Watching The Pros Putt With the Pin In…

[Righty to Lefty]

18 hours ago, turtleback said:

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

When he described his testing in his own words it sounded like they were pretty thorough in how they tested things. Not easy to try and put all the information together in a quick instagram video so it did seem like they glossed over the details before they posted their results. Just because they didn't describe it thoroughly as you would like doesn't mean that they didn't conduct their experiment well.

[boogielicious]

5 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

When he described his testing in his own words it sounded like they were pretty thorough in how they tested things. Not easy to try and put all the information together in a quick instagram video so it did seem like they glossed over the details before they posted their results. Just because they didn't describe it thoroughly as you would like doesn't mean that they didn't conduct their experiment well.

We have not seen the data or analysis of the data. So we cannot assume they were thorough. Many amateur scientists make the mistake of setting up studies improperly and coming to invalid conclusions. I have seen it over and over again even from people in the industry.

Proper experimental technique and analysis is crucial. It is also tedious. Results can also surprise you. The "average" (mean) of one variable may be different than another variable, but when tested statistically, there is in reality no difference.

Anyone can make an Instagram video.

[klineka]

5 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

When he described his testing in his own words it sounded like they were pretty thorough in how they tested things. 

Thorough doesn't mean accurate.

[Lihu]

On 1/30/2019 at 4:24 AM, boogielicious said:

Being that there are no real details about how the test was set up, "pretty" scientific may not pass peer review scrutiny.

In order to do a real "scientific' test you need to do a few thing. A few Design of Experiments principles are below:

1. Identify the independent variables.
2. Block other variables in test set up to make sure the testing does not disturb the test environment. 
3. Have a large sample size.
4. Randomize the testing to eliminate unknown variables such as time of day, temperature, wind, etc.
5. Test the hypothesis statistically.

With out seeing the actual details of their testing, it would be difficult to access their results as valid. Without seeing the actual hypothesis testing, we can't even determine if their results actually showed what they think it showed.

I have done hundreds of DoE BTW.

The scientific method also involves collusion among independent teams.

We’ll likely find out as more pros keep the flag in, I guess?

I agree with the OP, it still looks wrong 😁

[Vinsk]

6 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Just because they didn't describe it thoroughly as you would like doesn't mean that they didn't conduct their experiment well.

Well now you seem a bit eager to defend his poorly done experiment. You first stated you were just posting his findings. Now you’re defending them. Ok. Show us where you believe his experiment is scientifically accurate. Show us how is data is accurate. Explain your reasoning. You’re just arguing with nothing to back your side...as usual.

[saevel25]

6 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Just because they didn't describe it thoroughly as you would like doesn't mean that they didn't conduct their experiment well.

Then they shouldn't expect people to take their results seriously. Accurately describing the process is essential for comprehension. One should not expect people to just make assumptions. Especially when they lack a lot of the prerequisite knowledge on the subject.

 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Well now you seem a bit eager to defend his poorly done experiment. You first stated you were just posting his findings. Now you’re defending them. Ok. Show us where you believe his experiment is scientifically accurate. Show us how is data is accurate. Explain your reasoning. You’re just arguing with nothing to back your side...as usual.

FWIW I have no reason to doubt the data he compiled. He rolled - it seems like - 1800 putts. Though those 100% ones at the center of the cup with virtually no speed were almost all pointless. My own questions about the test are simply:

• They appeared to be rolling the ball from fairly far away, which can lead to some inconsistencies in where the ball enters the hole.
• They appear to have perhaps rolled all the balls from the same place. Rolling balls on a putting green can create grooves pretty quickly.
• They didn't clarify what they meant by their three locations or their three speeds.
• When he did clarify, Edoardo said himself that the flagstick is better left in for putts that go at "very high speeds" which he defined as "4-5' beyond the hole."
• He also made a comment about how the flagstick may have been leaning during his tests.
• We don't know what the stimp of the green was, nor do we know what kind of flagstick it was. Here in the U.S. we have a pretty common Par-Aide one.

I'm giving the study more weight than other people here seem to be, but it's with a lot of caveats and questions.

[Vinsk]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

FWIW I have no reason to doubt the data he compiled. He rolled - it seems like - 1800 putts. Though those 100% ones at the center of the cup with virtually no speed were almost all pointless. My own questions about the test are simply:

• They appeared to be rolling the ball from fairly far away, which can lead to some inconsistencies in where the ball enters the hole.
• They appear to have perhaps rolled all the balls from the same place. Rolling balls on a putting green can create grooves pretty quickly.
• They didn't clarify what they meant by their three locations or their three speeds.
• When he did clarify, Edoardo said himself that the flagstick is better left in for putts that go at "very high speeds" which he defined as "4-5' beyond the hole."
• He also made a comment about how the flagstick may have been leaning during his tests.
• We don't know what the stimp of the green was, nor do we know what kind of flagstick it was. Here in the U.S. we have a pretty common Par-Aide one.

I'm giving the study more weight than other people here seem to be, but it's with a lot of caveats and questions.

This is very good. I expected no less from you. Lol. But I do think your points justify this experiment to need some clarification. But I also agree now that this is probably worthwhile as something to examine in regards to the issue at hand.

[boogielicious]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm giving the study more weight than other people here seem to be, but it's with a lot of caveats and questions.

It's not that we are not giving it weight. We just want to be able to peer review the analysis to be able to add it to valid test results. The more valid testing, the better all of our learning.

[dennyjones]

Chamblee tweeted today during the first round of the Phoenix open that putting with the flagstick in this week may be a challenge.   He saw several putts Wednesday hit the flagstick and bounce away.

[iacas]

I don't know that I'd agree with his definition of "perfect speed"… but others are following up and he's saying he thinks that maybe they've made the flagsticks "bouncier" or with a higher CoR.

If the PGA Tour doesn't like the look of pros putting with the flagstick in, then that would be one way of helping to change it. It'd be kind of a sleazy sort of way, IMO, but legal…

Maybe they're experimenting.

 

---

But maybe the Tour doesn't travel with their own flagsticks, and maybe the TPC Scottsdale sticks are just more rigid and/or bouncier.

[iacas]

🙂

[NM Golf]

8 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

When he described his testing in his own words it sounded like they were pretty thorough in how they tested things. Not easy to try and put all the information together in a quick instagram video so it did seem like they glossed over the details before they posted their results. Just because they didn't describe it thoroughly as you would like doesn't mean that they didn't conduct their experiment well.

The fact that his findings differ from every other experiment just raises questions as to his methods. Since he doesn't actually fully explain his methods it makes it impossible for anyone else to conduct the same experiment and validate or contradict his results.

I find it strange that you latch on to the one study that is contradictory to all the others. Are you just trying to be different? I am all for testing the status quo, but you seem to seek out conflicting information even when the better data is right in front of you.

[Phil McGleno]

2 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

I find it strange that you latch on to the one study that is contradictory to all the others. Are you just trying to be different? I am all for testing the status quo, but you seem to seek out conflicting information even when the better data is right in front of you.

You missed the part-I think they edited it out-Where he basically called EriK-I got it right that time-a liar or something. Of course he is latching on-He is a troll desperate to WIN something, anything.

The way I see it the net advantage is still to leave the flagstick in and I can give full weight to the EM study even while ignoring the flaws and it still comes out on that side of things.

@iacas-Do you consider any study conclusive?

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't know that I'd agree with his definition of "perfect speed"… but others are following up and he's saying he thinks that maybe they've made the flagsticks "bouncier" or with a higher CoR.

If the PGA Tour doesn't like the look of pros putting with the flagstick in, then that would be one way of helping to change it. It'd be kind of a sleazy sort of way, IMO, but legal…

Maybe they're experimenting.

But maybe the Tour doesn't travel with their own flagsticks, and maybe the TPC Scottsdale sticks are just more rigid and/or bouncier.

Brandel suggests "bouncier", but I wonder if they're slightly larger.  I know the maximum diameter is 3/4", but when I googled commercially available flagsticks not long ago, it seemed that almost all were 1/2" in the lower part.  This included the heavier tapered flagsticks, which were 3/4" in the middle, but 1/2" for the lowest foot or so.  If they indeed chose to use 3/4" flagsticks, it wouldn't surprise me that the results would differ somewhat from what we've seen with thinner sticks.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Phil McGleno said:

@iacas-Do you consider any study conclusive?

No. Too many variables. Even my testing, though rigorous, only tested one stimp and one type of flagstick. It's a pretty common flagstick and stimp, but still… it's just one combination.

47 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I know the maximum diameter is 3/4"

There is no maximum. A flagstick that's 4" across is legal. Nobody would buy it, but it's legal. See below. I was wrong.

I also think the players would notice if the flagsticks were that much thicker.

Or Brandel would have.

[DaveP043]

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

There is no maximum. A flagstick that's 4" across is legal. Nobody would buy it, but it's legal.

I also think the players would notice if the flagsticks were that much thicker.

Or Brandel would have.

I know that's what the rules used to say, they recommended a maximum diameter.  The current version of the Equipment Rules from the USGA website now says this:

Quote

The flagstick must be:

a. circular in cross-section, and

b. less than or equal to 0.75 inches (19 mm) in diameter from a point 3 inches (76.2 mm) above the ground to the bottom of the hole and no greater than 2 inches (50.8 mm) in diameter at any point. Exceptions may be made for location indicators of a reasonable size attached to the flagstick.

http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/Equipment Rules Final.pdf

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by DaveP043

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I know that's what the rules used to say, they recommended a maximum diameter.  The current version of the Equipment Rules from the USGA website now says this:

http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/Equipment Rules Final.pdf

Thanks for the correction. I was wrong and I’m glad to see they have updated that.