[Mike_Young]

If there were no flag on the green would score better?

[Rob Rigg]

would you score better without knowing where the hole is?

I would say no on about 60% of rounds that I play at my home course - where the greens tend to be fairly small. On 20% I would imagine my score would be the same and 20% better.

The main reason I would say no is because of the birdie factor - with a wedge or short iron, knowing where the pin is on the green increases birdie potential significantly.

For really good players, knowing where the pin is probably helps them get it close with all of their irons.

If the pin is in a tricky position, then I would just aim for the middle of the green anyways, which is what I would do if there was no pin. It's all about discipline and knowing when to take a chance at getting it close.

[Mike McGuire]

Interesting question.

Should I deduce from it that high handicappers would score better for sure?

[Padraig Dooley]

Some informal research done by Bushnell indictes that when someone in the 6-10 handicap range starts using a rangefinder they lose a shot off their handicap on average i.e. when someone knows where the hole is with a bit more precision they score better.

So, I don't think having no flag would lead to lower scores.

[Bill_McBride]

Some informal research done by Bushnell indictes that when someone in the 6-10 handicap range starts using a rangefinder they lose a shot off their handicap on average i.e. when someone knows where the hole is with a bit more precision they score better.

So, I don't think having no flag would lead to lower scores.

Let me guess here, the Bushnell people paid for that research, right?  I'd love to know the study protocol.

[archie_struthers]

 


noooooooo

[Rob Rigg]

I did a study and found that not using yardage has helped me lower my handicap . . .

of course I paid for that study.

Golf is a game of feel - trust your instincts young paduan!

There is no joy greater than executing a shot by feel - eg) a 3/4 three wood or 1/2 6 iron - lovely stuff.

A pin helps you feel the shot, no pin means aim for the middle of the green.

[cary lichtenstein]

no

[Ronald Montesano]

I'm with Cronan personally, in that I and only I would tend to shoot for the bigger hole (the green) and more likely, have more putts at birdie.

A quick anecdote...league championship at Country Club of Buffalo (I coach) four years ago...pro tells all contestants that the pins are mercilessly tucked, yet they are all accessible (within 20 feet) of the middle of every green.  Some of the best players went pin hunting and didn't qualify on to states.  Others played MOG (middle of green) golf and shot in the mid to high 70s.

[Emil Weber]

I wouldn't thik so, but have yet to try!

[Brent Hutto]

I shouldn't be chiming in on a low-handicapper question but I've got to share one story. There's a bunch of guys I get together with once a year for a weekend. One round on Saturday we play an 18-hole stroke play competition and give a trophy for low net score and another for low gross score. I've only one time come close to winning the net trophy out of maybe 10 or so tries.

That year we were playing on a course a little too long and tough for me. So I resolved to play with a couple of absolute rules. The first rule was off the tee. If I could hit a driver and get within 150 yards of the green on a Par 4 I would. Otherwise, I'd tee off with a 4-iron then lay up with a 6-iron on my second shot. Second rule, if I could not hit the green with a 6-iron I would lay up to a good wedge distance (no trying to reach the green with fairway woods).

And most important rule, no matter where I was hitting my shot to the green I would aim at the exact geometric center of the green. Every time, even with a wedge, whether it was with my second shot or my fourth shot or whatever. In other words, just like there was no flag there.

The first outcome was, I shot one stroke under my handicap. My best score ever on that course or in that event by a long, long shot. Came in second, a guy shot net 2-under and beat me. The second outcome was that I was completely exhausted at the end of the round. I was actually in a bad mood after the round, not because I didn't win but because aiming at the middle of the green all day long was the hardest thing I've ever done on a golf course. In fact I've never tried it again. I know it's nuts but doing that all day feels like having every hair plucked out of your head, one by one by one. By the last hole, which had the flag tucked way over against an edge of the green with a five-foot dropoff into deep rough, I would have paid a hundred bucks for someone to tell me it was OK to hit my wedge third shot (after a layup) right toward that flag.

So I don't know the point of my story other than playing without flag might help my score but it would drain every stinkin' drop of fun from the game. Not worth it. It turns a game into something more like work.

[Mike_Young]

Well...I have asked two questions in two post just to get a feel for what you guys thought.
I did a test just to get an informal answer on my own two weeks ago....
I had 8 of us with handicaps below 8 play with no pins....to the man...each was at least two shots better than the rounds they had played in the last two months..now that is giving it is winter...

With two holes on each green and flags...five of those eight in one round were at least two shots better than their rounds of the last two months of winter type golf.
BUT...out of 8 ladies and two senior 20 plus handicappers....not enough change to measure....

So my theory....
"Pin hunting" cost strokes for good players....
For a good player..playing to the "outside" of the pin will cost you in 18 holes vs. playing to the inside...
for higher handicaps..shortgame skills are across the board the weakest link...
Distance doesn't matter
We all play better when we play to the middle of the greens..focusing on a target smaller than the green create swing issues for the average guy.....
Mike"Pelz"

[Phil_the_Author]

I don't think this is as cut and dry an answer as most seem to think.

Consider, if there weren't flags, pins or whatever one calls them, where would one aim when hitting to a green. The answer is that one would invariably play to the middle. In doing so they would more likely take into account the rolls in the green and the hazards if only subconsciously as the need to concentrate on aiming points would be more important.

I think that a player who finds himself in the middle of a green will more than likely two-putt and have a better than average attempt at a number of makeable birdie putts...

[Bart Bradley]

Philip:

Doesn't the answer to the question depend largely on the greens you play?  If the greens are huge, wouldn't aiming at the middle lead to more 3 putts?  What if the features are severe and being past the flag made two putting improbable...so that every front hole location lead to 3 putts....on small flat greens, it is possible that aiming at the middle every time would be beneficial.

Bart

[TEPaul]

Question for lower handicaps.....


"If there were no flag on the green would score better?"



Mike:

I think probably so. I certainly feel most golfers would hit more greens if there was no flagstick on the green or if they generally ignored it. This may actually be the subtle key to playing Shinnecock well, or let's just say better.

[Phil_the_Author]

Bart,

I disagree because if one doesn't know where the hole is on a larger green you need to make certain that your lag putts are as short as possible and that could only be accomplished by being in the center of the green. As an example, Mike Young's punchbowl 17th green at Long Shadow is about 10,000 sq. ft; large by anyone's standards. In addition, the front bunker is huge and high and hides much of the putting surface. So where should you aim if you want it as close to the hole as possible?

I think this question makes one have to concentrate and aim more carefully and, as a result, will find the putting surface and do so in a manner that leaves his ball below the hole far more often than if pins were in place. Just an opinion...

Also, when one aims at the center of the green one has a tendency to eliminate the hazards that guard the sides of the greens...

[BCrosby]

Tommy - Interesting comment about Shinnecock. Maybe so. On the other hand, playing for the middle of the greens at ANGC would probably result in a higher scores for low single digit players. Due to bigger, much more contoured greens.

Mike raises a great question. It's one those wonderful hypotheticals that help tease out all sorts of issues. Including architecture/causation issues. Very knotty stuff. In a good way.

Bob    

[Joel Zuckerman]

I shouldn't be chiming in on a low-handicapper question but I've got to share one story. There's a bunch of guys I get together with once a year for a weekend. One round on Saturday we play an 18-hole stroke play competition and give a trophy for low net score and another for low gross score. I've only one time come close to winning the net trophy out of maybe 10 or so tries.

That year we were playing on a course a little too long and tough for me. So I resolved to play with a couple of absolute rules. The first rule was off the tee. If I could hit a driver and get within 150 yards of the green on a Par 4 I would. Otherwise, I'd tee off with a 4-iron then lay up with a 6-iron on my second shot. Second rule, if I could not hit the green with a 6-iron I would lay up to a good wedge distance (no trying to reach the green with fairway woods).

And most important rule, no matter where I was hitting my shot to the green I would aim at the exact geometric center of the green. Every time, even with a wedge, whether it was with my second shot or my fourth shot or whatever. In other words, just like there was no flag there.

The first outcome was, I shot one stroke under my handicap. My best score ever on that course or in that event by a long, long shot. Came in second, a guy shot net 2-under and beat me. The second outcome was that I was completely exhausted at the end of the round. I was actually in a bad mood after the round, not because I didn't win but because aiming at the middle of the green all day long was the hardest thing I've ever done on a golf course. In fact I've never tried it again. I know it's nuts but doing that all day feels like having every hair plucked out of your head, one by one by one. By the last hole, which had the flag tucked way over against an edge of the green with a five-foot dropoff into deep rough, I would have paid a hundred bucks for someone to tell me it was OK to hit my wedge third shot (after a layup) right toward that flag.

So I don't know the point of my story other than playing without flag might help my score but it would drain every stinkin' drop of fun from the game. Not worth it. It turns a game into something more like work.

A related point:   Jack Nicklaus said this past Autumn that handicap golfers would improve their scores dramatically by planning to make bogeys on their stroke holes.  In other words--a 5 should play for bogey on the hardest 5 holes on the course, and an 18 should plod their way around, planning for bgoey on every hole.

His point was that by taking less chances (IE--the long fairway wood to the par-4, as opposed to the layup and wedge) you take disaster scores out of the equation.  Also--a deft chip and putt will yield a surprising number of unexpected pars.

But like Brent said---it may be more efficient to play this way, score-wise, but likely not as fun.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

You know how most people when they first see ANGC say they are shocked at how hilly and topographical ANGC is? That didn't surprise me at all but the remarkable undulations in some of those greens sure did.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm mid handicap but have some experience here. About ten years ago, we did a course that was maintained, but not opened for over a year and my then young son and I played there often, by getting the gate open with the key hidden under the rock for insiders like us. 

But, there were no flags in the cup, since they would be stolen.  My scores were equal or better than normal just hitting to the middle of the green each time.  For mid handicaps, I thnk there is no question that aiming for the pin is a the biggest score raiser there is.  In fact, I usually play tough courses better in relation to my handicap just by aiming at the green middle.

[Steve Lang]

Well...I have asked two questions in two post just to get a feel for what you guys thought.
I did a test just to get an informal answer on my own two weeks ago....
I had 8 of us with handicaps below 8 play with no pins....to the man...each was at least two shots better than the rounds they had played in the last two months..now that is giving it is winter...

With two holes on each green and flags...five of those eight in one round were at least two shots better than their rounds of the last two months of winter type golf.
BUT...out of 8 ladies and two senior 20 plus handicappers....not enough change to measure....

So my theory....
"Pin hunting" cost strokes for good players....
For a good player..playing to the "outside" of the pin will cost you in 18 holes vs. playing to the inside...
for higher handicaps..shortgame skills are across the board the weakest link...
Distance doesn't matter
We all play better when we play to the middle of the greens..focusing on a target smaller than the green create swing issues for the average guy.....
Mike"Pelz"

This is the only way to answer.. with real world data.. a couple of years ago on hurricane friday, we went out to the course, played to greens without flags, shot easily 3 strokes better playing to center.. been doing it ever since.. +/-.. L/R  yds do make you think however

[Patrick_Mucci]

If there were no flag on the green would score better?

Mike,

Years ago I read about an experiment where the flags were removed and scores IMPROVED.

Golfers, instead of going for the risky perimeter shots, hit to the middle of the green, leaving themselves with manageable putts.

Ask yourself, If you could hit to the middle of every green, on a typical day, how long would your putts be ?

[Rob Rigg]

While I appreciate Mike's "study" it would be interesting to run a study like this will a true "population" size.

One of the toughest things about the pin or no pin question is that it depends on the golfer, their ability, and their understanding of that ability.

If you hit to the middle of small greens then your score probably will improve, if you hit to the middle of large, tiered, greens, then your score will probably go up. It depends on the situation.

Of course, it depends on your short game as well - as has been mentioned.

Also what constitutes a "lower" handicap? I would imagine that anyone above a 5 to 8 handicap should always being aiming for the middle of the green or the middle of the tier that a flag is on (if they would rather be putting than chipping).

[Padraig Dooley]

Some informal research done by Bushnell indictes that when someone in the 6-10 handicap range starts using a rangefinder they lose a shot off their handicap on average i.e. when someone knows where the hole is with a bit more precision they score better.

So, I don't think having no flag would lead to lower scores.

Let me guess here, the Bushnell people paid for that research, right?  I'd love to know the study protocol.

Bill, the research was just informal. It's not something that could be held up to high rigorous research standards.

[Jeff Fortson]

If the greens are all round and flat, yes.

For the vast majority of courses, no.


JF

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()