know.  And I definitely agree that the pull/replace dance is worse.

Hypothetically, if the word spread super fast and always leaving the flagstick became the 99% case, how many would still not want the change because it simply makes putting easier?

Does is matter that putting becomes easier for everyone? 

P.S. I'm not making a point, I'm just asking the question.

[acerimusdux]

50 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

Also, I wonder if there's a bit of an inconsistency in arguing that the flagstick is almost universally beneficial to the putter and at the same time that you argue the new rule will slow play.  Once players get this, won't they leave it in nearly all of the time? 

Yes. I think most players are also already aware of pace of play concerns. There are already plenty of things which the rules permit which players avoid because they would be time consuming and thus discourteous to fellow players. Such as having the flag removed on an 80 yard approach shot, for example.

So I think if the rules permitted, the vast majority of players would simply leave the flag in.  And this would likely be widely recommended. Pulling the flag on long puts especially would seem to be both unnecessarily time consuming and not in the players interest.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by acerimusdux

[dsc123]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

Hypothetically, if the word spread super fast and always leaving the flagstick became the 99% case, how many would still not want the change because it simply makes putting easier?

Does is matter that putting becomes easier for everyone? 

P.S. I'm not making a point, I'm just asking the question.

 

Well some would.  That's Erik's main point, I think.  Personally, I could go either way.

[Braivo]

32 minutes ago, Pete said:

Hypothetically, if the word spread super fast and always leaving the flagstick became the 99% case, how many would still not want the change because it simply makes putting easier?

Does is matter that putting becomes easier for everyone? 

P.S. I'm not making a point, I'm just asking the question.

Right. If the rule is the same for everyone, why does it matter that much?

To be honest, I don't love the new rule simply because it would mean a foursome might take longer because some guys want the stick in while putting and others won't. Annoying and could slow play.

[acerimusdux]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Why would any course use flagsticks that helped prevent the ball from going in the hole. The members complained because they occasionally would chip a ball and the heavy, thicker flagstick would keep the ball out - they'd bitch to the high heavens if they hit it all the time putting and it kept the ball out.

But if they thought the flagstick were hurting, they would always have the option to remove it.

4 hours ago, iacas said:

This is what we say at the bottom of the page - the flagstick manufacturers will rush to manufacture flagsticks that lead to "hole more putts with our flagsticks!" That's not the way golf should be.

Manufacturers and Course Superintendents will only go in that direction if that is what golfers want.  So why shouldn't golf be that way, if that's what golfers want? If it goes too far, to where the flagstick is actually meaningfully changing the putting game as you suggest, I think many golfers would actually request more traditional flagsticks.

I'd even be fine with allowing courses to have a local rule which requrires removal of the flagstick on the green, if they think their flagsticks would provide unfair assistance. But I think that it should mainly be up to the local course management to see to it that their course is playing fairly.

And the flagstick seems to me generally an integral part of the course. It doesn't make sense to me for governing bodies to be mandating a penalty for hitting an integral part of the course on some shots, and then not on others. How much the flag helps or hurts isn't determined by whether the stroke is made from on or off the green.

4 hours ago, iacas said:

No, because no course operators in their right minds would use such flagsticks. Heck, the story there is that they didn't even want to use them before this rules change, just the few times they'd chip and hit the pin.

Maybe because golfers getting some assistance on chip shots wasn't seen as a problem? Whether it's a chip or a putt, the shot has to be on target for the flag to matter. This may happen more often on putts. But if that becomes a problem, I think course operators would do their best to find a reasonable balance, so that the flagstick is not unduly influencing play.

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't think anyone's going to do that. Courses are going to keep their current flagsticks or upgrade to the "hole more putts" variety that would surely be produced within the boundaries of the rules/regulations.

But this would only happen if the rules change leads to an insignificant number of compaints from golfers who think that the flagstick is making short putts too easy.

If one type flagstick clearly helps the ball to fall in, an another type clearly hurts, than shouldn't there be a middle ground somewhere where you could have a flagstick for which there is no measurable net benefit between leaving it in or taking it out? I'm not sure why course operators wouldn't gravitate more towards using such flagsticks.

And I think that golfers, courses, and the market might do a better job of finding that middle ground than the regulators.

[mvmac]

3 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

From 6 ft. can't you hit the speed of a putt the equivalent of 10+ ft. past  the hole in the center and it still go in? I feel like the limited space around the "non-center" of the hole is now a more compromised region in that you can deflect off the flagstick and jump out of the hole. 

Without the flagstick, at that speed, you wouldn't have much room for error, have to be pretty darn perfect with it. The flagstick being in makes it a lot easier. Check this out.

https://flagstickrule.com/why-it-is-bad

@iacas just posted this on Twitter, left putt misses, right one goes in.

20 minutes ago, Braivo said:

If the rule is the same for everyone, why does it matter that much?

Because it goes against the spirit and principles of the game. The goal of putting is to roll the ball into a hole, not knock a ball into a hole with a flagstick that acts as a backstop or deflecting object. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

I'm leaning toward the side of rejecting this rule change (flagstick) but I'm curious where the data is that shows putting is 'significantly' easier with the stick in?

Dave Pelz has the data.

I studied it last fall and rolled about 500 balls at the hole from various angles, but didn't document it a ton because it was just me out there with a Perfect Putter, and I wanted to know only that I was telling the truth (I'd had a few challenges in recommending that people leave the flagstick in when hitting shots from off the green - I had no idea that this would be a proposed rule, because it still strikes me as preposterous).

There's never been much need to have more data, because the Pelz study seems definitive, and nobody's had to challenge it… but it's astounding that the USGA and R&A just assumed that there was no advantage.

Particularly since it goes against the one well-known study that's been out there.

3 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

I don't like the "backboard" example. From 6 ft. can't you hit the speed of a putt the equivalent of 10+ ft. past  the hole in the center and it still go in?

If it's a downhill putt, a ball rolling 10 feet past the hole will be going a lot slower than a ball going 10 feet past on an uphill putt.

But no, generally speaking, 10' is too fast. It doesn't allow enough time for the ball to drop 1/2 of 1.68".

You'll see there that a ball rolling only 5' past has to hit the center 0.5" of the cup - only a margin of error of +/- 0.25". A ball rolling 10' past would generally (with evenly cut holes at reasonable green speeds) have too much speed to drop 0.84" even at the widest part of the hole.

3 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

I feel like the limited space around the "non-center" of the hole is now a more compromised region in that you can deflect off the flagstick and jump out of the hole.

I just answered this question in another topic.

Executive summary is thus: on non-center contact, the ball already has less space and time to drop. Basically, for most flagsticks, the ball is deadened proportionally more than the distance the ball is allowed to travel "over" the hole is reduced.

The ball is more likely to go in and, failing that, stay closer to the hole than it otherwise would have.

For example on a ball hit with 5' past speed but hit 0.75 inches off center, the ball will not go in the hole. The previous thread says you can only miss the center by 0.25 inches or the ball won't be holed under most circumstances. The width of the hole 0.75" off center is quite a bit shorter, so the ball will lip out and not go in.

Yet at 0.75" off center, the ball and the hole overlap a fair bit.

Now… the problem here is that most golfers are not going to be able to conceive of the ball lipping out on the left. But at whatever speed you have to picture the ball lipping out (5' past is on level ground and stimp 8), picture that.

It is, I think, pretty obvious that the putt on the right will go in. It will strike a substantial part of the flagstick. It will greatly reduce its speed. It will deflect off at an angle, but again, the effect of the speed scrubbed (and thus the amount of time the ball is over the hole and able to fall) will be greater than the effect of the slightly shorter distance the ball travels (and stays "over" the hole).

This is why you can just bang putts at the hole on the practice green when they have the little sticks in them. You don't even have to hit the center - anywhere where decent ball-stick contact is made. Yes, just like with the ball being off-center, the "allowable" speed is reduced, but it's reduced at a far slower rate.

That's kind of the point… you can be less sensitive to break and speed - you can hit the ball firmer, more "anywhere in the center of the hole" to take out break, and be content that if the ball makes more than slightly glancing contact with the flagstick, that the ball will fall.

2 hours ago, Asheville said:

The only "proof" most of us have is from Pelz. However, we tend to find therein conclusions which confirm our existing views.

I have substantially more proof than that, not to mention understanding the physics behind it.

You're probably accurate that most people only have the Pelz study, and their own experiences, but… it's astounding to me that the USGA and R&A made these statements about "no advantage" without even doing rudimentary tests to confirm or disprove it.

But, they are allowing this comment period, and this is part of how I'm commenting. By starting http://flagstickrule.com/.

2 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

But if you're attempting to take advantage of that, are you that confident in a lag putt that you'll hit the stick?? If not, your ball is going to go sailing by.

This rule isn't about a 35' putt, though even on a 35' putt you can be less careful. The "tap-in" range is going to extend from 2' to maybe 4' or so. Because putting from 3-6' will become so much easier, putting from possible three-putt range becomes quite a bit easier, too.

2 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

Also the 'pegs' (didn't know they were called that lol) on practice greens (at least in my area) are a lot thinner so I think they're a different animal. Maybe yours are regulation size though, just shorter?

Depends. Some are more like thin metal rods, some are wooden like actual flagsticks, some are fiberglass and almost exactly the same.

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

Once players get this, won't they leave it in nearly all of the time?

If the rule passed, I would hope that all golfers would, because to do otherwise is to just punish yourself unnecessarily.

But to not belabor the point too much… that's my SECOND reason. The first thing, and the reason I'm trying to focus on primarily, is that it will change the game by making putting significantly easier.

We play to a hole. We don't play to a deflecting/dampening/etc. contraption. This isn't disc golf, where you can ram a disc in or pitch it in softly, and they all go in because of the chains.

Again, if this rule was actually put into play… you'd instantly see manufacturers touting their flagsticks as "make the most putts with our flagsticks" and courses would play differently based on whether they have the "premium" flagsticks or whether they have ones that are too bouncy or firm or heavy or whatever…

The juice ain't worth the squeeze. I don't think we're delaying play very much taking the flagstick out once. In the groups in which I play, people do it at the right time, and I don't know that we would save a minute over 18 holes… especially if we still just have to wait on the next tee.

Seriously, how much time is saved if the first guy to putt out gets the flag and is ready to put it in the hole as the last guy is pulling his ball out of the cup? Zero seconds. Everyone still has to walk off the green.

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Hypothetically, if the word spread super fast and always leaving the flagstick became the 99% case, how many would still not want the change because it simply makes putting easier?

That's the main reason I'm opposed to this.

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Does is matter that putting becomes easier for everyone? 

Yes.

The USGA/R&A are proposing this rule based on the idea that it doesn't make putting easier. They're wrong. I think if they're made aware of how wrong they are, they won't change the rule.

You can't imagine the USGA/R&A proposing a 5.25" hole these days, could you, for all of golf everywhere? Old records and stats would be a joke. Course ratings would change. The 50% make range might extend to 11 or 12' on the PGA Tour… it'd drastically affect golf.

Same here.

21 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Right. If the rule is the same for everyone, why does it matter that much?

Because it makes putting easier, despite what the USGA/R&A say.

21 minutes ago, Braivo said:

To be honest, I don't love the new rule simply because it would mean a foursome might take longer because some guys want the stick in while putting and others won't. Annoying and could slow play.

Maybe, though those taking the flagstick out would be stupid.

The juice (making the game a TINY bit faster - and I emphasize TINY) ain't worth the squeeze (dramatically changing putting and making it significantly easier).

9 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

Manufacturers and Course Superintendents will only go in that direction if that is what golfers want.  So why shouldn't golf be that way, if that's what golfers want? If it goes too far, to where the flagstick is actually meaningfully changing the putting game as you suggest, I think many golfers would actually request more traditional flagsticks.

I have some oceanfront property in Idaho to sell you!

Golfers are not going to request "difficult to hole putts" flagsticks! They're going to want the flagsticks that make putting as easy as can be!

9 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

And the flagstick seems to me generally an integral part of the course. It doesn't make sense to me for governing bodies to be mandating a penalty for hitting an integral part of the course on some shots, and then not on others. How much the flag helps or hurts isn't determined by whether the stroke is made from on or off the green.

It's not an integral part of the golf course. There's no rule of golf that says a hole must have a flagstick. There's a teeing ground and a hole. That's about it.

Flagsticks are a convenience. They're not integral at all.

Quote

The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.

That says nothing about a flagstick.

9 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

Maybe because golfers getting some assistance on chip shots wasn't seen as a problem?

That's not what they said. They said they don't think it provides assistance. It does.

Again, does anyone here think the USGA and R&A would approve a 5.5" hole? It would also improve the pace of play and make putting easier. So why not?

Same thing here.

5 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

If one type flagstick clearly helps the ball to fall in, an another type clearly hurts, than shouldn't there be a middle ground somewhere where you could have a flagstick for which there is no measurable net benefit between leaving it in or taking it out? I'm not sure why course operators wouldn't gravitate more towards using such flagsticks.

They'd gravitate toward using the flagsticks the customers want, and the customers will want the "hole more putts" flagsticks. This isn't something about which I have any doubt.

4 minutes ago, mvmac said:

@iacas just posted this on Twitter, left putt misses, right one goes in.

Thanks… @mvmac… </sarcasm>.

[jsgolfer]

53 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

 

Well some would.  That's Erik's main point, I think.  Personally, I could go either way.

Ditto.  Could care less one way or the other.  For some it will speed up play (twosomes probably the most), others it will slow down play (foursomes where they take the flag in and out depending on who wants it in and who doesn't) and it will allow a few more putts made.  

How many more putts would be holed that would've been missed, remains to be seen.  A bad putter will still miss the hole more often then a good putter, so I still think the advantage will play out over time for the better putter.  

[RandallT]

4 minutes ago, Braivo said:

why does it matter that much?

The crux for me will be this:

How much better can we putt with the new rule, on average? And how different is the optimum technique going to be (the new rule seems to encourage banging it in there and taking out the break) compared to how we putt today? 

Some good studies could be done on all this, and we can all make better sense of it after that.

I don't have a number necessarily of how many strokes I'd be willing to accept or how little change in technique I'd putt up with, but I'd prefer that there be a minimal difference.

Why a minimal difference? Because the WHOLE POINT of this change was to fix pace of play, and these are SIDE EFFECTS of that effort. The USGA is not setting out to make putting easier or to change the way we putt, but that is a likely impact, and in my mind, those are NOT WORTH it. As I read somewhere on the flagstickrule.com, "the juice isn't worth the squeeze."

I'm a huge fan of fast play, but not at the expense of fundamentally changing putting from close range.

On top of that, I'm far from a purist, but I want to putt to a hole. Not a hole with a pole in it, since that changes the smart play.

[No Mulligans]

3 hours ago, Asheville said:

The only "proof" most of us have is from Pelz. However, we tend to find therein conclusions which confirm our existing views. 

People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. - Blaise Pascal, 1658

That's a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, Pascal.

Show me a study that refutes the Pelz study.  That is how science work.  Pelz is the working theory as far as I'm aware.  Unless you are aware of a better study, are you?  If not then what are you basing your conclusions on?