Mark_UK
Legal Alien
I pull it every time, without fail. I’ll try just concentrating on the stick rather than the hole, see if that helps.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Flagstick - Science says you should pull it 99.9% of the time.
I pull it every time, without fail. I’ll try just concentrating on the stick rather than the hole, see if that helps.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The way you guys are talking in here makes me think lots of putts are being made. 
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2015
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 4,273
Why does this crack you up? It's almost standard practice to do this on putts from this length that tend to break.
chriso97
Mad Golfer
This is fascinating ... I'm a data guy / scientist so I love that we have competing arguments that both seem to make sense.
Would love to do a "golfers" test myself but I like what these guys have done. Have to say this test is pretty comprehensive and really makes sense.
I have seen 3 putts miss because of the pin, and did wonder about speed and whether some of the putts would drop anyway. (Even with pin out)
There is a "confidence" factor that would be tough to measure.
At the end of the day you never can have the same putt with pin out and pin in so ... The debate will rate on.
Sent from my Lenovo P2a42 using Tapatalk
Would love to do a "golfers" test myself but I like what these guys have done. Have to say this test is pretty comprehensive and really makes sense.
I have seen 3 putts miss because of the pin, and did wonder about speed and whether some of the putts would drop anyway. (Even with pin out)
There is a "confidence" factor that would be tough to measure.
At the end of the day you never can have the same putt with pin out and pin in so ... The debate will rate on.
Sent from my Lenovo P2a42 using Tapatalk
- Thread starter
- #56
I love the debate as well and the data in this study is very compelling. A lot of golfers will see this data since it’s in the May Golf Digest so the debate will rage on...
rallo
#FYF
I have never missed a putt because of the flag, although I suppose everyone's mileage may vary.
I am but one man... a simple man... but mama told me, when I was young... "leave that flagstick in, my third son"
I am but one man... a simple man... but mama told me, when I was young... "leave that flagstick in, my third son"
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,642
- Reaction score
- 1,119
- Location
- planet earth, milky way galaxy
- Handicap
- 15.7
The thing about this specific test (sort of as I mentioned in my recent post) is that "IMO" he was in search of a result and found a means to achieve it. So imo it was bias as he found a couple sweatspot parameters to putt the 90 balls from that offered him the result he was looking for. And even goes as far as to suggest the percentages as for where we miss most. And that is not ever anything that can be counted upon. The Pelz study was done with no bias intent but only set out to discover which way is best. It didn't stay in any favorable sweat zone but utilized 3 different speeds, 5 different entrance points, and both on flat and sloped greens. And thousands of balls were involved via a true roller and also via human putting too.
The human putting part of the pelz study offered him similar results as the true roller did. So right there and then, that part of the pelz study dismisses the logic put forth in this new study which uses fancy math to suggest where and how we putt puts us in the miss zone far more often with the pin in. If the person who did this new study was correct then the human putter of the ball in the pletz study would have had results consitant with this new study. But he didn't and in fact his putting results similarly matched that of the rest of pelzs true rolled balled did whjich again was in the thousands and not at all done in any sweat zone that forced a desired result.
I wouldn't even call this new test an open study but more a bias result in search of a means to get there. And imo he did just that. I mean he even goes on to offer that science says its 99.9% better to pull it and that's just is ridiculous. What he does here is not science but just math which was used in such a way to produced a bias result.
I think as far as being better, then whichever way is better is 100% better because its either better or its not. But I think in the end its so minimal either way that it really does just come down to what one likes to putt with. And for me (as most know) I simply see the opportunity to leave the pin in the hole as a way of producing a smoother easier flow to golf while on the greens. And not having to deal with the pin at all just overall better and since it can be a plus even of tiny , then that's just a bit more reason.
Last edited:
darthweasel
Well-known member
last tournament I played a guy confidently announced before the round, "I will be leaving the pin in most of the time" with that brash arrogance some people do so well. None of the rest of us really cared one way or the other so in it stayed. As the round went on the guy was playing like his personality...very poorly. Suddenly if the pin was in he would stomp up in irritated fashion and rip the flag out and drop it with that heavy "thump" I hate so much on the green.
His putting did not improve.
His struggles were all in his head and when he blamed the flagstick it only got worse.
Not sure that really solves anything, it is one anecdotal moment from one person...but I found it interesting and a good reminder to myself to play MY game and when it comes to the flag...I have my own belief on which research was done better and my final ruling is: I will do whatever the group consensus is. It will not affect my putting enough to matter as much as getting along with my partners does...
I don’t putt well enough to have feelings either way about it. I’ve been leaving it in unless the wind is blowing it towards me noticeably.
Of course I mostly did this before the rule revision anyways, at least until I started posting rounds again last year.
Of course I mostly did this before the rule revision anyways, at least until I started posting rounds again last year.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 24,327
- Reaction score
- 25,873
- Handicap
- 17.2
Honestly the best thing is we have options. If I have a short putt and the pin is leaning towards me I will pull it because I can. If I have a long downhill putt I will leave it in because having a chance to hit something gives me a better chance to make the putt or end up close. Options should make for better scores if we think our way through them.
I came back to golf beginning of this year after a long layoff (2 decades since serious regular play). So I kinda walked into the whole pin thing. I have to admit that having it in bugged me quite a bit at first. Pulling the pin was part of a sequence/ritual that I'd done since I was able to swing a club as a wee lad. At first I wanted it out when I putted. But slowly I've come to not care as much, and it really is just about the rest of the group. If everyone wants it in, I'll putt with it in. If some want it out, I'll putt with it out. Anything that moves us off the green quicker...
Here is a good question; since the flag stick has mass, wouldn’t it also have gravity? Albeit small, would that be enough to pull the ball towards the hole? Just kidding, but it’s an interesting thought.
Wait....so they covered the hole? That’s pure nonsense.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,642
- Reaction score
- 1,119
- Location
- planet earth, milky way galaxy
- Handicap
- 15.7
And the video shows exactly what he set out to do and what I implied was a bias experiment. And that is....using the bias sweatspot approach angle and speed that resulted in his one desired outcome. Again, it was far more a result in search of a means vs being any open unbias example.
Sure we likely don't hit the dead center of the cup too often but we do likely hit all parts and at all varying speeds, not at all imo will we ever hit consistently this one speed and angle where his desired result rests upon. This kind of thing I find annoying because he uses the word "science" and right away that entraps people into thinking (or lack of thinking deeper) into this and especially the mind that is also searching for the same desired result. Imo there would likely be as much variance for us hitting this one angle and speed combination as we would have hitting dead center.
When pelz (thousands of balls) experimenting utilized 5 angles of approach at 3 different speeds is imo much more realistic. technically there is no set angle of approaching because its technically any spot within the entire width of the hole and can be divided into 100ths of an inch or millimeters if we wanted to, whatever. and we would be rolling in at most every and any one of them and at different speeds on any given putt.
I understand science is really just math but using the word "science" makes it sound so much more than it is. In his case he used an opinion as for the place and speed at which "he felt" we would enter the hole more often then the center. But we could certainly and just as often be at any angle different from that one and with different speeds.
I don't have any kind of attachment to pelz at all. Im noa fan of his or anything at all. Many know me through the years here and know that I have no issue challenging whoever states something even if they were the golf god. If I feel ity isn't right I will say what I feel. So its not at all like Im any pelz follower. But his study (in this case) was done with such a huge sample size and covered well the angles and speeds and even slopes and done imo with no bias at all except to find out whats better and then let the results speak for themselves. That math to me holds far more scientific value than what anyone else to this point has done. Certainly holds a ton more value than this latest bias experiment which was much more a result in search of a means that was done in "so called' the name of science. I mean really I just cant even compare the two. Its almost a joke imo to say that science dictated this vs what Pelz did.
Sure we likely don't hit the dead center of the cup too often but we do likely hit all parts and at all varying speeds, not at all imo will we ever hit consistently this one speed and angle where his desired result rests upon. This kind of thing I find annoying because he uses the word "science" and right away that entraps people into thinking (or lack of thinking deeper) into this and especially the mind that is also searching for the same desired result. Imo there would likely be as much variance for us hitting this one angle and speed combination as we would have hitting dead center.
When pelz (thousands of balls) experimenting utilized 5 angles of approach at 3 different speeds is imo much more realistic. technically there is no set angle of approaching because its technically any spot within the entire width of the hole and can be divided into 100ths of an inch or millimeters if we wanted to, whatever. and we would be rolling in at most every and any one of them and at different speeds on any given putt.
I understand science is really just math but using the word "science" makes it sound so much more than it is. In his case he used an opinion as for the place and speed at which "he felt" we would enter the hole more often then the center. But we could certainly and just as often be at any angle different from that one and with different speeds.
I don't have any kind of attachment to pelz at all. Im noa fan of his or anything at all. Many know me through the years here and know that I have no issue challenging whoever states something even if they were the golf god. If I feel ity isn't right I will say what I feel. So its not at all like Im any pelz follower. But his study (in this case) was done with such a huge sample size and covered well the angles and speeds and even slopes and done imo with no bias at all except to find out whats better and then let the results speak for themselves. That math to me holds far more scientific value than what anyone else to this point has done. Certainly holds a ton more value than this latest bias experiment which was much more a result in search of a means that was done in "so called' the name of science. I mean really I just cant even compare the two. Its almost a joke imo to say that science dictated this vs what Pelz did.
Last edited:
I think they set out to create an opposing opinion and then figured out how to get the results they wanted. Gotta get them clicks.
- Thread starter
- #69
I think it’s important to remember that for many golfers like me that die putts in the hole, it makes zero difference if the flag is in or out. He confirmed that with his testing - 100% of the putts went in the hole flagstick or not when he set up to roll them 2.5 feet past the hole. When I’m putting well it is rare that I hit a putt more than 3 feet past the hole, especially from inside of 15 feet.
I played yesterday with a guy who insisted in leaving the flag in for all putts. Me and my buddy left the flag in for most of the putts but as the wind kicked up later in the round we both found the flag flapping distracting so we pulled the flagstick for putts inside of 15 feet. We also had a couple instances where the shadow of the flagstick was right on the line of the putt and once where the moving shadow of the flag right over my ball at address. For me a no brainer to pull the flagstick.
I played yesterday with a guy who insisted in leaving the flag in for all putts. Me and my buddy left the flag in for most of the putts but as the wind kicked up later in the round we both found the flag flapping distracting so we pulled the flagstick for putts inside of 15 feet. We also had a couple instances where the shadow of the flagstick was right on the line of the putt and once where the moving shadow of the flag right over my ball at address. For me a no brainer to pull the flagstick.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,642
- Reaction score
- 1,119
- Location
- planet earth, milky way galaxy
- Handicap
- 15.7
he claims he used the 4' example for the 90 putts (if im not mistaken). I personally feel from experience that a huge number of amateurs tend to die the ball in. But also a huge number putt past as well. But our inconsistencies are often scattered all over the place speed wise. Not to mention using the entire cup probably about equally across it diameter. heck even our slight screw ups can hit dead center simply by being redirected by imperfections on the greens.
I would bet for every putt that an imperfection in our greens causes us a near miss, we probably have one that barely went in due to an imperfection (which would have barely missed). We just don't think of it that way...lol
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 25,455
- Reaction score
- 1,662
I have to laugh at the high side test.
Says that the fibreglass pin performed the best, yet it achieves the same make percentage at the tapered pin....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you really look at that study, the data is pretty flawed, which is something that another site pointed out and challenged them to prove how they came to the conclusion (because their own study said the opposite).
IMO, this is nothing more than people not liking change and trying to find any reason to resist change.
IMO, this is nothing more than people not liking change and trying to find any reason to resist change.
chriso97
Mad Golfer
How is it flawed??? I haven't seen any flaws so far
Sent from my Lenovo P2a42 using Tapatalk
Like tahoebum mentioned, I'm guessing if you change the experimental setup to something like 2 feet past the hole, you might see different results. Like any experiment, the setup/assumptions need to be taken into account, and all I was saying is that 4 feet past the hole is something I'd consider a miss from a speed perspective, that's all.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,642
- Reaction score
- 1,119
- Location
- planet earth, milky way galaxy
- Handicap
- 15.7
you ask….How is it flawed? I think ive given very sound example in a few posts as for how I feel its very flawed. You may not agree with them.
But...He went on and found a one sided sweat spot to fulfill a desired bias result he wanted. And then tries to appeal to our common sense with fancy (what he calls) science which is really only based on his opinion.