Watching The Pros Putt With the Pin In…

[Righty to Lefty]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

We addressed this already, and Edoardo's test is the only one whose results are different, and there's enough statistical evidence on the other side to ask what's different about his test first, rather than concluding that his is right and exposes some giant flaw in the others.

A big part of that flaw is the speeds and limits of his testing. At his fastest speed, he was still able to make 81% of the putts at the center of the cup, so that limited the gains there to 19% when they could have been upwards of 70, 80, 90% even.

To make 38% 1" off center ("grazing the flagstick") at their medium speed, it was still pretty low speed.

So Edoardo's test, conducted from far enough from the hole that I have doubts about their entry point accuracy (and if they did 100 putts from each, in which order did they do them? Did they move to fresh holes? They appear to have used the same hole from the same place all day, rather than at least using different edges of the hole, or different holes), only really tested lower speed putts, when even at 6' by speed 1/2" off the center of the hole, almost no putts went in without the flagstick in.

Edoardo basically confirms this when he says to Mark Crossfield: "In is better only for very high speeds, so if you hit a putt that goes four or five feet by". He's defining "very high speed" as "four or five feet by." He also talked about how "especially when the flagstick isn't straight in," implying that his flagstick was leaning throughout his testing (implying, not confirming).

And, as we know, PGA Tour players don't all have great speed on all their putts, and hit a fair number of them over 4' by the hole. Amateurs even less so.

---

You're eager to accept his results and exclude the others because you're biased. You want to "prove us wrong" about something here.

What you don't seem to understand is that, as a scientist, I'm not biased. I go where the data leads me, and right now the data says "leave it in when you're not sure you will be within 3' of the hole". I don't even care about the 9' by results from, say, MyGolfSpy or Dave Pelz, as that's getting ridiculous.

I am not eager to do anything...I was watching the course vlog...heard him talk about his findings...went and looked...and posted his findings. What would you rather I had done?  As a scientist you should welcome his information and then take a look at it as you did and I fully expected. It is a "one off" experiment anyway and time will tell once enough time has passed and the stats have been collected.  

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I am not eager to do anything...I was watching the course vlog...heard him talk about his findings...went and looked...and posted his findings. What would you rather I had done?  As a scientist you should welcome his information and then take a look at it as you did and I fully expected. It is a "one off" experiment anyway and time will tell once enough time has passed and the stats have been collected.  

We did "welcome" his experiment and discussed it fully when it was released. It's also why when I watched the match yesterday I noted that "very high speed" to Edoardo was 4-5' by the hole.

If I wanted to, I'd talk with Edoardo about it, as he's working with us at LSW.

[Vinsk]

44 minutes ago, iacas said:

Edoardo's test is the only one whose results are different, and there's enough statistical evidence on the other side to ask what's different about his test first, rather than concluding that his is right and exposes some giant flaw in the others.

And that’s the scientific way to approach this experiment. Based on his lack of details it’s more of an anecdotal experiment and really not a factor.

[NM Golf]

Thanks Edoardo! The dolts I play with on a weekly basis will undoubtedly find that one contradictory experiment and it will be near impossible to get them to leave the pin in. I will forever be replacing the pin after they putt. Well, at least I will have that little bit of an advantage over them.

[Vinsk]

2 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

Thanks Edoardo! The dolts I play with on a weekly basis will undoubtedly find that one contradictory experiment and it will be near impossible to get them to leave the pin in. I will forever be replacing the pin after they putt. Well, at least I will have that little bit of an advantage over them.

It’ll become another concept that the flat earthers will never get. Hell even Michael Breed was talking this morning about wanting to do his own research and not just go by what ‘others have said.’ Of course he’s ignoring the fact that there is scientific rational behind the advantages. It’s not just a ‘well in my experiences I’ve seen...’ So here it begins.

[Missouri Swede]

Kinda too bad these discussions and videos weren't being made/publicized a year to year-and-a-half ago (other than on TST and affiliates), while it was still a proposal.  Or even right after they finalized the revised rules last March.   Seems like some folks weren't paying any attention.

[NM Golf]

47 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

It’ll become another concept that the flat earthers will never get. Hell even Michael Breed was talking this morning about wanting to do his own research and not just go by what ‘others have said.’ Of course he’s ignoring the fact that there is scientific rational behind the advantages. It’s not just a ‘well in my experiences I’ve seen...’ So here it begins.

It's bad around my course. Last fall I literally had a guy at the bar begin screaming at me because I said that long game was more important than short game. People are BLIND and so contrary when it comes to change. Sorry 

[turtleback]

4 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I just put the information out there that I came across and of course we can all do with it what we wish.  His description in the course vlog would lead me to believe that they were gathering some valid results upon listening him explain it.  It would then be difficult to properly explain it in a quick instagram video I would think.  

Good demonstration of how scientifically illiterate we have become if anyone considers this as even somewhat scientific.

Edited January 30, 2019 by turtleback

[Golfingdad]

On 1/28/2019 at 5:23 AM, iacas said:

"More likely" isn't 100%, and you seem to be giving no weight to the idea that the flagstick helps people align or changes their perception in a positive way, like Adam Scott demonstrated this weekend at Torrey Pines.

 

On 1/28/2019 at 6:17 AM, saevel25 said:

At the PGA Tour level, 1 stroke is huge.

I have no angle here - but I did see Scott miss a 16-18" putt on Sunday with the flag in.  (hole 5 I think??)

On 1/28/2019 at 5:23 AM, iacas said:

Would you care to revise your statements?

I like this ... reminds me of the beginning of The Fugitive. 😉

 

 

[klineka]

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I have no angle here - but I did see Scott miss a 16-18" putt on Sunday with the flag in.  (hole 5 I think??)

I watched the putt. It's not like it hit the flagstick and bounced out or something.

Putts like that are the reason why the make % is 99% and not 100% on 2 foot putts and average number of putts is 1.01 

[Golfingdad]

57 minutes ago, klineka said:

I watched the putt. It's not like it hit the flagstick and bounced out or something.

Putts like that are the reason why the make % is 99% and not 100% on 2 foot putts and average number of putts is 1.01 

Yeah it’s a one off and the stick probably has nothing to do with it either way, but I was just referencing Erik’s comment that pointed out the stick maybe helped him aim. On that putt it obviously didn’t.  :)

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

It’ll become another concept that the flat earthers will never get. Hell even Michael Breed was talking this morning about wanting to do his own research and not just go by what ‘others have said.’ Of course he’s ignoring the fact that there is scientific rational behind the advantages. It’s not just a ‘well in my experiences I’ve seen...’ So here it begins.

I think more studies and more information around this are good. If Breed wants to do his own, he should.

2 hours ago, Missouri Swede said:

Kinda too bad these discussions and videos weren't being made/publicized a year to year-and-a-half ago (other than on TST and affiliates), while it was still a proposal.  Or even right after they finalized the revised rules last March.   Seems like some folks weren't paying any attention.

The USGA/R&A didn't want to hear it. I did my study last summer, and wrote to several people at the USGA. They didn't care.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

I have no angle here - but I did see Scott miss a 16-18" putt on Sunday with the flag in.  (hole 5 I think??)

It didn't touch the stick.

7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Yeah it’s a one off and the stick probably has nothing to do with it either way, but I was just referencing Erik’s comment that pointed out the stick maybe helped him aim. On that putt it obviously didn’t.  🙂

You don't know that. 🙂 Maybe he misses the hole entirely without the stick in. 😄

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I think more studies and more information around this are good. If Breed wants to do his own, he should.

Accurate information yes. As we all know there are still many false beliefs out there and I just don’t want to see more inaccurate tests done to stir the nonsense.

[Missouri Swede]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

The USGA/R&A didn't want to hear it. I did my study last summer, and wrote to several people at the USGA. They didn't care

My point is that you were one of the few people of influence discussing it and actually doing anything about it then, when it mattered.  Even if the powers that be didn't want to listen (then), you spoke.

It's only now (after implementation) that others seem to be talking about it.  Even if the USGA/R&A don't want to listen now, there's more discussion, a day late and a dollar short.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, Missouri Swede said:

My point is that you were one of the few people of influence discussing it and actually doing anything about it then, when it mattered.  Even if the powers that be didn't want to listen (then), you spoke.

It's only now (after implementation) that others seem to be talking about it.  Even if the USGA/R&A don't want to listen now, there's more discussion, a day late and a dollar short.

I think it’s funny they ramble on about distance and dialing back the ball then say, ‘oh what the hell...let’s have ‘em keep the flagstick in.’

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Missouri Swede said:

My point is that you were one of the few people of influence discussing it and actually doing anything about it then, when it mattered.  Even if the powers that be didn't want to listen (then), you spoke.

It's only now (after implementation) that others seem to be talking about it.  Even if the USGA/R&A don't want to listen now, there's more discussion, a day late and a dollar short.

Honestly, it was weird how few people cared about the 2019 Rules until 2019 was actually literally here. People didn't even really seem to care about them in December!

34 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I think it’s funny they ramble on about distance and dialing back the ball then say, ‘oh what the hell...let’s have ‘em keep the flagstick in.’

Yeah, no kidding.

[Double Mocha Man]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

Honestly, it was weird how few people cared about the 2019 Rules until 2019 was actually literally here. People didn't even really seem to care about them in December!

Yeah, no kidding.

Sheesh... I know some people who were doing flagstick tests last summer!  

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Honestly, it was weird how few people cared about the 2019 Rules until 2019 was actually literally here. People didn't even really seem to care about them in December!

That’s true. I hadn’t thought about that. I heard a whole lot more about the anchoring rule and that only affected a small number of players really.