Jump to content

Putting with flag in (MERGED)


Recommended Posts

Pelz' research isn't without limits, and to my knowledge has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal ("peers" meaning scientists and not local club pros). It was done a long time ago, and I can't see whether or not it was performed on green grass, whether he measured results on breaking putts or uphill/downhill putts, whether the speed of the putts was maintained at constant, or whether there was a difference on longer or shorter putts.

 

This is why I get a chuckle at people who pay so much attention to what DeChambeau does. He is a kid with a four year degree in physics from the 139th ranked program in the country. He wouldn't even be allowed at the big boy table at a convention in that field. At least Pelz worked for NASA...

 

I think with the putting, golfers need to make the choice that works for them, and leave the research aspect alone unless they are well read enough to understand what it suggests and what it doesn't.

Cobra Speedzone/HZRDUS Smoke Yellow 6.5

Titleist Ts2 16/Elements Wind 8f5

Srixon u85 20/Recoil 95

Srixon z785 4-pw/Dynamic Gold s400

Cleveland Rtx4 50, 54, 60/Dynamic Gold s400

Bettinardi Studio Stock #8

Srixon Z Star XV

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 361
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he's smart, he's smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

 

He's not publishing high end research, he's just talking about basic principles of physics and how he would use them in his game.

 

It's been 40+ years, so I can't remember if those concepts were high school or first-year uni, but they're nothing special.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelz' research isn't without limits, and to my knowledge has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal ("peers" meaning scientists and not local club pros). It was done a long time ago, and I can't see whether or not it was performed on green grass, whether he measured results on breaking putts or uphill/downhill putts, whether the speed of the putts was maintained at constant, or whether there was a difference on longer or shorter putts.

 

This is why I get a chuckle at people who pay so much attention to what DeChambeau does. He is a kid with a four year degree in physics from the 139th ranked program in the country. He wouldn't even be allowed at the big boy table at a convention in that field. At least Pelz worked for NASA...

 

I think with the putting, golfers need to make the choice that works for them, and leave the research aspect alone unless they are well read enough to understand what it suggests and what it doesn't.

 

peer reviewed journal of golf? I mean what journal is going to have an article talking about the value of having a flag in when putting?

 

is pelz's stuff rock solid and bulletproof? of course not, but it's surely a lot more valuable than " well 2 moons ago I hit an 8 footer and it bounced off the flag and went out of the hole."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelz' research isn't without limits, and to my knowledge has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal ("peers" meaning scientists and not local club pros). It was done a long time ago, and I can't see whether or not it was performed on green grass, whether he measured results on breaking putts or uphill/downhill putts, whether the speed of the putts was maintained at constant, or whether there was a difference on longer or shorter putts.

 

This is why I get a chuckle at people who pay so much attention to what DeChambeau does. He is a kid with a four year degree in physics from the 139th ranked program in the country. He wouldn't even be allowed at the big boy table at a convention in that field. At least Pelz worked for NASA...

 

I think with the putting, golfers need to make the choice that works for them, and leave the research aspect alone unless they are well read enough to understand what it suggests and what it doesn't.

 

Maybe this will help on the details.

 

It was done "on a number of different greens, at five different parts of the hole." He also mentions the holes wearing, indicating they were natural grass greens.

 

"Each test was run at three different speeds: On a perfectly flat green, the speeds were fast enough to send the ball three feet past the hole, six feet past, and nine feet past. Each test also included putts that approached the target at different parts of the hole: dead center; left- and right-center of the pin; left and right edge of the pin. Finally, the tests were run, first on level greens, then on ones that sloped sharply uphill and downhill. (The speeds remained consistent, but because the slope changed, the balls, if they missed, would finish considerably farther away on downhill putts and closer on uphillers. But it is the speed, not the final distance from the hole, that matters.)"

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I play practice rounds I'll leave the pin in a lot to save time, I feel like I putt much better in regards to longer putts and lag putting with it in. As far as shorter putts I don't ever recall the flag stick negatively affecting the putt, or it knocking a putt out that would have otherwise gone in.

 

Personally I plan on leaving the stick in more often than not. My unscientific view on it is that I can't see it hurting and it's more comfortable for me from an aiming perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he’s smart, he’s smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we’re taking smart it matters. It’s like a great athlete. If they don’t go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it’s a top smart kid and they don’t go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he’s likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

 

Titleist tsi2 9*  Accra RPG gold 462 M5 

Titleist ts2 16.5 * Tensei CK pro Blue 80TX

TM Sim tour 19*  Aldila proto 95TX  

Titleist T100 4-pw MMT 125TX 

Vokey sm7 50 54 58 MCI 125 mild  

Cameron GSS 009  1.5 , sound slot , tungsten sole weights , head speed shaft. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelz' research isn't without limits, and to my knowledge has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal ("peers" meaning scientists and not local club pros). It was done a long time ago, and I can't see whether or not it was performed on green grass, whether he measured results on breaking putts or uphill/downhill putts, whether the speed of the putts was maintained at constant, or whether there was a difference on longer or shorter putts.

 

This is why I get a chuckle at people who pay so much attention to what DeChambeau does. He is a kid with a four year degree in physics from the 139th ranked program in the country. He wouldn't even be allowed at the big boy table at a convention in that field. At least Pelz worked for NASA...

 

I think with the putting, golfers need to make the choice that works for them, and leave the research aspect alone unless they are well read enough to understand what it suggests and what it doesn't.

 

Well take it for what it is. And that is the nerdy version of saying Tiger is built like a linebacker. So at least they are consistent!

run of the mill driver with stock shaft
a couple of outdated hybrids
shovel-ier shovels
wedges from same shovel company
some putter with a dead insert and
a hideous grip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he’s smart, he’s smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we’re taking smart it matters. It’s like a great athlete. If they don’t go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it’s a top smart kid and they don’t go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he’s likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

 

Yes he’s a better scientist than a golfer. What great golf school also has a great engineering department? Illinois, GA Tech, Stanford? Yes a better school will get better students, but once you graduate and start publishing in journals, your work is all that matters not where you went to college. So if you want to critique Bryson, go after his science not where he went to school.

Ping G410 LST 10* (DI-6X)
Ping G410 5W (DI-7X)
Ping i20 3-UW (DI-95X, PX 6.0)
Ping Glide 2.0 56*SS, 60*ES (PX 6.0)
Ping Vault Arna

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: this from the RAW DOG

 

I'm headed out for a date (shocking, I know for a nerd like me), so I really want to give your post the attention it deserves.

 

You bring up good points, but I'd encourage you to read the link to Pelz article/study. It was done on five separate greens and he mentions the variables of using natural turf, including it wearing, holes wearing, and imperfections in the green.

 

That being said, I also posted a link with a good analysis of the physics involved. I understand capture rates and the physics involved, but some of it is admittedly a bit beyond my education.

 

So in my mind, both in theory and in practice (including using a machine and a human), I am confident in saying keeping it in is a better long-term strategy.

 

The one brief thing I'll say about Phil is that while the hole effectively becomes larger with the stick in, it APPEARS larger with the stick out. So I think you are onto something as to why players take it out. It has to do with the visualization and feel, which we both know is a big component of the game.

 

Have a good evening... hopefully I can come back tonight and add to the convo.

 

 

 

 

Two questions:

 

1. What exact physics computations pertain to a ball striking a flag stick (with so many unknowns)?

2. How did your date go? (I will not take this into the gutter and ask about sticks and holes, and such?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he's smart, he's smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we're taking smart it matters. It's like a great athlete. If they don't go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it's a top smart kid and they don't go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he's likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

Agree 100%, not all degrees are equal. Having attended multiple schools for multiple degrees, in some schools engineering and math/science programs are much more rigorous than others. I had one school that in P Chem it was normal for exams to be curved 50-60% to bring the class average up. At another school there were no curved exams because the faculty didn't care about pass/fail percentages, only the quality of students getting degrees from their programs. I am definitely not a stand out student, so I clearly had more success in one of these programs than the other. Not doubting Bryson's abilities, just reinforcing that not all degrees/educations are equal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he's smart, he's smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we're taking smart it matters. It's like a great athlete. If they don't go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it's a top smart kid and they don't go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he's likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

 

Yes he's a better scientist than a golfer. What great golf school also has a great engineering department? Illinois, GA Tech, Stanford? Yes a better school will get better students, but once you graduate and start publishing in journals, your work is all that matters not where you went to college. So if you want to critique Bryson, go after his science not where he went to school.

 

 

he won more then most any player as an am... hes a 5 time tour winner .. what has he done as a scientist ?

 

Titleist tsi2 9*  Accra RPG gold 462 M5 

Titleist ts2 16.5 * Tensei CK pro Blue 80TX

TM Sim tour 19*  Aldila proto 95TX  

Titleist T100 4-pw MMT 125TX 

Vokey sm7 50 54 58 MCI 125 mild  

Cameron GSS 009  1.5 , sound slot , tungsten sole weights , head speed shaft. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he's smart, he's smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we're taking smart it matters. It's like a great athlete. If they don't go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it's a top smart kid and they don't go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he's likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

 

Yes he's a better scientist than a golfer. What great golf school also has a great engineering department? Illinois, GA Tech, Stanford? Yes a better school will get better students, but once you graduate and start publishing in journals, your work is all that matters not where you went to college. So if you want to critique Bryson, go after his science not where he went to school.

 

 

he won more then most any player as an am... hes a 5 time tour winner .. what has he done as a scientist ?

 

What every scientist does. Bamboozles people into thinking they are smarter than they really are. He's a natural.

 

Kidding

run of the mill driver with stock shaft
a couple of outdated hybrids
shovel-ier shovels
wedges from same shovel company
some putter with a dead insert and
a hideous grip

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol^

 

 

dont get me wrong.. i dont dislike the kid.. But it would be like calling me a scientist because i have 17 years field experience in prototype engineering of my own ideas... Yea.. right.. scientist Im just a hack who budgets his losses on screw ups until he finds what willl work.. he floated some golf balls, and figured out that a tall kid needs his scoring clubs longer than off the rack , and that he could play the other clubs at the same length to make a consistent move... Thats all. The other stuff is just window dressing..

 

Titleist tsi2 9*  Accra RPG gold 462 M5 

Titleist ts2 16.5 * Tensei CK pro Blue 80TX

TM Sim tour 19*  Aldila proto 95TX  

Titleist T100 4-pw MMT 125TX 

Vokey sm7 50 54 58 MCI 125 mild  

Cameron GSS 009  1.5 , sound slot , tungsten sole weights , head speed shaft. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: this from the RAW DOG

 

I'm headed out for a date (shocking, I know for a nerd like me), so I really want to give your post the attention it deserves.

 

You bring up good points, but I'd encourage you to read the link to Pelz article/study. It was done on five separate greens and he mentions the variables of using natural turf, including it wearing, holes wearing, and imperfections in the green.

 

That being said, I also posted a link with a good analysis of the physics involved. I understand capture rates and the physics involved, but some of it is admittedly a bit beyond my education.

 

So in my mind, both in theory and in practice (including using a machine and a human), I am confident in saying keeping it in is a better long-term strategy.

 

The one brief thing I'll say about Phil is that while the hole effectively becomes larger with the stick in, it APPEARS larger with the stick out. So I think you are onto something as to why players take it out. It has to do with the visualization and feel, which we both know is a big component of the game.

 

Have a good evening... hopefully I can come back tonight and add to the convo.

 

 

 

 

Two questions:

 

1. What exact physics computations pertain to a ball striking a flag stick (with so many unknowns)?

2. How did your date go? (I will not take this into the gutter and ask about sticks and holes, and such?)

 

First, the date went well, thank you. She used to play bball so I figured a first date at our local rec center shooting a couple games of HORSE would be fun. She got to see why I'm a golfer and not a bball player :D Dinner and drinks followed and... second date is going down tonight. Score. She must have been impressed by the photos of my indoor putting green...

 

Now, the important stuff...

 

Please follow the link to the other site for full text, because I'm not sure if I can post the name of the site here. I am NOT a member there, but this thread came up in my reading on the subject. Poster identified six areas of potential benefit for putting with the stick in. The first three have justification rooted in physics. Personally, I believe #1 is most important, followed closely by #3. I am not a physicist, but know enough about each topic to expound a little bit if you'd like.

https://thesandtrap....e-flagstick-in/

  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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he’s smart, he’s smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we’re taking smart it matters. It’s like a great athlete. If they don’t go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it’s a top smart kid and they don’t go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he’s likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

 

Yes he’s a better scientist than a golfer. What great golf school also has a great engineering department? Illinois, GA Tech, Stanford? Yes a better school will get better students, but once you graduate and start publishing in journals, your work is all that matters not where you went to college. So if you want to critique Bryson, go after his science not where he went to school.

 

He's the 5th best golfer in the world. Do you think he's the 5th best scientist in the world? Can't tell if serious

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing last week with my older son. He's got a 8 footer for bird.

 

I suggest, "let's leave the flag in - it's almost 2019."

He putts and it hits the stick dead center, missing the putt.

He gives me a dirty look, "Dad, the flag comes out, okay."

 

 

I'm going to pull it.

 

According to the laws of physics, it would not have gone in anyway, if he really hit the flagstick dead center.

I see a gap. There definitely is a gap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he's smart, he's smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we're taking smart it matters. It's like a great athlete. If they don't go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it's a top smart kid and they don't go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he's likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

 

Yes he's a better scientist than a golfer. What great golf school also has a great engineering department? Illinois, GA Tech, Stanford? Yes a better school will get better students, but once you graduate and start publishing in journals, your work is all that matters not where you went to college. So if you want to critique Bryson, go after his science not where he went to school.

 

He's the 5th best golfer in the world. Do you think he's the 5th best scientist in the world? Can't tell if serious

 

Actually, he is the best golfer in the world in 2018. There is nobody who has won more points this year, not even Koepka.

I see a gap. There definitely is a gap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: this from the RAW DOG

 

I'm headed out for a date (shocking, I know for a nerd like me), so I really want to give your post the attention it deserves.

 

You bring up good points, but I'd encourage you to read the link to Pelz article/study. It was done on five separate greens and he mentions the variables of using natural turf, including it wearing, holes wearing, and imperfections in the green.

 

That being said, I also posted a link with a good analysis of the physics involved. I understand capture rates and the physics involved, but some of it is admittedly a bit beyond my education.

 

So in my mind, both in theory and in practice (including using a machine and a human), I am confident in saying keeping it in is a better long-term strategy.

 

The one brief thing I'll say about Phil is that while the hole effectively becomes larger with the stick in, it APPEARS larger with the stick out. So I think you are onto something as to why players take it out. It has to do with the visualization and feel, which we both know is a big component of the game.

 

Have a good evening... hopefully I can come back tonight and add to the convo.

 

 

 

 

Two questions:

 

1. What exact physics computations pertain to a ball striking a flag stick (with so many unknowns)?

2. How did your date go? (I will not take this into the gutter and ask about sticks and holes, and such?)

 

First, the date went well, thank you. She used to play bball so I figured a first date at our local rec center shooting a couple games of HORSE would be fun. She got to see why I'm a golfer and not a bball player :D Dinner and drinks followed and... second date is going down tonight. Score. She must have been impressed by the photos of my indoor putting green...

 

Now, the important stuff...

 

Please follow the link to the other site for full text, because I'm not sure if I can post the name of the site here. I am NOT a member there, but this thread came up in my reading on the subject. Poster identified six areas of potential benefit for putting with the stick in. The first three have justification rooted in physics. Personally, I believe #1 is most important, followed closely by #3. I am not a physicist, but know enough about each topic to expound a little bit if you'd like.

https://thesandtrap....e-flagstick-in/

  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.

 

 

 

As long as you leave the lampshade at home, the next date will go equally as well, if not better.

 

 

As a follow-up:

 

My son and I ran an experiment putting 20 balls each from 8 feet, it was a straight putt down grain - first with stick in and then stick out.

Our greens are perfect.

 

He made 16 with stick with stick out

13 with stick in

 

I made 13 with stick with stick out

11 with stick in

 

 

Then we went hit some balls and came back and did it again.

 

He made 18 with stick with stick out

14 with stick in

 

I made 14 with stick with stick out

11 with stick in

 

 

 

We are pulling - no sense messing with what works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he’s smart, he’s smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we’re taking smart it matters. It’s like a great athlete. If they don’t go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it’s a top smart kid and they don’t go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he’s likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

 

Yes he’s a better scientist than a golfer. What great golf school also has a great engineering department? Illinois, GA Tech, Stanford? Yes a better school will get better students, but once you graduate and start publishing in journals, your work is all that matters not where you went to college. So if you want to critique Bryson, go after his science not where he went to school.

 

He's the 5th best golfer in the world. Do you think he's the 5th best scientist in the world? Can't tell if serious

 

You’re missing the point. A bunch of posters are saying that Bryson’s sciency golf is nothing special because he’s a better golfer than a scientist. If he was a better emgineer, he would have gone to a better engineering school. Yet Bryson brought single-length clubs to the PGA Tour. His science cannot be bashed at all because it’s clearly working.

Ping G410 LST 10* (DI-6X)
Ping G410 5W (DI-7X)
Ping i20 3-UW (DI-95X, PX 6.0)
Ping Glide 2.0 56*SS, 60*ES (PX 6.0)
Ping Vault Arna

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he's smart, he's smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we're taking smart it matters. It's like a great athlete. If they don't go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it's a top smart kid and they don't go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he's likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

 

Yes he's a better scientist than a golfer. What great golf school also has a great engineering department? Illinois, GA Tech, Stanford? Yes a better school will get better students, but once you graduate and start publishing in journals, your work is all that matters not where you went to college. So if you want to critique Bryson, go after his science not where he went to school.

 

He's the 5th best golfer in the world. Do you think he's the 5th best scientist in the world? Can't tell if serious

 

You're missing the point. A bunch of posters are saying that Bryson's sciency golf is nothing special because he's a better golfer than a scientist. If he was a better emgineer, he would have gone to a better engineering school. Yet Bryson brought single-length clubs to the PGA Tour. His science cannot be bashed at all because it's clearly working.

One length has take professional golf by storm, you got me there. No one can deny it's overwhelming success outside of the one man vacuum. Maybe it will catch on more so, but just because he's had success doesn't mean you can attribute 100% of it to his "science". He's a very talented and hard working individual regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter where he went to school? If he’s smart, he’s smart. His data is what matters and needs to be reviewed, not if he went to a top-20 engineering school.

 

If we’re taking smart it matters. It’s like a great athlete. If they don’t go to a top school you ask , why ? its usually grades or an alumni affiliation that keeps them close to home etc. when it’s a top smart kid and they don’t go to a top school you ask the same. Top school graduates get top jobs. Just like championship winning athletes get 1st consideration for he draft etc lots of times. Truth is he’s likely 3x the golfer that he is scientist.

 

Yes he’s a better scientist than a golfer. What great golf school also has a great engineering department? Illinois, GA Tech, Stanford? Yes a better school will get better students, but once you graduate and start publishing in journals, your work is all that matters not where you went to college. So if you want to critique Bryson, go after his science not where he went to school.

 

He's the 5th best golfer in the world. Do you think he's the 5th best scientist in the world? Can't tell if serious

 

You’re missing the point. A bunch of posters are saying that Bryson’s sciency golf is nothing special because he’s a better golfer than a scientist. If he was a better emgineer, he would have gone to a better engineering school. Yet Bryson brought single-length clubs to the PGA Tour. His science cannot be bashed at all because it’s clearly working.

 

Not sure how you can credit his success to single length clubs. He would probably be a great player without them. Just because he makes it work doesn't mean it's the reason he is a great player.

 

Single length clubs were around before Bryson dechambeau. So again, I have no idea how you can say someone is a better scientist than a golfer when they are one of the best golfers in the world. I mean let's assume single length takes over golfing world. Still an incredibly insignificant change in grand scheme of world or science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: this from the RAW DOG

 

I'm headed out for a date (shocking, I know for a nerd like me), so I really want to give your post the attention it deserves.

 

You bring up good points, but I'd encourage you to read the link to Pelz article/study. It was done on five separate greens and he mentions the variables of using natural turf, including it wearing, holes wearing, and imperfections in the green.

 

That being said, I also posted a link with a good analysis of the physics involved. I understand capture rates and the physics involved, but some of it is admittedly a bit beyond my education.

 

So in my mind, both in theory and in practice (including using a machine and a human), I am confident in saying keeping it in is a better long-term strategy.

 

The one brief thing I'll say about Phil is that while the hole effectively becomes larger with the stick in, it APPEARS larger with the stick out. So I think you are onto something as to why players take it out. It has to do with the visualization and feel, which we both know is a big component of the game.

 

Have a good evening... hopefully I can come back tonight and add to the convo.

 

 

 

 

Two questions:

 

1. What exact physics computations pertain to a ball striking a flag stick (with so many unknowns)?

2. How did your date go? (I will not take this into the gutter and ask about sticks and holes, and such?)

 

First, the date went well, thank you. She used to play bball so I figured a first date at our local rec center shooting a couple games of HORSE would be fun. She got to see why I'm a golfer and not a bball player :D Dinner and drinks followed and... second date is going down tonight. Score. She must have been impressed by the photos of my indoor putting green...

 

Now, the important stuff...

 

Please follow the link to the other site for full text, because I'm not sure if I can post the name of the site here. I am NOT a member there, but this thread came up in my reading on the subject. Poster identified six areas of potential benefit for putting with the stick in. The first three have justification rooted in physics. Personally, I believe #1 is most important, followed closely by #3. I am not a physicist, but know enough about each topic to expound a little bit if you'd like.

https://thesandtrap....e-flagstick-in/

  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.

 

 

 

As long as you leave the lampshade at home, the next date will go equally as well, if not better.

 

 

As a follow-up:

 

My son and I ran an experiment putting 20 balls each from 8 feet, it was a straight putt down grain - first with stick in and then stick out.

Our greens are perfect.

 

He made 16 with stick with stick out

13 with stick in

 

I made 13 with stick with stick out

11 with stick in

 

 

Then we went hit some balls and came back and did it again.

 

He made 18 with stick with stick out

14 with stick in

 

I made 14 with stick with stick out

11 with stick in

 

 

 

We are pulling - no sense messing with what works.

 

Your sample size is microscopic. And the misses were because you missed the hole right? I still have no idea how it's possible to hit an 8 foot putt hard enough to bounce off a flag, so just making sure you're not claiming that like others have. Mental effects are a real thing too. Maybe some players like it better with no flag and as such do better. Just saying the physics seem very likely for it to overall benefit unless the flag is crooked

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: this from the RAW DOG

 

I'm headed out for a date (shocking, I know for a nerd like me), so I really want to give your post the attention it deserves.

 

You bring up good points, but I'd encourage you to read the link to Pelz article/study. It was done on five separate greens and he mentions the variables of using natural turf, including it wearing, holes wearing, and imperfections in the green.

 

That being said, I also posted a link with a good analysis of the physics involved. I understand capture rates and the physics involved, but some of it is admittedly a bit beyond my education.

 

So in my mind, both in theory and in practice (including using a machine and a human), I am confident in saying keeping it in is a better long-term strategy.

 

The one brief thing I'll say about Phil is that while the hole effectively becomes larger with the stick in, it APPEARS larger with the stick out. So I think you are onto something as to why players take it out. It has to do with the visualization and feel, which we both know is a big component of the game.

 

Have a good evening... hopefully I can come back tonight and add to the convo.

 

 

 

 

Two questions:

 

1. What exact physics computations pertain to a ball striking a flag stick (with so many unknowns)?

2. How did your date go? (I will not take this into the gutter and ask about sticks and holes, and such?)

 

First, the date went well, thank you. She used to play bball so I figured a first date at our local rec center shooting a couple games of HORSE would be fun. She got to see why I'm a golfer and not a bball player :D Dinner and drinks followed and... second date is going down tonight. Score. She must have been impressed by the photos of my indoor putting green...

 

Now, the important stuff...

 

Please follow the link to the other site for full text, because I'm not sure if I can post the name of the site here. I am NOT a member there, but this thread came up in my reading on the subject. Poster identified six areas of potential benefit for putting with the stick in. The first three have justification rooted in physics. Personally, I believe #1 is most important, followed closely by #3. I am not a physicist, but know enough about each topic to expound a little bit if you'd like.

https://thesandtrap....e-flagstick-in/

  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.

 

 

 

As long as you leave the lampshade at home, the next date will go equally as well, if not better.

 

 

As a follow-up:

 

My son and I ran an experiment putting 20 balls each from 8 feet, it was a straight putt down grain - first with stick in and then stick out.

Our greens are perfect.

 

He made 16 with stick with stick out

13 with stick in

 

I made 13 with stick with stick out

11 with stick in

 

 

Then we went hit some balls and came back and did it again.

 

He made 18 with stick with stick out

14 with stick in

 

I made 14 with stick with stick out

11 with stick in

 

 

 

We are pulling - no sense messing with what works.

 

 

You do you. Obviously the flag is causing mental block... ha.

 

But seriously, I'm not in the business of telling people how to play the game. Just reporting the physics of the situation at hand!

 

(Don't shoot the messenger)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: this from the RAW DOG

 

I'm headed out for a date (shocking, I know for a nerd like me), so I really want to give your post the attention it deserves.

 

You bring up good points, but I'd encourage you to read the link to Pelz article/study. It was done on five separate greens and he mentions the variables of using natural turf, including it wearing, holes wearing, and imperfections in the green.

 

That being said, I also posted a link with a good analysis of the physics involved. I understand capture rates and the physics involved, but some of it is admittedly a bit beyond my education.

 

So in my mind, both in theory and in practice (including using a machine and a human), I am confident in saying keeping it in is a better long-term strategy.

 

The one brief thing I'll say about Phil is that while the hole effectively becomes larger with the stick in, it APPEARS larger with the stick out. So I think you are onto something as to why players take it out. It has to do with the visualization and feel, which we both know is a big component of the game.

 

Have a good evening... hopefully I can come back tonight and add to the convo.

 

 

 

 

Two questions:

 

1. What exact physics computations pertain to a ball striking a flag stick (with so many unknowns)?

2. How did your date go? (I will not take this into the gutter and ask about sticks and holes, and such?)

 

First, the date went well, thank you. She used to play bball so I figured a first date at our local rec center shooting a couple games of HORSE would be fun. She got to see why I'm a golfer and not a bball player :D Dinner and drinks followed and... second date is going down tonight. Score. She must have been impressed by the photos of my indoor putting green...

 

Now, the important stuff...

 

Please follow the link to the other site for full text, because I'm not sure if I can post the name of the site here. I am NOT a member there, but this thread came up in my reading on the subject. Poster identified six areas of potential benefit for putting with the stick in. The first three have justification rooted in physics. Personally, I believe #1 is most important, followed closely by #3. I am not a physicist, but know enough about each topic to expound a little bit if you'd like.

https://thesandtrap....e-flagstick-in/

  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.

 

 

 

As long as you leave the lampshade at home, the next date will go equally as well, if not better.

 

 

As a follow-up:

 

My son and I ran an experiment putting 20 balls each from 8 feet, it was a straight putt down grain - first with stick in and then stick out.

Our greens are perfect.

 

He made 16 with stick with stick out

13 with stick in

 

I made 13 with stick with stick out

11 with stick in

 

 

Then we went hit some balls and came back and did it again.

 

He made 18 with stick with stick out

14 with stick in

 

I made 14 with stick with stick out

11 with stick in

 

 

 

We are pulling - no sense messing with what works.

 

 

You do you. Obviously the flag is causing mental block... ha.

 

But seriously, I'm not in the business of telling people how to play the game. Just reporting the physics of the situation at hand!

 

(Don't shoot the messenger)

 

 

Rawdog:

 

 

02980-1488365547265.jpeg

G400 LST - TPT proto
TM M3 - Rogue Silver 110MSI 70S
21* Fourteen Type 7 Driving Iron - HZRDUS Black 6.5 105g
4 - PW Mizuno MP 18 MMC - SteelFiber FC115
50, 54, 60 RC Dual Bite - SteelFiber i125
Evnroll ER5
Snell MTB Black

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I play practice rounds I'll leave the pin in a lot to save time, I feel like I putt much better in regards to longer putts and lag putting with it in. As far as shorter putts I don't ever recall the flag stick negatively affecting the putt, or it knocking a putt out that would have otherwise gone in.

 

Personally I plan on leaving the stick in more often than not. My unscientific view on it is that I can't see it hurting and it's more comfortable for me from an aiming perspective.

 

I do want to add that most of the discussion has been about the physical benefits or penalties of the ball hitting the stick, I think there is probably a greater possibility that the flag in will positively effect aim and depth perception. I would suggest not just measuring makes and misses but proximity to the hole from say 15ft. and out.

 

I played today and took some pins out, and left some in, hit a few extra putts on some of the greens and I found that it was easier for me read contours and get the ball started on a good line. I was 100% in or above the hole on putts with the stick in from 10-25ft I missed a few low side with the pin out from 10-25 or more, and there was no difference from 7ft. and in that I could discern.

 

While I didn't measure physically with a tool, I observed that my proximity to the hole was better with the stick in and I was 100% 2 putt as opposed to missing a few 2nd putts with the pin out on the 1st putt. At no point did I have a ball not go in due to an interaction with the stick.

 

I did feel like I had more confidence being aggressive with short ones as well knowing I could start it inside the hole and give it some pace. It's another tool in the tool box and for good players it should yield a benefit, how much remains to be seen, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being substantial for some guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Our picks

    • 2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree - Discussion and Links
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       

       
      2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree - Tuesday #1
      2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree - Tuesday #2
      2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree - Tuesday #3
      2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree - Tuesday #4
      2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree - Tuesday #5
      2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree - Tuesday #6
       
       

       
       
      Bryson Nimmer's Bettinardi putter - 2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree
      Dustin Johnson's got the putter try-outs going on - 2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree
      Scotty Cameron putters - 2021 Palmetto Championship @ Congaree
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 35 replies
    • 2021 Memorial - Discussion & Links
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       

       
      2021 Memorial - Tuesday #1
      2021 Memorial - Tuesday #2
      2021 Memorial - Tuesday #3
      2021 Memorial - Tuesday #4
      2021 Memorial - Tuesday #5
      2021 Memorial - Tuesday #6
      2021 Memorial - Tuesday #7
      2021 Memorial - Tuesday #8
      2021 Memorial - Tuesday #9
       
       
       

       
       
       

       
      Piretti putter & cover for Hideki - 2021 Memorial
      Odyssey putters - 2021 Memorial
      New Odyssey (play like a kid) putter over - 2021 Memorial
      Bettinardi putters & covers - 2021 Memorial
      Ben An's Cameron putter - 2021 Memorial
       
       
      • 27 replies
    • 2021 Charles Schwab Challenge  - Discussion & Links
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       

       
      2021 Charles Schwab Challenge - Tuesday #1
      2021 Charles Schwab Challenge - Tuesday #2
      2021 Charles Schwab Challenge - Tuesday #3
      2021 Charles Schwab Challenge - Tuesday #4
      2021 Charles Schwab Challenge - Tuesday #5
      2021 Charles Schwab Challenge - Tuesday #6
      2021 Charles Schwab Challenge - Tuesday #7
       
       

       
      2021 Charles Schwab Challenge winner will get this Power wagon
      Eric Compton testing Axis 1 putter - 2021 Charles Schwab Challenge
      Cameron putter and new cover - 2021 Charles Schwab Challenge
       
       
      • 7 replies
    • Phil Mickelson Winning WITB from the 2021 PGA Championship
      Phil Mickelson's Winning What's In The Bag? 
       
      Driver: Callaway Epic Speed Triple Diamond (6 degrees @5.5 , green dot cog) Fujikura Ventus Black 6 X (47.9 inches)
      2-wood: TaylorMade “Original One” Mini Driver (11.5 degrees) Fujikura Ventus Black 7 X
      4-wood: (Sunday only): Callaway Mavrik Sub Zero (16.5 degrees) Fujikura Ventus Blue 8 X
      Irons: Callaway X Forged UT (16) (Thursday-Saturday), Callaway X21 UT Proto (19 degrees @20.5, 25), Callaway Apex MB ‘21 (small groove) (6-PW) Shafts- 16* MCA MMT 105 TX, KBS Tour V 125 S+
      Wedges: Callaway PM Grind ’19 “Raw” ([email protected]*, 55-12*, 60-10*) Shafts: KBS Tour V 125 S+
      Putter: Odyssey Milled Blade “Phil Mickelson” SuperStroke Pistol GT Tour
      Ball: Callaway Chrome Soft X (Triple Track)
      Grips: Golf Pride MCC
       
      Link to more pics on the front-page... https://www.golfwrx.com/654804/phil-mickelson-witb-2021-may-pga-championship/
       

       
       
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 86 replies
    • Ping i59 irons - 2021 Wells Fargo Championship
      Ping i59 irons - 2021 Wells Fargo Championship
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 207 replies

×
×
  • Create New...