Putting with the Flagstick In

[iacas 7,721]

Here's a thread where we can all speculate and share data and thoughts and discuss "theories" and hypotheses… I've shared parts of this in other topics, but I hope to collect everything here, while simultaneously simplifying my position (maybe? hopefully?).

I'd previously written a post about how you should almost always leave the flagstick in when you're given the opportunity to (without penalty). It, when you're off the green, tends to help you far more often than it hurts. The flagstick typically slows the ball down and lets it fall into the hole or at least stay closer than it otherwise would have.

Then few weeks ago, the USGA and R&A published their proposed rules changes for 2019 (talk about those in the Rules of Golf forum), and one of them was to abolish the two-stroke penalty for striking the flagstick (in the hole) after a stroke from on the putting green. A Dave Pelz study from decades ago backs this up, as does basic physics (collisions lose energy).

This, I immediately felt, had the potential to massively change the game of golf. My experience, the research I've read, and talks with others in the sciences and in golf have virtually convinced me of this. The USGA/R&A seem to be ignoring this, saying only "On balance it is expected that there should be no advantage in being able to putt with the unattended flagstick in the hole:". I think they're wrong.

The rule is proposed among many to speed up play, and while I admire the USGA's/R&A's desire to speed up play, I'm not even sure it will do that - many have said it may slow play in most instances because where we currently take the flagstick out and put it back in once per hole on most holes, we may find situations where different players prefer the flag in or out and change its status when it is their turn to putt.

This topic will not discuss pace of play - just the potential (or real) advantages to be gained. I think these potential advantages will affect two types of putts:

• Short-medium putts from 4-6', with lesser benefits out to about 10' or 12'. These are putts where players are somewhat or quite likely to hit the hole and, thus, the flagstick.
• Long putts from 25+ feet. Currently "tap-ins" are about 2' out, but if the first bullet point becomes an issue, and "tap-in" range extends to 4' or 5', the importance of getting your 30-footer to a foot or two diminishes greatly.

In this topic, I'd like to explore the pros/cons, the physics, the data, the science, the mentality/psychology… and all of that stuff. I'd like to discuss the theory, the hypotheses, etc. behind this "advantage." This topic isn't about pace of play. It's not about whether we play golf into a "hole" and that this violates some sacred idea or something. It's just about the "advantage."

First, some stipulations:

• There are few regulations on flagsticks. Circular in cross-section, not super dampening like foam or something, not strongly tapered… that's about it.
• I'm only suggesting a change from 12" past capture speed to about 3' to 4' past capture speed. Do not take me saying "bash it at the stick" or things like that as suggesting that I think players should hit a 5' putt with enough speed to go 10' past the hole.
• There's some grey area here because greens stimp at different speeds, uphill putts stop closer to the hole than downhill putts traveling the same speed at the hole, etc. Grey areas are unfortunately unavoidable.
• Players all have different psychologies. Some players will be struggle to do things other players can do more easily.

Let's jump right in.

---

Credible arguments for this proposed rule creating an advantage:

1. The flagstick slows the ball by a greater factor than it decreases the time the ball spends suspended over the hole.
2. Unless you have exceptional distance control, effective capture speed can remain about the same.
3. Hitting the ball more firmly allows for a larger margin of error. It also reduces the tendency of a slow-moving putt to "wobble" or be moved off-line due to imperfections.
4. Players, particularly poorer putters, leave a lot of putts from 6' to 15' short. This change would let them be more aggressive.
5. The situations where the flagstick should be removed (it leans too much, it's moving around a lot in the wind) almost never occur.
6. The flagstick offers an aid - it gives the player yet another point or two at which to aim.

Credible arguments against there being any advantage:

1. Three putts from short range may increase. Poor putters miss the hole from short range and will miss a lot of the come-backers.
2. Hitting putts faster eliminates the putts that would fall at the outer "edges" of the hole with slower capture speed. These putts don't touch the flagstick, and lip out with faster speeds, but would fall in the "edge" or "side" with slower speeds.

Let me take a look at the "pro" list above.

---

1. The flagstick slows the ball by a greater factor than it decreases the time the ball spends suspended over the hole.

Simply put, the ball has to fall 0.84" or so to fall into the hole. Gravity is a constant, so this becomes a matter of time - time which the ball is unsupported and able to fall (another grey area: the ball can be "supported" partially along the "side" of the ball, slowing its descent). But back to the idea of time… Time for an object to fall 0.84 inches is about 0.066 seconds.

So what can affect the time it takes? Two things: the speed the ball is traveling (faster = less time), and the route it takes over the hole (going straight across the middle of the hole provides the longest route and the most time to fall) - taking a cord along the edge provides a much shorter route.

Many who think they should take the flagstick out when they are chipping from off the green say "the flagstick takes up room in the hole." It does, and so no ball can take a "long" route through the middle of the hole - it will be deflected. So, the question becomes this: how does the flagstick function to affect the time the ball spends unsupported over the hole?

It's not as simple as subtracting the diameter of the flagstick from the 4.25", because the ball will contact the flagstick with its outer edge. If you imagine a ball that's hit directly at the flagstick, it will only spend about 2.1" unsupported by the ground - 1.035" from the time the center of the ball goes over the front lip until the front side of the ball hits the stick, and another 1.035" on its way back directly the way it came. The first 1" will be much shorter in time because the ball is moving much more quickly.

2.1" of travel does not afford the ball very much time to drop, and yet… we've all seen a ball rocketing at the flagstick, smack into it dead-center, and fall. In testing I've done, I've rolled balls with as much as 20' past capture speed on a flat portion of a green stimping at about 10 and had them repeatedly fall in to the hole. I shouldn't have to tell you… none of the balls rolled at the same speed went into the hole with the flagstick removed.

Thus, the conclusion is simple: the flagstick dampens the speed of the ball by a significantly larger factor than it reduces the distance (and time) that the ball spends in free-fall.

A few working physicists have supported this statement in my talks with them, though none have gone beyond preliminary calculations to quantify this, or to measure how advantage declines as you move away from direct hits, though one added that even a "half-ball hit" (he knew I played pool/billiards) should be pretty close to the same math - the ball traveling farther and thus having more time help to offset the less direct impact.

Grey areas: 1. Flagsticks differ in their composition. I was using a pretty traditional flagstick, but some courses have wooden flagsticks, metal flagsticks, fiberglass, etc. 2. I'm unsure of how long this holds - It's obvious that a ball that overlaps the flagstick by 0.01" will act almost as if there was no flagstick in there, and regular capture speed rules will basically apply.

2. Unless you have exceptional distance control, effective capture speed can remain about the same.

From this thread…

… you'll see that a ball putted only 1' past the hole has only the center 2.6" of the hole. At 2' past, the capture width of the hole shrinks quickly to 1.9". Those look like this:

Now, obviously that ball rolling 1' past isn't even close to hitting the flagstick, but it's still going to drop (in a pure physics standpoint). The ball hit 2' past is going to hit the flagstick if one was there, but even the edge of the ball isn't passing over the center of the hole (the ball is 1.68" in diameter). (These numbers are part physics, part experimental data, and come from Mark Sweeney.)

A ball rolling 3.5' past the hole has an effective capture width of only about 1.2". That looks like this (the flagstick is pictured here simply for continuity):

Losing 1.4" is significant (0.7" on both sides) to 0.8" (0.4" on each side) is fairly significant, and that's why, under the current rules, I've suggested people understand and read the capture speed topic, and to strive to deliver the ball with the speed that takes it only a foot or two past the hole.

The question is now… what's an effective capture width with the flagstick in the hole and the ball rolling at about 3.5' past the hole? Obviously we need the ball to impact the flagstick enough to slow it down, so let's make an educated guess (based largely on the tests I did last fall, and yes, I know, you're going on a little faith here, but @david_wedzik and I will test thoroughly soon, hopefully this Friday).

In my testing, and again I intend to document this fully very soon with Dave, 1.8" provided sufficient flagstick-ball contact to get putts to fall with the flagstick in the hole.

"But we've lost 0.8"!", you'll say. And you're right. But remember, that's if you're able to deliver 1' past capture speed. Add just a little and hit your putt with 2' past capture speed and your 2.6" wide target drops down to 1.9" - basically the same width as the picture above.

Also, that 0.8" you lost is not the same value. Huh? Consider that PGA Tour players make 77% of their five-foot putts. If we place a bell curve over the effective capture width of the hole, it would look something like this:

PGA Tour pros hit the center of the hole more often than they hit the edges of the hole. They don't use whatever size capture width they are given evenly - that's why they make the majority of their putts from 5'. The outer edges - where we're relying on a slowly rolling ball to fall in - don't have the same value as the center of the hole.

Bad putters make only about 50% of their putts from 5'. Their bell curve might look like this:

Note: the center of the hole is still more important, but the edges are relatively more important. Bad putters hit the center of the hole less often and hit the edges or miss completely more often.

If you're still awake at this point, you're correct that 2.6" is wider than 1.8". Even 1.9" is wider than 1.8". If you putt a ball with 3.5' past speed 1.1" off-center, it will miss the flagstick and be traveling too fast to go in. You're correct!

But… here's the important thing…

With the flagstick in, delivering the ball with 2' past speed within the 1.9" zone or 1' past speed within the 2.6" zone, and the ball will still fall. The flagstick is not hampering your ability to do this at all. There's no negative here - the only negative is if you choose to hit the ball with faster than 2' past capture speed… at which point the flagstick begins to help.

At 3' past capture speed, without the flagstick the capture width of the hole shrinks to 1.4". Leaving the flagstick in gains 0.4".

It’s insurance in case you hit the ball a little too firmly. If I had to boil down the “is it an advantage” thing to one thing, there it is.

This is an important point, so I'm going to hammer it again.

If you want to keep putting the way you’re putting now (without the flagstick), do it… but leave the flagstick in, because it will not hurt you if you have good distance control, and WILL help you if you don’t.

There's literally no downside here (assuming one of those two conditions - flagstick leaning a LOT or high wind and a jostling flagstick - aren't met).

Grey areas: 1. Ball speed vs. roll-out distance on different stimps is not linear - a ball rolling at a speed of x on a stimp 8 green and rolling out 2' past is not rolling 8x/12 if it rolls out 2' on a stimp 12 green. This is why a ball can roll out 3' but still fall in the sides of the hole at Augusta National: the ball is rolling slowly. 2. Players aren't robots. They won't control ball speed to 1' exactly. If they could, and people could read greens perfectly, and greens didn't have imperfections, I'd say take the flagstick out for these putts!

3. Hitting the ball more firmly allows for a larger margin of error. It also reduces the tendency of a slow-moving putt to "wobble" or be moved off-line due to imperfections.

Let me address the second part first.

In the last 6-12" of a putt, the ball has a tendency to wobble. It's moving more slowly, and minor imperfections can have a large effect on a ball. That's why, though the ideal capture speed is "dead weight" making the hole its full 4.25" wide, it's impractical because you'd leave too many putts short and the ball behaves unpredictably near the hole. Whether you call it the Dave Pelz "lumpy donut" or just the minor variations in the putting surface due to the fact that grass is not a perfectly flat, smooth surface (nor are golf balls, for that matter)… the ball can divert from its path quite a bit in the last foot of its travel. Hitting the ball more firmly makes the path more consistent and thus more predictable.

Go ahead… roll a ball on a putting green and watch the last foot of its roll. It'll divert relatively easily, and more so on the slower, bumpier greens many average golfers play.

Now, regarding the margin of error… time for more math.

Gravity pulls a ball down the hill. If the hill had 0% slope (i.e. dead flat), it would not pull a ball at all. The acceleration due to gravity would be 0 distance/time^s. If the hill had infinite slope (i.e. was a vertical wall), acceleration would be x distance/time^2 (or 9.8m/s^2 if you want to use those units). Any slope between those two points: 0% and infinite %, will be between 0 and x. More slope = more acceleration downhill (i.e. more break).

Hitting a ball more firmly means that a ball gets to the destination (the hole) in less time. This lower amount of time means that differences in gravity due to a slight mis-read or a slight error in your start line can be reduced.

I'll use some generic units here for distance and time, "d" and "t" because the specific units aren't important. Let's imagine that for a 2% slope, a putt breaks 100d/t^2. A 1% slope will be about 50d/t^2, and a 3% slope about 150d/t^2.

Let's imagine two kinds of putts. One takes 10t (time units) to get to the hole (the one we hit firmly), and the other takes 12t to get to the hole. This chart shows how far the ball will deviate due to acceleration (from physics, the ball will travel d = 1/2*a*t^2). I've left the units off just to make the numbers convenient to use, so we could be talking about micrometers per hour squared (though given the units I chose, mm/sec^2 might be relatively close units).

Putt Time	1% (50)	2% (100)	3% (150)	Delta
10t	2500d	5000d	7500d	+/- 2500d
12t	3600d	7200d	10800d	+/- 3600d

Let's assume the pro reads a putt as 2%. If he plays it firmly, and he's off by 1%, his ball will deviate from the line he read by 2500 distance units (say, 2.5cm). If he's wrong by that same 1%, but hits the ball more softly, and it takes longer to get to the hole… he's going to be off by 3600 distance units (say 3.6cm).

A 120% difference (1.2) in time becomes a 144% (1.44) gap in the line. The firmer putt gives our golfer here a larger margin for error in his read.

In graphic form, putts would look something like this, where the middle line of each is the proper read (this isn't to scale or the top and bottom blue and red lines would actually be a bit farther apart):

If our golfer chooses to hit the ball at 2' past speed (red) or 4' past speed (blue), and 2500d translates to 0.75 inches offline (a make, with the flagstick in, as it is within the 1.8" zone), then his error will send his slower putted ball (red) 1.08" (0.75 * 1.44) offline, which is not within the 1.9" width allowed for a make. He'll miss with the slower putt, and make (comfortably) with the blue putt.

In other words, and simplified… when you putt a little bit firmer, a putt has less time to deviate from the line before it reaches the hole if you misread the putt slightly. The faster putt gives you more margin for error in misreading your putt.

Good players have known this for a long time. That's why PGA Tour pros rap the ball in the back of the hole (even without the flagstick). That's why you hear "I'll just firm it in and take the break out of it." They're not hitting the ball with 6' past speed… they just hit it with 3' past speed or so, to increase the margin of error on their read.

Yes, they're comfortable at hitting their lines to within a small percentage, but as we know already, PGA Tour players make 77% of their putts, and that includes all putts… whether they misread them, hit them too softly or too firmly, etc. So > 77% of the time, they are able to hit their line pretty darn well. Within about half a degree, that number is actually well into the 90% range.

4. Players, particularly poorer putters, leave a lot of putts from 6' to 15' short. This change would let them be more aggressive.

Higher handicap golfers leave a lot of their putts short from 6-15'. Just look at this chart, which pretty much matches what @david_wedzik and I have charted:

On that chart, you'll see that the 90s golfer leaves over 10% of their 8' putts short of the hole, and nearly 30% of their 15' putts have no chance of going in because they don't even reach the hole!

In a chart (there's no real scale here, but you may pretend the vertical line is at 15' or so), these results may look like this, with green representing good golfers, and red representing bad golfers:

If leaving the flagstick in and making the come-back putt easier increases the confidence of the two groups to where they can hit their putts with the pace to go just one foot further, we might see a chart that looked more like this:

As you can see here, this means 10-20% of their putts that previously came up short will now reach the hole and have a chance to go in. Now, not all of that 20% will go in, but if even half did, it would be a HUGE bonus. Hell, if even a quarter of the 20% went in, bananas! Who wouldn't want to make 5% more putts from 15' (where the 90s shooter only makes 20% right now… despite leaving nearly 30% short of the hole).

Ah, but what about an increase in three-putts?

Even without the flagstick, 90s shooters three-putt from 12-15' less than 5% of the time. That number is not going to double by adding one foot of pace to the putts, and even if it did double, it would still only break even if just a quarter of those 20% of putts that now reach the hole fall in. Plus, the flagstick will make the come-back putts easier to make.

This advice, btw, to make sure you get your 6-15' putts to the hole, applies whether the flagstick is in or out, under the proposed rules or the current rules. This is advice you should follow now, and advice which would only be more relevant and important should this proposed rule actually be put into place in 2019.

5. The situations where the flagstick should be removed (it leans too much, it's moving around a lot in the wind) almost never occur.

I debated even leaving this one in here. The first four reasons are pretty strong, IMO. But it's here, and I'll try to be quick about it.

The flagstick impedes a ball going in under two very rare circumstances:

• The flagstick leans toward you so much a ball will not fit between it and the hole. (If it leans toward or away from you a little, it's actually even more advantageous than if the flagstick is straight up and down. So we're only talking about a LOT of lean, and only toward you, in this case.)
• The flagstick is jostling around in the hole because of high winds or something so it could knock your ball away. (Even this one requires perfect "bad" timing - if the flagstick is jostling away from your ball at the time of impact, your chances of holing the putt are increased even more over a steady flagstick left in.)

So, if one was forced to make up some advice about putting with the flagstick in, and they understood ALL of the above five points, they would still conclude that you should leave the flagstick in, even if the advice was not allowed to add the addendum "unless one of these two situations exists."

These two situations almost never occur. The ball is almost always helped by the flagstick being in the hole.

6. The flagstick offers an aid - it gives the player yet another point or two at which to aim.

I've seen advice on shorter putts about aiming at a small blade of grass at the back of the cup, or where you want the ball to enter the cup, or other sorts of things. Jordan Spieth, for a number of years (he may still do it, I don't know) used to look AT the hole when putting short-ish putts…

So, and yes, this is a very small reason or "pro," but that's why it's #6 and only gets three paragraphs: a flagstick can offer another thing at which to aim. It provides visual certainty as to where the middle of the hole is, and players and caddies can say things like "right edge of the stick" or "half a ball outside the stick" or whatever. For straight-ish putts, the flagstick is in the middle of the hole, and obviously offers a nice aiming point.

Never mind that the flagstick shadow can be quite helpful in aiming. There have been a number of times when teaching AimPoint classes or playing by myself that where the flagstick shadow was on the green, on the edge of the hole, etc. was helpful in offering an aim point for my putting.

---

In summary…

Here's the deal…

With the flag out, at 1' past, the capture width of a hole is 2.6". At 2' past, it's 1.9". At 3', it's 1.4", and at 4' it's 0.9".
With the flag in, at 1' past, the capture width of a hole is 2.6". At 2' past, it's 1.9". At 3', it's 1.85", and at 4' it's 1.8". At 5', it's 1.7".

For good putters, who can reasonably control their start lines to +/- about 0.9" at the hole, adding a little pace to their short-ish putts can remove some wobble, provide more margin for error on their reads, and allow them to make more putts. The flagstick offers a significant advantage.

For poor putters… even if you just keep putting the same way you are now (except please take our advice on not leaving so many makeable putts short - hit them just a little harder), leaving the flagstick in can not hurt you, and on the putts you "goose" a little, can only really help you. Maybe you're confident from 4' at hitting the flagstick, but not from 6'. Or from 3' but not even 5'. Either way, it can't hurt you, and can only help you… just not as much as it can help a good putter.

The "cons" above assume everyone's going to be smacking the ball at the hole so it runs out several feet farther than it does now. The cons above can be completely eliminated if everyone just putts as they do now, and recognizes situations where hitting the ball a bit firmer and using the flagstick is advantageous.

There's no downside here. Not if you're smart enough to take the flagstick out (or re-center it in the hole) when it's leaning 30° toward you…

And that is why I'm opposed to this rule. It's only really an advantage. The USGA and R&A are wrong that it will offer no advantage, and in fact, I would imagine that it will offer the biggest advantage to the better players. Despite the fact that, say, they make 77% of their five-footers while the 90s golfer makes 50%, and thus have a smaller range to improve (23% versus 50%), I still imagine, if this rule passed and was instituted, that we might see that 77% go up by a larger percentage than we see the 50% increase.

In truly closing, look, this post was composed over three days, and multiple hours, and many, many stops and starts. I retain the right to fix any errors, tweak my conclusion, and otherwise to edit. For anything that affects the actual points and isn't just grammatical or spelling in nature, I'll note it publicly in this topic discussion. I encourage everyone to read this over, and to consider what I've said, and to discuss. I think this is important, and I think the USGA/R&A are risking seriously altering the game if this proposed rule sticks. I'm fighting this fight because I care about golf, and I do not think that we should be playing into anything but a hole, ultimately, for the shots that are more likely to go in - putts from on the green.

I'd support a rule that let you keep the flagstick in the hole for putts outside of a certain distance, like 20', because for those I could perhaps be swayed by pace of play arguments… but I don't think such a rule will exist because then we'd have to be able to measure 20' or 7 yards or some distance pretty accurately (and often quickly).

[cutchemist42 38]

Just an amazing post, great info, well done.

Personally, Im bad at putting (GG and other stat tracking I do proves this). I keep the flagstick in at all legal times because of what I read in LSW. Even when I play solo though, I would actually take the flagstick out. I think this is an advantage and for selfish reasons, I like the rule if it helps me just a bit more.

 

As Im fairly new to the sport of golf (2 seasons), Im used to other sports I play changing rapidly and I guess part of me overall accepts it easier than some who have played golf longer. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by cutchemist42

[No Mulligans 293]

7 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

Just an amazing post, great info, well done.

Personally, Im bad at putting (GG and other stat tracking I do proves this). I keep the flagstick in at all legal times because of what I read in LSW. Even when I play solo though, I would actually take the flagstick out. I think this is an advantage and for selfish reasons, I like the rule if it helps me just a bit more.

 

As Im fairly new to the sport of golf (2 seasons), Im used to other sports I play changing rapidly and I guess part of me overall accepts it easier than some who have played golf longer. 

I think it is likely to help the better putters than the average or poor putters.  Would you like the rule if it gave the better players more of an advantage than it gives you?

[cutchemist42 38]

Just now, No Mulligans said:

I think it is likely to help the better putters than the average or poor putters.  Would you like the rule if it gave the better players more of an advantage than it gives you?

I might not based on how I handle something similar in another sport.

I've gone through big changes in another sport; as a goalie in hockey, I played through the goalie gear reduction which resulted in me having to buy new equipment to stay legal in competitive hockey. At the time, I was more pissed about the price than the actual reduction. I still play beer league where both sets of equipment are allowed and I still see guys playing the old size. I've never had one angry thought about the difference, even if the goalie is better than me on skill alone while wearing bigger equipment. (Although, there could be an argument that modern goalie equipment is lighter and has better benefits than the extra size of heavier older equipment. Materials as well on modern pads allow for better sliding)

[Fourputt 1,040]

Wow!  If I needed convincing, I'd be a convert just from reading the mass of data in the first post.  

However, I've been a believer for almost 3 decades.  My second hole-in-one showed me the advantage of flagstick in.  In May of 1990 I skulled a 6I off the tee, ricocheted it off a grass and hardpan bank left of the green, and somehow as it careened across the putting surface at something like 30 mph, it hit the flagstick dead center and dropped straight down for a one.  Since that day I only remove the flagstick for a chip or pitch if I'm playing into the wind pushing the stick toward me and I can't get it to stand straight up in the hole.

I certainly can't enumerate the times that the ball has hit the flagstick on a chip and fallen in the hole, but I can definitively state that I have hit it quite often with too much speed and had it either hole out or just a kick a few inches away.  I tend to play chips firmly with good pace, basing my play on the guaranteed theory that a ball left short of the hole will almost never fall.  When I hole out a chip, it has almost always hit the flagstick before disappearing.

Another thing that hasn't been part of the discussion as far as I've seen yet is that more than a couple of times I've had a ball hit the hole with excess speed, but hit off center and get "pinched" between the stick and side of the hole.  Just straighten the flagstick and they drop to be legally holed.   Without the flagstick in the hole, those balls would have been almost certain to lip out.

[iacas 7,721]

1 minute ago, Fourputt said:

However, I've been a believer for almost 3 decades.  My second hole-in-one showed me the advantage of flagstick in.  In May of 1990 I skulled a 6I off the tee, ricocheted it off a grass and hardpan bank left of the green, and somehow as it careened across the putting surface at something like 30 mph, it hit the flagstick dead center and dropped straight down for a one.  Since that day I only remove the flagstick for a chip or pitch if I'm playing into the wind pushing the stick toward me and I can't get it to stand straight up in the hole.

To be clear, and fair, I'm not proposing that people smack the flagstick really hard, because misses would be VERY penal as they'd roll out to three-putt distance.

I'm just saying:

• Better golfers will probably benefit more, IMO, from this because they can hit a line of +/-0.9" more regularly.
• Everyone will benefit somewhat, even if it's from short distances, due to the basic physics, and the fact that even if you play a putt slowly the flagstick doesn't take away anything.

1 minute ago, Fourputt said:

Another thing that hasn't been part of the discussion as far as I've seen yet is that more than a couple of times I've had a ball hit the hole with excess speed, but hit off center and get "pinched" between the stick and side of the hole.  Just straighten the flagstick and they drop to be legally holed.   Without the flagstick in the hole, those balls would have been almost certain to lip out.

Same principle at work, yeah.

[boogielicious 1,965]

Nice article. I can think of a few situations where having the flagstick in would give me more confidence. One would be side hill putts from 3 - 5' on a steeper slope. Without the flag stick, I tend to want the ball to die in the hole. Miss low and the ball rolls away. Miss high and you have the chance of it dropping in and out of the hole and slingshotting away. With the flag in, I would feel more confident on the high side because the ball could hit the stick as it was rounding and drop it. If I'm more on line, it hits and drops. So I would not putt with the speed of dying in the hole.

Up and down hill putts would also give me more confidence with the flag in. Uphill, I would be more aggressive knowing that my chancing increase. Downhill, if I'm too fast, the flag stick will reduce the distance the ball rolls out on a miss by dampening.

Lastly, I know stats. If my odds are better with the flagstick in, I will gain confidence.

[RandallT 829]

23 hours ago, iacas said:

Here's a thread where we can all speculate and share data and thoughts and discuss "theories" and hypotheses…

1. I wanted to speculate on what type of study would settle this issue? 

2. And if a proper study is done, what type of change in putting results would be "too significant" for people to accept?

Just waive this off, if these questions are OT. You discussed things so thoroughly, that there's not much I could possibly add, other than to say it all makes sense to me.

How Account for "Time to Improve" in the Study?

My thought is that, as mentioned, there is a psychological element to it. Some golfers may be able to capitalize on this immediately, some more slowly (but improve substantially), and some may not improve at all. Also, as mentioned, there is ZERO logical reason that anyone would play worse.

The key, to me, will be how long does it take your average golfer to adapt and take full advantage of this new putting paradigm. If it takes a month or so to fully adapt (perhaps another bell curve for how long each of us take?!), will a thorough study allow that time for players to adapt and therefore show the final result of the change? 

Anyway, I'm just speculating as to how satisfied I'll be in any future official USGA/R&A tests that are performed:

The people testing how significant this change will be for scoring (and therefore, preserving the skill of putting to much the same as it is now) can skew the results toward the "minimal impact" result-- if they keep don't put much critical thinking into how this skill might be developed in players over time. 

How Much and What Kind of Scoring Improvement is Too Much?

Even if the test is designed perfectly, such that we know the final impact after all technique adaptations are made, what is the best frame of mind for us to still consider the change?

None of us are objecting to change for change's sake. But at some point, too much change in the putting results is simply too much- or does that not matter to many? As we know, this is the result (generally) of PGA players in recent seasons:

What if the 1.5 number moves out to 10ft? 12ft? 

What if at 4ft, pros become 1.04, as they are now at 3ft?

And what if the results show that better golfers tend to be the far more likely to capitalize on this new technique- extending themselves that much better than the average golfer? Perhaps bogey golfers can't take advantage whatsoever- does that matter?

I'm certainly interested to see how the numbers shake out, in raw numbers and in who benefits- but I'm trying to figure out for myself how much is too much.

My gut tells me that if putting improves by 1 stroke or more per round, that seems to me like too much. 

 

 

[iacas 7,721]

30 minutes ago, RandallT said:

1. I wanted to speculate on what type of study would settle this issue? 

2. And if a proper study is done, what type of change in putting results would be "too significant" for people to accept?

Just waive this off, if these questions are OT. You discussed things so thoroughly, that there's not much I could possibly add, other than to say it all makes sense to me.

At this point, I honestly don't know that it matters much. Dave and I are still going to conduct the study tomorrow, but I don't think the study is even necessary at this point.

The flagstick in will, absent those two conditions, help. If you want to die the ball in the hole and have a wider capture width, nothing changes and you're welcome to keep doing that. But even if you are that kind of "die it in the hole" type putter, and you occasionally goose one from short range, or want the option to play it firmer to take the break or uncertainty out of it, the flagstick helps.

If you're the type who already hits your putts 3-5' past the hole… the flagstick almost always helps.

There's no downside, absent those two conditions, to leaving the flagstick in.

So again, I'm not sure any study is even necessary, because people don't have to change the way they putt and we'd still see an advantage.

30 minutes ago, RandallT said:

How Account for "Time to Improve" in the Study?

My thought is that, as mentioned, there is a psychological element to it. Some golfers may be able to capitalize on this immediately, some more slowly (but improve substantially), and some may not improve at all. Also, as mentioned, there is ZERO logical reason that anyone would play worse.

The key, to me, will be how long does it take your average golfer to adapt and take full advantage of this new putting paradigm. If it takes a month or so to fully adapt (perhaps another bell curve for how long each of us take?!), will a thorough study allow that time for players to adapt and therefore show the final result of the change?

Anyway, I'm just speculating as to how satisfied I'll be in any future official USGA/R&A tests that are performed:

The people testing how significant this change will be for scoring (and therefore, preserving the skill of putting to much the same as it is now) can skew the results toward the "minimal impact" result-- if they keep don't put much critical thinking into how this skill might be developed in players over time.

I agree. That's one of the reasons I kind of already figured that I wouldn't be giving much weight to the "challenge" we're doing here - it gives people only a minute or two to adjust.

That adjustment isn't easy, even for good putters (though good putters, in my experience, can learn to take advantage in a matter of an hour, give or take).

Remember, nobody needs to putt any differently… but better players will be better positioned to take advantage, and to do so more readily. For example, if the rules were changed to say that just hitting the flagstick counted as holing the putt, a great putter would almost never miss from 5' or 6', and may make maybe 80% of his 10' putts, because he'd pretty quickly adapt to hitting the ball 6' past the hole with an aim that the middle 2.1"+ of the hole (1.68+0.5 = 2.18).

30 minutes ago, RandallT said:

How Much and What Kind of Scoring Improvement is Too Much?

Even if the test is designed perfectly, such that we know the final impact after all technique adaptations are made, what is the best frame of mind for us to still consider the change?

None of us are objecting to change for change's sake. But at some point, too much change in the putting results is simply too much- or does that not matter to many? As we know, this is the result (generally) of PGA players in recent seasons:

What if the 1.5 number moves out to 10ft? 12ft?

Even a few percent is too high, because that percent will ripple through almost every shot. Longer putts become easier because the likelihood of missing the second putt decreases. And so on.

I've said that I think 77% from 5' could go up to 85% pretty easily, and that's what I call a significant change in the putting stats.

And the USGA/R&A are on record as saying there's NO advantage. I think it's pretty clear that they're wrong and so I'm hopeful that if any advantage is demonstrated (which I feel I've already done), that should be enough.

30 minutes ago, RandallT said:

What if the 1.5 number moves out to 10ft? 12ft? 

What if at 4ft, pros become 1.04, as they are now at 3ft?

Those would be huge changes. HUGE.

30 minutes ago, RandallT said:

And what if the results show that better golfers tend to be the far more likely to capitalize on this new technique- extending themselves that much better than the average golfer? Perhaps bogey golfers can't take advantage whatsoever- does that matter?

I think that, too, matters quite a bit.

30 minutes ago, RandallT said:

I'm certainly interested to see how the numbers shake out, in raw numbers and in who benefits- but I'm trying to figure out for myself how much is too much.

My gut tells me that if putting improves by 1 stroke or more per round, that seems to me like too much.

That's way, way too much IMO. Again, the USGA/R&A have said they "think" it's no advantage.

I think a quarter stroke per round is too much, particularly if it's closer to 0.4 for the lower handicap player and 0.1 for the higher handicapper. (I think it may be higher than that… I'm just saying, even 0.25 average improvement is too much or my tastes.)

If #100 in scoring on the PGA Tour in 2016 (Harold Varner III) shaved 0.25 strokes… he'd move up to 65th. One stroke over four rounds… 35 places in the scoring list.

[boogielicious 1,965]

I told my 22 year old son about the proposed rule change and asked what he thought. He said, "I'd use the flagstick as a backstop!"

[Hardspoon 529]

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 2:19 PM, iacas said:

And the USGA/R&A are on record as saying there's NO advantage. I think it's pretty clear that they're wrong and so I'm hopeful that if any advantage is demonstrated (which I feel I've already done), that should be enough.

I don't have much to add in this thread, since @iacas covered it so thoroughly, but THIS ^^^ is what bothered me so much.  They're either being dishonest or ignorant, and I'm not sure which is worse.

[Asheville 144]

2 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

I don't have much to add in this thread, since @iacas covered it so thoroughly, but THIS ^^^ is what bothered me so much.  They're either being dishonest or ignorant, and I'm not sure which is worse.

In fact, here's what the USGA has to say on the topic:

Explanation for Proposed Rule Change
3. Ball Played from the Putting Green Hits Unattended Flagstick in Hole
Current Rule: Under Rule 17-3, if a player makes a stroke on the putting green and the ball
then hits the unattended flagstick that was left in the hole, the player gets the general penalty.
Proposed Rule: Under new Rule 13.2b(3):
 There would no longer be a penalty if a ball played from the putting green hits an
unattended flagstick in the hole.
 Players would not be required to putt with the unattended flagstick in the hole; rather,
they would continue to have the choice to remove the flagstick before playing or to
have it attended.
Reasons for Change:
 Allowing a player to putt with the flagstick in the hole without fear of penalty should
generally help speed up play:
o For example, if a putt is long enough that the player cannot easily see the hole
unless the flagstick is left in, the player currently needs to wait for another person to
attend the flagstick even if it is the player’s turn to play or (in stroke play) if the
player is ready to play and it would save time to go ahead and do so.
o This change could also speed up play of some short tap-ins, as the player could
simply putt the ball into the hole without first removing and then replacing the
flagstick.
 When the players do not have caddies, the current Rule can result in considerable delay, such as:
o When the opponent (or the other player in stroke play) is raking a greenside bunker
and will be delayed for a minute or two before coming on to the green.
o When other players in stroke play are delayed in coming on to the green for other
reasons, such as a ball search, indecision about what club to use or shot to play, etc.
o When all players in the group have long putts and so will need to walk back and
forth to the hole to attend the flagstick for one another (which sometimes produces
uncertainty about who will or should attend for someone else).
 In match play, a player without a caddie would now be able to choose to putt with the
unattended flagstick in the hole rather than ask the opponent to attend the flagstick,
reducing the potential for dispute that can arise when the opponent attends for the
player (such as when the opponent fails to remove the flagstick and the ball hits it).
 On balance it is expected that there should be no advantage in being able to putt with
the unattended flagstick in the hole:
o In some cases the ball may strike the flagstick and bounce out of the hole when it
might otherwise have been holed, and
o In other cases the ball may hit the flagstick and finish in the hole when it might
otherwise have missed. 

--------

To suggest that they are ignorant or dishonest, is disingenuous on your part.

[iacas 7,721]

10 minutes ago, Asheville said:

o In some cases the ball may strike the flagstick and bounce out of the hole when it
might otherwise have been holed, and

They don't know. This seems to be a complete guess on their part. I've never found this to be true except in the two rare cases I've noted several times.

10 minutes ago, Asheville said:

o In other cases the ball may hit the flagstick and finish in the hole when it might
otherwise have missed.

In my testing this is true occasionally, and more often than the roughly 0% of the time a flagstick keeps a ball out that would have gone in.

So on balance, the flagstick provides an advantage.

What testing has the USGA/R&A done? Because if they've not, it's short-sighted of them consider this could fairly drastically change the way we play the game.

10 minutes ago, Asheville said:

To suggest that they are ignorant or dishonest, is disingenuous on your part.

It isn't. They've not conducted a study to determine whether this will affect the scores golfers shoot. They seem to assume that when players have the time and can see the hole, they'll take the flagstick out. They don't seem to give any consideration - and seemingly have not studied - the advantage provided by leaving the flagstick in for ALL putts.

Also, right now, the rules for the flagstick (composition, diameter, etc.) are pretty minimal because it rarely comes into play. Adopt this proposed rule and the flagstick may come into play 18+ times a round per golfer.

P.S. I think @Hardspoon has read the bit you quoted.

[Hardspoon 529]

@Asheville, I read the USGA piece you quoted above.

I have no issue with the "pace of play" piece...I'm not sure it would help, but I'm not sure it would hurt, either.

While I wasn't clear, I'm glad you posted this, because it's specifically the text you put in red that I was referring to when I made my "ignorant or dishonest" statement:

Quote

On balance it is expected that there should be no advantage in being able to putt with
the unattended flagstick in the hole:

• In some cases the ball may strike the flagstick and bounce out of the hole when it might otherwise have been holed, and
• In other cases the ball may hit the flagstick and finish in the hole when it might otherwise have missed.

 

I mean...anyone who has played golf for a significant amount of time just knows, instinctively, that those two situations are not even close to occurring at the same frequency.  I can't remember a single time in the hundreds of rounds of golf I've played where a ball hit the flagstick and bounced out, when it might have gone in; if it's going fast enough to bounce off the flagstick, it's not staying in the hole.  But I can think of dozens where the second case was true; hell, that probably applies to 75% of the times I've holed out from off the green (including my hole-in-one, and yeah, I'm going to use any excuse to mention that, @iacas  )

That statement in red, to me, has to be either ignorant (they never bothered to think about the fact that two situations occurring with drastically different frequencies don't cancel each other out), or dishonest (they wanted the flagstick rule to improve pace of play, so they made a dodgy argument).

Here's a fun one...

We're going to pass a law that headlights will be removed from all cars.  On balance it is expected that there should be no disadvantage in driving without headlights at night:

• In some cases the glare from headlights blinds the driver of an oncoming car, causing accidents
• In other cases headlights allow you to see other things at night, preventing accidents

Edited March 26, 2017 by Hardspoon

[Jack Watson 114]

It's  pretty personal but I have gained the nickname the nestler for my tendency to die putts right around the hole.  I take the view that the hole is effectively widened if the ball is moving slowly.  A fast mover will lip out a slower ball falls in.

im definitely not aa great putter but I tend to avoid three putts pretty well considering my lack of practice.

I have had a lot off putts a touch high side that have almost frozen there for a second and then dropped.

For myself I don't like facing 4-5 feet coming back.  I see many pros really take out the break and bang em in there to keep them on line but can't do it.  I've always putted this way can't change now.

one thing on the stick in is it might aid alignment.  I am not sure but I have felt when playing a quick round by myself sometimes that it's easier to see a line with the stick in.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Jack Watson

[Buckeyebowman 406]

After reading the OP I feel like I've just taken an advanced course in Physics! I'll address just a few issues from the vantage point of an amateur hacker.

Whenever possible I like to putt looking at the entire hole. It actually seems larger than when the flagstick is in it.

Point 4. This rule would allow players, particularly poorer putters, to be more aggressive in their stroke. Uhhhhhhh, I don't know about that! I've not seen too many poorer players who were, in any way, the least bit bold in their putting! They are timid when putting because they are not confident of hitting the ball on the proper line at the proper speed. I don't think putting the flagstick in the hole is going to change that. Is this psychological? Yes, indeed! I think one's putting "style" is ingrained early on. True, new behaviors can be learned, but how many "poorer players" have putting coaches?

Point 6. The flagstick in the hole provides an additional aiming point. Well, the pros have that available to them all the time. They have caddies! We do not!

FWIW, I'm for having pros and better amateurs putting to empty holes or tended flagsticks which can be pulled so that the flagstick does NOT get in the way. For us regular chops? I say anything goes! Of course, this brings to mind the "two separate sets of rules" deal, and I must admit that I am conflicted.

 

[iacas 7,721]

10 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Point 4. This rule would allow players, particularly poorer putters, to be more aggressive in their stroke. Uhhhhhhh, I don't know about that! I've not seen too many poorer players who were, in any way, the least bit bold in their putting!

Read the stats. Higher handicappers leave a ton of putts from 6-15' short.

As noted above, though, they should take this advice (to get the ball to the hole) regardless of whether this proposed rule is adopted or not.

9 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Point 6. The flagstick in the hole provides an additional aiming point. Well, the pros have that available to them all the time. They have caddies! We do not!

What's the caddie have to do with anything?

[Buckeyebowman 406]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

Read the stats. Higher handicappers leave a ton of putts from 6-15' short.

As noted above, though, they should take this advice (to get the ball to the hole) regardless of whether this proposed rule is adopted or not.

What's the caddie have to do with anything?

Way to reinforce my points!

Yes, higher handicappers leave a ton of putts short. So what will change if you leave the flagstick in? Are they all suddenly going to become Braveheart?

And yes, again! Never up, never in!

And the caddie has to do with the fact that he tends the pin! He can keep it in the hole providing an "aiming point" for his player, and pull it when the ball gets close.