We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Leaving the Flagstick In Study Interview

JB

JB

Follow @THPGolf on Social Media
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
283,156
Reaction score
431,406
Location
THP Experiences
This was an interesting interview that I hope you all enjoy. Tom was extremely gracious with his time and is one of the smartest people I've spoken with. It's also very important, although we mention it briefly in the episode, to know that this study started in January and was not in response to any other study conducted.
 
Very interesting listen. I personally go about half and half with flagstick in or out. If the flagstick is completely centered, I prefer it in. I play a pretty well maintained public muni but that is often not the case so I pull it if don't like the look of how the flagstick is sitting in the hole.
 
I was a proponent of leaving flag in unless it was windy and the flag is blowing and leaning.

I especially like leaving it in for long putts as I think it really helps with my depth perception, but tend to want to pull it on make-able putts say within 20 feet.

Although at the Titleist event this past weekend I saw JT hit a putt from about 15 feet that seemed good speed. The ball hit the flag dead center and bounced out about 2 inches away from the hole.
I think this validated my view of when to pull vs when to leave the flag in.
 
good listen. But i still find my same opinion as in the other thread. He basically finds the one bias sweat spot needed and ran with that. He even says that most anything shorter dont matter or longer then it better to leave it in. So imo he's running with the one approach angle and one given distance where the results favor the pin being out. Yet states its a 99.9% better decision. How can that be. Weather he was actually looking for that result in a bias fashion Im not certain. But he did find the one sweat place and ran with it. That imo makes it a bias result even if his original intentions were not.

We may indeed not be hitting dead center often. But we do hit it just about everywhere and imo we are probably no more at that one given approach angle than we are at being centered enough. With a good putt we are also at good speed and if putting poorly we are not at the one given speed but very likely varying speed too. I mean just how often are we to be at the one angle and one speed required to have the same results. In any other place and speed it proves to either make no difference or does benefit us by leaving it in. He even implied similar.

Unless one plans on hitting that angle and that speed regularly this whole 99.9% thing does not fly imo. Engineer or not , this imo is not a correct definitive answer. Its only such a thing in the given sweat spot. I wish he was asked (if he was Im sorry I missed it) about asked about the thousands of balls and different angles and speeds of the Pelz study that did not focus mostly on one sweet spot. If he is aware of that study (and I asume he would be) then its possible he was set out to prove it wrong and found the testing spot where he could do just that. IDK. But as (he) an engineer , scientist, whatever , imo one should relate to all this better then to run with the one sweat spot in any test. all it proves to me is that your better with the flag out if you hit that speed and angle, otherwise for anything else it either makes no difference or its better with it in.

Sorry,...good listen but Im not agreeing (for reasons given) that we are 99.9% better off.
 
j_sizzle9 said:
I was a proponent of leaving flag in unless it was windy and the flag is blowing and leaning.

I especially like leaving it in for long putts as I think it really helps with my depth perception, but tend to want to pull it on make-able putts say within 20 feet.

Although at the Titleist event this past weekend I saw JT hit a putt from about 15 feet that seemed good speed. The ball hit the flag dead center and bounced out about 2 inches away from the hole.
I think this validated my view of when to pull vs when to leave the flag in.
Click to expand...

I wasn’t sure about leaving it in as I’m used to having it out but after that incident I will make sure it’s out.

That was a very difficult 108 yards for all of us that day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I enjoyed that on the way to work this morning. I played yesterday with the flag stick in and like it better for the distance judgement on the longer putts.
 
j_sizzle9 said:
I was a proponent of leaving flag in unless it was windy and the flag is blowing and leaning.

I especially like leaving it in for long putts as I think it really helps with my depth perception, but tend to want to pull it on make-able putts say within 20 feet.

Although at the Titleist event this past weekend I saw JT hit a putt from about 15 feet that seemed good speed. The ball hit the flag dead center and bounced out about 2 inches away from the hole.
I think this validated my view of when to pull vs when to leave the flag in.
Click to expand...
You cant ever use one incident as any determination factor. If it was good speed and dead center all studies indicate it doesnt make any difference and is 100% so chances are the putt may not been good speed or something else played into it.

One of things about any of this is that everyone tends to look at one putt here and there and since the pin is in it automatically becomes the blame while truth is you just dont know what would have happened of the pin was out because it wasnt out. For all you know the ball may have ran the hole and instead of 2 inches tap in there may have been a much harder comebacker to deal with. No one is ever going to give credit to a pin that helps a ball stay in the hole (just as the pelz study proved can and does happen) and even this study that states it will help when hit harder, but we will give blame when it doesnt drop. So the pin itself is always going to be at risk of blame simply because its there but will never be at risk of getting praise for being there the times it helped save putts.
 
rollin said:
good listen. But i still find my same opinion as in the other thread. He basically finds the one bias sweat spot needed and ran with that. He even says that most anything shorter dont matter or longer then it better to leave it in. So imo he's running with the one approach angle and one given distance where the results favor the pin being out. Yet states its a 99.9% better decision. How can that be. Weather he was actually looking for that result in a bias fashion Im not certain. But he did find the one sweat place and ran with it. That imo makes it a bias result even if his original intentions were not.

We may indeed not be hitting dead center often. But we do hit it just about everywhere and imo we are probably no more at that one given approach angle than we are at being centered enough. With a good putt we are also at good speed and if putting poorly we are not at the one given speed but very likely varying speed too. I mean just how often are we to be at the one angle and one speed required to have the same results. In any other place and speed it proves to either make no difference or does benefit us by leaving it in. He even implied similar.

Unless one plans on hitting that angle and that speed regularly this whole 99.9% thing does not fly imo. Engineer or not , this imo is not a correct definitive answer. Its only such a thing in the given sweat spot. I wish he was asked (if he was Im sorry I missed it) about asked about the thousands of balls and different angles and speeds of the Pelz study that did not focus mostly on one sweet spot. If he is aware of that study (and I asume he would be) then its possible he was set out to prove it wrong and found the testing spot where he could do just that. IDK. But as (he) an engineer , scientist, whatever , imo one should relate to all this better then to run with the one sweat spot in any test. all it proves to me is that your better with the flag out if you hit that speed and angle, otherwise for anything else it either makes no difference or its better with it in.

Sorry,...good listen but Im not agreeing (for reasons given) that we are 99.9% better off.
Click to expand...

To clarify, Tom's study shows that putts rolling at specific speeds had different results. What the study showed was putts that hit the center of the flagstick would have dropped anyway for putts at lower speeds. However, as speed increased, the amount of time the ball had to allow gravity to pull it into the cup before striking the flagstick decreased. Instead, the ball rebounded off the flag and stayed out of the cup. This was especially true for off-center putts (which accounts for the majority of most players, including Tour pros).

The 99.9% estimate seems high, but if you read the original article Tom and his team explain the math well.
 
rollin said:
You cant ever use one incident as any determination factor. If it was good speed and dead center all studies indicate it doesnt make any difference and is 100% so chances are the putt may not been good speed or something else played into it.

One of things about any of this is that everyone tends to look at one putt here and there and since the pin is in it automatically becomes the blame while truth is you just dont know what would have happened of the pin was out because it wasnt out. For all you know the ball may have ran the hole and instead of 2 inches tap in there may have been a much harder comebacker to deal with. No one is ever going to give credit to a pin that helps a ball stay in the hole (just as the pelz study proved can and does happen) and even this study that states it will help when hit harder, but we will give blame when it doesnt drop. So the pin itself is always going to be at risk of blame simply because its there but will never be at risk of getting praise for being there the times it helped save putts.
Click to expand...

The cool thing is we can have it either way, in or out. Go with what you want or prefer the look of as clearly people are torn as to whether it helps or not
 
I have not listened to this, but my personal opinion is that if the ball hits the flag and stays out, then if the flag had not been there the ball still wouldn't have dropped because it had too much speed

The debate for me is how much difference in the subsequent putt there would be depending on whether the flag was in or out - I feel that having the flag in will result in a shorter putt as the ball will have had most of its energy removed when it hit the flag

When playing, I will leave the flag in for long putts whereas previously I would have asked for the flag to be tended. Once I get within a certain range I will go with the consensus of the group whether it stays in or out, but if playing on my own I will always just leave it in
 
TheDoctor said:
I have not listened to this, but my personal opinion is that if the ball hits the flag and stays out, then if the flag had not been there the ball still wouldn't have dropped because it had too much speed

The debate for me is how much difference in the subsequent putt there would be depending on whether the flag was in or out - I feel that having the flag in will result in a shorter putt as the ball will have had most of its energy removed when it hit the flag

When playing, I will leave the flag in for long putts whereas previously I would have asked for the flag to be tended. Once I get within a certain range I will go with the consensus of the group whether it stays in or out, but if playing on my own I will always just leave it in
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Tom's study found: lag putts that bounced off the flagstick resulted in shorter second puts in comparison to putts when no flagstick was involved. This presumably could help reduce 3-putts, although more detail is needed.

I agree, there is a speed at which no putt will fall, flagstick or not. However, Tom explained in the episode a very interesting finding: the golf ball needs more real estate to allow for gravity to take over and pull the ball into the hole. If a flagstick is present, that is basically a barrier that does not give the ball enough "time" or space to allow gravity to take over. Hence, the majority of putts will instead bounce off the stick and out of the hole.
 
rollin said:
We may indeed not be hitting dead center often. But we do hit it just about everywhere and imo we are probably no more at that one given approach angle than we are at being centered enough. With a good putt we are also at good speed and if putting poorly we are not at the one given speed but very likely varying speed too. I mean just how often are we to be at the one angle and one speed required to have the same results. In any other place and speed it proves to either make no difference or does benefit us by leaving it in. He even implied similar.
Click to expand...

I think it's individual specific. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've putted the ball dead center and it rolled over the top of the hole or popped up and bounced off the other side. Adversely, I'd need a room full of THPers to count the times I've been off center and the ball grabbed the side of the hole. With a chance to ricochet like that off a pin and deflect away from the hole, the risk is far too great for me.
 
Canadan said:
I think it's individual specific. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've putted the ball dead center and it rolled over the top of the hole or popped up and bounced off the other side. Adversely, I'd need a room full of THPers to count the times I've been off center and the ball grabbed the side of the hole. With a chance to ricochet like that off a pin and deflect away from the hole, the risk is far too great for me.
Click to expand...

Good points. Furthermore, I can think of many instances when a putt has hit the back of the hole and fell in, especially on firmly-struck putts. Based on the study, that could have been due to giving the ball enough time to allow for gravity to take the ball past its equator, which increased the chances of the ball to fall instead of popping out. That could not have happened if a flagstick was in the way.
 
j_sizzle9 said:
I was a proponent of leaving flag in unless it was windy and the flag is blowing and leaning.

I especially like leaving it in for long putts as I think it really helps with my depth perception, but tend to want to pull it on make-able putts say within 20 feet.

Although at the Titleist event this past weekend I saw JT hit a putt from about 15 feet that seemed good speed. The ball hit the flag dead-center and bounced out about 2 inches away from the hole.
I think this validated my view of when to pull vs when to leave the flag in.
Click to expand...

I saw JT miss that one as well. So far I have ten rounds in this April, and I've seen one putt and one chip that was traveling at what looked like a make speed that bounced off the side of the flagstick and finished less than 18" from the hole. I have yet to see in 2019 any putts or chips go in that looked like the flagstick helped. My observations only but it backs up the results of this study.

I loved listening to this interview. He sounds like an engineer, lol, and reminded me of many of my professors & fellow engineering students when I was studying mechanical engineering at Iowa State 30+ years ago. He also certainly doesn't sound like he has an agenda and the comment that hit home with me from the podcast was "you're running out of real estate." Meaning when the ball was traveling a bit off of center cup at that speed that would send it 4.5' by the hole, gravity doesn't begin to suck the ball downwards until it travels about 1.5", leaving only 1/2" of real estate to fall before it collides with the flagstick. We've all seen golf balls hitting the flagstick deflect out of the hole, and his testing confirmed that it is indeed not only possible but likely on off-center hits traveling a bit too fast. If you hit the center of the flagstick, those putts are likely to go in, but as the article says, the great putters only hit center cup 27% of the time so nearly three-fourths of the time having the flagstick in at that speed can hurt your chances of making the putt. With no flagstick, 90% of those off-center putts in the study were holed vs. 45% of those where the flagstick was left in. Pretty compelling.

I also like his comment that the hole looks bigger to him with the flagstick out. It does for me as well. I will be pulling the flagstick on most any putt inside of 15 feet and so all but one of the dozen or so golfers I've played with this year are doing the same.
 
tahoebum said:
I saw JT miss that one as well. So far I have ten rounds in this April, and I've seen one putt and one chip that was traveling at what looked like a make speed that bounced off the side of the flagstick and finished less than 18" from the hole. I have yet to see in 2019 any putts or chips go in that looked like the flagstick helped. My observations only but it backs up the results of this study.

I loved listening to this interview. He sounds like an engineer, lol, and reminded me of many of my professors & fellow engineering students when I was studying mechanical engineering at Iowa State 30+ years ago. He also certainly doesn't sound like he has an agenda and the comment that hit home with me from the podcast was "you're running out of real estate." Meaning when the ball was traveling a bit off of center cup at that speed that would send it 4.5' by the hole, gravity doesn't begin to suck the ball downwards until it travels about 1.5", leaving only 1/2" of real estate to fall before it collides with the flagstick. We've all seen golf balls hitting the flagstick deflect out of the hole, and his testing confirmed that it is indeed not only possible but likely on off-center hits traveling a bit too fast. If you hit the center of the flagstick, those putts are likely to go in, but as the article says, the great putters only hit center cup 27% of the time so nearly three-fourths of the time having the flagstick in at that speed can hurt your chances of making the putt. With no flagstick, 90% of those off-center putts in the study were holed vs. 45% of those where the flagstick was left in. Pretty compelling.

I also like his comment that the hole looks bigger to him with the flagstick out. It does for me as well. I will be pulling the flagstick on most any putt inside of 15 feet and so all but one of the dozen or so golfers I've played with this year are doing the same.
Click to expand...

Thanks for listening!
 
Canadan said:
I think it's individual specific. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've putted the ball dead center, and it rolled over the top of the hole or popped up and bounced off the other side. Adversely, I'd need a room full of THPers to count the times I've been off center, and the ball grabbed the side of the hole. With a chance to ricochet like that off a pin and deflect away from the hole, the risk is far too great for me.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I've logged over 3,600 rounds and have had thousands of slightly off-center putts go in that were traveling too fast(enough to go 8+ feet past the hole), and only maybe 10 in my life that hit the back of the hole popped up and stayed out.
 
Great listen Adam. I really enjoyed hearing the interview following the article I read last week. As an engineer his study seems pretty extensive. I have yet to been able to find the data on Pelz's study from the 90's, just the conclusion that he says leave it in. Without seeing Pelz's data I trust the Mase data. I'm in the camp that if I think I can make it <20 ft. I want it out. Long putts I want it in.
 
It's good stuff, a more comprehensive study than Pelz, who basically just showed the metrics involved and proclaimed it's obviously In, without any real evidence but his word, and lacking some variations.

But I think the best and most complete study of this question is going to be contended on the Tours, we'll know soon enough which way to go for each putting circumstance by what the Pros do.
 
golfunfiltered said:
To clarify, Tom's study shows that putts rolling at specific speeds had different results. What the study showed was putts that hit the center of the flagstick would have dropped anyway for putts at lower speeds. However, as speed increased, the amount of time the ball had to allow gravity to pull it into the cup before striking the flagstick decreased. Instead, the ball rebounded off the flag and stayed out of the cup. This was especially true for off-center putts (which accounts for the majority of most players, including Tour pros).

The 99.9% estimate seems high, but if you read the original article Tom and his team explain the math well.
Click to expand...
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.


Canadan said:
I think it's individual specific. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've putted the ball dead center and it rolled over the top of the hole or popped up and bounced off the other side. Adversely, I'd need a room full of THPers to count the times I've been off center and the ball grabbed the side of the hole. With a chance to ricochet like that off a pin and deflect away from the hole, the risk is far too great for me.
Click to expand...
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.
 
tahoebum said:
Completely agree. I've logged over 3,600 rounds and have had thousands of slightly off-center putts go in that were traveling too fast(enough to go 8+ feet past the hole), and only maybe 10 in my life that hit the back of the hole popped up and stayed out.
Click to expand...

And how many of those putts would have hit the exact angle on the pin where he hit it in order to produce that result? You likely have no idea and no way of knowing. And you also cant truly know how far or not those balls would have gone past the hole anyway. All your doing is guessing that. Things are not always what we think or what they seem like.
 
rollin said:
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.



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 t
o 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.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the Pelz study with actual numbers and percentages?
 
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
 
Yes material of the flag stick definitely matters. And I can't remember the last time I played a course with fiberglass pins.

Phil75070 said:
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
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top