[JESII]

I like to needle him with short, asshole responses...




It is interesting in that a mediocre putter putting well (especially at this level) would make more putts than a good putter putting poorly.


I suspect there's far more help from the flag in mentally than physically and as a result, the USGA will unwind this rule fairly soon...

[Peter Pallotta]

At least you don't needle me with pedantic and 'science-based' ones -- cause that's surely the way to drain any remaining bit of romance and mystery right out of the game...

[MClutterbuck]

Setting aside flag in or out until more science can show us when it is more convenient and when not...

Do we putt better or worse, make more putts or less, considering the additional damage to cups due to hands retrieving golf balls with flagstick in?

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

i think if you had used GOTW vs GOAT it would have made more sense.  I certainly believe anyone on Tour can be the hottest putter of the week and perform to get the job done. 

[Pete Lavallee]

I’ve kept an informal stat and in 67 rounds this year I’ve had 4 bounce off the flag out of around 2,100; .20%!


It certainly speeds up the game without tending and waiting for everyone to reach the green. Best advantage, being able to laser the flagstick while the group ahead is still putting. The odd person that needs the flag pulled certainly slows things down. The hole sure looks naked without the flag in!

[JESII]

That's funny because to me it looks like there's not enough room for the ball...

[JMEvensky]

I like to needle him with short, asshole responses...




It is interesting in that a mediocre putter putting well (especially at this level) would make more putts than a good putter putting poorly.


I suspect there's far more help from the flag in mentally than physically and as a result, the USGA will unwind this rule fairly soon...

Peter is a fun target sometimes--probably because he's Canadian and wears funny sweaters.


Wouldn't this "prove" how little difference there is between good/bad putters on the PGAT? How much better was Ben Crenshaw than Tom Kite? BC is considered one of the best ever--TK, not so much. I'll guess the differences at that level are infinitesimal.


Definitely agree with the second part about the mental help of seeing the flagstick but disagree the USGA will walk back the decision. I'll bet the PGAT does it.

[Peter Pallotta]

K -
I don't disagree with that at all, and indeed that's part of the point I was trying to make:
that if even the very best golfers in the world, who started putting at the age of 5 and have been practicing constantly ever since, can have such 'variability of results' -- ie can be mediocre but then get 'hot' enough to win a major -- think how much more variability there is in the average golfer's putting game, one where the stroke (and the results) seem to change if not hole by hole than at least day by day.
All I'm suggesting is that the 'pin in-pin out' test that Jim & AG mentioned seems to leave out (and fail to test, and can't test) a range of other subtle & quixotic factors.

PS - like Jim, I take the pin out because I'm convinced that otherwise there's not enough room for the ball, especially with my Crenshaw-like touch that sees putt after putt dying at the hole and dropping in on the very last roll.
Also: I dropped the sweaters for the summer and have upgraded all the way to a Ping G10 driver!

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

Agreed 100% with your last post.  Far more variability at the weekend joe level, and perhaps poor putters should leave the pin in, for the occasional pin strike on a putt that would have run 10 feet by. 

As one who has been a better than average putter for most of my playing days, unless its a long putt, the pin doesn't seem to help much.  When i'm lining up a putt, i'm actually drawing an imaginary line in my head between the ball and hole of where I see the path of the ball...almost like the virtual lines on TV.  So the actual target isn't nearly as meaningful to me as the hopeful path to the hole.  Once I "see" that just try to get the speed to fit that line...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Hasn't the flagstick rule gone back and forth through the years?  I have seen old film where the stick is left in for putting.  And if they really want to protect par then maybe we should brink back the stymie?

The stymie was match play only, so par was irrelevant.

The USGA did a little bit of homework and thought any advantage found by leaving it in would be negligible.

I've not seen much evidence that they did even a little bit of homework.

[Rob Marshall]

Hasn't the flagstick rule gone back and forth through the years?  I have seen old film where the stick is left in for putting.  And if they really want to protect par then maybe we should brink back the stymie?

The stymie was match play only, so par was irrelevant.

The USGA did a little bit of homework and thought any advantage found by leaving it in would be negligible.

I've not seen much evidence that they did even a little bit of homework.

If stymie was match play only then the "the greatest game ever" has a glaring error.


https://www.usga.org/articles/2016/07/rules-throwback--tough-putt--try-being-stymied.html

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Correct - the movie has many glaring errors, including stymies in stroke play and showing the ball with topspin.

[Rob Marshall]

Correct - the movie has many glaring errors, including stymies in stroke play and showing the ball with topspin.

Not according to this?
The word stymie only appeared in the rules rarely: Musselburgh 1834, 1851 and 1858 R&A, applied to all stroke play. The USGA used the term in notes to Rule 31 in 1938 and 1947.  However, all the rules books of the 20th century, up to its abolition, used 'Stymie' in the index.
1891 R&A rules vaguely tried to remove the stymie from stroke play, stating that the ball may be lifted by the owner if he felt that it may be of advantage to the other player, or 'throughout the green' a player could have any ball lifted which might interfere with his stroke - but 'throughout the green' was not defined.
1899 Stroke Rule 11 and Medal Rule 9 stated the same thing.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Not according to this?
The word stymie only appeared in the rules rarely: Musselburgh 1834, 1851 and 1858 R&A, applied to all stroke play. The USGA used the term in notes to Rule 31 in 1938 and 1947.  However, all the rules books of the 20th century, up to its abolition, used 'Stymie' in the index.
1891 R&A rules vaguely tried to remove the stymie from stroke play, stating that the ball may be lifted by the owner if he felt that it may be of advantage to the other player, or 'throughout the green' a player could have any ball lifted which might interfere with his stroke - but 'throughout the green' was not defined.
1899 Stroke Rule 11 and Medal Rule 9 stated the same thing.

You quoted from this URL, right?
http://www.ruleshistory.com/green.html#stymie

It says: A stymie was possible only in matches involving one ball per side.

Emphasis added. There are no "sides" in stroke play and a "match" is not the same as a competition. Furthermore, the "stymie" rule was clarified in 1902, and the same page links to: http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1902.html#s11.

I'm not too concerned with the Rules of Golf when they fit on an index card (i.e. 1830). They played almost exclusively match play back then anyway, until the late 1800s. The Rules in 1913 were quite a bit longer than fit on an index card, and the stymie was clearly a match play thing by then.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()