Leaving the Flagstick In Study Interview

Do you have a link to the Pelz study with actual numbers and percentages?

No not actual numbers of how many were holed that I can find but here is one of the links. But we don't need actual numbers because it doesn't matter if it was 10 putts in a hundred or 10 in a thousand as it still offered him a more positive result with it in.
 
No not actual numbers of how many were holed that I can find but here is one of the links. But we don't need actual numbers because it doesn't matter if it was 10 putts in a hundred or 10 in a thousand as it still offered him a more positive result with it in.

Wait now. How can we say that his study was any better when none of the data is actually available? So eager to say this new study is invalid, biased, and flawed. I tried to look it up but don't see a percentage. Did he find a significant advantage to leaving the flag in? Did he quantify the benefit by a percentage?

Look, it's no mystery that you are absolutely all-in on leaving the pin in. I have seen your thoughts repeated throughout each thread on the subject. But, if you are expecting people to discount a study for another how can you possibly say that we don't need actual numbers.
 
In discussing his study in January of this year and justifying keeping the flag in, Pelz said, “....a significant amount of energy is lost from a putt’s speed when the ball hits a FIBERGLASS flagstick”. (Emphasis is mine). Flagsticks at the courses I play around here I don’t think are fiberglass but metal. I haven’t seen the original study of his to see if he made the same caveat. Does the material of the flagstick make a difference? If Pelz only tested with fiberglass was there bias in his testing methodology? Just wondering.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Im not certain of that and its a fair question. But in Mase's experiment he still had to choose (and by his own admitting did choose) the one distance and the one approach angle where it mattered most in favor to his suggestion. While the different pins did offer some changes in results they all still only worked in his favor in only that sweat zone. So while any one pin was/is worse or better than other , it still all required living in the same putting stroke in order to provide the less holeouts vs the no pin.

His whole ideology is based on him convincing us that we are too live at this one specific sweat zone of approach angle and speed far greater than any other speed or part of the cup. Imo while we may not be all that much dead center we can certainly be close and we certainly can roll in just about from everywhere, sometimes even the back door after an edger falls. Why would we miss the dead center to only end up most the times at this one sweat angle and speed where his emphasis is placed? I mean we are never to hit an 8th inch or quarter inch left or right of his sweat angle? or just about any degree of difference from that spot? And what about speed? Are we really not only hitting mostly that sweat angle of his but also having most of those putts hit the 4.5 foot mark as well?

there are already many of us putting with the flags in or at least most everyone has been trying it. Is everyone losing even 50% of their non dead center putts to the flag? or even 20% or even 10% of those off dead center hits? No they are not. You know why? because even when not dead center we are still not hitting and living in his one sweat zone but we are hitting just about anywhere and at varying speeds. He even says hitting inside his angle it doesnt work. And hitting outside of it cant work either. What about the balls that only graze the pin or barely touch it? and he also says hitting shorter didnt matter yet hitting too long actually even favors a pin in scenario.

(with due respect to him) To suggest that science dictates that we are 99.9% better off with the pin in is imo a ridiculous statement. Firstly there is really no such thing as 99% better anything. Its either better or it isnt better, period. Imo the odds of helping or hurting in the real world are negligible. Whichever way one chooses to believe it, its minute at best. I feel the pelz study still wins out over this mase study for the reasons ive given. But either way no one is going to be dropping or rising handicaps due to this. For every missed putt one thinks the pin is to blame , its likely there was one or more where it helped but we wouldnt think of it that way because generally we only feel and note the miss , not the make. So i still beleive the pin in offers the smallest advantage and money on the line im leaving it in. But more so than that and to me what it really does is offer a smoother flow to the play around and on the greens. Its simply just easier going and a tad more pleasant when everyone doesnt need to bother with the pin at all and can simply just tend to thier own ball business instead. To me, thats much more a positive and worthy vs any the actual tiny negligible amount of extra made or missd putts (whichever way you believe) that this may or not actually produce one way or the other.
 
But we don't need actual numbers because it doesn't matter if it was 10 putts in a hundred or 10 in a thousand as it still offered him a more positive result with it in.

Wait... what?

You do understand that's actually disproving your theory, right?
 
No, sorry but what the study showed was how at a "given approach angle" along with "a given speed" is likely to deflect out. The study emphasizes a given sweat-spot for that scenario to take place.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. Aren't all putts coming in at a given approach angle and speed?
 
Wait now. How can we say that his study was any better when none of the data is actually available? So eager to say this new study is invalid, biased, and flawed. I tried to look it up but don't see a percentage. Did he find a significant advantage to leaving the flag in? Did he quantify the benefit by a percentage?

Look, it's no mystery that you are absolutely all-in on leaving the pin in. I have seen your thoughts repeated throughout each thread on the subject. But, if you are expecting people to discount a study for another how can you possibly say that we don't need actual numbers.

In his (pelz) article , unless he outright lied , why do the numbers matter? he found after many thousands of putts from different speeds and 5 different angles and slope vs flat, etc, etc, that he had a result that showed him it was better to leave it in. unles he lied why does it matter what the actual amount was? there were more missed without flag than there were with flag. I dont see why i need the actual number unless I felt he was lying.
 
In his (pelz) article , unless he outright lied , why do the numbers matter? he found after many thousands of putts from different speeds and 5 different angles and slope vs flat, etc, etc, that he had a result that showed him it was better to leave it in. unles he lied why does it matter what the actual amount was? there were more missed without flag than there were with flag. I dont see why i need the actual number unless I felt he was lying.

Because, if it is a scientific study (which I do not doubt), it is only as sound as the results. Is it a 10% better chance at holing the putt, 20%, 30%? The results introduce the opportunity for outliers to make a larger impact. The flag stick composition for instance.

If someone performs a study, they typically back it up with numbers. I have no doubt that he has them, and I can understand why, in the early 90's, they weren't included initially. But, to use it as the end all be all study that invalidates any other findings from other parties, there has to be some quantifiable information to prove why.
 
No i dont see how it disproves my thoguhts.

You said leaving the flagstick in would lead to a more positive result no matter if it was 10 out of a 100 or 10 out of 1000. That's literally a negative result.
 
I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. Aren't all putts coming in at a given approach angle and speed?

i dont think your following. Mase puts his ideology that when we miss dead center we will mostly live at his one sweat spot of approach angle and speed. But we dont live at on specific pace and angle at all imo. We can live anywhere within the hole and at varying speeds as we make all our putts.
 
i dont think your following. Mase puts his ideology that when we miss dead center we will mostly live at his one sweat spot of approach angle and speed. But we dont live at on specific pace and angle at all imo. We can live anywhere within the hole and at varying speeds as we make all our putts.

If you're suggesting that putts rely on a specific speed and entry "angle" to go in, then I agree. If you're also suggesting that leaving the flagstick in benefits you more often than not, then I disagree based on the study and personal experience.

The speeds Mase used in his study were independent variables that he could change in order to see their impact on the dependent variable (did the putt go in or not). It's basic scientific method construct. The sweet spot you keep referring to probably exists in theory, but is not an outcome that can be derived from the data presented.
 
Pelz's study was published in the December 1990 issue of GOLF mag, which used 30,000 putts and chips. Things have changed since then. There are a few courses here that still have fiberglass pins, but most don't. The balls were different then as well. A course I play recently changed their pins from fiberglass and it definitely bounced some putts out. MGS also did a study as well that was pro-pin.

Judging from the video, it seems like this particular study was flawed. Those were the fastest 3 foot putts I've ever seen. So, yes, blazing fast 3 foot high side and low side putts are more likely to bounce off the flagstick.

It's not really flawed because putting it any slower eliminates the value of having the flagstick in. Balls dying into the hole are going in no matter what scenario is in place.. The point of a flagstick being in the hole is to slow down a putt that would otherwise miss due to big miscalculations in speed.
 
i dont think your following. Mase puts his ideology that when we miss dead center we will mostly live at his one sweat spot of approach angle and speed. But we dont live at on specific pace and angle at all imo. We can live anywhere within the hole and at varying speeds as we make all our putts.

But, think about it... If you putt the ball dead on the hole (which he did), it's going in. You need a scenario where the ball may potentially miss the hole in order to create a legitimate assessment, otherwise the flag-in theory is going to get obliterated.
 
Oh yea I can believe we'd all be off dead center more than on. We certainly don't live in that dead on sweat zone. But we also don't live in his sweat-spot place anymore than anywhere else either. The pole of course is round and he found the exact spot to hit it. Vary from that in either direction (maybe more inside or maybe more outside) and the bias results begin to fall apart and that's not even yet to include speed changes which also cause it to fall apart.

How does one become convinced this study makes perfect sense but ignore the Pelz study which had no bias sweat spot, consisted of 5 entrance points, different speeds, flat and sloped greens, thousands of balls rolled both mechanically and also physically putted. Just how in the world can a study that places emphasis on a given bias sweat zone actually render the far broader and much less bias pelz study useless? He somehow determines that we are going to live in and hit this one angle and speed far more than any other angles and speeds. I mean honestly, if people are to be looking for the answer they want to hear then apparently they are going to hear it even if its via a flawed means and even when other avenues indicate different that do not have the same flaws.

Visual evidence, in both my experiences over a 30 year playing career, and the actual video evidence provided to us by this study.

If Pelz wants to argue this with fact, not an ancient study with zero visual evidence, he can put the time in and create something. I'll be here and ready to watch.
 
If you're suggesting that putts rely on a specific speed and entry "angle" to go in, then I agree. If you're also suggesting that leaving the flagstick in benefits you more often than not, then I disagree based on the study and personal experience.

The speeds Mase used in his study were independent variables that he could change in order to see their impact on the dependent variable (did the putt go in or not). It's basic scientific method construct. The sweet spot you keep referring to probably exists in theory, but is not an outcome that can be derived from the data presented.

Sweet sweaty god, someone else noticed.
 
But, think about it... If you putt the ball dead on the hole (which he did), it's going in. You need a scenario where the ball may potentially miss the hole in order to create a legitimate assessment, otherwise the flag-in theory is going to get obliterated.

and in order to reap mase's benefit, most our non dead center strikes will have to hit that spot and also be no faster. Otherwise it makes no difference or having the pin in helps. He even mentions the same. I doubt even half our non dead center putts are hitting that spot nor also at that speed.

either way , whichever way one wants to believe, i feel its negligible at best. i think there is too much being made of it helping or not. And as said i think the ease of simply leaving the pin be just makes for a nicer flow of play which over shadows the minute results. And that doesnt at all mean im looking to rush things at all. I harte rushing as much as I do waiting, but ts just much nicer to flow a bit more smoothly jn this regard is all.
 
This is an interesting topic that we are discussing in my golf group. Dave Pelz states "The science proves you should leave the flagstick in when you putt". The study from Golf Digest is also intersing but there are a lot of "what if's" to consider. Type of grass, speed of the green, humidity, number of putts from the same location on the green, wind or no wind, how flat is the green (nothing is perfect) etc.

So ... I am not sure one way or the other but will keep watching this thread for everyones thoughts.
 
and in order to reap mase's benefit, most our non dead center strikes will have to hit that spot and also be no faster. Otherwise it makes no difference or having the pin in helps. He even mentions the same. I doubt even half our non dead center putts are hitting that spot nor also at that speed.

either way , whichever way one wants to believe, i feel its negligible at best. i think there is too much being made of it helping or not. And as said i think the ease of simply leaving the pin be just makes for a nicer flow of play which over shadows the minute results. And that doesnt at all mean im looking to rush things at all. I harte rushing as much as I do waiting, but ts just much nicer to flow a bit more smoothly jn this regard is all.

Not sure I follow... So he found a speed at which any slower it's going in either way, and any faster it's NOT going in either way, and that becomes negligible?

We can just keep using the Bryson logic and hammer a three footer at 15 foot speed to see how often we can hit the pin square in, if that improves the story here.
 
Not sure I follow... So he found a speed at which any slower it's going in either way, and any faster it's NOT going in either way, and that becomes negligible?

We can just keep using the Bryson logic and hammer a three footer at 15 foot speed to see how often we can hit the pin square in, if that improves the story here.

Firstly the faster part would actually result in a shorter combacker with the pin in. But regardless of that, its not negligible at that one angle and one speed, it can be more. But thats only if you know that most your non dead center putts are going to hit that one one given spot and at that given speed. And that is what mase is basing this all on more than anything else. If you agree with that then I find it amazing that you know most your off dead center putts will be at that angle and speed far more than anywhere else or another speed. On the other hand pelz came in from 5 angles on both sloped and flat and by roller and human and different speeds and of course you know the rest at what he says he tallied up. Just perhaps there was one specific angle and speed where pelz study went slightly the other way. IDK. But his tally was about all the scenarios not just the one where it didint work best. By his study through the thousands it suggests all combined that we were better in vs out. If you really know the one favorable spot of angle and speed that mase uses is indeed where you will also be far too often and that you will never receive any the help pelz suggests by being anywhere else or any different speed , then i suppose you would chose to take it out. How you can truly know this is where you will be more than any other off center hit area or speed is beyond me. But im not you..lol

And BTW, thanks for conversing respectfully with me. Some others would not debate this with me as respectfully as you are and would be fed up. So i appreciate the talk. Imo its fun and interesting.
 
Firstly the faster part would actually result in a shorter combacker with the pin in. But regardless of that, its not negligible at that one angle and one speed, it can be more. But thats only if you know that most your non dead center putts are going to hit that one one given spot and at that given speed. And that is what mase is basing this all on more than anything else. If you agree with that then I find it amazing that you know most your off dead center putts will be at that angle and speed far more than anywhere else or another speed. On the other hand pelz came in from 5 angles on both sloped and flat and by roller and human and different speeds and of course you know the rest at what he says he tallied up. Just perhaps there was one specific angle and speed where pelz study went slightly the other way. IDK. But his tally was about all the scenarios not just the one where it didint work best. By his study through the thousands it suggests all combined that we were better in vs out. If you really know the one favorable spot of angle and speed that mase uses is indeed where you will also be far too often and that you will never receive any the help pelz suggests by being anywhere else or any different speed , then i suppose you would chose to take it out. How you can truly know this is where you will be more than any other off center hit area or speed is beyond me. But im not you..lol

I think I see what you're saying now. Yes, rolling the putts on the same lines every time raises questions.

I also think it's important to control as many variables as you can for an experiment, which is what Mase did in this case. One of the factors was line, which the study chose to control.
 
The biggest problem with the Pelz study is I have never seen all the data, only summaries of the data. I can't understand the data if I can't see it. The experiment done by Mase gives us all the data. He also said in the interview that it was very easy to reproduce with similar results. I have an engineering background and the Mase study is very compelling for me and supports what I've seen over 40 years of playing golf. Over the years I've seen thousands of putts go in the hole traveling fast enough to go 10+ feet past the hole. I've also seen hundreds of chip shots bounce off the flag and not go in that were traveling at a speed that would have them come to rest less than 10 feet past the hole had they not hit the flag. Maybe others don't have as many data points as I do, but to me it's obvious that having a flagstick in the way on a chip or putt can increase the chance of a bounce out when you're not hitting the center of the flagstick, which is most of the time.
 
But more so than that and to me what it really does is offer a smoother flow to the play around and on the greens. Its simply just easier going and a tad more pleasant when everyone doesnt need to bother with the pin at all and can simply just tend to thier own ball business instead.

That is only the case if the flagstick is perfectly vertical for everyone in the group no matter what angle they are putting from. The cup cut on a slope, wind, the fact that the flagstick and the way it fits in the cup itself always seems to have a little "play", any of those scenarios may require that someone adjust the pin or possibly pull it. A much smoother "flow" is if the guy farthest away putts with the flag in (unless everyone is in truly makeable distance) and can then leave it, tend it or pull it as required by the next guy. Once pulled it stays out. That is the way we have been working it, and we still play as a foursome in under 3 hours (no rushing involved, just ready golf). Not one of us has asked to have it put back in after it is pulled.
 
It's not really flawed because putting it any slower eliminates the value of having the flagstick in. Balls dying into the hole are going in no matter what scenario is in place.. The point of a flagstick being in the hole is to slow down a putt that would otherwise miss due to big miscalculations in speed.

Yeah, but who thinks that a speedy but that hits the cup high or low has a great chance of going in anyway, flagstick or not? I missed two of those yesterday with the flagstick out. The flagstick theory, in my estimation, has always been that 1) it helps faster putts go in (from straight on); and 2) off center putts or chips that would normally carom off the hole would hit the pin and land closer to the hole than they would've if the flagstick had not been there.

I'm not against this particular study; I just think it measures a very narrow circumstance. In my experience since the new rule, I think the type of flagstick is the biggest factor on the results. At one course I play, the flagsticks are fat and metal and I know they have cost me more putts. At another course, they still have thin fiberglass pins and they definitely help more than they hurt. Then at another course I play, they have thinner flagstick (I'm not sure what it's made of, probably metal) and the jury is still out. I can't tell if it helps or hurts.
 
I also seem to recall during telecasts of the pros that commentators always seemed to make the statement that when these guys were chipping from just off the green, if the pin were pulled the guy was "trying to make it". I am not sure what that says.......or maybe my age is showing. :act-up:
 
Back
Top