USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[HatsForBats]

And, a ball which hits a tree in the woods and ricochets back into the fairway should be carted back into the woods and dropped in a pile leaves. :swoon:

 

Meh. I have never seen a player take a swing in the woods and a tree suddenly grow where they took the swing. I get the argument of 'such a rule might be hard to define' but these arguments of 'well then a bad shot with a good result should be turned back into a bad result' are nonsense to me.

 

Well it's the same argument that is used for arguing for free relief from divots. Just opposite :dntknw:

 

No, not really. Why are you allowed to repair other players ball marks on the green? Shouldn't it be if you have a ball mark in the way that is just a bad break?

 

With a divot the manicured playing surface was drastically altered by another players normal actions. You should be able to more often get the intended result which is to be playing off a patch of fairway rather than out of a divot. It would not get rid of downhill, uphill, sidehill or funky stances created by the playing surface.

[North Butte]

But seriously, don't enter those competitions.

 

At my club in the UK some of the guys, especially some of the older guys, really don't like playing in the medals. On a fairly punishing course, playing from the way-back tees and keeping a medal card can be a real trudge for a guy who only hits the ball 220 yards.

 

So generally there are several Stableford comps and just one medal comp per month. Those guys enter the medal because it's just the thing to do but they would not be at all happy out there every Saturday with card and pencil in hand searching the knee-deep hoping to stumble across their fourth lost ball of the round.

 

Again...if we already have Stabelford comps for people who don't want to trudge through medal play, why do we need a new system of Stroke Play?

 

As I mentioned earlier, it's because asking some people to keep a Stableford score with their handicap strokes allocated to the correct holes will generate a mixture of blank looks and outright whinging. Also there are lots of people who do not have a valid handicap at all. Without a handicap you can't do Stableford, not in its standardized form.

[towncryer]

But seriously, don't enter those competitions.

 

At my club in the UK some of the guys, especially some of the older guys, really don't like playing in the medals. On a fairly punishing course, playing from the way-back tees and keeping a medal card can be a real trudge for a guy who only hits the ball 220 yards.

 

So generally there are several Stableford comps and just one medal comp per month. Those guys enter the medal because it's just the thing to do but they would not be at all happy out there every Saturday with card and pencil in hand searching the knee-deep hoping to stumble across their fourth lost ball of the round.

 

Again...if we already have Stabelford comps for people who don't want to trudge through medal play, why do we need a new system of Stroke Play?

 

As I mentioned earlier, it's because asking some people to keep a Stableford score with their handicap strokes allocated to the correct holes will generate a mixture of blank looks and outright whinging. Also there are lots of people who do not have a valid handicap at all. Without a handicap you can't do Stableford, not in its standardized form.

 

Yeah, I guess I agree with you there. Good point.

[ruca]

To be precise, the flagstick has been shown in tests to help a too-fast putt stay in VERY SLIGHTLY more often than it gets in the way of a putt that would have gone in without the flagstick.

 

In the real world the size of that effect is minuscule and only measurable over a large number of trials.

 

You do not have to worry about anyone's handicap going down if they start leaving the stick in constantly.

 

What research are you referencing ?

 

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

 

and

Short game guru Dave Pelz published his research on this in Golf Magazine (1990’s). After he had a machine and a golfer hit a total of ten thousand putts off the green, his researched found that:

• Machine made 33% more putts
  
• Man made 18% more putts
  

With the flagstick left ‘IN’ the hole.

 

DavePelz, the mad scientist of golf, researched the effects of the flagstick on balls approaching the hole. He finally set the record straight, "Leave the flagstick in whenever the Rules allow, unless it is leaning so far toward you that the ball can't fit."

unless it is leaning so far toward you that the ball can't fit."

However, a ball hitting the flagstick will always finish nearer than it would had it missed. No stats needed, laws of physics apply.

 

This is the rule change that I suspect will change in some way

Under their explanation of the proposed changes the r&a / usga suggest there would be no significant advantage either way to leaving flag in or out. This directly contradicts the research above (btw the link refers to an article summarising the research, not to the actual research itself , which I cannot find anywhere)

 

So do the ruling bodies have their own ( contradictory research)? I'd be surprised if they were unaware of Dave Pelz work

 

Our course has fast sloping greens . A 2 foot downhill / side hill putt is often just trickled and you hope it goes in, or there is a big risk of 3 putt. I'm sure leaving the flag in will give a big advantage, as I can now just hit it against the flagstick.

 

Also if it makes no difference , then why allow to remove the flag at all. Surely it would be simpler and save time to never remove the flagstick?

[wadesworld]

But seriously, don't enter those competitions.

 

At my club in the UK some of the guys, especially some of the older guys, really don't like playing in the medals. On a fairly punishing course, playing from the way-back tees and keeping a medal card can be a real trudge for a guy who only hits the ball 220 yards.

 

So generally there are several Stableford comps and just one medal comp per month. Those guys enter the medal because it's just the thing to do but they would not be at all happy out there every Saturday with card and pencil in hand searching the knee-deep hoping to stumble across their fourth lost ball of the round.

 

Again...if we already have Stabelford comps for people who don't want to trudge through medal play, why do we need a new system of Stroke Play?

 

Because in the US, Stableford is almost never played.

 

I play in the Golfweek Amateur Tour. They have, guess what? Triple-bogey max for all flights except the championship flight. I'm quite sure they are not alone. I'd be willing to bet 80% or more of competitions that are not club championships or championships run by the state golf association have some sort of max score restriction.

[dormie1360]

Many of our State run Junior tournaments are stroke play with a max limit per hole.

[Hawkeye77]

And, a ball which hits a tree in the woods and ricochets back into the fairway should be carted back into the woods and dropped in a pile leaves. :swoon:

 

Meh. I have never seen a player take a swing in the woods and a tree suddenly grow where they took the swing. I get the argument of 'such a rule might be hard to define' but these arguments of 'well then a bad shot with a good result should be turned back into a bad result' are nonsense to me.

 

Well it's the same argument that is used for arguing for free relief from divots. Just opposite :dntknw:

 

No, not really. Why are you allowed to repair other players ball marks on the green? Shouldn't it be if you have a ball mark in the way that is just a bad break?

 

With a divot the manicured playing surface was drastically altered by another players normal actions. You should be able to more often get the intended result which is to be playing off a patch of fairway rather than out of a divot. It would not get rid of downhill, uphill, sidehill or funky stances created by the playing surface.

 

Playing surfaces aren't necessarily manicured nor is there any requirement they be maintained to a particular standard.

[smeech8000]

And, a ball which hits a tree in the woods and ricochets back into the fairway should be carted back into the woods and dropped in a pile leaves. :swoon:

 

Meh. I have never seen a player take a swing in the woods and a tree suddenly grow where they took the swing. I get the argument of 'such a rule might be hard to define' but these arguments of 'well then a bad shot with a good result should be turned back into a bad result' are nonsense to me.

 

Well it's the same argument that is used for arguing for free relief from divots. Just opposite :dntknw:

 

No, not really. Why are you allowed to repair other players ball marks on the green? Shouldn't it be if you have a ball mark in the way that is just a bad break?

 

With a divot the manicured playing surface was drastically altered by another players normal actions. You should be able to more often get the intended result which is to be playing off a patch of fairway rather than out of a divot. It would not get rid of downhill, uphill, sidehill or funky stances created by the playing surface.

 

I would think it is because the percentage of players who traverse the green in playing a hole is much higher than the percentage of players who traverse the fairway. Playing from the fairway is nice, but a lot of people manage to make a score on a given hole without even setting foot on it!

 

Playing shots on the green is a requisite to finishing the hole in all but the rarest cases (holed approach or chip/pitch); because of this fact ball marks are given special treatment in the occasion (er, likelihood :black eye:) that you will find one that has not been repaired by its creator. Likewise, the nature of the shot - a putt rolls across the ground - means it will interact with a lot more surface relative to a fully airborne shot played from the fairway.

 

Mathematically speaking, your ball can be expected to touch a larger % of green than it will % of fairway. As stated before, it is a reasonable expectation to fail to come into contact with the fairway on some holes.

[RipVan]

I learned more in this thread than my 50+ years playing the game.

 

I never knew golf had to give us "fun"

 

I never knew playing by the rules is what slowed down play

[Augster]

To be precise, the flagstick has been shown in tests to help a too-fast putt stay in VERY SLIGHTLY more often than it gets in the way of a putt that would have gone in without the flagstick.

 

In the real world the size of that effect is minuscule and only measurable over a large number of trials.

 

You do not have to worry about anyone's handicap going down if they start leaving the stick in constantly.

 

What research are you referencing ?

 

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

 

and

Short game guru Dave Pelz published his research on this in Golf Magazine (1990’s). After he had a machine and a golfer hit a total of ten thousand putts off the green, his researched found that:

• Machine made 33% more putts
  
• Man made 18% more putts
  

With the flagstick left ‘IN’ the hole.

 

DavePelz, the mad scientist of golf, researched the effects of the flagstick on balls approaching the hole. He finally set the record straight, "Leave the flagstick in whenever the Rules allow, unless it is leaning so far toward you that the ball can't fit."

unless it is leaning so far toward you that the ball can't fit."

However, a ball hitting the flagstick will always finish nearer than it would had it missed. No stats needed, laws of physics apply.

 

This is the rule change that I suspect will change in some way

Under their explanation of the proposed changes the r&a / usga suggest there would be no significant advantage either way to leaving flag in or out. This directly contradicts the research above (btw the link refers to an article summarising the research, not to the actual research itself , which I cannot find anywhere)

 

So do the ruling bodies have their own ( contradictory research)? I'd be surprised if they were unaware of Dave Pelz work

 

Our course has fast sloping greens . A 2 foot downhill / side hill putt is often just trickled and you hope it goes in, or there is a big risk of 3 putt. I'm sure leaving the flag in will give a big advantage, as I can now just hit it against the flagstick.

 

Also if it makes no difference , then why allow to remove the flag at all. Surely it would be simpler and save time to never remove the flagstick?

 

That was my proposal to the USGA. Making the flagstick mandatory, it's never removed.

 

You are right, IMO, this is at least one of the rules that we will see changed before 2019. They will still want no penalty for long lag putts that hit the stick, as that saves time. You can hit your lag while your opponent or playing partner is still raking the bunker.

 

How they will word it? I don't know. They'll likely have to make it a penalty "inside 10 paces" or "inside 20 feet". Ambiguous, yes. Or they could do it the easy way and say there is no penalty for hitting the flagstick until all balls in the group are on the green, and marked. Still more trouble with that.

 

The easiest way is to just make leaving the stick in mandatory.

 

And I agree with you, it is a huge advantage in a lot of cases as Pelz' data has shown. Though, it's probably not as big an advantage on putts, compared to chips. You rarely skull a putt or hit it online but WAY too hard where hitting the middle of the hole, where the stick is will slow it down.

 

Chipping, it happens too often when you're bad at it.

 

But super slick 3-4 footers downhill, as you describe, is where it'll definitely help. If not making it go in, just taking the speed off of it if it's off line.

[rogolf]

To be precise, the flagstick has been shown in tests to help a too-fast putt stay in VERY SLIGHTLY more often than it gets in the way of a putt that would have gone in without the flagstick.

 

In the real world the size of that effect is minuscule and only measurable over a large number of trials.

 

You do not have to worry about anyone's handicap going down if they start leaving the stick in constantly.

 

What research are you referencing ?

 

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

 

and

Short game guru Dave Pelz published his research on this in Golf Magazine (1990's). After he had a machine and a golfer hit a total of ten thousand putts off the green, his researched found that:

• Machine made 33% more putts
  
• Man made 18% more putts
  

With the flagstick left 'IN' the hole.

 

DavePelz, the mad scientist of golf, researched the effects of the flagstick on balls approaching the hole. He finally set the record straight, "Leave the flagstick in whenever the Rules allow, unless it is leaning so far toward you that the ball can't fit."

unless it is leaning so far toward you that the ball can't fit."

However, a ball hitting the flagstick will always finish nearer than it would had it missed. No stats needed, laws of physics apply.

 

This is the rule change that I suspect will change in some way

Under their explanation of the proposed changes the r&a / usga suggest there would be no significant advantage either way to leaving flag in or out. This directly contradicts the research above (btw the link refers to an article summarising the research, not to the actual research itself , which I cannot find anywhere)

 

So do the ruling bodies have their own ( contradictory research)? I'd be surprised if they were unaware of Dave Pelz work

 

Our course has fast sloping greens . A 2 foot downhill / side hill putt is often just trickled and you hope it goes in, or there is a big risk of 3 putt. I'm sure leaving the flag in will give a big advantage, as I can now just hit it against the flagstick.

 

Also if it makes no difference , then why allow to remove the flag at all. Surely it would be simpler and save time to never remove the flagstick?

 

That was my proposal to the USGA. Making the flagstick mandatory, it's never removed.

 

You are right, IMO, this is at least one of the rules that we will see changed before 2019. They will still want no penalty for long lag putts that hit the stick, as that saves time. You can hit your lag while your opponent or playing partner is still raking the bunker.

 

How they will word it? I don't know. They'll likely have to make it a penalty "inside 10 paces" or "inside 20 feet". Ambiguous, yes. Or they could do it the easy way and say there is no penalty for hitting the flagstick until all balls in the group are on the green, and marked. Still more trouble with that.

 

The easiest way is to just make leaving the stick in mandatory.

 

And I agree with you, it is a huge advantage in a lot of cases as Pelz' data has shown. Though, it's probably not as big an advantage on putts, compared to chips. You rarely skull a putt or hit it online but WAY too hard where hitting the middle of the hole, where the stick is will slow it down.

 

Chipping, it happens too often when you're bad at it.

 

But super slick 3-4 footers downhill, as you describe, is where it'll definitely help. If not making it go in, just taking the speed off of it if it's off line.

 

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but how can a putt which is off line strike the flagstick, a 3/4 inch diameter stick in the middle of the hole? What is off line about that?

[Augster]

To be precise, the flagstick has been shown in tests to help a too-fast putt stay in VERY SLIGHTLY more often than it gets in the way of a putt that would have gone in without the flagstick.

 

In the real world the size of that effect is minuscule and only measurable over a large number of trials.

 

You do not have to worry about anyone's handicap going down if they start leaving the stick in constantly.

 

What research are you referencing ?

 

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

 

and

Short game guru Dave Pelz published his research on this in Golf Magazine (1990's). After he had a machine and a golfer hit a total of ten thousand putts off the green, his researched found that:

• Machine made 33% more putts
  
• Man made 18% more putts
  

With the flagstick left 'IN' the hole.

 

DavePelz, the mad scientist of golf, researched the effects of the flagstick on balls approaching the hole. He finally set the record straight, "Leave the flagstick in whenever the Rules allow, unless it is leaning so far toward you that the ball can't fit."

unless it is leaning so far toward you that the ball can't fit."

However, a ball hitting the flagstick will always finish nearer than it would had it missed. No stats needed, laws of physics apply.

 

This is the rule change that I suspect will change in some way

Under their explanation of the proposed changes the r&a / usga suggest there would be no significant advantage either way to leaving flag in or out. This directly contradicts the research above (btw the link refers to an article summarising the research, not to the actual research itself , which I cannot find anywhere)

 

So do the ruling bodies have their own ( contradictory research)? I'd be surprised if they were unaware of Dave Pelz work

 

Our course has fast sloping greens . A 2 foot downhill / side hill putt is often just trickled and you hope it goes in, or there is a big risk of 3 putt. I'm sure leaving the flag in will give a big advantage, as I can now just hit it against the flagstick.

 

Also if it makes no difference , then why allow to remove the flag at all. Surely it would be simpler and save time to never remove the flagstick?

 

That was my proposal to the USGA. Making the flagstick mandatory, it's never removed.

 

You are right, IMO, this is at least one of the rules that we will see changed before 2019. They will still want no penalty for long lag putts that hit the stick, as that saves time. You can hit your lag while your opponent or playing partner is still raking the bunker.

 

How they will word it? I don't know. They'll likely have to make it a penalty "inside 10 paces" or "inside 20 feet". Ambiguous, yes. Or they could do it the easy way and say there is no penalty for hitting the flagstick until all balls in the group are on the green, and marked. Still more trouble with that.

 

The easiest way is to just make leaving the stick in mandatory.

 

And I agree with you, it is a huge advantage in a lot of cases as Pelz' data has shown. Though, it's probably not as big an advantage on putts, compared to chips. You rarely skull a putt or hit it online but WAY too hard where hitting the middle of the hole, where the stick is will slow it down.

 

Chipping, it happens too often when you're bad at it.

 

But super slick 3-4 footers downhill, as you describe, is where it'll definitely help. If not making it go in, just taking the speed off of it if it's off line.

 

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but how can a putt which is off line strike the flagstick, a 3/4 inch diameter stick in the middle of the hole? What is off line about that?

 

Offline as in not dead center. Without the pin in a Dead center ball hit too speedy down hill is likely going to hit the back of the cup, and fall in, or pop up and just stay on the lower lip. Because of the entire 4.25 inches, that's a lot of air to carry. With the pin in, it just drops straight down.

 

But move over a CM either way, and hit fast, it'll catch the edges of the stick and deflect toward the sides, slowing its progress.

 

You are correct it won't matter when you push or pull it well outside the stick.

[b.helts]

Didn't a lot of Pelz' research get criticized and many of his conclusions were found to be erroneous?

 

I'm off to the google machine.

[rogolf]

 

 

Offline as in not dead center. Without the pin in a Dead center ball hit too speedy down hill is likely going to hit the back of the cup, and fall in, or pop up and just stay on the lower lip. Because of the entire 4.25 inches, that's a lot of air to carry. With the pin in, it just drops straight down.

 

But move over a CM either way, and hit fast, it'll catch the edges of the stick and deflect toward the sides, slowing its progress.

 

You are correct it won't matter when you push or pull it well outside the stick.

Thanks. If I could be sure to hit the 3/4 inch (or less) diameter flagstick from 4 feet, hitting the hole would be a piece of cake! :)

[LeoLeo99]

Didn't a lot of Pelz' research get criticized and many of his conclusions were found to be erroneous?

 

I'm off to the google machine.

 

Don't know but I'd like to see his data and methodology reviewed and confirmed before taking it as gospel.

[b.helts]

Didn't a lot of Pelz' research get criticized and many of his conclusions were found to be erroneous?

 

I'm off to the google machine.

 

Don't know but I'd like to see his data and methodology reviewed and confirmed before taking it as gospel.

 

Yes, me too!

[nsxguy]

Not putting words in your mouth, just making assumptions from your "thoughts". I apologize for making an incorrect(?) assumption.

 

But you say you "love Stableford" yet you "don't love taking stroke play and turning it into a less painful experience".

 

Yet that is exactly what Stableford does. Or am I mistaken ? Again ?

 

I'm just having fun...no apologies necessary! I am sorry for the snark.

 

No, you're not mistaken at all. But if that's what Stableford does (and I believe it does), why do we need a new category of Stroke Play?

 

Well, firstly, I am not sure exactly what their new form of stroke play actually is so,,,,,,, if it's to pick up when the player's ESC is hit (rather than a Stableford point minimum) that could work.

 

But Stableford is reportable for HC purposes. Unfortunately the group I played with at one time only reported the points total for the golfer and the association converted the points to a gross score and posted that score for the player's handicap.

 

There are 2 obvious problems that immediately come to mind. A single digit makes a triple bogey on a stroke hole. With the "conversion" used that would end up as a triple bogey which the single digit HC'er is NOT permitted (ESC). But the conversion gives the player a triple on that hole. Not good.

 

Also, a double digit HC'er, say a 13, may have say, a par 3 with water where he doesn't get a shot. He plunks his 1st into the water, misses the green wide right with his 2nd ball and is now laying 3. Blades his chip a bit and rolls it 15 feet passed the pin. If he holes the putt it's a double bogey 5, and 0 points, so he picks up. The "conversion" gives him a 5. He probably would have made 6 and is ALLOWED to with ESC. He might have even 3 putted and made a 7, which is ALSO allowed. He's just "lost" 1 or 2 strokes that SHOULD be included in his reportable score.

 

What the golfers in that association SHOULD do is record a gross AND a points entry for every hole, total up his gross (to ESC of course) and have the GROSS reported; NOT the points.

 

Should I guess if the new stroke play game ends a hole with the ESC max, that could work (better ?); at least in this particular case.

[TheCityGame]

Didn't a lot of Pelz' research get criticized and many of his conclusions were found to be erroneous?

 

I'm off to the google machine.

 

Don't know but I'd like to see his data and methodology reviewed and confirmed before taking it as gospel.

 

Yes, me too!

He describes his methodolgy here. . .

 

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

 

Would it be cool if someone else repeated the experiment? I guess so. But, this is the type of experiment where a person has no stake in the results so it's hard to imagine a bias. It's not like some drug company testing the effectiveness of their new product. Pelz doesn't benefit one way or the other based on his results.

 

Also, it's one of those results that is almost like "From The Institute of Duh". It's hard to imagine a type of shot where a flagstick can hurt but not help. The flagstick literally SLOWS THE BALL DOWN AT THE HOLE. It's not rocket science.

 

Haven't we all hit literally THOUSANDS of putts at little sticks on the putting green when we're practicing? You know, on the little "catch sticks" or whatever you call them. How many putts have you seen slam into the stick and drop or stop within a foot of the hole?

 

If you haven't seen it, go do it. Go hit putts at a hole with a stick in and out and see how many more drop with the stick in. I mean, most putts that go in are going in with or without the stick. But, try hitting putts from 2 feet that would roll out 5 feet past the hole. See how many of those go in with the stick in compared to no stick in.

[towncryer]

Anyone who feels passionate about these changes needs to take the USGA's survey. Sorry if someone already posted this.

 

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/feedback-landing-page.html

 

 

FYI...after your feedback on the proposed rules, they ask about whether you'd be interested in an alternative to stroke and distance on OB and lost balls (2 strokes and a drop). I think it's a great idea to have the choice. If you don't think so, better take the survey :)

[Vindog]

I have a comment regarding the Steve Sands piece over the weekend relating to these changes. I don't know why but it's been bugging me.

 

When he touched on the proposed change to the viewer call ins and video review they showed clips of the Brian Davis incident at Harbour Town a few years ago where he (very honestly) called a penalty on himself in the playoff against Furyk. The problem is, that isn't how it went down. Nobody called it in. They did NOT discover the penalty via video review (they only corroborated Davis's the account) yet they kept showing this still shot of Davis with a wry look as if he was being victimized, and repeatedly showed the replay as if that was the issue.

 

Turrible journalism if you ask me. I know that I should know better, but it bugged me that they do these things, and all those casual viewers that don't remember the situation are being misinformed.

[cxx]

Didn't a lot of Pelz' research get criticized and many of his conclusions were found to be erroneous?

 

I'm off to the google machine.

 

Don't know but I'd like to see his data and methodology reviewed and confirmed before taking it as gospel.

 

Yes, me too!

He describes his methodolgy here. . .

 

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

 

Would it be cool if someone else repeated the experiment? I guess so. But, this is the type of experiment where a person has no stake in the results so it's hard to imagine a bias. It's not like some drug company testing the effectiveness of their new product. Pelz doesn't benefit one way or the other based on his results.

 

Also, it's one of those results that is almost like "From The Institute of Duh". It's hard to imagine a type of shot where a flagstick can hurt but not help. The flagstick literally SLOWS THE BALL DOWN AT THE HOLE. It's not rocket science.

 

Haven't we all hit literally THOUSANDS of putts at little sticks on the putting green when we're practicing? You know, on the little "catch sticks" or whatever you call them. How many putts have you seen slam into the stick and drop or stop within a foot of the hole?

 

If you haven't seen it, go do it. Go hit putts at a hole with a stick in and out and see how many more drop with the stick in. I mean, most putts that go in are going in with or without the stick. But, try hitting putts from 2 feet that would roll out 5 feet past the hole. See how many of those go in with the stick in compared to no stick in.

 

I'm somewhat skeptical about Pelz's early research. That article was the vehicle the propelled him into the public eye and enabled everything that followed so he did have a vested self interest. Not sure if anyone has repeated his experiments. I'm not interested enough to do it myself.

[Vindog]

I'm somewhat skeptical about Pelz's early research. That article was the vehicle the propelled him into the public eye and enabled everything that followed so he did have a vested self interest. Not sure if anyone has repeated his experiments. I'm not interested enough to do it myself.

 

I understand the sentiment for sure, but it's not like it was an experiment with many relevant variables. I mean what else is there to contend with? slope? grain? type of ball?

 

It would seem pretty hard for the tail to wag the dog in this case, but that's just my opinion.

[TheCityGame]

Also, who is to say an experimental result that said, "you should leave the flagstick in" compared to "you should take it out" would "propel him into the public eye"?

 

There's no vested interest in the experiment coming out one way or the other.

 

That strikes me as mis-placed skepticism, and born out of this era where scientific findings are politicized by the people not doing the science.

 

But, more than anything. . .sorry, this isn't personal, but every time this comes up, I just want to scream "HOW COULD IT NOT F*CKING HELP????"

 

It helps. Look at it. It's a stick in the middle of the hole that stops the ball and still leaves room for the ball to fall in. Run putts at a hole for FIVE MINUTES with a stick in and a stick out. You don't need to repeat it a thousand times. It helps. Period. It helps up hill. It helps down hill. It helps "when you're trying to make it". It helps when you're trying to lag it. It help putting. It helps chipping. It helps on fast greens, slow greens. It's not a stick in the middle of a basketball hoop. It's the backboard. It's not a stick in front of the 1 pin. It's bumpers in the gutter.

 

If you don't like to look at it fine, but if you can really conceive of more places where it hurts than helps. change your conception. Or prove me wrong.

[LeoLeo99]

Also, who is to say an experimental result that said, "you should leave the flagstick in" compared to "you should take it out" would "propel him into the public eye"?

 

There's no vested interest in the experiment coming out one way or the other.

 

That strikes me as mis-placed skepticism, and born out of this era where scientific findings are politicized by the people not doing the science.

 

But, more than anything. . .sorry, this isn't personal, but every time this comes up, I just want to scream "HOW COULD IT NOT F*CKING HELP????"

 

It helps. Look at it. It's a stick in the middle of the hole that stops the ball and still leaves room for the ball to fall in. Run putts at a hole for FIVE MINUTES with a stick in and a stick out. You don't need to repeat it a thousand times. It helps. Period. It helps up hill. It helps down hill. It helps "when you're trying to make it". It helps when you're trying to lag it. It help putting. It helps chipping. It helps on fast greens, slow greens. It's not a stick in the middle of a basketball hoop. It's the backboard. It's not a stick in front of the 1 pin. It's bumpers in the gutter.

 

If you don't like to look at it fine, but if you can really conceive of more places where it hurts than helps. change your conception. Or prove me wrong.

 

if it helps so much, why do the professionals that play for their paycheck often take the stick out?

[jslane57]

Also, who is to say an experimental result that said, "you should leave the flagstick in" compared to "you should take it out" would "propel him into the public eye"?

 

There's no vested interest in the experiment coming out one way or the other.

 

That strikes me as mis-placed skepticism, and born out of this era where scientific findings are politicized by the people not doing the science.

 

But, more than anything. . .sorry, this isn't personal, but every time this comes up, I just want to scream "HOW COULD IT NOT F*CKING HELP????"

 

It helps. Look at it. It's a stick in the middle of the hole that stops the ball and still leaves room for the ball to fall in. Run putts at a hole for FIVE MINUTES with a stick in and a stick out. You don't need to repeat it a thousand times. It helps. Period. It helps up hill. It helps down hill. It helps "when you're trying to make it". It helps when you're trying to lag it. It help putting. It helps chipping. It helps on fast greens, slow greens. It's not a stick in the middle of a basketball hoop. It's the backboard. It's not a stick in front of the 1 pin. It's bumpers in the gutter.

 

If you don't like to look at it fine, but if you can really conceive of more places where it hurts than helps. change your conception. Or prove me wrong.

Of course you and Pelz are correct here. It is perception that kills it. For example, you hit the stick on a too hard shot and go in, you're lucky! You hit the stick and it spins out when it would have gone in, you're unlucky, burned, and you should have taken out the stick you dummy! When well struck shots spin out due to the stick, even if it's 1 out of 10 times, the stick gets the blame...

[Vindog]

Also, who is to say an experimental result that said, "you should leave the flagstick in" compared to "you should take it out" would "propel him into the public eye"?

 

There's no vested interest in the experiment coming out one way or the other.

 

That strikes me as mis-placed skepticism, and born out of this era where scientific findings are politicized by the people not doing the science.

 

But, more than anything. . .sorry, this isn't personal, but every time this comes up, I just want to scream "HOW COULD IT NOT F*CKING HELP????"

 

It helps. Look at it. It's a stick in the middle of the hole that stops the ball and still leaves room for the ball to fall in. Run putts at a hole for FIVE MINUTES with a stick in and a stick out. You don't need to repeat it a thousand times. It helps. Period. It helps up hill. It helps down hill. It helps "when you're trying to make it". It helps when you're trying to lag it. It help putting. It helps chipping. It helps on fast greens, slow greens. It's not a stick in the middle of a basketball hoop. It's the backboard. It's not a stick in front of the 1 pin. It's bumpers in the gutter.

 

If you don't like to look at it fine, but if you can really conceive of more places where it hurts than helps. change your conception. Or prove me wrong.

 

if it helps so much, why do the professionals that play for their paycheck often take the stick out?

 

Here is my guess: Under the rules a ball is not holed unless the entire ball has come to rest beneath the level of the ground.

 

I believe that many, if not most, professionals believe that they can hole these shots from off the green while able to use proper pace and don't want to take the chance of the ball partiall above ground, then ball popping out when the flag is removed. Conversely, Ams are more than likely just trying to get it close, where hitting the flag on an off speed shot would be a benefit.

[b.helts]

OK. The pin will definitely help a shot with poor speed. I agree with that.

 

Pelz only measured putts that would go 3, 6 and 9 feet past the hole on a flat putt. He was clearly thinking about putting from the fringe and chipping.

 

When putting, I consider 3, 6, and 9 feet past to be poor speed. With no data regarding putts hit with proper speed, I can't conclude that keeping the pin in while putting will be a benefit.

 

To be fair, I'm also not discounting that leaving the pin in while putting may be a benefit. I'm simply saying I don't know and I'm skeptical.

[TheCityGame]

Also, who is to say an experimental result that said, "you should leave the flagstick in" compared to "you should take it out" would "propel him into the public eye"?

 

There's no vested interest in the experiment coming out one way or the other.

 

That strikes me as mis-placed skepticism, and born out of this era where scientific findings are politicized by the people not doing the science.

 

But, more than anything. . .sorry, this isn't personal, but every time this comes up, I just want to scream "HOW COULD IT NOT F*CKING HELP????"

 

It helps. Look at it. It's a stick in the middle of the hole that stops the ball and still leaves room for the ball to fall in. Run putts at a hole for FIVE MINUTES with a stick in and a stick out. You don't need to repeat it a thousand times. It helps. Period. It helps up hill. It helps down hill. It helps "when you're trying to make it". It helps when you're trying to lag it. It help putting. It helps chipping. It helps on fast greens, slow greens. It's not a stick in the middle of a basketball hoop. It's the backboard. It's not a stick in front of the 1 pin. It's bumpers in the gutter.

 

If you don't like to look at it fine, but if you can really conceive of more places where it hurts than helps. change your conception. Or prove me wrong.

 

if it helps so much, why do the professionals that play for their paycheck often take the stick out?

Because they're equally susceptible to mis-conceptions as amateurs are.

 

"Take it out if you're trying to make it" is deep in golf lore. And, they got to the pro level doing that and so they go "it must be correct". They've never tried it the other way.

[Newby]

It may or may not help get the ball in the hole but it will certainly leave the ball nearer the hole than if it doesn't hit it.

[cxx]

Also, who is to say an experimental result that said, "you should leave the flagstick in" compared to "you should take it out" would "propel him into the public eye"?

 

There's no vested interest in the experiment coming out one way or the other.

 

That strikes me as mis-placed skepticism, and born out of this era where scientific findings are politicized by the people not doing the science.

 

But, more than anything. . .sorry, this isn't personal, but every time this comes up, I just want to scream "HOW COULD IT NOT F*CKING HELP????"

 

It helps. Look at it. It's a stick in the middle of the hole that stops the ball and still leaves room for the ball to fall in. Run putts at a hole for FIVE MINUTES with a stick in and a stick out. You don't need to repeat it a thousand times. It helps. Period. It helps up hill. It helps down hill. It helps "when you're trying to make it". It helps when you're trying to lag it. It help putting. It helps chipping. It helps on fast greens, slow greens. It's not a stick in the middle of a basketball hoop. It's the backboard. It's not a stick in front of the 1 pin. It's bumpers in the gutter.

 

If you don't like to look at it fine, but if you can really conceive of more places where it hurts than helps. change your conception. Or prove me wrong.

 

The reason Pelz's article was popular was that it was counterintuitive. An article in a popular magazine can hardly be held up as settled science (a oxymoron if I ever heard one). Intuition can be unreliable. I don't particularly care whether you believe it or not. Is you intuition born out by tour professional's preferences? I would think that given the stakes and the value of one stroke, it would be universal. Then again, they can be just as silly as any one else.