Modernized Rules Discussion: Areas of the Course

[Pretzel]

Just now, iacas said:

I don't think it will make the game faster. I think the opposite is true, particularly at courses where the flagstick isn't solidly sticking out of the middle of the hole.

It has more to do with the fundamental change to how golf is played, and how much easier it will become to make putts from inside 6', and the ripple effect of every putt outside of that range - if a 6' becomes almost a gimme, you can be even more careless about your putts from outside 10' and more.

 

That's fair, and I fully admitted the potential gain in pace of play would be more than offset by how it would play out in real life. I was just curious as to your rationale behind wanting to avoid making it easier, which you provided with the second sentence there.

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

There aren't a ton of published studies (there's Dave Pelz's, my unpublished stuff from last fall, Mike's video, the video @david_wedzik and I will make as soon as we can, and…), but it won't take many to make the point.

 

I will say that the Dave Pelz study will probably be one of the more useful ones to point out, simply because it lends outside credibility to your argument. I understand data is data, but people tend to listen better when multiple reputable sources are providing the data and information. Dave Pelz is a second highly reputable source that will essentially back up the information provided by you (the first highly reputable source).

[No Mulligans]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

Taking the flagstick out once per hole and putting it back in once per hole is as fast as it can get, except for those rare times when someone could benefit from not walking 80'.

 

Or except for those common situations of playing ready golf and putting before everyone reaches the green.

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

She could have tended the flagstick on her way past.

I've never seen anyone do that.  However, in that situation that would have been slower.  I would have had to wait for her to get to the flagstick.  Instead she was on her way to her ball when I putted.

 

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

Maybe in fairy tale land. In the real world, it's going to slow down play.

Fairy tale land as declared/dismissed by you.  I'm apparently not the only one that thinks there is the potential of saving time, i.e. the USGA.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  Why not try the rule out for a probational period and then evaluate?

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Or except for those common situations of playing ready golf and putting before everyone reaches the green.

I think you're over-stating how often that happens, and under-appreciating how often people will be taking it out and putting it back in.

9 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

In that situation that would have been slower.  I would have had to wait for her to get to the flagstick.  Instead she was on her way to her ball when I putted.

It would not have been much slower.

And it required a situation where you were done reading your putt, had your putter, etc. before she was even on the green. That too is rare.

9 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Fairy tale land as declared/dismissed by you.  I'm apparently not the only one that thinks there is the potential of saving time, i.e. the USGA.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  Why not try the rule out for a probational period and then evaluate?

What makes you think we didn't do that? I ran a few of my kids through some simulations at Myrtle Beach. The only time it was consistently faster was when everyone just agreed to leave the flagstick in for everything. The second fastest: take it out once, put it back once.

Sometimes you can create situations like yours where the new rule would prove beneficial, but those, in my experience, are more than offset by multiple other situations that are more common. Again, what if your wife wanted the flagstick out for her chips, but you wanted it in for your putts? Or vice versa? I can create scenarios, too.

Additionally, you can create simulations to model the real world, and I believe they'd demonstrate that the current rule is actually faster.

The USGA seems to be completely unaware of the changes this would make to putting. They were on record, I believe, as saying "this will never really affect a PGA Tour player because they have a caddie to attend the flagstick." They seem to be completely missing out on the idea that the PGA Tour player will instruct his caddie not to attend the flagstick, even from 4' away.

---

Here's the thing, too… even if it were shown to speed up play (what, a few seconds per hole)… I'd oppose the rules change due to how much easier it would make putting.

[David in FL]

Approaching the pin from different positions on the course, whether on the green or not, result in different advantages or disadvantages.  Is it inequitable that one golfer approaches the hole from 90* across a steep slope when another has a simple putt straight up the fall line?  Of course not, it's part of the game.

To be clear, I agree with you and dislike the proposed new rule.  I hope it doesn't survive.  I just don't find that particular argument compelling and think that it detracts from the otherwise strong points you make.

My .02 worth.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Approaching the pin from different positions on the course, whether on the green or not, result in different advantages or disadvantages.  Is it inequitable that one golfer approaches the hole from 90* across a steep slope when another has a simple putt straight up the fall line?  Of course not, it's part of the game.

You're missing the point that a simple hole is more equitable than different flagsticks, different directions of leaning, etc. I'm not using "equitable" the way the Rules of Golf do, I'm using it the way the English language uses it.

The golf course architect doesn't design a hole to govern which direction a flagstick should lean, or what material the flagstick should be made out of, when designing the course. Those are design elements, and the golfer can and/or should be aware of them. Stretching that to include the inequities involved with different materials, different thicknesses, different leans, etc. is stretching it too far. I get what you're saying, but it's stretched too far to be reasonable, IMO.

If the new flagstick rule was implemented, we'd see manufacturers following the letter of the law (which are surprisingly thin re: the flagstick dimensions, material, etc.) while saying "make more putts with our flagsticks" - they'd "dampen" as much as allowed, or be "sticky" somewhat, or lightly textured perhaps, and they'd be the "ideal" thickness for helping to make putts… etc. It'd be a shit show that fundamentally changes the game from one where we putt into a hole into one where we hit into a trapping/deflecting target.

It'd be more like disc golf. Disc golf putting is too easy. You can whip the disc at the basket, or lob it in. Either way it goes in. There have been calls for years to make putting in disc golf tougher.

2 minutes ago, David in FL said:

To be clear, I agree with you and dislike the proposed new rule.  I hope it doesn't survive.  I just don't find that particular argument compelling and think that it detracts from the otherwise strong points you make.

It's not one of the strongest two points, but I think it deserves merit.

We play to a hole - holes are essentially uniform in golf. The material, lean, thickness, etc. of the flagstick should not have a dramatic effect on play. It would if this rule was instituted.

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

We play to a hole - holes are essentially uniform in golf. The material, lean, thickness, etc. of the flagstick should not have a dramatic effect on play. It would if this rule was instituted.

THIS ^ is my entire objection to the proposed rule.  It completely changes the nature of the game.  It'd be like making the backboard concave in basketball...the goal is no longer to get the ball through a hoop; it's to just kinda hit a certain point and use that to make the ball go in.

I agree that it makes putting easier, but that isn't my objection.  Heck, I'd be more likely to support a rule that enlarged the hole to 5" than one that allows the flagstick to stay in.

I agree that it will not speed up play, either.  But, again, not my objection.

I just don't see any advantage to the new rule...UNLESS they also mandate that the flagstick is a certain size and it is semi-permanently fixed (ie, screwed in or something).  I still disagree, but at least that would make it more palatable.

 

[sjduffers]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Here's the thing, too… even if it were shown to speed up play (what, a few seconds per hole)… I'd oppose the rules change due to how much easier it would make putting.

This is my objection too, and I let the USGA and R&A know in the feedback website they have set up. As a decent putter, I would lose whatever small advantage I have in mastering the putting skill, so would fall further behind...

For the pros, all the records would become meaningless as they could treat a 5-6 footer just like they treat a 3 footer now, with 99% going in. As you said, that affects the rest of putting, particularly lag putting, a lot!

[iacas]

I've started a change.org petition and a website:

• http://flagstickrule.com/
• https://www.change.org/p/usga-revert-to-the-current-rule-when-putting-with-the-flagstick-in-the-hole

I encourage people to check out both. Sign the latter, and share it. Visit and share the former with all of your golfing friends.

[Asheville]

Make your case in half as many words. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Asheville said:

Make your case in half as many words. 

The change.org case is very short.

Here: "Leaving the flagstick in makes putting significantly easier."

[Asheville]

While I don't agree that leaving the flagstick in is such a travesty, you will make your case better by being less wordy.

I've been reading you here for few years and you "talk" too much! That said, I'm a fan and do manage to wade through most of your lengthy posts. 

Three paragraphs. What do you want. Briefly why. Restate what you want. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Asheville

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Asheville said:

While I don't agree that leaving the flagstick in is such a travesty, you will make your case better by being less wordy.

Sorry if you can't understand a concise information. 

7 minutes ago, Asheville said:

Three paragraphs. What do you want. Briefly why. Restate what you want. 

What are you, some grade school English teacher? 

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, Asheville said:

While I don't agree that leaving the flagstick in is such a travesty, you will make your case better by being less wordy.

I've been reading you here for few years and you "talk" too much! That said, I'm a fan and do manage to wade through most of your lengthy posts. 

Three paragraphs. What do you want. Briefly why. Restate what you want. 

Thanks for the advice.

It's pretty damn short.

It's five paragraphs, and the first and last are only one sentence.

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, Asheville said:

While I don't agree that leaving the flagstick in is such a travesty, you will make your case better by being less wordy.

 

It's not really wordy at all. It shows what the USGA says in a quote, then provides a rebuttal. Context is established, and then an argument is made. 

It's not some 100,000 word thesis, it's just a couple of choice quotes and an argument against their points. It honestly took me less than five minutes to read over the "why it's bad" and the "background information" sections on the website.

If you want short content without substance, look to twitter. If you want to see, in a brief format, the locus of the website you can look at the very concise content on the home page. If you want to understand why they're taking their stance against the rule and see the evidence they're basing their argument upon, you're going to need to have a little bit of room to explain and that's why those are separate from the main page that gets the point across in a short and sweet fashion.

[acerimusdux]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

No collision between flagstick and ball will be an elastic one, so as long as the Rules allow a flagstick to be 0.5" or thinner at the level of the green, it will be easier to putt from shorter distances with the flagstick in than out.

But doesn't this also imply that any excessive advantage could be eliminated by simply using thicker flagsticks? Here is one test one Superintendent did with different size (and material) flagsticks:

http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/holen/article/2008jun22.pdf

Quote

After 300 balls were sent through the pipe, the results were in. With the flagstick we were using (three-quarter-inch tapered), 67 percent of the balls fell into the cup. With the half-inch flagstick, 72 percent of the balls fell into the hole.....The biggest shock of all was that with the one-inch flagsticks, no balls fell into the hole. That's right, none. It's hard to imagine there would be such a big difference, especially since the bottom 12 inches of all three flagsticks is exactly the same width (half-inch) and made of fiberglass.

If a thicker flagstick eliminates the advantage of leaving the flagstick in (don't think this test is comprehensive enough to say for sure unless it has been repeated elsewhere), then wouldn't that also eliminate the need to retain a penalty for hitting the stick?

And even if they don't actually regulate the flagstick, I think it's pretty much the job of course designers and superintendents to make sure a course is setup in a way that provides reasonable challenges which reward golfing skill. So I think better courses, if this change were made, might simply gravitate towards using flagsticks which provide no significant advantage when left in on puts, (and would thus eliminate as well the same advantage that is currently already being provided on chips). 

 

 

[Fourputt]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

An email (draft) that I plan to send to a few people at the USGA…

Thoughts?

Maybe mention that one of the principles of the game is that the player must play the ball all the way into the hole without assistance.  Leaving the flagstick in the hole for putting seems to me to assist the player considerably.  I can't help but think that the original prohibition was instituted at least in part because of that factor.

[Asheville]

8 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Sorry if you can't understand a concise information. 

What are you, some grade school English teacher? 

An important part of my job was technical writing. Less is more. 

[iacas]

6 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

But doesn't this also imply that any excessive advantage could be eliminated by simply using thicker flagsticks? Here is one test one Superintendent did with different size (and material) flagsticks:

http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/holen/article/2008jun22.pdf

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.

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.

6 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

If a thicker flagstick eliminates the advantage of leaving the flagstick in (don't think this test is comprehensive enough to say for sure unless it has been repeated elsewhere), then wouldn't that also eliminate the need to retain a penalty for hitting the stick?

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.

6 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

And even if they don't actually regulate the flagstick, I think it's pretty much the job of course designers and superintendents to make sure a course is setup in a way that provides reasonable challenges which reward golfing skill. So I think better courses, if this change were made, might simply gravitate towards using flagsticks which provide no significant advantage when left in on puts, (and would thus eliminate as well the same advantage that is currently already being provided on chips).

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.

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Maybe mention that one of the principles of the game is that the player must play the ball all the way into the hole without assistance.  Leaving the flagstick in the hole for putting seems to me to assist the player considerably.  I can't help but think that the original prohibition was instituted at least in part because of that factor.

Thanks. I'll fit it in if I can and it doesn't make it too "wordy".

18 minutes ago, Asheville said:

An important part of my job was technical writing. Less is more.

@Asheville, you have to write enough to make your point. I disagree that the site is "wordy."

An important part of my job for 20 years as an author (for magazines, for websites, for a book), as editor (ditto), and as a technical editor for others authoring books and articles (I tech edited over 50 computer-related books) has also been to fit stuff into the proper sized space. I feel I've done that with the site, for the large part. Well enough for a first draft anyway.

I can definitely get wordy here on the forum. I don't feel I did there. It's a "microsite" that explains and explores one thing. But it has to explore that one thing. It can't just say "this is a bad proposed rule because we think this is true."