USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[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.

 

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.

 

Yes, I'm sure all the tour players are equally aware of this data and its conclusions as we are and yet....they often take the flag out.

[jslane57]

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.

Even if the stick truly doesn't help the ball fall in the hole (with proper speed, there is no way the stick will help-right?) it will 100% help with alignment and aiming. Many folks don't have the ability to aim at a piece of grass on one part of the hole, rather they aim at the hole. The stick is a bright small aiming rod! LOL. I would use it on all straight putts for just that reason...

[cxx]

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.

Even if the stick truly doesn't help the ball fall in the hole (with proper speed, there is no way the stick will help-right?) it will 100% help with alignment and aiming. Many folks don't have the ability to aim at a piece of grass on one part of the hole, rather they aim at the hole. The stick is a bright small aiming rod! LOL. I would use it on all straight putts for just that reason...

 

It is easier to see when the flag stick is casting a shadow in your direction.

[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.

 

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.

 

Yes, I'm sure all the tour players are equally aware of this data and its conclusions as we are and yet....they often take the flag out.

 

Yeah well most of them get the rules wrong too. Tour players, while heavily skilled, don't necessarily get some of the applied knowledge correct.

 

So anyways, we have some findings in one direction, and until someone repeats the experiment and gets some other findings it's just speculation and circumstantial arguments that they are incorrect.

 

It's just the scientific method.

[Newby]

 

It's just the scientific method.

 

Well my earlier statement "it will certainly leave the ball nearer the hole than if it doesn't hit it". is 'scientifically' true. Something to do with a man named Newton I believe.

[b.helts]

It's just the scientific method.

 

Well my earlier statement "it will certainly leave the ball nearer the hole than if it doesn't hit it". is 'scientifically' true. Something to do with a man named Newton I believe.

 

Well you are going to make that statement "scientifically true" you'd have to preface it with some sort of modifier because a well struck full shot with a bunch of spin on it will not universally end up closer to the hole after hitting the pin.

[jmkenn0]

One thing on the pins - I think this is heavily dependent on the type of pins your course uses. Ours uses the shorter, heavier ones (some combination of wind and deer control) - they do not, under any circumstances, help the situation. I guess the regular ones most courses use are lighter and have more give, but if you hit one of ours with a chip, its basically like hitting a tree. They never fall.

[Vindog]

Newtons.

 

Man I'm hungry now

[TheCityGame]

One thing on the pins - I think this is heavily dependent on the type of pins your course uses. Ours uses the shorter, heavier ones (some combination of wind and deer control) - they do not, under any circumstances, help the situation. I guess the regular ones most courses use are lighter and have more give, but if you hit one of ours with a chip, its basically like hitting a tree. They never fall.

What do you think happens? Do you think the ball rebounds off them at a faster speed than it hit it? Do you think that's what happens when you hit a tree?

[DavePelz4]

It's just the scientific method.

 

Well my earlier statement "it will certainly leave the ball nearer the hole than if it doesn't hit it". is 'scientifically' true. Something to do with a man named Newton I believe.

 

Newton used an apple.

[jmkenn0]

One thing on the pins - I think this is heavily dependent on the type of pins your course uses. Ours uses the shorter, heavier ones (some combination of wind and deer control) - they do not, under any circumstances, help the situation. I guess the regular ones most courses use are lighter and have more give, but if you hit one of ours with a chip, its basically like hitting a tree. They never fall.

What do you think happens? Do you think the ball rebounds off them at a faster speed than it hit it? Do you think that's what happens when you hit a tree?

 

Throw a golf ball at a pillow. How far does it bounce? Throw one at a tree. How far does it bounce? Same principle applies. Flimsier sticks - less rebound off said stick, more of a chance to fall into the hole.

[madchens]

Happy with the changes.

 

Hopefully the general public takes notice and applies them.

[TheCityGame]

One thing on the pins - I think this is heavily dependent on the type of pins your course uses. Ours uses the shorter, heavier ones (some combination of wind and deer control) - they do not, under any circumstances, help the situation. I guess the regular ones most courses use are lighter and have more give, but if you hit one of ours with a chip, its basically like hitting a tree. They never fall.

What do you think happens? Do you think the ball rebounds off them at a faster speed than it hit it? Do you think that's what happens when you hit a tree?

 

Throw a golf ball at a pillow. How far does it bounce? Throw one at a tree. How far does it bounce? Same principle applies. Flimsier sticks - less rebound off said stick, more of a chance to fall into the hole.

OK, Fine. A flimsy stick will allow the ball to fall easier than a less flimsy stick.

 

But you're saying that a less flimsy stick is worse than no stick.

[Vindog]

Just took the survey! :golfer:

[jmkenn0]

One thing on the pins - I think this is heavily dependent on the type of pins your course uses. Ours uses the shorter, heavier ones (some combination of wind and deer control) - they do not, under any circumstances, help the situation. I guess the regular ones most courses use are lighter and have more give, but if you hit one of ours with a chip, its basically like hitting a tree. They never fall.

What do you think happens? Do you think the ball rebounds off them at a faster speed than it hit it? Do you think that's what happens when you hit a tree?

 

Throw a golf ball at a pillow. How far does it bounce? Throw one at a tree. How far does it bounce? Same principle applies. Flimsier sticks - less rebound off said stick, more of a chance to fall into the hole.

OK, Fine. A flimsy stick will allow the ball to fall easier than a less flimsy stick.

 

But you're saying that a less flimsy stick is worse than no stick.

 

Yes, in my unscientific, anecdotal opinion. Part of why people are saying leave in the stick is that the research shows you make more - ie, a ball that would be going too fast to stay in the hole will otherwise stay in the hole because of the stick. I think we've all seen this happen with a skulled chip.

 

So if I try to reason out my thought, essentially the thought is that if a ball is traveling at some rate of speed, gravity will not be able to "push" the ball down into the hole, and it will pop out or go over the hole. A flimsy stick will absorb enough of the momentum of the ball to slow the velocity of the bounceback, so that the ball falls into the hole. ie, why Pelz says leave the stick in as much as possible.

 

A more sturdy stick would absorb less of the momentum, and the reflection of the ball would travel back at a speed greater than that of a flimsy stick. Cleary it wouldn't be like hitting a ball, where the ball compresses and actually comes off at a greater velocity than the club head (although I assume its possible), but it would be faster than the flimsy stick. You'd also have to consider that a sturdy stick would reduce the size of the hole, because its in the middle of the pin, and is wider than a flimsy stick. If a hole is regulation, 4.25 inches, then halfway would be 2.125 inches. Plus considering the diameter of the stick, you've effectively traded 4.25 inches of hole for less than 2 inches of hole, and the reduction in velocity of the bounceback may not be enough to overcome this reduction in hole size.

 

So flimsy stick > no stick > sturdy stick.

 

God I'm such a nerd.

[TheCityGame]

There's a maximum width of flagsticks from bottom of hole to 3 inches up. If your flagsticks are wider than this, they're illegal (3/4").

 

Second, I don't care how sturdy your flag sticks are, the "bounceback" isn't going to faster than a ball that would have traveled through the same space and not hit a flagstick. Even if your flagstick is made out of trampolines, or diamonds. There's a loss of energy created by the collision. A ball that has bounced back directly at you will hit the front of the cup with LESS SPEED on the rebound than a ball that passed over an empty hole would hit the back of the hole with. That's the whole point.

 

IOW, flimsy stick > sturdy stick > no stick.

[Newby]

Cleary it wouldn't be like hitting a ball, where the ball compresses and actually comes off at a greater velocity than the club head (although I assume its possible),

 

A ball hitting any stationary object will not rebound at a greater speed

[jmkenn0]

The hole is 4.25". There is a speed, X, which the ball will roll over the hole. The other thing I didn't think about is that you've effectively cut the hole down both ways. If its 2.125" to the middle of the pin, and the flag is 1/2" in diameter, you are cutting off a 1/4" of an inch both ways, incoming and outbound. So the effective size of the hole is now 1.875". So if the bounceback speed is even 50% of the incoming speed, it still wouldn't stay in the hole, because the speed is 50% of what it would be without the flag, while the hole size is now 44% of what it would be without the flag.

 

Obviously this is operating at the edges of what will happen in actuality. I'd also say its highly dependent on the situation. If you have a severe downhill putt, you probably would choose to leave it in because the deflection would be worth it, even if it didn't go in.

[cxx]

Don't forget the rotation of the ball. That energy goes somewhere. A ball that would fall below the lip across the hole (4.25 inches) might not if it hit the stick, lets see (4.25-.75)/2 =1.75 inches.

 

This is silly anyway.

[jmkenn0]

Cleary it wouldn't be like hitting a ball, where the ball compresses and actually comes off at a greater velocity than the club head (although I assume its possible),

 

A ball hitting any stationary object will not rebound at a greater speed

 

Yes, you are correct.

[Roadking2003]

And let's be honest, that's the main complaint about lost and OB balls. Some people can have mul;tiple of those in a round and they basically cost two strokes a time. The primary driver for this constant "Change the OB Rule" refrain is people wanting to see a lower score on their card than they do now.

 

I don't think that is true at all. I may have one OB in 100 rounds of golf so it will not have a measurable impact on my score. It's all about making the rules more fair and also speeding up play.

[Roadking2003]

Here's the issue...almost nobody recreationally plays OB as it is supposed to be played. They drop like a lateral, take one stroke, and high five their buddies when they shoot their best score ever. If the rules was changed either a two stroke penalty and a drop like a lateral OR hitting three from the tee, I would be satisfied that the two situations (lateral hazard v. OB) are still treated differently but without the obligatory re-tee for three.

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

My group drops in the fairway and adds TWO strokes. That speeds up play and usually results in an ESC maximum score (also a lost hole).

 

Going back to the tee for amateurs is ridiculous and adds 15 minutes to the round. Hitting provisionals also slows the pace of play.

[Roadking2003]

BTW. this is again a case of them trying to codify in the Rules something that is absolutely common and widespread in practice. In my experience the most commonly played form of golf in USA is a stroke-limited game called "ESC limit". Everybody I play with continues a hole, no matter whether it is match play or "points" or just a casual round, until they hit the ESC limit for that hole. Then they pick up ninety-nine times out of a hundred.

 

USGA/R&A is simply putting into the Rules a description of the general category which has Stableford and "ESC limit" as specific examples.

 

You are correct. We play match format almost 100% of the time and pick up if we hit the ESC maximum.

[Newby]

adds 15 minutes to the round. Hitting provisionals also slows the pace of play.

 

How many balls do you manage to hit OOB for goodness sake?

[Roadking2003]

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.

 

The most amusing statement that the golf talking heads make on TV is "he took the pin out so that means he's trying to make it". Hilarious.

[Roadking2003]

adds 15 minutes to the round. Hitting provisionals also slows the pace of play.

 

How many balls do you manage to hit OOB for goodness sake?

 

Me personally? Maybe one every 100 rounds. The courses I play don't have OB close in.

[Newby]

adds 15 minutes to the round. Hitting provisionals also slows the pace of play.

 

How many balls do you manage to hit OOB for goodness sake?

 

Me personally? Maybe one every 100 rounds. The courses I play don't have OB close in.

 

So where do you get 15 minutes from?

[Augster]

15 minutes? That's a ridiculous statement. Even more so if the course is crowded and you are waiting on every shot. You'll be back in position, likely, on the next tee box. Even after going back.

 

Hitting provisionals causes slow play? Again, wow. The 20-30 seconds that it takes to hit a provisional can save the "15 minutes" you'll waste walking back to the tee.

 

The flagstick is the same diameter at the hole level where the ball will be hitting it after a putt. It will also be quite firm because it is held in place 4" below that. What the stick is made out of is nearly irrelevant at hole level for bounce characteristics.

 

Do you all want to know why there isn't anything on a google search refuting Pelz' research? Because there isn't any. The guy's entire life has been managing and making sense of data sets. His credibility would be shot if he didn't produce data the correct way. He knows how to do an experiment.

 

3-feet, 6-feet, and 9-feet by are bad speed for putts. That's exactly why he chose them. Balls that are hit 18 inches past the hole, perfect speed, (it's actually 2-feet past downhill and 1-foot past uphill so the average is "18 inches") will fall in even more often after a ricochet than a putt hit 3-feet by. Less speed, less ricochet.

 

As you may know, putts that don't have enough speed to get to the hole don't hit the flagstick, so he didn't test at those speeds.

 

It is an advantage to leave the pin in. That's why they made a rule to force us to take it out for all these years.

 

That's why I'm still perplexed by the anchoring ban. They banned that stroke because they didn't like the way it looked. There is no data that says anchoring will make you a better putter. I don't care either way, anchor/no anchor. I'd just like their decisions to be made on data, not on "looks".

[ruca]

15 minutes? That's a ridiculous statement. Even more so if the course is crowded and you are waiting on every shot. You'll be back in position, likely, on the next tee box. Even after going back.

 

Hitting provisionals causes slow play? Again, wow. The 20-30 seconds that it takes to hit a provisional can save the "15 minutes" you'll waste walking back to the tee.

 

The flagstick is the same diameter at the hole level where the ball will be hitting it after a putt. It will also be quite firm because it is held in place 4" below that. What the stick is made out of is nearly irrelevant at hole level for bounce characteristics.

 

Do you all want to know why there isn't anything on a google search refuting Pelz' research? Because there isn't any. The guy's entire life has been managing and making sense of data sets. His credibility would be shot if he didn't produce data the correct way. He knows how to do an experiment.

 

3-feet, 6-feet, and 9-feet by are bad speed for putts. That's exactly why he chose them. Balls that are hit 18 inches past the hole, perfect speed, (it's actually 2-feet past downhill and 1-foot past uphill so the average is "18 inches") will fall in even more often after a ricochet than a putt hit 3-feet by. Less speed, less ricochet.

 

As you may know, putts that don't have enough speed to get to the hole don't hit the flagstick, so he didn't test at those speeds.

 

It is an advantage to leave the pin in. That's why they made a rule to force us to take it out for all these years.

 

That's why I'm still perplexed by the anchoring ban. They banned that stroke because they didn't like the way it looked. There is no data that says anchoring will make you a better putter. I don't care either way, anchor/no anchor. I'd just like their decisions to be made on data, not on "looks".

 

Whilst I agree with you re flagstick , it is nonetheless the case that Dave Pelz original research is also not available anywhere for us to see his actual data and results. We only know his conclusions . It's probably all fine, but it's always better to be able te peer review data to confirm this

[TheCityGame]

The hole is 4.25". There is a speed, X, which the ball will roll over the hole. The other thing I didn't think about is that you've effectively cut the hole down both ways. If its 2.125" to the middle of the pin, and the flag is 1/2" in diameter, you are cutting off a 1/4" of an inch both ways, incoming and outbound. So the effective size of the hole is now 1.875". So if the bounceback speed is even 50% of the incoming speed, it still wouldn't stay in the hole, because the speed is 50% of what it would be without the flag, while the hole size is now 44% of what it would be without the flag.

The bounceback speed is momentarily zero. The ball stops.

 

You can hit a flag stick with a rolling ball that would have rolled 20 feet past the hole and it can stop within a foot of the hole. The bounceback speed isn't even close to 50%. Do you think that a putt that would have rolled 6 feet past the hole, but hits a stick instead would roll back 3 feet?

 

It would roll back 3 inches.