# Aimpoint



## ademac (Aug 18, 2018)

Never heard of it until tonight.
Just seen a "senior aimpoint coach" on sky talking about aimpoint.
It sounds very interesting and just wondering if any guys use it or have more info?

Found it quite funny that the guy missed all his putts though! &#128584;


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 18, 2018)

Oh its a subject that has been discussed a few times

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?91805-Hahahahahahaha-Aimpoint&highlight=aimpoint

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?92791-AimPoint&highlight=aimpoint

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?91155-Another-AimPoint-Convert&highlight=aimpoint

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?67601-Aimpoint-is-slow-FACT&highlight=aimpoint


Enjoy - its very much marmite

He did seem to avoid the question about the guys using it in his list having putting as their week area


----------



## PieMan (Aug 18, 2018)

Personally think it's a load of rubbish - IMHO it's very easy to see if a green slopes or not, and by how much. But if it works for those who do use it then fair enough.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 18, 2018)

ademac said:



			Never heard of it until tonight.
Just seen a "senior aimpoint coach" on sky talking about aimpoint.
It sounds very interesting and just wondering if any guys use it or have more info?

Found it quite funny that the guy missed all his putts though! ðŸ™ˆ
		
Click to expand...

Done the course and I'm a firm advocate. Did my own mid handicap take https://youtu.be/HKxTlCCspqc if you want a feel for it. It was only Â£99 for a two hour course and I honestly believe it has helped my green reading especially on new courses I've not played before. Of course you still have to hit it well off the putter and get the speed but if you have a good line it's half the battle


----------



## Wabinez (Aug 18, 2018)

Yup. I use it and a firm advocate. No more crouching and looking and trying to work out the breaks.

I feel like it has helped, and that is all that matters


----------



## User20205 (Aug 18, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Oh its a subject that has been discussed a few times

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?91805-Hahahahahahaha-Aimpoint&highlight=aimpoint

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?92791-AimPoint&highlight=aimpoint

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?91155-Another-AimPoint-Convert&highlight=aimpoint

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?67601-Aimpoint-is-slow-FACT&highlight=aimpoint


Enjoy - its very much marmite

He did seem to avoid the question about the guys using it in his list having putting as their week area
		
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, memory lane. Thread 4 includes some of my finest work. Way before Jonny (come lately) with the old aimpoint parody ðŸ¤£ðŸ¤£ðŸ¤£ðŸ¤£ & they say genius isnâ€™t recognised when youâ€™re still alive


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 18, 2018)

Wabinez said:



			Yup. I use it and a firm advocate. No more crouching and looking and trying to work out the breaks.

I feel like it has helped, and that is all that matters
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. If nothing else it gives me confidence I have picked a good line. I find it so valuable on away courses.


----------



## Wabinez (Aug 18, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Indeed. If nothing else it gives me confidence I have picked a good line. I find it so valuable on away courses.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely where I find most value. Unfamiliar greens


----------



## ademac (Aug 19, 2018)

Cheers guys, I will have a look into it.
I'm terrible at reading greens so it could be beneficial to me.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 19, 2018)

I hope the guys who use it are not stepping on their line of putt.
A number of amateur championship players are being warned by referees.

How do you know the line until you have walked halfway to the hole?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 19, 2018)

rulefan said:



			I hope the guys who use it are not stepping on their line of putt.
A number of amateur championship players are being warned by referees.

How do you know the line until you have walked halfway to the hole?
		
Click to expand...

How does the referees know the line if the player doesnâ€™t or is the ref warning them afterwards?


----------



## ScienceBoy (Aug 19, 2018)

Itâ€™s just a different method, itâ€™s not better or worse, just different.

I always read low side then low end. I address, two practice swings looking at the hole then putt.

Whatâ€™s more important is that you have a concise, timely, respectful pre shot routine. Itâ€™s far better than having nothing.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 19, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			How does the referees know the line if the player doesnâ€™t or is the ref warning them afterwards?
		
Click to expand...

If they stand on their own line then is it not to their detriment? They are damaging their own line potentially.

Separate to your point, more an observation.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 19, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			If they stand on their own line then is it not to their detriment? They are damaging their own line potentially.

Separate to your point, more an observation.
		
Click to expand...

Donâ€™t know mate, hopefully rulefan will clarify from a refs perspective.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 19, 2018)

rulefan said:



			I hope the guys who use it are not stepping on their line of putt.
A number of amateur championship players are being warned by referees.

How do you know the line until you have walked halfway to the hole?
		
Click to expand...

This is where it falls down for me.
Part of the aimpoint method involves standing across (straddling) the basic line of putt and evaluating the slope
Then, once you've worked out the slope %age and the speed of the green, that allows to use the correct number of fingers to work out your actual line.
So how can you be 100% sure you're not standing on your line when you don't know your line?
Apologies of I've got that wrong but that's the way it seems to me.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 19, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			...
He did seem to avoid the question about the guys using it in his list having putting as their week area
		
Click to expand...

I'd strongly suggest that that's why they have 'resorted' to using it! Same as anyone using a Long putter!


----------



## chrisd (Aug 19, 2018)

Imurg said:



			This is where it falls down for me.
Part of the aimpoint method involves standing across (straddling) the basic line of putt and evaluating the slope
Then, once you've worked out the slope %age and the speed of the green, that allows to use the correct number of fingers to work out your actual line.
So how can you be 100% sure you're not standing on your line when you don't know your line?
Apologies of I've got that wrong but that's the way it seems to me.
		
Click to expand...

Jamie Donaldson told us that he advocates pointing to his best guess of the line with the putter handle then to walk down it and straddle it in such a way as to not walk on it. As any putting method of working out the line is not fool proof no one can pull you for treading on the line that YOU have decided as to the one they guess you should have chosen, so long as you're careful.


----------



## Wabinez (Aug 19, 2018)

rulefan said:



			I hope the guys who use it are not stepping on their line of putt.
A number of amateur championship players are being warned by referees.

How do you know the line until you have walked halfway to the hole?
		
Click to expand...

As the whole process is finding the low side of the putt, then walking down the low side you are nowhere near the line of your putt.

If the putt is right to left, you will walk down the left side, and then putt down the right side.

As has been mentioned, Jamie does advise indicating where you are walking.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 19, 2018)

Each ot their own and whatever gives you the confidence to take the shot. 
However how does the walking near the line work if you say have someone inside you but on the lower side?


----------



## Wabinez (Aug 19, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Each ot their own and whatever gives you the confidence to take the shot. 
However how does the walking near the line work if you say have someone inside you but on the lower side?
		
Click to expand...

Well, obviously you donâ€™t step on their line, and you are given hints and tips in the course to help you with that


----------



## chrisd (Aug 19, 2018)

Wabinez said:



			Well, obviously you donâ€™t step on their line, and you are given hints and tips in the course to help you with that
		
Click to expand...

Jamie was very specific about these matters but, in any event, common sense would apply surely. Having said that I've had many a person not doing Aimpoint walk (inadvertently) on my line.


----------



## user2010 (Aug 19, 2018)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!:ears:


----------



## Ross61 (Aug 19, 2018)

I donâ€™t use aimpoint, but I have taken on the straddling of the line on greens that Iâ€™m unsure if there is any slope at all, so when I straddle the line it wonâ€™t be on a putt that has a large break. Hence Iâ€™m confident Iâ€™m not treading on my line. If there is a big slope itâ€™s so blooming obvious there is no need to straddle.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 19, 2018)

Each to their own but if you can't read a green or judge pace then walking and straddling it isn't going to suddenly make you a genius on the greens 

Game is slow enough without amateur golfers doing g this nonsense on every green during a medal.


----------



## PieMan (Aug 19, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Each to their own but if you can't read a green or judge pace then walking and straddling it isn't going to suddenly make you a genius on the greens 

Game is slow enough without amateur golfers doing g this nonsense on every green during a medal.
		
Click to expand...

Yep - with you totally on that one. From what I've seen from a number of videos, I just can't see how this doesn't add to the pace of play.


----------



## Wabinez (Aug 19, 2018)

PieMan said:



			Yep - with you totally on that one. From what I've seen from a number of videos, I just can't see how this doesn't add to the pace of play.
		
Click to expand...

Because the intelligent golfers use it when others are wandering around their putts, so when they get over their own putt, they know the read already. It adds no extra time at all against those who walk around and want to view a putt from both sides. Can read a 6ft putt in seconds


----------



## PieMan (Aug 19, 2018)

Wabinez said:



			Because the intelligent golfers use it when others are wandering around their putts, so when they get over their own putt, they know the read already. It adds no extra time at all against those who walk around and want to view a putt from both sides. Can read a 6ft putt in seconds
		
Click to expand...

What about if I'm lining up my putt from one side of the whole; and someone using Aimpoint is directly opposite me on the other side of the hole and I'm first to play. I reckon I take no more than 15 seconds to read my putt and hit it by the time I get to my ball. Surely then the player using Aimpoint is going to slow our group down by then having to go through all the routine when it's their turn to putt?

Not wanting to create an issue out of it but seems to me that it's far longer than my more 'traditional' method.


----------



## PieMan (Aug 19, 2018)

Forgot to add that if anyone cannot read a 6ft putt in seconds anyway should probably take up another game and give golf a miss!!!! &#128521;&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;


----------



## JohnnyDee (Aug 19, 2018)

I couldnâ€™t be doing with it myself if being honest. But each to their own and Golf is such a psychologically driven game  that I imagine those who do have faith in Aimpoint get a positive benefit from it.

But would add if itâ€™s a silver bullet to putting excellence then why donâ€™t more Tour guys and girls use it?


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 19, 2018)

Used it for years, doesnâ€™t add any time to any other green reading technique unless you donâ€™t aim at all or want to get the ball in the hole. 

Iâ€™m usually waiting for others as people seem to mark their ball and walk away from it. Where as Iâ€™ve walked to my ball got a quick reading on the way, marked and lined up.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 19, 2018)

The only time I have penalised a player for a time penalty on the green was a junior international using aimpoint. He was penalised under the relatively new 'warningless' PoP CoC limit of 60 seconds.

However, he did wander around the hole also.


----------



## spongebob59 (Aug 19, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			Used it for years, doesnâ€™t add any time to any other green reading technique unless you donâ€™t aim at all or want to get the ball in the hole. 

Iâ€™m usually waiting for others as people seem to mark their ball and walk away from it. Where as Iâ€™ve walked to my ball got a quick reading on the way, marked and lined up.
		
Click to expand...

+1, half the lot I play with do that plumb bobbing thing and take at least twice as long and then miss.


----------



## Wabinez (Aug 19, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			Used it for years, doesnâ€™t add any time to any other green reading technique unless you donâ€™t aim at all or want to get the ball in the hole. 

Iâ€™m usually waiting for others as people seem to mark their ball and walk away from it. Where as Iâ€™ve walked to my ball got a quick reading on the way, marked and lined up.
		
Click to expand...

This....but some people refuse to believe it is quick


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 19, 2018)

Wabinez said:



			Because the intelligent golfers use it when others are wandering around their putts, so when they get over their own putt, they know the read already. It adds no extra time at all against those who walk around and want to view a putt from both sides. Can read a 6ft putt in seconds
		
Click to expand...

This but as so often with Aimpoint conversations, the ones that have never tried it are the most vocal on why it doesn't work. I have no issue with those that don't want to try it. It's the same with any technique but I wouldn't knock it if I haven't tried it. Pace of play is not an issue and I can make a solid read in 10 seconds and usually do so while others are getting ready to putt.


----------



## user2010 (Aug 19, 2018)

Close the thread please, this subject has been discussed ad nauseam.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 19, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			This but as so often with Aimpoint conversations, the ones that have never tried it are the most vocal on why it doesn't work. I have no issue with those that don't want to try it. It's the same with any technique but I wouldn't knock it if I haven't tried it. Pace of play is not an issue and I can make a solid read in 10 seconds and usually do so while others are getting ready to putt.
		
Click to expand...

Agree


----------



## chrisd (Aug 19, 2018)

Agree


----------



## 3565 (Aug 19, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			Used it for years, doesnâ€™t add any time to any other green reading technique unless you donâ€™t aim at all or want to get the ball in the hole. 

Iâ€™m usually waiting for others as people seem to mark their ball and walk away from it. Where as Iâ€™ve walked to my ball got a quick reading on the way, marked and lined up.
		
Click to expand...

Agree


----------



## chrisd (Aug 19, 2018)

Very few players at mine use Aimpoint and none of them are going to putt inside of 15 seconds unless they are just tapping in a lagged putt  

This thread will go one for several more pages with the nay sayers being more vocal than the Aimpointers  if anyone doesn't want anything to do with it - don't bother with it, but don't make out that, in itself, it slows down play  there are plenty of guys who look at each putt from all 4 corners, walk all round the green etc etc but they're ok cos they can sight read putt lines and still miss  if tour players only make about 48% of putts from 10 foot then us mere mortals on our greens aren't making anywhere near that no matter if you use Aimpoint or not


----------



## 3565 (Aug 19, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Very few players at mine use Aimpoint and none of them are going to putt inside of 15 seconds unless they are just tapping in a lagged putt  

This thread will go one for several more pages with the nay sayers being more vocal than the Aimpointers  if anyone doesn't want anything to do with it - don't bother with it, but don't make out that, in itself, it slows down play  there are plenty of guys who look at each putt from all 4 corners, walk all round the green etc etc but they're ok cos they can sight read putt lines and still miss  if tour players only make about 48% of putts from 10 foot then us mere mortals on our greens aren't making anywhere near that no matter if you use Aimpoint or not
		
Click to expand...

So true.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 19, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			This but as so often with Aimpoint conversations, the ones that have never tried it are the most vocal on why it doesn't work. I have no issue with those that don't want to try it. It's the same with any technique but I wouldn't knock it if I haven't tried it. Pace of play is not an issue and I can make a solid read in 10 seconds and usually do so while others are getting ready to putt.
		
Click to expand...

Where do you deduct that people who haven't tried it are the most vocal against it?

Can't wait to hear this......


----------



## 3565 (Aug 19, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Where do you deduct that people who haven't tried it are the most vocal against it?

Can't wait to hear this......
		
Click to expand...

Try re reading the whole topic again, then you â€˜mightâ€™ get your answer.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 19, 2018)

3565 said:



			Try re reading the whole topic again, then you â€˜mightâ€™ get your answer.
		
Click to expand...

Nah, just generic nonsense. Suggests an ignorance on everyone's part which I can assure you is not the case.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 19, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Nah, just generic nonsense. Suggests an ignorance on everyone's part which I can assure you is not the case.
		
Click to expand...

So your view point on how AE doesnâ€™t work is valid then and not ignorance?


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 20, 2018)

3565 said:



			So your view point on how AE doesnâ€™t work is valid then and not ignorance?
		
Click to expand...

Point me to where I said this please?


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Where do you deduct that people who haven't tried it are the most vocal against it?

Can't wait to hear this......
		
Click to expand...

Simple !

I've never read a post from anyone saying that they've done the course and its a load of hocus pocus and they can prove it doesn't work.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 20, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Simple !

I've never read a post from anyone saying that they've done the course and its a load of hocus pocus and they can prove it doesn't work.
		
Click to expand...

As with all things in life though, no-one will  normally admit to buying or doing something that doesn't work or is wrong.
That isn't to say AP does or doesn't work, I've never done the course or had thoughts to do it. But then I'm not one to stalk a green or plumb bob the line. 
I just assess the green and my line as I approach the green and go to mark my ball. Nothing more than that, and I'm very happy with my putting


----------



## Slab (Aug 20, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			This but as so often with Aimpoint conversations, the ones that have never tried it are the most vocal on why it doesn't work. I have no issue with those that don't want to try it. It's the same with any technique but I wouldn't knock it if I haven't tried it. Pace of play is not an issue and I can make a solid read in 10 seconds and usually do so while others are getting ready to putt.
		
Click to expand...

Its clear from your videos that you've dropped aimpoint from practice rounds. Do you find it difficult to switch between using/not using a technique/tool?

Genuine question before anyone asks


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			As with all things in life though, no-one will  normally admit to buying or doing something that doesn't work or is wrong.
That isn't to say AP does or doesn't work, I've never done the course or had thoughts to do it. But then I'm not one to stalk a green or plumb bob the line. 
I just assess the green and my line as I approach the green and go to mark my ball. Nothing more than that, and I'm very happy with my putting

Click to expand...

Believe me, on this forum and on this subject I'm sure someone would say it.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2018)

Slab said:



			Its clear from your videos that you've dropped aimpoint from practice rounds. Do you find it difficult to switch between using/not using a technique/tool?

Genuine question before anyone asks
		
Click to expand...

I rarely ever use it on my home course. We have small greens and I pretty much know the line from most positions. I tend to employ it when on bigger greens when playing away.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 20, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Simple !

I've never read a post from anyone saying that they've done the course and its a load of hocus pocus and they can prove it doesn't work.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't out to prove it doesn't work as I stated in my opening Gambit "each to their own".

Having had a lesson in it I can assure you it gives me, yes me personally absolutely no advantage over walking up and looking at the putt. I don't need my feet to see a slope or how much I expect that putt to break. I do that every bit as well if not better by eye reading the greens.

I also do it quicker.

You are just as bad as a naysayer. Anyone who doesn't agree and you jump on the "ignorant" "haven't tried it" "don't understand it" bandwagon.


----------



## user2010 (Aug 20, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			I wasn't out to prove it doesn't work as I stated in my opening Gambit "each to their own".

Having had a lesson in it I can assure you it gives me, yes me personally absolutely no advantage over walking up and looking at the putt. I don't need my feet to see a slope or how much I expect that putt to break. I do that every bit as well if not better by eye reading the greens.

I also do it quicker.

You are just as bad as a naysayer. Anyone who doesn't agree and you jump on the "ignorant" "haven't tried it" "don't understand it" bandwagon.
		
Click to expand...



See post#35.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 20, 2018)

Scrotie McBoogerballs said:



			See post#35.

Click to expand...

Haha.

Yes, quite agree with you. Haters love to hate.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 20, 2018)

I've not dropped it at all but just don't feel it adds anything to a video watching me do an Aimpoint read so simply edit it out. I use it all the time, even when I'm practicing


----------



## Slab (Aug 20, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I've not dropped it at all but just don't feel it adds anything to a video watching me do an Aimpoint read so simply edit it out. I use it all the time, even when I'm practicing
		
Click to expand...

Pretty sure i've seen you walk up to putts several times and hit without edit or aimpoint, but must be my mistake


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 20, 2018)

Slab said:



			Pretty sure i've seen you walk up to putts several times and hit without edit or aimpoint, but must be my mistake
		
Click to expand...

Possibly especially if I'm filming and the course is busy but chances are it will have been edited out. Rest assured I do still use Aimpoint!


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 20, 2018)

I have toyed with it I suppose. Not the full system because I don't understand the finger thing for measuring how much (I'm sure as hell not paying for the course on it). But on putts where there may be a small amount of break, but I'm not sure which way or feel my eyes may be tricking me, I will sometimes straddle the line in this way to see if I can feel any break that my eyes couldn't figure out. It's handy just to have another method like that, as my green reading (by eye) is not the best. Sometimes it backs up what you already thought, occasionally it changes your mind. Sometimes it just convinces me to aim pretty straight rather than assuming it must break one way or the other.


----------



## PieMan (Aug 20, 2018)

I find the best way to read a putt and straddle the line is by doing a handstand............


----------



## Wabinez (Aug 20, 2018)

PieMan said:



			I find the best way to read a putt and straddle the line is by doing a handstand............  

Click to expand...

That's the advanced course


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 20, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Possibly especially if I'm filming and the course is busy but chances are it will have been edited out. Rest assured I do still use Aimpoint!
		
Click to expand...

Well that's not a very good advert for it then as whenever I watch your videos you never hole any putts


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 20, 2018)

Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were. 
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 20, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were. 
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.
		
Click to expand...

Yes very true, golfers as a rule will clutch at anything they think will make the game easier irrespective of whether or not it does.

Regarding reading greens, ever since I first picked up a club over 45 years ago I have stood over putts and been able to feel my balance tilting me backwards, forwards or to the side denoting uphill or downhill slopes. Nobody taught me, it has always just happened. Maybe I invented aimpoint without realising it? I have never taken the course, I have no intention of taking the course either because I feel no need to based on the above. If people want to part with hard earned cash to be told something that is obvious then that is up to them.


----------



## pokerjoke (Aug 20, 2018)

drive4show said:



			Well that's not a very good advert for it then as whenever I watch your videos you never hole any putts  

Click to expand...

Your watching the wrong ones Gordon,did you not see the fantastic review of the free vice balls Homer was given by Golfhacker(plug),he sunk two 6 inch putts.And of course that's the length of putt required to tell if a ball is good off the face.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 20, 2018)

pokerjoke said:



			Your watching the wrong ones Gordon,did you not see the fantastic review of the free vice balls Homer was given by Golfhacker(plug),he sunk two 6 inch putts.And of course that's the length of putt required to tell if a ball is good off the face.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks Tony, that's my Monday night viewing sorted now  :thup:


----------



## r0wly86 (Aug 20, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were. 
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.
		
Click to expand...

Never used Aimpoint and only just looked up the method but:

There is no scientific method of reading a green, or at least not one legal while playing. It is all down to you brain computing the course the ball will take and the effects of any slopes, there is no tip or trick really it is all down to your brain doing the computations.

Of course you can give your brain more information or physical clues, such as getting low behind the ball, using the pendulum method etc

Aimpoint isn't a scientific system, is it just another way to give your brain physical clues so it can do it's computations better. Probably for people who struggle otherwise


----------



## pinberry (Aug 20, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were. 
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.
		
Click to expand...

What is your scientific knowledge that allows you to state that aimpoint is scientifically nonsense? 

Because when I look at Mark Sweeney, Aimpoint founder, he looks quite solid in that department. Quoting from a GolfWRX article _"I have __background__ in high tech really. I worked in __finance,__ but did a lot of software development. I worked at Hewlett Packard for five years, dealing with technology applications. I had played golf as an amateur, and because I had a background in software development I tried to apply it to putting. I started off really for fun, trying to see if I could write some software to predict break. The research at the time was all dealing with theoretical surfaces, where if you had a surface in the shape of a parabola, how would the ball break__"
_
Moreover, several people in the industry have reviewed his metholodogy in detailed studies, presented at leading golf conference. A few examples are https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/ and https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/.

I'm open to hear from you what type of study you have conducted to critique the scientific foundations of AimPoint.

Cheers


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 20, 2018)

pinberry said:



			What is your scientific knowledge that allows you to state that aimpoint is scientifically nonsense? 

Because when I look at Mark Sweeney, Aimpoint founder, he looks quite solid in that department. Quoting from a GolfWRX article _"I have __background__ in high tech really. I worked in __finance,__ but did a lot of software development. I worked at Hewlett Packard for five years, dealing with technology applications. I had played golf as an amateur, and because I had a background in software development I tried to apply it to putting. I started off really for fun, trying to see if I could write some software to predict break. The research at the time was all dealing with theoretical surfaces, where if you had a surface in the shape of a parabola, how would the ball break__"
_
Moreover, several people in the industry have reviewed his metholodogy in detailed studies, presented at leading golf conference. A few examples are https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/ and https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/.

I'm open to hear from you what type of study you have conducted to critique the scientific foundations of AimPoint.

Cheers
		
Click to expand...

Neatly sums up my post (#34). Clearly never tried it but happy to dismiss it out of hand. More funny was dismissing it as unscientific or unproven when it was TV that initially approached Sweeney as he'd developed the software to predict the putts. I have no issues if someone tries it and then turns round and says it made no difference to their putting or green reading.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were. 
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.
		
Click to expand...

This post is like a lot of things in golf too - bunkum !


----------



## User2021 (Aug 20, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Neatly sums up my post (#34). Clearly never tried it but happy to dismiss it out of hand. More funny was dismissing it as unscientific or unproven when it was TV that initially approached Sweeney as he'd developed the software to predict the putts. I have no issues if someone tries it and then turns round and says it made no difference to their putting or green reading.
		
Click to expand...

A  Transvestite approached Sweeney to predict a putt, what did the TV want aiming up????????


----------



## shortgame (Aug 20, 2018)

IMO it's a useful crutch for those who struggle to read the greens.  Not convinced by the science of it and whether you can really tell out on the course if a putt slope 1Â° or 2Â° etc and if a green is stimping at 10.5 or 11 etc (very few courses will have uniform green speeds across all 18 holes).

However I don't doubt there's some placebo effect - having 100% confidence in a read is far better than having any doubts (even if the read is actually wrong!)


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 20, 2018)

pinberry said:



			What is your scientific knowledge that allows you to state that aimpoint is scientifically nonsense? 

Because when I look at Mark Sweeney, Aimpoint founder, he looks quite solid in that department. Quoting from a GolfWRX article _"I have __background__ in high tech really. I worked in __finance,__ but did a lot of software development. I worked at Hewlett Packard for five years, dealing with technology applications. I had played golf as an amateur, and because I had a background in software development I tried to apply it to putting. I started off really for fun, trying to see if I could write some software to predict break. The research at the time was all dealing with theoretical surfaces, where if you had a surface in the shape of a parabola, how would the ball break__"
_
Moreover, several people in the industry have reviewed his metholodogy in detailed studies, presented at leading golf conference. A few examples are https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/ and https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/.

I'm open to hear from you what type of study you have conducted to critique the scientific foundations of AimPoint.

Cheers
		
Click to expand...

Using a computer programme to predict putts on Sky Sports and the like on a computer generated green for the viewers is totally different to the individual user "inputting" their own idea of breaks from their "zero line". This is the crucial part, you will not always be correct, you will not always be aimed correctly. Therefore while I can appreciate that the computer programme is scientific, the user hitting the putt is really still relying on a degree of guess work which if the user fully understands and believes in aimpoint may make them more confident.

Personally I just think aimpoint overcomplicates the putting process. Good luck to the guys who believe in it.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 20, 2018)

If it helps someone with putting, without too much delay, what does it matter what anyone thinks about it?
As long as it works for that person thats all that matters.


----------



## Val (Aug 20, 2018)

I find aimpoint (and similar subject) threads funny more than anything. Why do folk have to criticise those that do things like aimpoint, S&T, sticking lines on a ball, using tees tied up with string, poker chip markers etc etc............... it's a big world out there, live and let live FFS


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 20, 2018)

Val said:



			I find aimpoint (and similar subject) threads funny more than anything. Why do folk have to criticise those that do things like aimpoint, S&T, sticking lines on a ball, using tees tied up with string, poker chip markers etc etc............... it's a big world out there, live and let live FFS
		
Click to expand...

You gotta shout louder


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 20, 2018)

Val said:



			I find aimpoint (and similar subject) threads funny more than anything. Why do folk have to criticise those that do things like aimpoint, S&T, sticking lines on a ball, using tees tied up with string, poker chip markers etc etc............... it's a big world out there, live and let live FFS
		
Click to expand...

I draw the line at tees tied together with string


----------



## spongebob59 (Aug 20, 2018)

drive4show said:



			I draw the line at tees tied together with string  

Click to expand...

I agree ,should be forged steel wire &#128521;


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 20, 2018)

None one i know uses it but have witnessed a couple of Visitors doing it. Seems to slow up players who are  already slow, us it if you think it helps you but should not add to the time it already takes TBH


----------



## Qwerty (Aug 20, 2018)

I found this an interesting video once it gets going..

Karl Morris talking about the forgotten art of putting. How weâ€™ve become very mechanical in our approach and how he rates the importance of pace.


[video=youtube_share;CSA3f0Eg1DA]https://youtu.be/CSA3f0Eg1DA[/video]


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 20, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were.
		
Click to expand...

Utter claptrap.

Aimpoint IS scientifically based, fundamentally it is really simple...

On a slope with a known gradient with a known coefficient of friction, gravity (which is a constantly acting force) will cause a ball to roll down a slope at a given pace. 

This can be mathematically modelled. As can the effect of gravity on a ball rolling across a slope rather than up or down it.

Science and mathematics.... pure and simple.


----------



## User20205 (Aug 20, 2018)

Heâ€™s a question, one without prejudice, if the green books are to be banned, will aimpoint be??


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2018)

therod said:



			Heâ€™s a question, one without prejudice, if the green books are to be banned, will aimpoint be??
		
Click to expand...

Of course not, a greens book can be read by any idio.............. I see what you mean ðŸ˜


----------



## pinberry (Aug 20, 2018)

therod said:



			Heâ€™s a question, one without prejudice, if the green books are to be banned, will aimpoint be??
		
Click to expand...

How can you ban aimpoint? It would be like banning reading putts with your eyes...


----------



## r0wly86 (Aug 20, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			Utter claptrap.

Aimpoint IS scientifically based, fundamentally it is really simple...

On a slope with a known gradient with a known coefficient of friction, gravity (which is a constantly acting force) will cause a ball to roll down a slope at a given pace. 

This can be mathematically modelled. As can the effect of gravity on a ball rolling across a slope rather than up or down it.

Science and mathematics.... pure and simple.
		
Click to expand...

While that is true, that's not what aimpoint does as far as I can understand.

The gradient isn't known, not quantifiably anyway, it's down to the individual qualitatively scoring the level of gradient on an arbitrary scale.

As everyone is different you may say a slope is 2 on your scale, while homer says it's a 3 on his scale.

What it will do is give you a routine and library of putts for you as an individual. Every time you use it your brain will store it and it's result, so if you do 15 putts as a 2 and miss everyone on the short side your brain will compensate and the next time you have the same slope you'll grade it as a 3.

Everyone will be slightly different


----------



## shortgame (Aug 20, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			Utter claptrap.

Aimpoint IS scientifically based, fundamentally it is really simple...

On a slope with a known gradient with a known coefficient of friction, gravity (which is a constantly acting force) will cause a ball to roll down a slope at a given pace. 

This can be mathematically modelled. As can the effect of gravity on a ball rolling across a slope rather than up or down it.

Science and mathematics.... pure and simple.
		
Click to expand...

... provided that:


a) the slope is consistent Â° across the length of the putt and the midpoint (where you feel the slope) is also consistent.

b) the green speed is known - not every green will be the same speed and not necessarily the same speed as the practice green, none of which may actually be at the speed published (some clubs do like to exaggerate their stimp readings!)

c) you can accurately guage the difference in a 1Â°, 1.5Â°, 2Â° etc slopes!

Or am I wrong? 

Oh and assuming you haven't got thin, or fat, or swollen etc fingers!


----------



## cliveb (Aug 20, 2018)

r0wly86 said:



			Never used Aimpoint and only just looked up the method but
		
Click to expand...

Please can you give us some links to where you've managed to lookup the method? I ask because I keep hearing about Aimpoint and am curious, but nowhere have I managed to find a basic explanation of the technique.

I'd like to at least see the fundamentals explained before committing to the expense of paying for a course.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2018)

r0wly86 said:



			While that is true, that's not what aimpoint does as far as I can understand.

The gradient isn't known, not quantifiably anyway, it's down to the individual qualitatively scoring the level of gradient on an arbitrary scale.

As everyone is different you may say a slope is 2 on your scale, while homer says it's a 3 on his scale.

What it will do is give you a routine and library of putts for you as an individual. Every time you use it your brain will store it and it's result, so if you do 15 putts as a 2 and miss everyone on the short side your brain will compensate and the next time you have the same slope you'll grade it as a 3.

Everyone will be slightly different
		
Click to expand...

But if Homer gives it a 2 and I give it a 3 it doesn't really matter if we make the putts, if we don't, then we can recalibrate our reading accordingly. Speed also has to be calibrated too. Surely this is no different to golfers who use other methods, judge the break with the intended pace.

The best part of Aimpoint as far as I'm concerned is that you judge the direction of the slope better and ive often misjudged the slope in the past. I know loads of guys who can read a break every time perfectly - personally Aimpoint has improved that for me .


----------



## r0wly86 (Aug 20, 2018)

cliveb said:



			Please can you give us some links to where you've managed to lookup the method? I ask because I keep hearing about Aimpoint and am curious, but nowhere have I managed to find a basic explanation of the technique.

I'd like to at least see the fundamentals explained before committing to the expense of paying for a course.
		
Click to expand...

It was in a today's golfer post (sorry GM)


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2018)

cliveb said:



			Please can you give us some links to where you've managed to lookup the method? I ask because I keep hearing about Aimpoint and am curious, but nowhere have I managed to find a basic explanation of the technique.

I'd like to at least see the fundamentals explained before committing to the expense of paying for a course.
		
Click to expand...

Just put Aimpoint into Utube


----------



## Imurg (Aug 20, 2018)

chrisd said:



			The best part of Aimpoint as far as I'm concerned is that you judge the direction of the slope better and ive often misjudged the slope in the past. I know loads of guys who can read a break every time perfectly - personally Aimpoint has improved that for me .
		
Click to expand...

This is the crux isn't it....
If it helps someone make putts then, as long as it's done in a timely manner, there's nothing wrong with it.
And, let's face it, there a many, many non-aimpoint users who have a "Golfing Experience" standing over a putt.
It's another method of reading a putt - works for some, doesn't for others.
Whatever your green reading method - just don't take too long over it
Simples!


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 20, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were. 
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.
		
Click to expand...

Come on then do tell why it is bunkum.



drive4show said:



			Yes very true, golfers as a rule will clutch at anything they think will make the game easier irrespective of whether or not it does.

Regarding reading greens, ever since I first picked up a club over 45 years ago I have stood over putts and been able to feel my balance tilting me backwards, forwards or to the side denoting uphill or downhill slopes. Nobody taught me, it has always just happened. Maybe I invented aimpoint without realising it? I have never taken the course, I have no intention of taking the course either because I feel no need to based on the above. If people want to part with hard earned cash to be told something that is obvious then that is up to them.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the boat, you could've started Aimpoint.



therod said:



			Heâ€™s a question, one without prejudice, if the green books are to be banned, will aimpoint be??
		
Click to expand...

Green books are being banned, note so sure about the Aimpoint books, but with Aimpoint Express there is no book, so if anything there may be a few more Pro's using Aimpoint. Well the Pros that may choose to use it, won't be being coached by Butch Harmon or his offspring.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2018)

Imurg said:



			This is the crux isn't it....
If it helps someone make putts then, as long as it's done in a timely manner, there's nothing wrong with it.
And, let's face it, there a many, many non-aimpoint users who have a "Golfing Experience" standing over a putt.
It's another method of reading a putt - works for some, doesn't for others.
Whatever your green reading method - just don't take too long over it
Simples!
		
Click to expand...

Stop being sensible Ian or that brother of yours will give you grief &#128512;


----------



## r0wly86 (Aug 20, 2018)

chrisd said:



			But if Homer gives it a 2 and I give it a 3 it doesn't really matter if we make the putts, if we don't, then we can recalibrate our reading accordingly. Speed also has to be calibrated too. Surely this is no different to golfers who use other methods, judge the break with the intended pace.

The best part of Aimpoint as far as I'm concerned is that you judge the direction of the slope better and ive often misjudged the slope in the past. I know loads of guys who can read a break every time perfectly - personally Aimpoint has improved that for me .
		
Click to expand...

Yes that's what I'm saying.

It's not scientific, as in x+y=x

For both putts the slope and speed are consistent so a scientific approach would give you the same answer.

As I said if you use it then you will build up a personal databank which will serve you, which is great.

But that's not a scientific approach


----------



## Imurg (Aug 20, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Stop being sensible Ian or that brother of yours will give you grief again&#128512;
		
Click to expand...

Fixed:rofl:


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 20, 2018)

Some may call Aimpoint bunkum, a crutch, a placebo that helps. but there are an awful lot of golfers out there who use it, who rate it and who it has helped enormously. 

While the haters just see someone straddling their ball and holding up a finger or four, there is a lot more to it than just what people see.

I wasn't a bad reader of greens and could make plenty of puts, but the ones that got me were the putts where the optical illusions, the ones where you eyes tell you it breaks left to right and you aim left expecting a swing right, but the ball breaks further left and away from the hole, Aimpoint elimates those misreads.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 20, 2018)

r0wly86 said:



			Yes that's what I'm saying.

It's not scientific, as in x+y=x

For both putts the slope and speed are consistent so a scientific approach would give you the same answer.

As I said if you use it then you will build up a personal databank which will serve you, which is great.

But that's not a scientific approach
		
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's entirely scientific but, as has been said, its comes from the science that shows putt lines on tv


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 20, 2018)

r0wly86 said:



			Yes that's what I'm saying.

It's not scientific, as in x+y=x

For both putts the slope and speed are consistent so a scientific approach would give you the same answer.

As I said if you use it then you will build up a personal databank which will serve you, which is great.

But that's not a scientific approach
		
Click to expand...

Everyone would read a green differently as Chris wrote he may read a putt as a 2 Homer a 3, if both putts go in, then they will have had to hit their respective putts with different strength.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 20, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Some may call Aimpoint bunkum, a crutch, a placebo that helps. but there are an awful lot of golfers out there who use it, who rate it and who it has helped enormously. 

While the haters just see someone straddling their ball and holding up a finger or four, there is a lot more to it than just what people see.

I wasn't a bad reader of greens and could make plenty of puts, but the ones that got me were the putts where the optical illusions, the ones where you eyes tell you it breaks left to right and you aim left expecting a swing right, but the ball breaks further left and away from the hole, Aimpoint elimates those misreads.
		
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to be skeptical without being a 'hater'.  Personally I have for years read some putts through the feet when I'm in doubt - especially when the eyes can deceive (such as optical illusions caused by mounds, cambered fairways etc).

I get that it's fairly scientific but can't see it as an exact science due to the points already mentioned.

Interested to see how many hotshots come out of the US collegiate system using it or if it's just those who've tried and failed with eveything else.

As above though when all's said and done if it helps then great so long as it doesn't hold ul play.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 20, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			I wasn't a bad reader of greens and could make plenty of puts, but the ones that got me were the putts where the optical illusions, the ones where you eyes tell you it breaks left to right and you aim left expecting a swing right, but the ball breaks further left and away from the hole, *Aimpoint elimates those misreads*.
		
Click to expand...

But how does it? Something somewhere in your brain has to give you the information to make the correct read when using aimpoint. That information is already in front of you with or without aimpoint. It is just another (expensive) method to process the information?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 20, 2018)

chrisd said:



			But if Homer gives it a 2 and I give it a 3 it doesn't really matter if we make the putts, if we don't, then we can recalibrate our reading accordingly. Speed also has to be calibrated too. Surely this is no different to golfers who use other methods, judge the break with the intended pace.

The best part of Aimpoint as far as I'm concerned is that you judge the direction of the slope better and ive often misjudged the slope in the past. I know loads of guys who can read a break every time perfectly - personally Aimpoint has improved that for me .
		
Click to expand...

Very good post. I tend to use the putting green as a starting point and build my reads on there based on the pace of that green. If they are then faster/slower which will only take a couple of holes to judge I'll recalibrate again. Of all the merits for me, it has reduced the number of putts I miss on the low side. Like a lot of club golfer I couldn't believe when I went on a course just how much I could under-read some breaks. 

This may be the TG article referred to elsewhere

https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/news-and-events/general-news/2018/may/what-is-aim-point-putting/

https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/news...en-reading-work-or-is-it-a-load-of-nonsense-/

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/using-aimpoint-to-perfect-your-putting/


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 20, 2018)

drive4show said:



			But how does it?
		
Click to expand...


By the feel you get from you feet.

​


drive4show said:



			Something somewhere in your brain has to give you the information to make the correct read when using aimpoint.
		
Click to expand...

Without wanting to be flippant it's the connection between you brain and feet and the knowledge through experience you have knowing that you are standing on a slope or gradient. Then knowing through Aimpoint and practice what that gradient equates to in terms of a percentage.



drive4show said:



			That information is already in front of you with or without aimpoint. It is just another (expensive) method to process the information?
		
Click to expand...

The info is in front of you when you look for a read, but as I wrote, if what you are looking at tells your brain that the break is left to right and you play your put left expecting it to break right but instead it stays left or goes further left, Aimpoint through feeling the slope eliminates those optical illusion reads.


----------



## User20205 (Aug 20, 2018)

pinberry said:



			How can you ban aimpoint? It would be like banning reading putts with your eyes...
		
Click to expand...

I donâ€™t disagree. Itâ€™s just that aimpoint was described as a scientific method, feed info in, get info out. Is that the same as the green book? Just info?


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 20, 2018)

r0wly86 said:



			While that is true, that's not what aimpoint does as far as I can understand.

The gradient isn't known, not quantifiably anyway, it's down to the individual qualitatively scoring the level of gradient on an arbitrary scale.

As everyone is different you may say a slope is 2 on your scale, while homer says it's a 3 on his scale.

What it will do is give you a routine and library of putts for you as an individual. Every time you use it your brain will store it and it's result, so if you do 15 putts as a 2 and miss everyone on the short side your brain will compensate and the next time you have the same slope you'll grade it as a 3.

Everyone will be slightly different
		
Click to expand...

But that's is the science behind which aimpoint originated. When I did my original pinpoint course back in June 2011 we were taught how to  gauge the specific gradients in terms of 1%, 2%, etc...and the original aimpoint charts gave you specific break distances based upon the stimp (which is effectively the coefficient of friction in the scientific model), % gradient and whether you were putting at 90*, 60* or 30* to the break.

Don't get me wrong... you still need to learn to gauge the slope and judge the fall line and, as you point out, that's the bit that takes time and  practice.... or... you could even be really thorough and get yourself a digital spirit level that gives readings in % and create yourself a map of the green.

But the science behind it is simple.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 20, 2018)

Khamelion said:




By the feel you get from you feet.

​

Without wanting to be flippant it's the connection between you brain and feet and the knowledge through experience you have knowing that you are standing on a slope or gradient. Then knowing through Aimpoint and practice what that gradient equates to in terms of a percentage.



The info is in front of you when you look for a read, but as I wrote, if what you are looking at tells your brain that the break is left to right and you play your put left expecting it to break right but instead it stays left or goes further left, Aimpoint through feeling the slope eliminates those optical illusion reads.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, you have basically summed up what I have done all my golfing career which is sense the break through my feet. Also, despite all the threads on here about it you are also the first person (from what I can see) who has actually explained what aimpoint is all about. Everyone else seems to be very secretive about it for some reason so thanks for that  :thup:


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 20, 2018)

Its a method, and it has a label, Aimpoint. If it works for you, crack on.

I'm happy with the way I putt, so won't be even contemplating trying it but I have no problem whatsoever with anyone using it or any other method that works for them.

Out on the course we see various pre-shot routines and lining up methods. What's so different that Aimpoint takes so much stick?


----------



## User20205 (Aug 20, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			. What's so different that Aimpoint takes so much stick?
		
Click to expand...

You want answers? You want answers? You want the truth, you canâ€™t handle the truth!!!


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 20, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Its a method, and it has a label, Aimpoint. If it works for you, crack on.

I'm happy with the way I putt, so won't be even contemplating trying it but I have no problem whatsoever with anyone using it or any other method that works for them.

Out on the course we see various pre-shot routines and lining up methods. What's so different that Aimpoint takes so much stick?
		
Click to expand...


They charge money for it maybe ?
Really though, its probably more a case of claiming that there is a repeatable system. But golfing technique gimmicks are usually a bit tongue in cheek, in a kinda if-it-works-for-you-it-works-for-you, way. But when its sold, you will have people who feel its time to cry foul, especially when there are claims of a sound scientific basis for it.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 20, 2018)

shortgame said:



			... provided that:


a) the slope is consistent Â° across the length of the putt and the midpoint (where you feel the slope) is also consistent.

b) the green speed is known - not every green will be the same speed and not necessarily the same speed as the practice green, none of which may actually be at the speed published (some clubs do like to exaggerate their stimp readings!)

c) you can accurately guage the difference in a 1Â°, 1.5Â°, 2Â° etc slopes!

Or am I wrong? 

Oh and assuming you haven't got thin, or fat, or swollen etc fingers! 

Click to expand...

A) when I did aimpoint we judged the slope along the entire length of the putt... not just at the midpoint which appears to be a more recent simplification of the process.... and to be honest... over the sort of length putts that aimpoint is useful for (i.e. below 20ft in my opinion) you don't get too many putts that vary wildly in terms of the gradient of the slope across what you are hitting.


B) agreed.

c) Well, the slope is expressed in terms of %, not degrees but you do get used to gauging the difference between a 1:100, 1:50, 1:33 and 1:25 slope.... but as I said in my response to R0wly86....thats the bit you as a player have to practice...Aimpoint doesn't work out the putt with no input from you... its a technique that needs to be first learned and then developed....a bit like being a Jedi Knight.

With the fingers stuff.... that's a new development since I did my original course many years ago.... and I just don't get it... as you say.... everyone fingers are different.... the fingers thing is introducing a bit of black magic into the scientific process that I once understood!!! 


Also.... not withstanding the entire process, a player still needs to be able to first aim his putter along his selected line and then strike the putt along that line.... if he can't do that consistently then aimpoint or any other similar system won't do anything for him.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 20, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			the original aimpoint charts gave you specific break distances based upon the stimp (which is effectively the coefficient of friction in the scientific model)
		
Click to expand...

Coefficient of friction ???


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 20, 2018)

Found my aimpoint chart in my locker over the weekend. Tempted to go out and use that (it was still only 15-20 seconds per read) and compare read for read.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 20, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			They charge money for it maybe ?
Really though, its probably more a case of claiming that there is a repeatable system. But golfing technique gimmicks are usually a bit tongue in cheek, in a kinda if-it-works-for-you-it-works-for-you, way. But when its sold, you will have people who feel its time to cry foul, especially when there are claims of a sound scientific basis for it.
		
Click to expand...

And they charge money for lessons on long game, short game, chipping etc. Different pro's will have different techniques, variations of a theme. What's the difference with Aimpoint? Its a method, no different than the many methods we all adopt for different aspects of the game.

My putting method includes a number of repeatable aspects. The way I aim, the way I read a slope, the way I look to achieve the 'feel.' Some might even have a root in the many books I've paid for down the last 50 years - paid for just like an Aimpoint devotee might have done for their lesson.

I've not seen anything from many of the detractors that has any basis in solid reasoning.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 20, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Coefficient of friction ???
		
Click to expand...

Yes.... its a value that expresses the relationship of the force of friction between two objects.

 If there was no friction between the rolling ball and the green, the ball would roll forever.... just like a softly struck putt on Augusta greens can be hammered off the green whilst the same putt on your local municipal course green will stop much more quickly.

Exactly the same as you get slow and fast cloths on snooker tables... its just one cloth having a different friction between it and the snooker ball than the other cloth. 

In golf we have a way of measuring and representing the friction between the ball and the green.... by using a Stimpmeter....although we are not measuring friction directly we are measuring the effects of friction in terms of measuring how far the ball rolls.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 20, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			Yes.... its a value that expresses the relationship of the force of friction between two objects.
		
Click to expand...

While a putted ball may initially slide, and indeed involve a force of friction, surely rolling resistance, and the energy absorbed by bending blades of grass, and loss of kinetic energy from the ball due to the subtle rise and fall of the ball over the resulting rough surface, far exceeds the relevance of friction to a putt ? And so determine how far it will roll for a given impulse ?


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 20, 2018)

Khamelion said:




By the feel you get from you feet.

​

Without wanting to be flippant it's the connection between you brain and feet and the knowledge through experience you have knowing that you are standing on a slope or gradient. Then knowing through Aimpoint and practice what that gradient equates to in terms of a percentage.



The info is in front of you when you look for a read, but as I wrote, if what you are looking at tells your brain that the break is left to right and you play your put left expecting it to break right but instead it stays left or goes further left, Aimpoint through feeling the slope eliminates those optical illusion reads.
		
Click to expand...

So you obviously never miss a putt!


----------



## Stuart_C (Aug 20, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			So you obviously never miss a putt!
		
Click to expand...

Aimpoint doesnt say you'll never miss a putt if you use it. Thats just the old Craw being flippant


----------



## 3565 (Aug 21, 2018)

Khamelion said:




By the feel you get from you feet.

​

*Without wanting to be flippant it's the connection between you brain and feet and the knowledge through experience you have knowing that you are standing on a slope or gradient. Then knowing through Aimpoint and practice what that gradient equates to in terms of a percentage.

*

The info is in front of you when you look for a read, but as I wrote, if what you are looking at tells your brain that the break is left to right and you play your put left expecting it to break right but instead it stays left or goes further left, Aimpoint through feeling the slope eliminates those optical illusion reads.
		
Click to expand...

And through your knowledge In finding that percentage, gives you the number you need, and knowing the amount of arm bend, if doing AE, will give you your aimpoint for that break. But like I've said in the past on this subject to all the detractors of it, you can have the most complex, scientific gadgetry to calculate the break, whether it's your fingers, toes, feet, elbow, eyes and brain, it's no good if you don't start your putt online and with good speed.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 21, 2018)

Stuart_C said:



			Aimpoint doesnt say you'll never miss a putt if you use it. Thats just the old Craw being flippant 

Click to expand...

No flippancy at all however the way that it was written suggests that the poster has it all figured out and you can't miss. 

It's like me saying I read every putt and know the pace on every putt I make. Bottom line is - aimpoint or bog standard "reading greens" it all boils down to user input and user error.

That is the only fact of putting science


----------



## chrisd (Aug 21, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			No flippancy at all however the way that it was written suggests that the poster has it all figured out and you can't miss. 

It's like me saying I read every putt and know the pace on every putt I make. Bottom line is - aimpoint or bog standard "reading greens" it all boils down to user input and user error.

That is the only fact of putting science
		
Click to expand...

No, Stuart's right, typical Craw wind up. 

I'm happy with the fact that enough top pros use it to be satisfied there's merit in it and if those who use it save only, say, 2 putts a round using it then its been worth while. I've played with plenty of people who proudly boast that they've never had a lesson in their life - my usual thought is " yes i can see that" 

Aimpoint with Jamie Donaldson was time well spent, worth the money and I've yet to hear anyone whose done the lesson say anything negative about it, unlike those who haven't done it!


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 21, 2018)

chrisd said:



			No, Stuart's right, typical Craw wind up. 

I'm happy with the fact that enough top pros use it to be satisfied there's merit in it and if those who use it save only, say, 2 putts a round using it then its been worth while. I've played with plenty of people who proudly boast that they've never had a lesson in their life - my usual thought is " yes i can see that" 

Aimpoint with Jamie Donaldson was time well spent, worth the money and I've yet to hear anyone whose done the lesson say anything negative about it, unlike those who haven't done it!
		
Click to expand...

Does aimpoint correct your fine motor skills, iron out your twitches, stop you getting anxious, stop you raising your head that fraction early?

I'm actually not knocking the system I'm knocking the people who describe it as an unfallible system. That is utter tosh. It's only as good as the user input. Same as any system of putting.

That is fact.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 21, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Does aimpoint correct your fine motor skills, iron out your twitches, stop you getting anxious, stop you raising your head that fraction early?

I'm actually not knocking the system I'm knocking the people who describe it as an unfallible system. That is utter tosh. It's only as good as the user input. Same as any system of putting.

That is fact.
		
Click to expand...

I've not read anyone saying it's infallible or even faintly suggesting its the cure to all putting woes  

 Its like the clock method or linear method of chipping, the stack and tilt method of full shots, different ways of getting out of bunkers, its a system for better green reading not how to putt. if it's utter codswallop I don't see why any tour player would use it, Adam Scott, Justin Rose etc may not be the best putters out there but clearly feel it helps their green reading which is all its intended to do and I believe it does it pretty well.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 21, 2018)

We really going through this all again?

People that knock it have little knowledge of it. Any coincidence that you very rarely hear anyone thatâ€™s learnt it say â€˜I donâ€™t like itâ€™?

These people are the same ones that still count putts per round as a measure of putting performance 

These threads should just be banned. Let those that like it continue to benefit from it and those that donâ€™t, donâ€™t.


----------



## r0wly86 (Aug 21, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			We really going through this all again?

People that knock it have little knowledge of it. Any coincidence that you very rarely hear anyone thatâ€™s learnt it say â€˜I donâ€™t like itâ€™?

These people are the same ones that still count putts per round as a measure of putting performance 

These threads should just be banned. Let those that like it continue to benefit from it and those that donâ€™t, donâ€™t.
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't really help the OP who only just heard about it and wanted some user info, or people like me who aren't against the idea but again know little about it in the real world


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 21, 2018)

r0wly86 said:



			Doesn't really help the OP who only just heard about it and wanted some user info, or people like me who aren't against the idea but again know little about it in the real world
		
Click to expand...

But can you honestly say after 12 pages youâ€™ve learnt anything on this thread?


----------



## 3565 (Aug 21, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			But can you honestly say after 12 pages youâ€™ve learnt anything on this thread?
		
Click to expand...

And the reason for that is you get tired of the same issues being raised by those who donâ€™t do it, so those who are intrigued or want to know more, donâ€™t get the insight into it as it just becomes a slagging match on here.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 21, 2018)

3565 said:



			And the reason for that is you get tired of the same issues being raised by those who donâ€™t do it, so those who are intrigued or want to know more, donâ€™t get the insight into it as it just becomes a slagging match on here.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, shame really.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 21, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			While a putted ball may initially slide, and indeed involve a force of friction, surely rolling resistance, and the energy absorbed by bending blades of grass, and loss of kinetic energy from the ball due to the subtle rise and fall of the ball over the resulting rough surface, far exceeds the relevance of friction to a putt ? And so determine how far it will roll for a given impulse ?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have used the term Coefficient of Rolling Resistance.

The point is, I was trying to demonstrate to those who deny that the system has any scientific foundation, that the principles that underpin aim point are indeed based on science... and quite basic science at that.

I still don't get the holding up fingers thing though... maybe I need to go on a refresher course!!!


----------



## chrisd (Aug 21, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			I still don't get the holding up fingers thing though... maybe I need to go on a refresher course!!!
		
Click to expand...

The holding up of fingers is simply their way of (scientifically) converting the percentage slope into a point to aim at. This is the bit that those who've not been on the course but try to do it usually get wrong


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 21, 2018)

3565 said:



			And the reason for that is you get tired of the same issues being raised by those who donâ€™t do it, so those who are intrigued or want to know more, donâ€™t get the insight into it as it just becomes a slagging match on here.
		
Click to expand...

It becomes a "slagging match" due to the fact that aimpoint users can't accept that putting is down to the individual and their limitations regardless of what method of putting they use. 

I have done the course and I understand perfectly well what the aimpoint philosophy and end game is all about. 

I'll still tell you that it still boils down to the input from the user at the end of the day. If you use aimpoint and want to believe that it's a scientific theory that's great, feel free. Even better if you believe that this "science" helps you. In that case the course has been worthwhile.

On the flip side of the coin, reading greens by eye and using your own "in built" feel can be every bit as successful. 

People are passionate about things I get that but there is also an awful lot of codswallop being branded about.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 21, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			We really going through this all again?

People that knock it have little knowledge of it. Any coincidence that you very rarely hear anyone thatâ€™s learnt it say â€˜I donâ€™t like itâ€™?

These people are the same ones that still count putts per round as a measure of putting performance 

These threads should just be banned. Let those that like it continue to benefit from it and those that donâ€™t, donâ€™t.
		
Click to expand...

You canâ€™t ban threads about Aimpoint - thatâ€™s being silly , not one person is being disrespectful etc

Both sides could point fingers at each other 

People who use Aimpoint get very defensive of any who shows any sort of critical point about it - it didnâ€™t help when early stages there appeared to be a lot of secret and donâ€™t tell what itâ€™s about etc and also maybe people couldnâ€™t understand why people would pay for it when all over the internet many pros give tips on how to read greens etc and there have been enough stories of people using the method but are slow doing it 

I have played with people who have taken the course - some are slow doing it and I have played with some where I donâ€™t see them doing - there are some on the forum who do it but when looking at HC itâ€™s hard to see an improvement especially when someone is that vocal about it but when coming to showing stuff on vlogs donâ€™t seem to be using it - 

I do know two people from Woburn who did the course - a 1 HC and a 12 HC both found the theory of it interesting but after a while the 1 HC binned it and the 12 HC still uses it -the 12 HC clearly struggles with it because his green reading is shocking and a lot of times his biggest struggle especially at Woburn is greens with more than one break 

You can even look at the list of Pros using it that they put up during the Sky bit - Dougherty went straight to the point - they all still have one weakness - putting even using the method but as he said itâ€™s a method of reading greens not putting 

I have seen it enough in use , read the TG bit and read the theory to decide that it appears to be a Guy has seen the Aimpoint thing on telly and come up with a theory in headlines that suggests he will help you hole more putts - that I suspect will sell courses because people will leap on that and use it as a crutch 

I also suspect that people who have putted better since the course would still have putted better but the course is a placebo they hang onto but thatâ€™s up to them - itâ€™s the same with a lot of these â€œmethodsâ€ that come out - they latch onto golfers desire to improve 

Itâ€™s like the comment is saw â€œ I have played with people who havenâ€™t had a lesson and you can tell â€œ - I have played with people or seen people who have had more lessons than pros - and you canâ€™t tell 

But ultimately you canâ€™t silence people when they are having an opinion you donâ€™t like it - if itâ€™s that bad an opinion which seeing the reactions from people then either ignore it or report it but there is certainly enough out there for people to form an opinion on the method without doing the course


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 21, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			We really going through this all again?

People that knock it have little knowledge of it. Any coincidence that you very rarely hear anyone thatâ€™s learnt it say â€˜I donâ€™t like itâ€™?

These people are the same ones that still count putts per round as a measure of putting performance 

These threads should just be banned. Let those that like it continue to benefit from it and those that donâ€™t, donâ€™t.
		
Click to expand...

Aimpoint in â€œThe Loungeâ€ equals the football thread in â€œOut of Boundsâ€


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 21, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			But can you honestly say after 12 pages youâ€™ve learnt anything on this thread?
		
Click to expand...

After numerous threads I have finally learnt a bit about it because Khamelion is the first person to actually explain how it works. Everyone else that has done the course is secretive about it so if you don't explain it is it any wonder that people slag it off?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 21, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I have played with people who have taken the course - some are slow doing it and I have played with some where I donâ€™t see them doing - there are some on the forum who do it but when looking at HC itâ€™s hard to see an improvement especially when someone is that vocal about it but when coming to showing stuff on vlogs donâ€™t seem to be using it -
		
Click to expand...

That's not so much a thinly veiled dig as transparent. Ironic from someone that then moans about people having a pop at him. That aside. I already covered the point about it not being in video's as I've normally done the read, either before setting the camera into the right position (to save time if it's busy) or edited out as it doesn't bring anything to the video. As for the handicap, mine has gone up by the princely total of 0.2 points in almost nine months of 2018. Hardly an earth shattering change and nothing to do with my putting which is holding firm at an average of around 31 putts per round. There has also been a competition win in there. 

This no drop in handicap has been used by you before as though it's some justification for Aimpoint not working and to be honest is just a smoke screen. There are lots of well documented flaws in my game that I'd argue are far more restrictive to dropping my handicap lower. Putting and Aimpoint isn't one of them.

You talk about respect. Please don't then come on here making sly digs at someone you say is a) vocal about it (yes because I feel it works on any course and has helped MY game) and b) someone enjoys making the odd video and putting it on youtube (not only has it given me some interesting opportunities but is something I enjoy and I wouldn't dream of mocking your pursuits so don't mock mine)

As I've said to everyone who has responded. Simply try it. There are resources out there that will give you the basic information to take it onto a practice green and try it. Don't bin it after ten minutes as it takes time to acquire the skill and develop it.


----------



## Slab (Aug 21, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			That's not so much a thinly veiled dig as transparent. Ironic from someone that then moans about people having a pop at him. That aside. I already covered the point about it not being in video's as I've normally done the read, either before setting the camera into the right position (to save time if it's busy) or edited out as it doesn't bring anything to the video. As for the handicap, mine has gone up by the princely total of 0.2 points in almost nine months of 2018. Hardly an earth shattering change and nothing to do with my putting which is holding firm at an average of around 31 putts per round. There has also been a competition win in there. 

This no drop in handicap has been used by you before as though it's some justification for Aimpoint not working and to be honest is just a smoke screen. There are lots of well documented flaws in my game that I'd argue are far more restrictive to dropping my handicap lower. Putting and Aimpoint isn't one of them.

You talk about respect. Please don't then come on here making sly digs at someone you say is a) vocal about it (yes because I feel it works on any course and has helped MY game) and b) someone enjoys making the odd video and putting it on youtube (not only has it given me some interesting opportunities but is something I enjoy and I wouldn't dream of mocking your pursuits so don't mock mine)

*As I've said to everyone who has responded. Simply try it.* There are resources out there that will give you the basic information to take it onto a practice green and try it. Don't bin it after ten minutes as it takes time to acquire the skill and develop it.
		
Click to expand...


Maybe you should try a chipper club... but you wont for reasons you've stated (and are happy to have sly dig at that tool and its use) aimpoint is exactly the same thing but you are on the other side of the coin on this one


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 21, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Aimpoint in â€œThe Loungeâ€ equals the football thread in â€œOut of Boundsâ€
		
Click to expand...

I would have said the Brexit thread myself but I take your point


----------



## shortgame (Aug 21, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			A) when I did aimpoint we judged the slope along the entire length of the putt... not just at the midpoint which appears to be a more recent simplification of the process.... and to be honest... over the sort of length putts that aimpoint is useful for (i.e. below 20ft in my opinion) you don't get too many putts that vary wildly in terms of the gradient of the slope across what you are hitting.


B) agreed.

c) Well, the slope is expressed in terms of %, not degrees but you do get used to gauging the difference between a 1:100, 1:50, 1:33 and 1:25 slope.... but as I said in my response to R0wly86....thats the bit you as a player have to practice...Aimpoint doesn't work out the putt with no input from you... its a technique that needs to be first learned and then developed....a bit like being a Jedi Knight.

With the fingers stuff.... that's a new development since I did my original course many years ago.... and I just don't get it... as you say.... everyone fingers are different.... the fingers thing is introducing a bit of black magic into the scientific process that I once understood!!! 


Also.... not withstanding the entire process, a player still needs to be able to first aim his putter along his selected line and then strike the putt along that line.... if he can't do that consistently then aimpoint or any other similar system won't do anything for him.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response, I'm glad that some of us can have a sensible discussion - I've learned a few bits that I didn't know before

I'm still a bit undecided about it, however for me personally it's not an issue as my green reading is pretty good but it's an interesting topic.


----------



## r0wly86 (Aug 21, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			Perhaps I should have used the term Coefficient of Rolling Resistance.

The point is, I was trying to demonstrate to those who deny that the system has any scientific foundation, that the principles that underpin aim point are indeed based on science... and quite basic science at that.

I still don't get the holding up fingers thing though... maybe I need to go on a refresher course!!!
		
Click to expand...

But you don't know the coefficient of friction or the rolling resistance of the ball, you don't know the speed of the green.

You estimate the speed of the green using your own internal scoring mechanism, this usually subconscious as in you know how hard to hit this one, because it's a similar length to the last one which I hit this hard.

Again you don't know the gradient of the slope, you have not got a topographical cross section and got your protractor out to measure it. Again what you do have is an internal method of scoring the level of the slope relative to your other putts.

If I read a putt not using aimpoint I am doing the same thing really, I am cross referencing the current putt with every other putt I have ever taken. The speed of the green is not known but calculated in my head, like wise the slope gradient, I look at it and my brain works out that it is similar to a putt I have done before which broke a certain amount. With that calculation done my brain works out the path the ball should take to get into the hole.

What Aimpoint does as far as I can see is breaks down that calculation into different stages. If you are not good at reading putts the traditional way then this could be a great assistance as it adds in some conscious thought into the process, and enhances your databank of your putts with a standardised internal scoring system.

I am not denigrating the system I'm sure it does work.

I just do not buy the scientific slant on it. Everything is down to scientific principle, even the traditional way of reading a putt is working out the rolling resistance of the ball and the slope of the green. The difference is that it internalised.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 21, 2018)

Slab said:



			Maybe you should try a chipper club... but you wont for reasons you've stated (and are happy to have sly dig at that tool and its use) aimpoint is exactly the same thing but you are on the other side of the coin on this one
		
Click to expand...

Short game is actually on the up too but chipping is just a sum of all the parts of my game that are holding me back. I have tried a chipper way back when I first got back into golf in my late 20's-early 30's as a PP had one and curiosity got the better of me. Way too one dimensional. I have tried to learn different shots with different clubs. On good days these are good, on bad days not so good but as I said only a part of the overall issues in my game


----------



## Val (Aug 21, 2018)

Can anyone tell which top ranking golfers are using this method? The only one I've seen using it is Adam Scott and he's ranked 44. 

I'm not knocking the method either, if anyone thinks it benefits there game and improves their putting the wire in, however Jacko makes a key point in this and it's user input. It doesn't matter how good you are at reading greens by what ever method you use, if your own technique is poor then you'll miss more than you will hole out.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 21, 2018)

Val said:



			Can anyone tell which top ranking golfers are using this method? The only one I've seen using it is Adam Scott and he's ranked 44. 

I'm not knocking the method either, if anyone thinks it benefits there game and improves their putting the wire in, however Jacko makes a key point in this and it's user input. It doesn't matter how good you are at reading greens by what ever method you use, if your own technique is poor then you'll miss more than you will hole out.
		
Click to expand...

Justin Rose has used it and believe DJ has also dabbled with it - pictures showing his caddy doing it as well , but think Rose and Scott the two high profile users in the menâ€™s game - Ko and Lewis in the Ladies


----------



## Val (Aug 21, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Justin Rose has used it and believe DJ has also dabbled with it - pictures showing his caddy doing it as well , but think Rose and Scott the two high profile users in the menâ€™s game - Ko and Lewis in the Ladies
		
Click to expand...

Just had a quick google and was surprised to fin a list that includes the following more well know players who have all dabbled or continue with it.

Kevin Chappel
Jason Dufner
Brian Gay
Charles Howell III
Zack Johnson
Hunter Mahon
Ian Poulter
Justin Rose
Adam Scott 
Mike Weir
Andy Sullivan


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 21, 2018)

drive4show said:



			After numerous threads I have finally learnt a bit about it because Khamelion is the first person to actually explain how it works. Everyone else that has done the course is secretive about it so if you don't explain it is it any wonder that people slag it off?
		
Click to expand...

i've never been secretive about it. i've taught it to a number of people. its not rocket science, and the fact of the matter is, you yourself use the large majority of the aimpoint concept. Only difference is, you gauge the break based on your feel rather than attributing the scientific element of it.

Explaining it on here would largely be to defend it rather than for a knowledge share. If someone wants to create a thread that is locked to comments where i explain it i would more than happily do it. it would take about 2 paragraphs.


----------



## Val (Aug 21, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			i've never been secretive about it. i've taught it to a number of people. its not rocket science, and the fact of the matter is, you yourself use the large majority of the aimpoint concept. Only difference is, you gauge the break based on your feel rather than attributing the scientific element of it.

Explaining it on here would largely be to defend it rather than for a knowledge share. If someone wants to create a thread that is locked to comments where i explain it i would more than happily do it. it would take about 2 paragraphs.
		
Click to expand...

Now that is interesting if it's that short. Care to share via PM?


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 21, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			So you obviously never miss a putt!
		
Click to expand...

On the contrary I miss loads, but I miss a hell of a lot less than I used to. Last round I played I sunk a 40 feet and a 45 feet putt, took the read of the slope, got my line and made the putts. When I miss and I do, it's because I've not got the speed of the green right, leaving some short, on line but short.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 21, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			i've never been secretive about it. i've taught it to a number of people. its not rocket science, and the fact of the matter is, you yourself use the large majority of the aimpoint concept. Only difference is, you gauge the break based on your feel rather than attributing the scientific element of it.

Explaining it on here would largely be to defend it rather than for a knowledge share. If someone wants to create a thread that is locked to comments where i explain it i would more than happily do it. it would take about 2 paragraphs.
		
Click to expand...

I've done the same as well and happy to give an explanation to anyone. There's also quite a few Utube videos on the subject. I just wish that people wouldn't tell me that tthere's no merit, ie snake oil, to it because I think all those who have done it won't agree. If it's done anything for me its stopped me from being fooled by greens that slope differently than the surrounding ground appears to - others might not have this problem, I did


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 21, 2018)

3565 said:



			And through your knowledge In finding that percentage, gives you the number you need, and knowing the amount of arm bend, if doing AE, will give you your aimpoint for that break. But like I've said in the past on this subject to all the detractors of it, you can have the most complex, scientific gadgetry to calculate the break, whether it's your fingers, toes, feet, elbow, eyes and brain, it's no good if you don't start your putt online and with good speed.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, if you hit a putt hard enough you can take out any break the putt has, but the chances are that due to the speed the ball will fly the hole, lip out or canon off the hole. Aimpoint gives someone the ability to read the slope or gradient and if, there is always an if because Aimpoint does not guarantee 100% success, that person starts the ball on the correct line at an appropriate speed the ball will drop. Getting the line and speed correct come from practice, get the feel for the slope under your feet comes from practice.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 21, 2018)

Val said:



			Now that is interesting if it's that short. Care to share via PM?
		
Click to expand...

done


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 21, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Indeed, if you hit a putt hard enough you can take out any break the putt has, but the chances are that due to the speed the ball will fly the hole, lip out or canon off the hole. Aimpoint gives someone the ability to read the slope or gradient and if, there is always an if because Aimpoint does not guarantee 100% success, that person starts the ball on the correct line at an appropriate speed the ball will drop. Getting the line and speed correct come from practice, get the feel for the slope under your feet comes from practice.
		
Click to expand...

I've just said the same to Val in a DM


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 21, 2018)

Val said:



			Can anyone tell which top ranking golfers are using this method? The only one I've seen using it is Adam Scott and he's ranked 44. 

I'm not knocking the method either, if anyone thinks it benefits there game and improves their putting the wire in, however Jacko makes a key point in this and it's user input. It doesn't matter how good you are at reading greens by what ever method you use, if your own technique is poor then you'll miss more than you will hole out.
		
Click to expand...

There are a few women golfers who use it Lydia Ko, Stacey Lewis, along with from the mens tours, Adam Scott, Justin Rose, actually saw Rose use it at Carnoustie. A quick google search will give you a list of others that may have dabbled with it.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 21, 2018)

As an addition to the Aimpoint Express class, the coach who does Aimpoint that I go to, has been working with Mark Sweeny and Jamie Donaldson on follow up classes to hone the Aimpoint skills, I went to the first one a few weeks back and there were 5 different stations set up on the green. 

You start a level 1 and you have to progress through the stations and make a certain percentage of putts to progress, you had stations dedicate to speed control, line management, aim, reading the slope etc... as you get better and progress the level of difficulty increases. There are 9 levels to work through, but you need to pass each station before you can level up, as it were.

I did it with 7 other Aimpointers and it was good to listen to their thoughts and experiences as well as share mine, took a lot from the session and will be going to the next one.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 21, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I have seen it enough in use , read the TG bit and read the theory to decide that it appears to be a Guy has seen the Aimpoint thing on telly and come up with a theory in headlines that suggests he will help you hole more putts 

e
		
Click to expand...

Wrong way round. The guy behind Aimpoint (Mark Sweeney) developed the system which was then used by the Golf Channel to superimpose putting lines on broadcasts.


----------



## SGC001 (Aug 21, 2018)

ademac said:



			Never heard of it until tonight.
Just seen a "senior aimpoint coach" on sky talking about aimpoint.
It sounds very interesting and just wondering if any guys use it or have more info?

Found it quite funny that the guy missed all his putts though! &#128584;
		
Click to expand...

I've taken the midpoint and express courses.

I'd say if you are interested in it and green reading is an issue for you it would be worth it.

The way i'd put it is that you could teach a non golfer to read greens as well as an someone whos been playing years and can read greens within a couple of weeks.

It takes a qualitative skill of green reading and makes it semi quantitative with the chart and skills you are taught.

The skill of feeling slope is both teachable and learnable imho as is the method of determing green speed they will equip you with.

Ive yet to hear anyone completing the course say anything bad about it, and the reason how it works is not explained is due to intellectual copyright so if you want to learn it, go do it.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 21, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			Wrong way round. The guy behind Aimpoint (Mark Sweeney) developed the system which was then used by the Golf Channel to superimpose putting lines on broadcasts.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah and they stopped using it and now use this other system which is appaling.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 21, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			On the contrary I miss loads, but I miss a hell of a lot less than I used to. Last round I played I sunk a 40 feet and a 45 feet putt, took the read of the slope, got my line and made the putts. When I miss and I do, it's because I've not got the speed of the green right, leaving some short, on line but short.
		
Click to expand...

So you're claiming that it's transformed your game to such a level that you never miss left or right. 

WOW. That is some claim and advert for aimpoint, maybe I should revisit it.

@ Val Karyn Burns does it, the female pro that was at Glasgow indoor. (Although I understand that has gone to the wall now)


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 21, 2018)

First of all, I believe there is a place for Aimpoint in the game. Don't have a problem with it at all, although its of little interest to me as I'm happy with my putting.

But a rhetorical question; for all those that have done it, and put the time in practicing and refining their skills with it, would you have achieved just as much by spending the time on the practice green without doing Aimpoint? I realise its an impossible question to answer but I do wonder if what you were lacking previously was a bit of structure and a whole load of practicing.


----------



## Val (Aug 21, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			@ Val Karyn Burns does it, the female pro that was at Glasgow indoor. (Although I understand that has gone to the wall now)
		
Click to expand...

Wasn't aware, good set up that was too. Haven't been near it in ages and probably wouldn't now Golf Asylum has opened in Coatbridge.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 21, 2018)

SGC001 said:



			I've taken the midpoint and express courses.

I'd say if you are interested in it and green reading is an issue for you it would be worth it.

The way i'd put it is that you could teach a non golfer to read greens as well as an someone whos been playing years and can read greens within a couple of weeks.

It takes a qualitative skill of green reading and makes it semi quantitative with the chart and skills you are taught.

The skill of feeling slope is both teachable and learnable imho as is the method of determing green speed they will equip you with.

Ive yet to hear anyone completing the course say anything bad about it, and the reason how it works is not explained is due to intellectual copyright so if you want to learn it, go do it.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m not 100% sure on this, but wouldnâ€™t intellectual copyright only be breached if you tried to profit from the information, I donâ€™t think telling your mate comes under it.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 21, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			First of all, I believe there is a place for Aimpoint in the game. Don't have a problem with it at all, although its of little interest to me as I'm happy with my putting.

But a rhetorical question; for all those that have done it, and put the time in practicing and refining their skills with it, would you have achieved just as much by spending the time on the practice green without doing Aimpoint? I realise its an impossible question to answer but I do wonder if what you were lacking previously was a bit of structure and a whole load of practicing.
		
Click to expand...

I've incorporated it into my practice mate. 

I work with the calibatration strip (basically it shows you where you need to aim for a particular level of break). i find a 1% 2% break (whichever). and then work on putts with that break from 4,6,8,10 ft. i use a chalk like from each of the points the strip says the break is and then work on hitting it on that line.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 21, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			First of all, I believe there is a place for Aimpoint in the game. Don't have a problem with it at all, although its of little interest to me as I'm happy with my putting.

But a rhetorical question; for all those that have done it, and put the time in practicing and refining their skills with it, would you have achieved just as much by spending the time on the practice green without doing Aimpoint? I realise its an impossible question to answer but I do wonder if what you were lacking previously was a bit of structure and a whole load of practicing.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly thats true Brian but could just as easily be directed at anyone who has a golf lesson on anything, bunker play,  chipping etc etc 

My putting certainly was the last area of attention in my game and since doing Aimpoint for green reading and the lesson shown in this month's GM for the putting mechanics  I've had 2 small handicap reductions and feel much more confident on the greens


----------



## r0wly86 (Aug 21, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Iâ€™m not 100% sure on this, but wouldnâ€™t intellectual copyright only be breached if you tried to profit from the information, I donâ€™t think telling your mate comes under it.
		
Click to expand...

You don't have to make a profit from it, for instance publishing it for free online, would be breach of copyright. If bought the latest JK Rowling book, and just transcribed it onto a web page then she could get a court order for me to remove it.

Telling your mate about it, could possibly breach it, however the chances of the owners becoming aware of it, and then being able to prove it in court would be so slim as it shouldn't even come into consideration


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 21, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Possibly thats true Brian but could just as easily be directed at anyone who has a golf lesson on anything, bunker play,  chipping etc etc 

My putting certainly was the last area of attention in my game and since doing Aimpoint for green reading and the lesson shown in this month's GM for the putting mechanics  I've had 2 small handicap reductions and feel much more confident on the greens
		
Click to expand...

Good point, well made Chris. I pretty much answered my own question when I said "were lacking a bit of structure..."

I had a tips lesson from Oliver Wilson at the Belfry a few years back at the final of Britain's Best putter. Amongst the tips were two I have incorporated into my routine, which I hadn't considered before. 1) Always look from below the hole to see the slopes better. 2) For what appears to be a flat green, get a feel for any slopes from your feet.

There always more we can learn, we've just got to be open minded to it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 21, 2018)

r0wly86 said:



			You don't have to make a profit from it, for instance publishing it for free online, would be breach of copyright. If bought the latest JK Rowling book, and just transcribed it onto a web page then she could get a court order for me to remove it.

Telling your mate about it, could possibly breach it, however the chances of the owners becoming aware of it, and then being able to prove it in court would be so slim as it shouldn't even come into consideration
		
Click to expand...

Fully aware of the dangers of publishing or broadcasting etc, thatâ€™s why I made the point about telling a mate, danger would be mate using info and making a profit etc,


----------



## SGC001 (Aug 21, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			First of all, I believe there is a place for Aimpoint in the game. Don't have a problem with it at all, although its of little interest to me as I'm happy with my putting.

But a rhetorical question; for all those that have done it, and put the time in practicing and refining their skills with it, would you have achieved just as much by spending the time on the practice green without doing Aimpoint? I realise its an impossible question to answer but I do wonder if what you were lacking previously was a bit of structure and a whole load of practicing.
		
Click to expand...

In my case, i chose to go on the course for 2 reasons.

1. An interest in how it could work
2. A tendancy to over read putts on slow greens.
3. A feeling i didnt hole my fair share of makeable putts (more so on slow greens)

In the case of point 1, i was pleasantly suprised by the soundness of the method.

In the case of point 2, i know have a chart and can play less break with confidence on slow slopey greens.

In case of point 3 i felt it helped on my home courses (too slow for me at that time - i was always happier at 8 9 10 plus than slower) away i tended to hole more of these anyway.

As a bonus i found it helps with commiting to a stroke, so i feel i make more good strokes.

I also changed my putter type as a result of discussions with the pro who ran the course to one which suits my eyes better for lining up. (i tend to see things open so benefit from a heel shafted putter). In effect i was compensating for my face alignment with my stroke which was likely a source on inconsistency.

I always felt and still feel i read and lag well, but i now feel i hole more of my fair share of the 3 to 10 footers that let me down.

Edit
Putting wise i like finding the fall line and clock drill to help with those skills. Different lengths and slopes can be done, but its hard to practice and thetefore learn at different speeds.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 21, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Good point, well made Chris. I pretty much answered my own question when I said "were lacking a bit of structure..."

I had a tips lesson from Oliver Wilson at the Belfry a few years back at the final of Britain's Best putter. Amongst the tips were two I have incorporated into my routine, which I hadn't considered before. 1) Always look from below the hole to see the slopes better. 2) For what appears to be a flat green, get a feel for any slopes from your feet.

There always more we can learn, we've just got to be open minded to it.
		
Click to expand...

Why, subject to cost, would anyone not want to learn everything and anything that might improve their game?


----------



## r0wly86 (Aug 21, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Fully aware of the dangers of publishing or broadcasting etc, thatâ€™s why I made the point about telling a mate, danger would be mate using info and making a profit etc,
		
Click to expand...

They could I suppose, but they would be subject to any court action, again the chances of the owner of the copyright bringing action against you because you told a third party about it who published it are pretty slim.

In the UK courts as well, the claimant would have to prove that your actions cost them money. You telling your mate as at most cost them the cost of the course your mate may have gone on, your mate who as broadcasted it could be liable for more. But there isn't a transitive property in law, as in your mate couldn't publish it if you hadn't told him, so you are liable for his actions


----------



## JollyRedDevil (Aug 21, 2018)

Correct me if I am wrong but from what I understand, this method (if it works) helps with the degree of slope not the actual direction.
I sometimes, at my new club, read a green as say left to right and it turns out the opposite.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 21, 2018)

JollyRedDevil said:



			Correct me if I am wrong but from what I understand, this method (if it works) helps with the degree of slope not the actual direction.
I sometimes, at my new club, read a green as say left to right and it turns out the opposite.
		
Click to expand...

I really think you should do the course


----------



## JollyRedDevil (Aug 21, 2018)

drive4show said:



			I really think you should do the course  

Click to expand...

Seriously, are you saying it helps with reading the direction of the slope correctly?
At my new club, the greens are really difficult to read (for me any way). Unless it is really obvious, I stand behind the ball and read it one way, I the walk to the opposite side and read it the other way.
I'm all for it if it helps with that.
How much does a typical coure cost? Any ideas.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 21, 2018)

JollyRedDevil said:



			Seriously, are you saying it helps with reading the direction of the slope correctly?
At my new club, the greens are really difficult to read (for me any way). Unless it is really obvious, I stand behind the ball and read it one way, I the walk to the opposite side and read it the other way.
I'm all for it if it helps with that.
How much does a typical coure cost? Any ideas.
		
Click to expand...

you dont need to do the course to learn to read greens with your feet.


----------



## Ross61 (Aug 21, 2018)

JollyRedDevil said:



			Seriously, are you saying it helps with reading the direction of the slope correctly?
At my new club, the greens are really difficult to read (for me any way). Unless it is really obvious, I stand behind the ball and read it one way, I the walk to the opposite side and read it the other way.
I'm all for it if it helps with that.
How much does a typical coure cost? Any ideas.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™ve never done the course, But have picked up from the various threads that a part of this is to straddle the line and feel with your feet any slope. This is the only thing I do from the aimpoint method. Like you, I sometimes struggle with minor slopes, especially since wearing varifocal glasses.
I find it easy to settle my mind as to any slope. It is far better than the plumb line with the putter method, which in my opinion is not reliable.


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 21, 2018)

Ross61 said:



			Iâ€™ve never done the course, But have picked up from the various threads that a part of this is to straddle the line and feel with your feet any slope. This is the only thing I do from the aimpoint method. Like you, I sometimes struggle with minor slopes, especially since wearing varifocal glasses.
I find it easy to settle my mind as to any slope. It is far better than the plumb line with the putter method, which in my opinion is not reliable.
		
Click to expand...

Same here. Never done an Aimpoint course or really researched it a lot, but I occasionally straddle my putting line and see if I can feel a break with my feet that I couldn't see with my eyes, if I'm not sure of a line.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 21, 2018)

Aimpoint is a green reading method that puts a value in % to side tilt of a slope that with the learning of the arm bend can give you a visual of how much it breaks. The process is simple, effective, doesn't slow play (unless your a quick look and whack it player). Ive done it for the past 7 yrs, it isn't a placebo or that I turned to AE because I'm a bad green reader, you don't play in Cat1 for 20 odd years by being a poor green reader, (and that is no way intended to be elitist or snobbery about my hc but more a stand point of where I am) and I have a preference to do AE then the normal way.  

Is is it for everyone, no, but those who struggle, there is a system out there that helps. I bet there is a high percentage of players who do take lessons that have probably not took a green reading lesson from their Pro. 

just out of interest those with DMDs have you noticed that you hole out more often with the shots that are hit into the green since the legalisation of DMDs in comps then before?


----------



## spongebob59 (Aug 22, 2018)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=U8j-NYzb1YA


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 22, 2018)

Don't know about aimpoint being a way of improving % of shorter putts holed - but I (mostly) stopped missing 3 footers and under - and improved greatly my holing % of 12ft and under when I developed a simply pre-putt route - and use it every time.  

There are many ways to skin a cat (so I am told) but perhaps what the aimpoint method provides could simply be a pre-putt _routine_.  Maybe it's as much the 'routine' that delivers rather than the 'technique/method' (if you get my differentiation) - and that's fine and good for those who find that it works.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 22, 2018)

Aimpoint is so much more than just reading the amount of slope, you learn speed techniques, accuracy, allignment etc...Grant all the aformentioned can be self taught, or a coach or pro can teach you the agreed vanila way of doing things, it's each to their own, whatever works for one will not for another.

Not sure why Aimpoint attracts so much dissention among players, you don't read or hear others talking about the actual swing with so much passion, I mean everyone's swing is different and if that means you get the ball from A to B then the swing works, why should Aimpoint be any different? 

Like the golf swing, Aimpoint is a singular method of achieving an end result with multiple ways of achieving that result.


----------



## Slab (Aug 22, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Aimpoint is so much more than just reading the amount of slope, you learn speed techniques, accuracy, allignment etc...Grant all the aformentioned can be self taught, or a coach or pro can teach you the agreed vanila way of doing things, it's each to their own, whatever works for one will not for another.

*Not sure why Aimpoint attracts so much dissention among players,* you don't read or hear others talking about the actual swing with so much passion, I mean everyone's swing is different and if that means you get the ball from A to B then the swing works, why should Aimpoint be any different? 

Like the golf swing, Aimpoint is a singular method of achieving an end result with multiple ways of achieving that result.
		
Click to expand...

My own initial view of it started with the secrecy/sketchyness (real word?) surrounding it online and while I suppose this was intended to protect income it actually came across as scam-like

If it wasnâ€™t golf related Iâ€™d wager even some that did part with their hard earned wouldâ€™ve just said; _what, youâ€™ve got a new way for me to do something but you wonâ€™t really tell me any detail until I part with the cash and then youâ€™ll ask me not to share itâ€¦ yeah right, sod off mate!_ 

Be honest it sounds like a ponzi scheme rather than a marketing strategy 

Once Iâ€™ve formed a negative view on something like that itâ€™s not likely to change the full 180 even when the facts become clearer, at best Iâ€™ll be; meh! 
(which is pretty much where I am)


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 22, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Aimpoint is so much more than just reading the amount of slope, you learn speed techniques, accuracy, allignment etc...Grant all the aformentioned can be self taught, or a coach or pro can teach you the agreed vanila way of doing things, it's each to their own, whatever works for one will not for another.

*Not sure why Aimpoint attracts so much dissention among players*, you don't read or hear others talking about the actual swing with so much passion, I mean everyone's swing is different and if that means you get the ball from A to B then the swing works, why should Aimpoint be any different? 

Like the golf swing, Aimpoint is a singular method of achieving an end result with multiple ways of achieving that result.
		
Click to expand...

For me the primary concern is that it requires a table for each green to work from and that - for me - takes away from what I view as the 'instinctive' and 'learnt' nature of putting.  For me it is a very different part of our gane than the rest.  We can practice, practice and practice our swing technique and distance, spin, shot shaping and strike - and that is fine - always been the case.  But for me putting is different to all of that.  The success or failure of my putting depends very much on my ability to assess awhere I find myself on the green, the position of the flag  on the day and what I have to putt over between my ball and the flag positions.  I think that is a k


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 22, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			For me the primary concern is that it requires a table for each green to work from and that - for me - takes away from what I view as the 'instinctive' and 'learnt' nature of putting.  For me it is a very different part of our gane than the rest.  We can practice, practice and practice our swing technique and distance, spin, shot shaping and strike - and that is fine - always been the case.  But for me putting is different to all of that.  The success or failure of my putting depends very much on my ability to assess awhere I find myself on the green, the position of the flag  on the day and what I have to putt over between my ball and the flag positions.  I think that is a k
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but your first sentence is outdated if not now erroneous. Aimpoint have done away with the charts and in which case were universal for all courses and had different tables based on the stimp (which could be estimated on the putting green and adjusted after the first hole or two). The Aimpoint Express now uses the read based on the perceived slope felt through the feet and translated into a degree of arm bend (based on pace of the greens) and fingers used to indicate the amount of break required. With practice this can be refined and improved and is definitely instinctive.


----------



## Slab (Aug 22, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Sorry but your first sentence is outdated if not now erroneous. Aimpoint have done away with the charts and in which case were universal for all courses and had different tables based on the stimp (which could be estimated on the putting green and adjusted after the first hole or two). *The Aimpoint Express now uses the read based on the perceived slope felt through the feet and translated into a degree of arm bend (based on pace of the greens) and fingers used to indicate the amount of break required. With practice this can be refined and improved and is definitely instinctive.*

Click to expand...

See this is the thing, you take that into the Den and a handful of Dragons are gonna tell you to do one

Maybe its just one of those marmite things or I'm just not smart enough to see through the jargon in the process


----------



## cliveb (Aug 22, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			The Aimpoint Express now uses the read based on the perceived slope felt through the feet and translated into a degree of arm bend (based on pace of the greens) and fingers used to indicate the amount of break required. With practice this can be refined and improved and is definitely instinctive.
		
Click to expand...

Having viewed a few videos I gleaned the basic strategy, and the theory behind it sounds eminently reasonable.
So I decided to try it out in an uneducated way to decide whether there was something in it to justify paying for a course. (I realised that it wouldn't work straight off and would need fine tuning, but felt that I might at least get a sense of whether it was going to work).

The problem was that I just couldn't get a feel for the degree of slope through my feet. All the YouTube videos I saw seemed to imply that doing this would be instinctive and natural, but it wasn't for me. Is that to be expected, and does the official Aimpoint instruction teach you how to sense these slopes?

I was doing this at my home course where I know the slopes well. Could it be that my previous knowledge was overriding the instinctive feel I should be getting through my feet? Or is it just that I'm rubbish at sensing slopes through my feet? Do the type of golf shoes make a difference?


----------



## USER1999 (Aug 22, 2018)

Have you tried taking your shoes and socks off?


----------



## shortgame (Aug 22, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			perhaps what the aimpoint method provides could simply be a pre-putt _routine_.  Maybe it's as much the 'routine' that delivers rather than the 'technique/method' (if you get my differentiation) - and that's fine and good for those who find that it works.
		
Click to expand...

Similar point to what I made at the start of the thread.  For some people merely having a process to follow will in and of itself be an improvement.  Combine that with having confidence in the read and therefore being more decisive may bring results - even if that read is wrong! Kind of a placebo effect.

Not conviced by the 'science' of it but am a firm believer in having consistent and decisive processes.

Plus who wouldn't, after paying Â£250 for the course, actually practice putting more - leading to additional improvement regardless of the merits of the course!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 22, 2018)

Slab said:



			See this is the thing, you take that into the Den and a handful of Dragons are gonna tell you to do one

Maybe its just one of those marmite things or I'm just not smart enough to see through the jargon in the process
		
Click to expand...

Actually all the arm and finger twiddling is the sort of stuff masons would be proud of.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 22, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Plus who wouldn't, after paying Â£250 for the course, actually practice putting more - leading to additional improvement regardless of the merits of the course!
		
Click to expand...

Where do you get that price from?

All the current clinics in the UK listed on the aimpoint website are priced at Â£99.

The Aimpoint discussion is fraught with enough emotion without someone adding blatant misinformation to the matter.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 22, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Similar point to what I made at the start of the thread.  For some people merely having a process to follow will in and of itself be an improvement.  Combine that with having confidence in the read and therefore being more decisive may bring results - even if that read is wrong! Kind of a placebo effect.

Not conviced by the 'science' of it but am a firm believer in having consistent and decisive processes.

Plus who wouldn't, after paying Â£250 for the course, actually practice putting more - leading to additional improvement regardless of the merits of the course!
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - I do A and B happens does not always imply that B is a direct result of A.  A produces B; A and B produce C; A and B and C produce D is not the same as A produces D

I very much doubt that Aimpoint would have produced the improvement that I got by: 1) Developing a pre-shot routine; 2) by applying it *rigorously* and *always*; and by 3) taking more time and care over my putting in non-qualifying rounds and knocks.

I have had to do all *three *to achieve my improvement.  The new routine alone would not have done it - I am 99.45% sure


----------



## shortgame (Aug 22, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			Where do you get that price from?

All the current clinics in the UK listed on the aimpoint website are priced at Â£99.

The Aimpoint discussion is fraught with enough emotion without someone adding blatant misinformation to the matter.
		
Click to expand...

Ah apologies then I'm not sure but had that figure in my head. My bad.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 22, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed - I do A and B happens does not always imply that B is a direct result of A.  A produces B; A and B produce C; A and B and C produce D is not the same as A produces D

I very much doubt that Aimpoint would have produced the improvement that I got by: 1) Developing a pre-shot routine; 2) by applying it *rigorously* and *always*; and by 3) taking more time and care over my putting in non-qualifying rounds and knocks.

I have had to do all *three *to achieve my improvement.  The new routine alone would not have done it - I am 99.45% sure
		
Click to expand...

That's my thinking too.

One of my regular PPs is a great ball striker (for a 22 hcp!) However his short game is poor and his putting is atrocious (hence the hcp)

This is mostly down to a complete lack of care and attention and I've never seen him read a green in any way.

He'll go to the range weekly, practice driving and iron play, have long game lessons but zero lessons on putting and no practice.

I'm sure if he paid the *Â£99* for an aimpoint lesson his putting would improve.

How much more it would improve over having a regular 30 min putting lesson, adopting a green reading strategy and routine (however basic!) is questionable

Sure IMO if the above doesn't work then go for Aimpoint

Just my opinion but I see so many players in this boat

I still see it as a crutch for those who've tried everything else


----------



## 3565 (Aug 22, 2018)

shortgame said:



			That's my thinking too.

One of my regular PPs is a great ball striker (for a 22 hcp!) However his short game is poor and his putting is atrocious (hence the hcp)

This is mostly down to a complete lack of care and attention and I've never seen him read a green in any way.

He'll go to the range weekly, practice driving and iron play, have long game lessons but zero lessons on putting and no practice.

I'm sure if he paid the *Â£99* for an aimpoint lesson his putting would improve.

How much more it would improve over having a regular 30 min putting lesson, adopting a green reading strategy and routine (however basic!) is questionable

Sure IMO if the above doesn't work then go for Aimpoint

Just my opinion but I see so many players in this boat

I still see it as a crutch for those who've tried everything else
		
Click to expand...

Why do you think this is a crutch for those whoâ€™ve tried everything else and is in dire straits? I canâ€™t comment on other Aimpoint users hcâ€™s On here apart from Mendie who is around 2/3 I think as I am myself. Iâ€™m sure Mendie can get down and read greens the normal way just like those whoâ€™ve shouted, I donâ€™t need to pay someone to tell me what Iâ€™ve known for 40 yrs, or I donâ€™t need to do the penguin shuffle to find out how many fingers I need to twiddle and stick up at you! I suppose all those who buy the latest 400yd bomb machines that come out every year are clutching at straws instead of going to a pro, sort the swing and learn how to get centredness of strike or use their body properly to gain distance? 

I suppose Justin Rose is clutching at straws then by using Aimpoint, recently heâ€™s been a win away from becoming world number one. Is it ALL down to Aimpoint? No. Heâ€™s one of the best ball strikers and swingers on the tour and has all parts firing. His putting isnâ€™t prolific but thatâ€™s not down to Aimpoint as it only measures where to aim. You still got to swing the club. Tommy Fleetwood is now clutching at straws, heâ€™s practising his Aimpoint on tv right now. 

We get that most on here think itâ€™s bunkum and thatâ€™s fine and we know who they are, but people are still finding out about it, want to know and all this does is bring up the same crap each time.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 22, 2018)

It's Â£99 for the course and I had Jamie Donaldson teaching me. Course lasted nearly two and a half hours and so that compares to what many would expect to pay for a golf lesson per hour.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 22, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			It's Â£99 for the course and I had Jamie Donaldson teaching me. Course lasted nearly two and a half hours and so that compares to what many would expect to pay for a golf lesson per hour.
		
Click to expand...

Cost me the same with Jamie


----------



## shortgame (Aug 22, 2018)

Wouldn't the best putters in the world use it.  Why just the likes of Rose and Scott - both of whom are where they are despite their putting not because of it?

After all you can never be too good at if, even the best can still improve...


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 22, 2018)

Interesting and good timing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYjkjOC9a7U


----------



## shortgame (Aug 22, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Interesting and good timing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYjkjOC9a7U

Click to expand...

Cool, I know those guys and rate them highly, having had very good lessons with Piers a few years ago &#128077;


----------



## chrisd (Aug 22, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Wouldn't the best putters in the world use it.  Why just the likes of Rose and Scott - both of whom are where they are despite their putting not because of it?

After all you can never be too good at if, even the best can still improve...
		
Click to expand...

On tour I guess it's like on here - you either like the idea and are willing to try it, or, you don't want anything to do with it. But there are several world class golfers using it and Dustin Johnson certainly has.Scott and Rose surely wouldn't have entertained it if they didn't feel it helped however good or bad their putting


----------



## 3565 (Aug 22, 2018)

the majority of players know about it, if not all. Itâ€™s like most things, if itâ€™s not the norm thatâ€™s been used for decades then they resist to change. Look at yardage books. Nicklaus made his own and I â€˜believeâ€™ the first to use on the PGA tour, they became the norm. Look at the different styles of putting grips nowadays, if you changed to left below right 15-20yrs ago you were deemed as a player in termoil on the greens, but now youâ€™ve got claw grip and all sorts and have become the norm. Green reading books that they are banning are mapped out in fine detail on the slopes of direction and in %, it wouldnâ€™t surprise me that the caddies have been on Aimpoint courses to understand the readings. Will AE become the norm, who knows only time will tell.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 22, 2018)

3565 said:



			the majority of players know about it, if not all. Itâ€™s like most things, if itâ€™s not the norm thatâ€™s been used for decades then they resist to change. Look at yardage books. Nicklaus made his own and I â€˜believeâ€™ the first to use on the PGA tour, they became the norm. Look at the different styles of putting grips nowadays, if you changed to left below right 15-20yrs ago you were deemed as a player in termoil on the greens, but now youâ€™ve got claw grip and all sorts and have become the norm. Green reading books that they are banning are mapped out in fine detail on the slopes of direction and in %, it wouldnâ€™t surprise me that the caddies have been on Aimpoint courses to understand the readings. Will AE become the norm, who knows only time will tell.
		
Click to expand...

Good post, as I mentioned way back I'd be interested to see if more and more hotshots coming out of the US college system use it in the same way that many of them now  putt left hand low, use Trackman etc as the norm


----------



## ger147 (Aug 22, 2018)

The Me and My Golf guys have just covered Aimpoint, might be helpful to those who are interested and have questions...

https://youtu.be/aYjkjOC9a7U


----------



## 3565 (Aug 22, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Good post, as I mentioned way back I'd be interested to see if more and more hotshots coming out of the US college system use it in the same way that many of them now  putt left hand low, use Trackman etc as the norm
		
Click to expand...

Trackman, is another, youâ€™ll find orange squares all over the practise ground at a Tour event. 
Did you see the DeChambeau interview on the Sky zone at The Open where he was talking about how he calculates break!! Just another level.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 22, 2018)

ger147 said:



			The Me and My Golf guys have just covered Aimpoint, might be helpful to those who are interested and have questions...

https://youtu.be/aYjkjOC9a7U

Click to expand...

This video answers a lot of questions and it looks like there's more to follow


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 22, 2018)

3565 said:



			Why do you think this is a crutch for those whoâ€™ve tried everything else and is in dire straits? I canâ€™t comment on other Aimpoint users hcâ€™s On here apart from Mendie who is around 2/3 I think as I am myself. Iâ€™m sure Mendie can get down and read greens the normal way just like those whoâ€™ve shouted, I donâ€™t need to pay someone to tell me what Iâ€™ve known for 40 yrs, or I donâ€™t need to do the penguin shuffle to find out how many fingers I need to twiddle and stick up at you! I suppose all those who buy the latest 400yd bomb machines that come out every year are clutching at straws instead of going to a pro, sort the swing and learn how to get centredness of strike or use their body properly to gain distance? 

I suppose Justin Rose is clutching at straws then by using Aimpoint, recently heâ€™s been a win away from becoming world number one. Is it ALL down to Aimpoint? No. Heâ€™s one of the best ball strikers and swingers on the tour and has all parts firing. His putting isnâ€™t prolific but thatâ€™s not down to Aimpoint as it only measures where to aim. You still got to swing the club. Tommy Fleetwood is now clutching at straws, heâ€™s practising his Aimpoint on tv right now. 

We get that most on here think itâ€™s bunkum and thatâ€™s fine and we know who they are, but people are still finding out about it, want to know and all this does is bring up the same crap each time.
		
Click to expand...

:rofl:

And breath......


----------



## 3565 (Aug 22, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			:rofl:

And breath......
		
Click to expand...

Ok for you to give the sermons out tho. &#128405; That's my Aimpoint read for the 1%


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 22, 2018)

3565 said:



			Ok for you to give the sermons out tho. &#128405; That's my Aimpoint read for the 1%
		
Click to expand...

Indeed but I'm a King amongst men.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 23, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			The Aimpoint discussion is fraught with enough emotion without someone adding blatant misinformation to the matter.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe out of date rather than blatant misinformation.
The last time I looked Jamie charged Â£100 per hour with the first lesson being 2 hours.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 23, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Maybe out of date rather than blatant misinformation.
The last time I looked Jamie charged Â£100 per hour with the first lesson being 2 hours.
		
Click to expand...

Yes Â£100 per hour for a 1 to 1 lesson but a clinic is Â£99 and usually last 2 hours  and the one I did had about 6 people on it


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 23, 2018)

My coach taught it me, and my mates coach taught it him. 
I didnâ€™t ask for it, it was just taught to me as an easy way to gauge break.
Took 5 minutes to learn. I canâ€™t gauge break with my eyes quite as good as my feet.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 23, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Yes Â£100 per hour for a 1 to 1 lesson but a clinic is Â£99 and usually last 2 hours  and the one I did had about 6 people on it
		
Click to expand...

6 people paying Â£99 each.
Holy moly


----------



## DeanoMK (Aug 23, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Don't know about aimpoint being a way of improving % of shorter putts holed - but I (mostly) stopped missing 3 footers and under - and improved greatly my holing % of 12ft and under when I developed a simply pre-putt route - and use it every time.  

There are many ways to skin a cat (so I am told) but perhaps what the aimpoint method provides could simply be a pre-putt _routine_.  Maybe it's as much the 'routine' that delivers rather than the 'technique/method' (if you get my differentiation) - and that's fine and good for those who find that it works.
		
Click to expand...

That is a very good way to look at it (the routine part). And I guess you're focusing less on the action of putting but more the actual putt.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 23, 2018)

bobmac said:



			6 people paying Â£99 each.
Holy moly
		
Click to expand...

Yep, it pays well. It was on the Kent coast though, he lives near Woburn so he has travelling expenses a nights hotel too so not all profit , and, he is the top man for Aimpoint in Europe. Also a group lesson worked well compared to any I've seen on, say, iron play where the coach can only give an individual 10 minutes of his time when having 6 people for an hour and everyone needing different help, at least with Aimpoint everyone is shown exactly the same technique so it really is no problem doing a group lesson


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 23, 2018)

bobmac said:



			6 people paying Â£99 each.
Holy moly
		
Click to expand...

You invented the wrong thing Bob!


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 23, 2018)

When I did my original course back in 2011 the price for a group was Â£95 per person.... so the price has hardly changed in 7 years.

We had ours at Wrotham Heath in Kent and the local pro there (James Skelton?) was also part of th3e course as he was learning to become an instructor.... which I think he now is.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 23, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			You invented the wrong thing Bob!
		
Click to expand...

Several years ago I met up with Jamie at Woodhall Spa and we spent about an hour talking about Aimpoint and the V-Easy.
At the end, I didn't sign up for his course but he and 2 of his class bought a V-Easy.


----------



## user2010 (Aug 23, 2018)

Good grief, 7 pages of people going 'it's good', 'No! it's *****'...â€¦â€¦â€¦.as I said earlier, Ad Nauseum.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 23, 2018)

Scrotie McBoogerballs said:



			Good grief, 7 pages of people going 'it's good', 'No! it's *****'...â€¦â€¦â€¦.as I said earlier, Ad Nauseum.

Click to expand...

Go on then I'll bite, why is it (^*&^(*% ?????

Is it because you tried it and :-

1 - You didn't like it
2 - You couldn't understand it
3 - You knew someone who had done it and had them explain it to you, probably incorrectly, which goes back to points 1 and 2
4 - You green reading is so good you one putt on every green and think green reading is easy and that everyone should be able to do it without alternatives
5 - or other

It's not ()&*^)^ if it works for those that choose to pay for the course and use it while playing.


----------



## DeanoMK (Aug 23, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Go on then I'll bite, why is it (^*&^(*% ?????

Is it because you tried it and :-

1 - You didn't like it
2 - You couldn't understand it
3 - You knew someone who had done it and had them explain it to you, probably incorrectly, which goes back to points 1 and 2
4 - You green reading is so good you one putt on every green and think green reading is easy and that everyone should be able to do it without alternatives
5 - or other

It's not ()&*^)^ if it works for those that choose to pay for the course and use it while playing.
		
Click to expand...

Scrotie wasn't saying it's &^*(, he was merely commenting that there's 7 pages of one person saying it's good and then another saying it's %^&*^


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 23, 2018)

DeanoMK said:



			Scrotie wasn't saying it's &^*(, he was merely commenting that there's 7 pages of one person saying it's good and then another saying it's %^&*^
		
Click to expand...

You can read the comment two ways and I see it now.


----------



## DeanoMK (Aug 23, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			You can read the comment two ways and I see it now.
		
Click to expand...

No problem. Personally, I don't see the problem with it anyway. If people only take one element from it and it helps them then it's worth it. I like the element of using your feet to feel the slope, which I have been doing myself anyway, no better judge than your subconscious.


----------



## Slab (Aug 23, 2018)

DeanoMK said:



			No problem. Personally, I don't see the problem with it anyway. *If people only take one element from it and it helps them then it's worth it. I like the element of using your feet to feel the slope, which I have been doing myself anyway,* no better judge than your subconscious.
		
Click to expand...

I'd say lots of us do this.... but on the theme of taking it two ways, I'd say Aimpoint has borrowed this from non-aimpoint green reading and not the other way round


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 23, 2018)

Slab said:



			I'd say lots of us do this.... but on the theme of taking it two ways, I'd say Aimpoint has borrowed this from non-aimpoint green reading and not the other way round 

Click to expand...

That could indeed be where it started from, I don't know, but taking that primary knowledge and then evolving it to Aimpoint and then Aimpoint Express and continuing that evolution to drop point and beyond takes a little ingenuity and the creative talent to make a business out of it.

I would safely say we'll see more Pros using it come 2019 and into the future, once the green reading books are banned. No longer will they know by looking at a book how much slope there is, they'll all be back to using their eyes, plumb bobbing, or heaven forbid use Aimpoint Express.

I wonder if a few more tour pros start using it, will the Harmon's view of it change?


----------



## Slab (Aug 23, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			That could indeed be where it started from, I don't know, but taking that primary knowledge and then evolving it to Aimpoint and then Aimpoint Express and continuing that evolution to drop point and beyond takes a little ingenuity and the creative talent to make a business out of it.

*I would safely say we'll see more Pros using it come 2019 and into the future, once the green reading books are banned. No longer will they know by looking at a book how much slope there is, they'll all be back to using their eyes, plumb bobbing, or heaven forbid use Aimpoint Express.
*
I wonder if a few more tour pros start using it, will the Harmon's view of it change?
		
Click to expand...

I agree, the sooner the books go the better and will definitely be interesting to see what method tour pros revert to or move onto using


----------



## 3565 (Aug 23, 2018)

Slab said:



			I agree, the sooner the books go the better and will definitely be interesting to see what method tour pros revert to or move onto using
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure on the green reading books. I posted a link in the Green mapping thread about John Wood a caddy who's written to the USGA about the banning of the books. But they'll still have their own versions of it but not the accurate charted ones that they buy each week.


----------



## user2010 (Aug 23, 2018)

DeanoMK said:



			Scrotie wasn't saying it's &^*(, he was merely commenting that there's 7 pages of one person saying it's good and then another saying it's %^&*^
		
Click to expand...

Thank you.



Khamelion said:



			You can read the comment two ways and I see it now.
		
Click to expand...

I'll take that as an apology then?


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 23, 2018)

Scrotie McBoogerballs said:



			Thank you.



I'll take that as an apology then?
		
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## user2010 (Aug 23, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Nope.
		
Click to expand...



Clown.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 23, 2018)

Reminds me of one of those kids numerical tricks where they 'read the mind' of the number they are thinking of after grinding through a series of add-your-birthday, divide-by-three, add-the-number-of-letters-in-your-star-sign, type calculation. Which just takes you back to wherever you started but obscures that fact.

Stripping out the smoke and mirrors from aimpoint, you are judging the slope of the green on a pretty coarse scale. Then aiming for a point that roughly scales that slope judgement according to your distance from the hole. Which is what the rest of us call reading the green (though not Reading The Green (tm). At Â£99 quid a pop). 
Hey, but look at all the maths I had to do - I scientifically guessed your birthday correcty. Yeh.
I think there was probably more science in painting driver heads white myself.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 23, 2018)

Scrotie McBoogerballs said:



			Clown.
		
Click to expand...

You're #210 post is ambiguous enough for it to be read as a whinge at Aimpoint in general, or as a whinge at the thread, which as has been acknowledged it is. I am curious though and my points I made stand, have you tried Aimpoint at all?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 23, 2018)

Apologies if already posted.

http://www.golfwrx.com/526008/watch...sing-aimpoint-with-help-from-jamie-donaldson/


----------



## 3565 (Aug 23, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Apologies if already posted.

http://www.golfwrx.com/526008/watch...sing-aimpoint-with-help-from-jamie-donaldson/

Click to expand...

Dont apologise, let's have more of it cos the system works.


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 23, 2018)

Aim point is never going to be perfect.   it can't be as you are giving it approximate slope percentages but no doubt it will get you in the ball park more often than not and it also boils down to the player giving the putt the right speed. 

Can it be useful?  I would say so. 


My putting has improved since I've learned that I don't aim at the apex of the putt or where the putt starts to break.  You must aim outside that.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 23, 2018)

garyinderry said:



			My putting has improved since I've learned that I don't aim at the apex of the putt or where the putt starts to break.  You must aim outside that.
		
Click to expand...


Same here. But I didn't need aimpoint to know that.

I learned it by spebding time on a sloping practice green using a bit of string tied to a couple of tentpegs, and a couple of tees.   

Aim across different slopes by putting down the line shown by the string. Quickly learn the correlation between speed and slope.

Saved myself Â£98 unless there's something else I'm missing but I can't see what that is...

(none of that is to say that AP doesn't work!)


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 24, 2018)

I just watched the Me & My Golf video on it this morning. I get that they're not going to explain the whole process because the guy wants you to buy the course, but there are two aspects that are difficult to get one's head around I think.
1. Assigning the slope '2' or '3' break - seemingly just an arbitrary number based on your own scale that you've invented?
2. The amount of distance you hold your hand from your face varies according to green speed, but god only knows how you're meant to quantify that.

It seems to me that you could only achieve consistency in the above through a vast amount of hours of trial and error. Given that they are not precisely measurably, they're just based on your own experience of previous putts and greens that you used it on.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 24, 2018)

Any putt that doesnâ€™t have the right speed will never go in, no matter what method you use to read greens. 
Finding the speed and arm bend is a simple 2-3 min routine on the putting green from 10-20ft by hitting the putts and adjusting. 
To get consistent in any part of the game you spend hours either practising or playing. If you donâ€™t do it, youâ€™ll never be consistent.


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 24, 2018)

3565 said:



*Any putt that doesnâ€™t have the right speed will never go in*, no matter what method you use to read greens. 
Finding the speed and arm bend is a simple 2-3 min routine on the putting green from 10-20ft by hitting the putts and adjusting. 
To get consistent in any part of the game you spend hours either practising or playing. If you donâ€™t do it, youâ€™ll never be consistent.
		
Click to expand...

That's not true is it? I'm sure we've all rattled one in that would have gone 8 feet past if it wasn't for the hole stopping it!


----------



## chrisd (Aug 24, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			That's not true is it? I'm sure we've all rattled one in that would have gone 8 feet past if it wasn't for the hole stopping it!
		
Click to expand...

nonsense, if it went in it had the right speed for the break (or lack of) that you put on the line you hit it on.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 24, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			That's not true is it? I'm sure we've all rattled one in that would have gone 8 feet past if it wasn't for the hole stopping it!
		
Click to expand...

Well the hole effectively plays a little larger when you putt at the right speed.  Not many putts that are 6-8ft overhit go in unless they ae dead centre.  Even then not many drop!

Whatever green reading method you choose the pace dictates the line


----------



## Imurg (Aug 24, 2018)

Played solo today so had a bit of time to ponder Aimpoint
Now I'm not knocking it. I've always respected people's decision to use it if they feel it works for them 
But, whilst putting today, I came to a completely unscientific and unprovable conclusion...
I think most handicap golfers miss putts by not having the right pace rather than not having the right line.
When I think back on my previous few rounds, with one or two exceptions, I missed putts either long or short.
Mostly, I'd picked the right line - or near enough to give it a chance - but I'd either under or over hit it.
Even watching CVG - very possibly the worst putter I've played with in many a moon - he doesn't get the line wrong too much.
He doesn't miss right or left by a foot or two (unless he pushes or pulls the putt), it's almost always short.
And this is where Aimpoint falls down - along with every other green reading method.
You can pick whatever line you want, hit the ball along that line, but if you haven't got the pace right then it ain't going in.
That's why I focus more on pace than line - because I know that 95% of the time my line is going to be there or thereabouts...
To me...pace is King


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 24, 2018)

Imurg said:



			Played solo today so had a bit of time to ponder Aimpoint
Now I'm not knocking it. I've always respected people's decision to use it if they feel it works for them 
But, whilst putting today, I came to a completely unscientific and unprovable conclusion...
I think most handicap golfers miss putts by not having the right pace rather than not having the right line.
When I think back on my previous few rounds, with one or two exceptions, I missed putts either long or short.
Mostly, I'd picked the right line - or near enough to give it a chance - but I'd either under or over hit it.
Even watching CVG - very possibly the worst putter I've played with in many a moon - he doesn't get the line wrong too much.
He doesn't miss right or left by a foot or two (unless he pushes or pulls the putt), it's almost always short.
And this is where Aimpoint falls down - along with every other green reading method.
You can pick whatever line you want, hit the ball along that line, but if you haven't got the pace right then it ain't going in.
That's why I focus more on pace than line - because I know that 95% of the time my line is going to be there or thereabouts...
To me...pace is King
		
Click to expand...

I don't think Aimpoint "falls down" on that, since it is only a green-reading system. It doesn't claim to make you better at putting, only at reading the green. As you say, you still need to hit on the line you've identified, with the right pace. 

I somewhat agree that pace is king, but for me that's more to do with avoiding 3 putts. If I've got a 20 foot putt I'm not expecting to hole it, I'm just happy if I leave it close - and pace is more important for that. i.e. if you get the pace wrong it's usually further away than if you get the line wrong but the pace right.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 24, 2018)

Imurg said:



			I think most handicap golfers miss putts by not having the right pace rather than not having the right line.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely &#128077; and the vast majority of 3 putts are caused by pace rather than line (poor pace on the initial putt being the usual culprit IMO)

Unscientific though


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 24, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			.1. Assigning the slope '2' or '3' break - seemingly just an arbitrary number based on your own scale that you've invented?​

Click to expand...



The number you give to a break/gradient/slope reading is the percentage you feel from you feet. 1% being very slight and at the other end 5% being severe. Whatever number you think the slope is, for arguments sake lets say 3%, you hold up 3 fingers from the centre of the hole and your line is the right hand side of you third finger. Not an arbitrary number, but one that you feel and assign.

​


Orikoru said:



			2. The amount of distance you hold your hand from your face varies according to green speed, but god only knows how you're meant to quantify that.​

Click to expand...



This is the calibration part for slow greens your arm is fully extended, for faster of fast greens you bend you arm and bring it closer to your face. Before playing a round, should the course practice green be a direct comparison for the on course greens you can set you calibration before you go out. How far out your arm will be, green speed etc.. And if during a round the greens happen to be faster or slower you just adjust your arm accordingly.

​


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 24, 2018)

Aimpoint express is more than just understanding how to read a green, it also teaches you speed control, alignment and accuracy. Okay all of those three can be practiced and self taught, but Aimpoint Express gives you the drills to better understand the aforementioned items, again a search on you tube will give you a plethora of different drills and exercises.

Aimpoint Express along with teaching you the read teaches you speed control, it aims to have you hit putts that do not go past the hole no more than 9 to 12 inches.


----------



## pinberry (Aug 24, 2018)

Imurg said:



			Played solo today so had a bit of time to ponder Aimpoint
Now I'm not knocking it. I've always respected people's decision to use it if they feel it works for them 
But, whilst putting today, I came to a completely unscientific and unprovable conclusion...
I think most handicap golfers miss putts by not having the right pace rather than not having the right line.
When I think back on my previous few rounds, with one or two exceptions, I missed putts either long or short.
Mostly, I'd picked the right line - or near enough to give it a chance - but I'd either under or over hit it.
Even watching CVG - very possibly the worst putter I've played with in many a moon - he doesn't get the line wrong too much.
He doesn't miss right or left by a foot or two (unless he pushes or pulls the putt), it's almost always short.
And this is where Aimpoint falls down - along with every other green reading method.
You can pick whatever line you want, hit the ball along that line, but if you haven't got the pace right then it ain't going in.
That's why I focus more on pace than line - because I know that 95% of the time my line is going to be there or thereabouts...
To me...pace is King
		
Click to expand...

Big aimpoint believer here. What you say it is right, but that does not invalidate the merits of AimPoint.

Pace is more important than line, except on very short putts (inside 4 feet). The reason is that an inconsistent pace will cause two problems. First, you either don't get to the hole or you putt so firm that you make the hole very small. Second, the ball will behave differently on similar slopes, making the relationship between putt reading and what actually happens all a bit random.

Another problem is that most amateurs (definitely almost all of those in Cat 2 and upwards) have poor putting alignment. So they might aim one way but then "consistently" push or pull their putt. Note the emphasis on consistently - they almost always produce the same amount of push / pull. This means that over time, they will have adjusted where they aim to take into account this push/pull dynamic. This means that if you force the average amateur to aim properly (e.g. b/c they use AimPoint) you will actually produce worse results b/c the avg golfer is not able to start the ball to where they are aiming.

While this is all true, it does not detract from AimPoint. It just highlights that far too many players use AimPoint (or believe they use AimPoint) even though their putting technique is atrocious and their speed control is non-existent.

I use AimPoint, I play off scratch and AimPoint helps me. To state that AimPoint is snake oil is wrong. It is based on facts and science. However, many good putters putt well without using it, and that is fine. 

Generally speaking, most amateurs would be better off working on their putting stroke rather than green reading.


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 24, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			The number you give to a break/gradient/slope reading is the percentage you feel from you feet. 1% being very slight and at the other end 5% being severe. Whatever number you think the slope is, for arguments sake lets say 3%, you hold up 3 fingers from the centre of the hole and your line is the right hand side of you third finger. Not an arbitrary number, but one that you feel and assign.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

This is the calibration part for slow greens your arm is fully extended, for faster of fast greens you bend you arm and bring it closer to your face. Before playing a round, should the course practice green be a direct comparison for the on course greens you can set you calibration before you go out. How far out your arm will be, green speed etc.. And if during a round the greens happen to be faster or slower you just adjust your arm accordingly.

[/LEFT]
		
Click to expand...

Yeah I understand the number equates to how many fingers, I said the number arbitrary though because you can't tell me it's quantifiable. You can't feel a slope with your feet and say 'that is 3%', there's no logic in that. Your just using a scale based on your feel and prior experience.

Once again the second part is not quantifiable, it's just trial and error. Internally you'd be saying things like 'the greens are faster than I thought, so I will hold the fingers another inch closer to my face' or whatever. That's why I'm saying there's a lot of trial and error to put in before you start getting it right, I think.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 24, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			Yeah I understand the number equates to how many fingers, I said the number arbitrary though because you can't tell me it's quantifiable. You can't feel a slope with your feet and say 'that is 3%', there's no logic in that. Your just using a scale based on your feel and prior experience.

Once again the second part is not quantifiable, it's just trial and error. Internally you'd be saying things like 'the greens are faster than I thought, so I will hold the fingers another inch closer to my face' or whatever. That's why I'm saying there's a lot of trial and error to put in before you start getting it right, I think.
		
Click to expand...

Didn't Homer offer a while back to spend some time with you showing how it works or am I misremembering?

Would be interesting to see...


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 24, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Didn't Homer offer a while back to spend some time with you showing how it works or am I misremembering?

Would be interesting to see...
		
Click to expand...

I've been trying to do the foot-reading as a kind of back-up to normal green reading with my eye. I don't think my feet are that sensitive though. Sometimes (as someone else said many pages ago) I can't feel any break in my feet at all. So I take that as a cue to hit the putt straight and it still might go off slightly to one side.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 24, 2018)

Just out of curiosity, if you have a really sloping putt (6 fingers) does this mean only people from rural places like Somerset can use aimpoint?  :mmm:


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 24, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			Yeah I understand the number equates to how many fingers, I said the number arbitrary though because you can't tell me it's quantifiable. You can't feel a slope with your feet and say 'that is 3%', there's no logic in that. Your just using a scale based on your feel and prior experience.

Once again the second part is not quantifiable, it's just trial and error. Internally you'd be saying things like 'the greens are faster than I thought, so I will hold the fingers another inch closer to my face' or whatever. That's why I'm saying there's a lot of trial and error to put in before you start getting it right, I think.
		
Click to expand...

 If we were talking about a system which one of the forum members had thought about and put a thread saying that they had an idea while putting they give a slope a number and then hold up the corresponding number of fingers to determine the line, then that would be arbitrary. 

but...

We are talking about a system of green reading that is proven, documented and used by thousands of golfers amateurs and pros all around the world.

Also using your arm to calibrate the green speed is quantifiable, you make a few putts on the practice green and you get your speed, sometime the starter hut even tells you the green speed before you go out, the pro shop will do the same occasionally, so you already have a quantifiable number you can use to calibrate your aimpoint setup.​


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 24, 2018)

Apologies if itâ€™s been asked already but how does Aimpoint work on double breakers or putts with break at just the start or finish?
All Iâ€™m reading here is about putting on a level slope with the same gradient for the entirety of the putt, in reality there arenâ€™t many of them in golf.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 24, 2018)

Beezerk said:



			Apologies if itâ€™s been asked already but how does Aimpoint work on double breakers or putts with break at just the start or finish?
All Iâ€™m reading here is about putting on a level slope with the same gradient for the entirety of the putt, in reality there arenâ€™t many of them in golf.
		
Click to expand...

That's one of the things I've asked a few times and not seen a convincing response to.

Some of the putts at one of my courses break all over the place, double, triple breakers all at varying degrees.  Uphill, downhill, the lot).  Not sure if I read somewhere that AP recommends breaking down these longer putts into 3 parts? (Might be from some other method though)

Personally I sometimes walk the line* and feel it through the feet whilst giving more consideration to the last 3rd of the putt.




(*well... not the line exactly as that's against the rules and I also make sure not to tread on PPs line etc)


----------



## shortgame (Aug 24, 2018)

drive4show said:



			Just out of curiosity, if you have a really sloping putt (6 fingers) does this mean only people from rural places like Somerset can use aimpoint?  :mmm: 

Click to expand...

Post of the week there :rofl:


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 24, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			That's not true is it? I'm sure we've all rattled one in that would have gone 8 feet past if it wasn't for the hole stopping it!
		
Click to expand...

A tad pedantic as "never up never in" springs to mind. 

We've all hit a putt a wee tad clumsy which has smacked the back of the cup and dropped but it's not usually the case, more often than not they'll not drop.

Putting is very individual, use what "system" you like and good luck.


----------



## pinberry (Aug 24, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			Yeah I understand the number equates to how many fingers, I said the number arbitrary though because you can't tell me it's quantifiable. You can't feel a slope with your feet and say 'that is 3%', there's no logic in that. Your just using a scale based on your feel and prior experience.

Once again the second part is not quantifiable, it's just trial and error. Internally you'd be saying things like 'the greens are faster than I thought, so I will hold the fingers another inch closer to my face' or whatever. That's why I'm saying there's a lot of trial and error to put in before you start getting it right, I think.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong. After just 30mins of learning AimPoint, you would be surprised by how often your assessment of the slope with your feet matches what the scale tells you. There will be errors, the same way you make errors when judging wind direction etc.


----------



## pinberry (Aug 24, 2018)

Beezerk said:



			Apologies if itâ€™s been asked already but how does Aimpoint work on double breakers or putts with break at just the start or finish?
All Iâ€™m reading here is about putting on a level slope with the same gradient for the entirety of the putt, in reality there arenâ€™t many of them in golf.
		
Click to expand...

A significant amount of putts are. Even if they are not, green reading is all about having the best possible approximation. You can't eyeball slight changes in break the same way you can't feel it with your feet. That's why you use the middle 3rd for your read - it has been shown that the break in that part of the putt has the most influence on what the ball does.

With double breakers, the best way to do it is to play the break that you feel in the middle of the putt - it is the simplest method and works surprisingly well. You also have to realise that double breakers are harder to read and harder to sink - accept that.

One common misconception (this isn't aimed at you) is that people say AimPoint is useless because it doesn't work 100% all of the time. In reality, no one has ever taught AimPoint promising to deliver faultless reads every time. It is all about teaching a method that is rooted in science and gives a bit more structure around reading putts in different situations. If that leads to a small increase in the number of correct reads, it leads to slightly fewer putts and better scores. That is all


----------



## shortgame (Aug 24, 2018)

pinberry said:



			That's why you use the middle 3rd for your read - it has been shown that the break in that part of the putt has the most influence on what the ball does.
		
Click to expand...

That's interesting.  Is that specifically identified/analysed from Aimpoint?

See this is where this discussion (nonsense posts aside) is worthwhile.  I don't recall reading that from any previous AP threads so I'm pleased this one didn't close after a few pages


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 24, 2018)

shortgame said:



			That's interesting.  Is that specifically identified/analysed from Aimpoint?

See this is where this discussion (nonsense posts aside) is worthwhile.  I don't recall reading that from any previous AP threads so I'm pleased this one didn't close after a few pages
		
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in a response to this as well as I always believed that the ball breaks more as it slows down... Which ideally would be close to the hole... So my intuition tells me that the slope in the last few feet is most important... Which is what the original aimpoint system was based on...i.e. the fall line through the hole.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 24, 2018)

pinberry said:



			A significant amount of putts are. Even if they are not, green reading is all about having the best possible approximation. You can't eyeball slight changes in break the same way you can't feel it with your feet. That's why you use the middle 3rd for your read - it has been shown that the break in that part of the putt has the most influence on what the ball does.

With double breakers, the best way to do it is to play the break that you feel in the middle of the putt - it is the simplest method and works surprisingly well. You also have to realise that double breakers are harder to read and harder to sink - accept that.

One common misconception (this isn't aimed at you) is that people say AimPoint is useless because it doesn't work 100% all of the time. In reality, no one has ever taught AimPoint promising to deliver faultless reads every time. It is all about teaching a method that is rooted in science and gives a bit more structure around reading putts in different situations. If that leads to a small increase in the number of correct reads, it leads to slightly fewer putts and better scores. That is all
		
Click to expand...

I agree, I just take a mid point read, if you have a double breaker chances are its a lengthy putt so your % of making it reduces drastically, and getting it within the 3ft range I'd accept all day long.


----------



## pinberry (Aug 24, 2018)

Generally speaking, you take the read at the middle. On longer putts (20') the break can start to vary, so you should focus on the middle third, take two reads and play the highest break. So on a 30' putt, take a read at 10' one at 20' and play higher break. 

Now, why the middle third and not nearer the hole? First, while true that the ball slows down in the final third hence spending relatively more time there, you have a problem when projecting that read on the whole putt. Let me explain it with an example. Say you have a 25' - it is 1% in the middle, 3% right by the hole. You decide to play 3%. The problem is that when you walk back, put 3 fingers up you will be playing way too much break because you are implying that the putt is 3% all the way (for same slope, aim from the edge increases as distance from the hole increase). Indeed, if you went with the 1% read, you will still miss your putt, but by a much smaller margin. Second, most putts have one big slope which is fairly constant. If anything, what happens is that the middle part of the portion slopes more than the final part. This is because holes cannot be cut on extreme slopes. When they are, this is because the whole green has one dramatic slope (common on old English greens). And if the putt breaks 1% by the hole and 3% in the middle, it will play very close to a 3% putt all the way.

In short, if you go with middle read or middle third on longer putts you have more chances of getting the correct read.

Now, there are exceptions (and AimPoint haters will say this shows how bogus AimPoint is). Exceptions are, by definition, rare and when you encounter them you can adjust. So if a putt is flat but slopes severely near the hole, take that read and play a bit less to allow for the fact that most of the putt is flat etc. 

AimPoint Express (APE) is based on science, but unlike the charts which are way too rigid, it promotes flexibility to adapt to an exceptional situation. The good thing is that you have a (solid) baseline to start from)


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 24, 2018)

pinberry said:



			AimPoint Express (APE) is based on science
		
Click to expand...

What science though? Thats an easy statement to throw around.





Khamelion said:



			We are talking about a system of green reading that is proven, documented and used by thousands of golfers amateurs and pros all around the world.
		
Click to expand...

Where and how has it been proven ? Thousands of golfers around the world choose one type of shoe spike over another because they think it will help them play better. But that doesnt mean it does.

On the pros element, if we were to look coldly at the facts, while some known names can be cited, it is undeniable that the vast majority of the worlds best golfer dont use it. And from driven, no stone left untourned, seekers of every advantage, with great resources to do so, one would have to conclude that as a group, they dont rate it.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 24, 2018)

Unconvinced.  Still unconvinced about how to read double/triple breakers etc using primarily the middle part of the read.

I still agree having a process is key so it's definitely better than nothing.

Not convinced it's really scientific.


How are the greens mapped for the aimpoint lines shown on the tv coverage?  By aimpoint or by advanced computer models and tools?


----------



## SGC001 (Aug 24, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Unconvinced.  Still unconvinced about how to read double/triple breakers etc using primarily the middle part of the read.

I still agree having a process is key so it's definitely better than nothing.

Not convinced it's really scientific.


How are the greens mapped for the aimpoint lines shown on the tv coverage?  By aimpoint or by advanced computer models and tools?
		
Click to expand...

Speaking as someone with a Bsc with hons whos done an aimpoint course i'd put aimpoint on the semi quantitative scale.

The tv stuff is what i'd consider quantitaive.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 24, 2018)

Another thing that has surfaced more than once in this thread is the reading greens with your feet... and several have expressed doubts that their or (when you get right down to it) anyone's feet can be that sensitive to a slope.

Its not your feet that is sensitive to the slope... its those balance organs in your ears that are actually doing the sensing.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 24, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Unconvinced.  Still unconvinced about how to read double/triple breakers etc using primarily the middle part of the read.

I still agree having a process is key so it's definitely better than nothing.

Not convinced it's really scientific.


How are the greens mapped for the aimpoint lines shown on the tv coverage?  By aimpoint or by advanced computer models and tools?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone who's done Aimpoint is trying to 'convince ' someone who's not done, or ever likely to do Aimpoint of anything. I'm sure those of us who've done it don't give a stuff what non believers really think and Â£99 really is nothing today.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 24, 2018)

chrisd said:



			I don't think anyone who's done Aimpoint is trying to 'convince ' someone who's not done, or ever likely to do Aimpoint of anything. I'm sure those of us who've done it don't give a stuff what non believers really think and Â£99 really is nothing today.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing!!!???
You can buy 396 Freddo bars for that!


----------



## chrisd (Aug 24, 2018)

Imurg said:



			Nothing!!!???
You can buy 396 Freddo bars for that!
		
Click to expand...

Will they (whatever they are) help my game ?


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 24, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Will they (whatever they are) help my game ?
		
Click to expand...

I managed two bars today, and its made me feel a little squiffy(hic). Just about to try another, and probably a couple more bars afterwards(hic).

This post was brought to you courtesy of San Miguel.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 24, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			I managed two bars today, and its made me feel a little squiffy(hic). Just about to try another, and probably a couple more bars afterwards(hic).

This post was brought to you courtesy of San Miguel.
		
Click to expand...

And funded by not doing Aimpoint?


----------



## Imurg (Aug 24, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Will they (whatever they are) help my game ?
		
Click to expand...

You won't be hungry for about 100 rounds...:thup:


----------



## shortgame (Aug 24, 2018)

I'm not doubting it works for many people! And who said Â£99 was a lot of money? Not me.  I happily pay that to play a single round.

I would however need convincing before I changed my putting methodology as I consider putting and green reading to already be a strength, but could always be better as for everyone (apart from whoever said they now never misread a green!)

Also I do already read some putts through my feet - that definitely works (for me) when there's optical illusions.


It's an interesting thread and the more questions asked and answers given help us make sense of the system and form proper opinions.  I'd like to think I'm open minded enough to consider it (although others obviously won't)


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 24, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			Another thing that has surfaced more than once in this thread is the reading greens with your feet... and several have expressed doubts that their or (when you get right down to it) anyone's feet can be that sensitive to a slope.

Its not your feet that is sensitive to the slope... its those balance organs in your ears that are actually doing the sensing.
		
Click to expand...

Well I suppose that is correct, but with Aimpoint you determine the % of slope through your feet, balance and where you weight is, as in the foot/leg on the slope will have more weight on it than the side that is up the slope, the stronger the slope the more weight on the down slope foot, hence you can get a read on what % the slope is.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 24, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Where and how has it been proven ? Thousands of golfers around the world choose one type of shoe spike over another because they think it will help them play better. But that doesnt mean it does.

On the pros element, if we were to look coldly at the facts, while some known names can be cited, it is undeniable that the vast majority of the worlds best golfer dont use it. And from driven, no stone left untourned, seekers of every advantage, with great resources to do so, one would have to conclude that as a group, they dont rate it.
		
Click to expand...

As I wrote, thousands of golfers the world over have chosen aimpoint as a method to read greens, calibrate speed and gain accuracy when putting, they, we are proof it works. Comparing golf spikes to Aimpoint is chalk and cheese.

The majority of the worlds golfers do not use it in competition, some do, a lot don't I'll give you that, but it will be interesting come 2019 and green books are banned just how many try Aimpoint, how many along with their caddies on practice days map out greens (not 100% sure they will be allowed to do that or not) and how many pros combine the two, as in their own books and the use of Aimpoint.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 24, 2018)

drive4show said:



			Just out of curiosity, if you have a really sloping putt (6 fingers) does this mean only people from rural places like Somerset can use aimpoint?  :mmm: 

Click to expand...

I think you spread your fingers slightly, imagining you do have an extra finger, but if you are putting across a 6% green, good luck with that as that will be one fierce sloped green.

Other Aimpointers will correct me if I'm wrong on the finger spread thing.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 24, 2018)

Beezerk said:



			Apologies if itâ€™s been asked already but how does Aimpoint work on double breakers or putts with break at just the start or finish?
All Iâ€™m reading here is about putting on a level slope with the same gradient for the entirety of the putt, in reality there arenâ€™t many of them in golf.
		
Click to expand...

I checked my notes from the course and on double break putts you take a read from the middle. If the putt is over 20feet you split the putt in to thirds and take the larger reading to determine your line. So a putt that you may read as a 2 when you straddle the ball, a 3 at say 10 feet and the 2 at 20 feet, would be a 3 for your line.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 24, 2018)

chrisd said:



			I don't think anyone who's done Aimpoint is trying to 'convince ' someone who's not done, or ever likely to do Aimpoint of anything. I'm sure those of us who've done it don't give a stuff what non believers really think and Â£99 really is nothing today.
		
Click to expand...

Agree, None of us who have done it have said, You MUST do Aimpoint, and to be honest itâ€™s got to the point now that if a newbie came on and started asking about AP I think Iâ€™d rather not bother as there are too many who are trying to knock itâ€™s validity while we are trying to explain.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 24, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			I checked my notes from the course and on double break putts you take a read from the middle. If the putt is over 20feet you split the putt in to thirds and take the larger reading to determine your line. So a putt that you may read as a 2 when you straddle the ball, a 3 at say 10 feet and the 2 at 20 feet, would be a 3 for your line.
		
Click to expand...

Or you could simplify it down to I see that as  2 foot break left to right.  

Glad that Aimpoint works for you. I just believe it over complicated the putting process for me. I can see value in it for poor readers of the greens as it assists in seeing breaks.

Also at the end of the day if your mechanics break down no matter what system you use you ain't holing the putt!


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 24, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Or you could simplify it down to I see that as  2 foot break left to right.  

Glad that Aimpoint works for you. I just believe it over complicated the putting process for me. I can see value in it for poor readers of the greens as it assists in seeing breaks.

Also at the end of the day if your mechanics break down no matter what system you use you ain't holing the putt!
		
Click to expand...

Maybe not in this thread but in other Aimpoint threads, I've written, I wasn't a bad reader of greens, but chose to do the course to eliminate the holes where optical illusions played a big part in a misread. Also the beauty about Aimpoint is that when playing on different courses with unfamiliar greens Aimpoint helps a lot.

 I mean after a period of playing you home course every week you get to know the green subtilties and while it is not a forgone conclusion you could step up to a putt and just swing and drop one in, you do get to know for any given putt the outcome of the ball roll, something you can't do on courses you haven't played.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 24, 2018)

Does it include tips on how to read the grain too? Played a few courses over the last year (home and abroad) where the grain had a noticeable effect.  Planted enough doubt in my mind to affect my putting


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 24, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			I think you spread your fingers slightly, imagining you do have an extra finger, but if you are putting across a 6% green, good luck with that as that will be one fierce sloped green.

Other Aimpointers will correct me if I'm wrong on the finger spread thing.
		
Click to expand...

You could just hold both hands in the air?


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 24, 2018)

Love how many mid handicapped expert green readers there are on here &#128514;


----------



## 3565 (Aug 25, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			Love how many mid handicapped expert green readers there are on here &#128514;
		
Click to expand...

&#128514;
Apparently we are poor green readers and have had to resort to Aimpoint.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 25, 2018)

3565 said:



			&#128514;
Apparently we are poor green readers and have had to resort to Aimpoint.
		
Click to expand...

I've read through the thread entirely again, where did anyone call you that?

Are two "low" handicap golfers not happy that some people are questioning aimpoint? Do you think that you or aimpoint are above being questioned on a golf forum?

Two single figure players are advocates, congratulations on that. I know several who are not so drop the "elitist" poop.

I think it's a great discussion.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 25, 2018)

I thought you would bite &#128514;&#128514;&#128514;


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 25, 2018)

3565 said:



			I thought you would bite &#128514;&#128514;&#128514;
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear. 

Spit the dummy of the thread so far. I'm still waiting for you to point out where anybody has claimed you are a poor readers of the green?

If you can't please close the lid of your box. 

Thanks fella


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Aug 25, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Will they (whatever they are) help my game ?
		
Click to expand...

Most things will help your game Chris


----------



## 3565 (Aug 25, 2018)

ðŸ˜‚ Spat  dummy, far from it geezer, youâ€™ve not paid much attention to your own posts then if youâ€™ve re read the entire thread. Suggest you re read again to find your answer, and while youâ€™re at it, get off your pedestal oh king amongst men.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 25, 2018)

I am afraid that I consider Aimpoint as just being a complicated pre-shot routine for putting.  I suggest that if we all had a pre-putt routine that we used each and every time we had a putt - then the very fact of that routine would stop us rushing and being careless, and make us focus better - and more - on the line and weight of the putt to come.   And with having that routine we would hole more putts.  Bingo!  Worked for me.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 25, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I am afraid that I consider Aimpoint as just being a complicated pre-shot routine for putting.  I suggest that if we all had a pre-putt routine that we used each and every time we had a putt - then the very fact of that routine would stop us rushing and being careless, and make us focus better - and more - on the line and weight of the putt to come.   And with having that routine we would hole more putts.  Bingo!  Worked for me.
		
Click to expand...

I canâ€™t argue against that opinion at all. Respect your point of view and I would agree that if they were to do that instead of the quick look and hit it, they would make less mistakes and consequently shoot lower scores. But now weâ€™re in the realms of the dreaded PSR debate tho. ðŸ™„


----------



## shortgame (Aug 25, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			I've read through the thread entirely again, where did anyone call you that?
		
Click to expand...

 Indeed



Jacko_G said:



			I
Are two "low" handicap golfers not happy that some people are questioning aimpoint? Do you think that you or aimpoint are above being questioned on a golf forum?

Two single figure players are advocates, congratulations on that. I know several who are not so drop the "elitist" poop.

I think it's a great discussion.
		
Click to expand...

I have a few friends on the tours (European,  Challenge & Europro).  

Perhaps I should discount Aimpoint advice from the low players on here as they, although very good, are several leagues below?


----------



## User 99 (Aug 25, 2018)

I'm going to take a guess that contrary to some beliefs on here, I reckon it's a fad and you won't see many pros doing at all in a couple of years. 

What I'd like to know is the success rate of those using it to holed putts as it just strikes me, and I haven't read through the whole topic, just strikes me a sign of 1) desperation or 2) Just a poor reader of greens, i.e. putting 7/8/9/10 feet off line. Truth be told, I'd be a bit embarrassed to use it in the weekly medal unless I was holing everything.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 25, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			We've all hit a putt a wee tad clumsy which has smacked the back of the cup and dropped but it's not usually the case, more often than not they'll not drop.
		
Click to expand...

Where did you get the stats for that?

If it is just player's impressions, it has been reported that people tend to remember to bad incidents more than the good. So if it is actually 50/50, players would believe it is is 70/30 (say) that it stays out


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 25, 2018)

rulefan said:



			Where did you get the stats for that?

If it is just player's impressions, it has been reported that people tend to remember to bad incidents more than the good. So if it is actually 50/50, players would believe it is is 70/30 (say) that it stays out
		
Click to expand...

I didn't quote or state statistics! 

You on the other hand have!


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 25, 2018)

RandG said:



			I'm going to take a guess that contrary to some beliefs on here, I reckon it's a fad and you won't see many pros doing at all in a couple of years. 

What I'd like to know is the success rate of those using it to holed putts as it just strikes me, and I haven't read through the whole topic, just strikes me a sign of 1) desperation or 2) Just a poor reader of greens, i.e. putting 7/8/9/10 feet off line. Truth be told, I'd be a bit embarrassed to use it in the weekly medal unless I was holing everything.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I disagree. More and more pros are looking at the method on tour (even if they aren't actually using it on every putt yet, perhaps ahead of the green books going) and it isn't is desperation and if a player is that far off line then nothing is going to help and I suggest those figures are somewhat ludicrous. It goes back to what a few on here have said, it's those that have never even tried it that are most vocal and dismissive. I have no issue if someone tries it, even at a basic level and there are enough videos out there to give you the information, and then says it wasn't for them (and why). To refute it out of hand I find strange.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 25, 2018)

RandG said:



			I'm going to take a guess that contrary to some beliefs on here, I reckon it's a fad and you won't see many pros doing at all in a couple of years. 

What I'd like to know is the success rate of those using it to holed putts as it just strikes me, and I haven't read through the whole topic, just strikes me a sign of 1) desperation or 2) Just a poor reader of greens, i.e. putting 7/8/9/10 feet off line. Truth be told, I'd be a bit embarrassed to use it in the weekly medal unless I was holing everything.
		
Click to expand...

It may be the case that it'll die out but only if something different that works better replaces it

Lots of people struggle with aspects of golf and have lessons, so why not poor green readers?

You'd be embarrassed?  Not if you holed more putts, I reckon you'd soon get over it!


----------



## 3565 (Aug 25, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Indeed



I have a few friends on the tours (European,  Challenge & Europro).  

Perhaps I should discount Aimpoint advice from the low players on here as they, although very good, are several leagues below? 

Click to expand...

Very good!! Iâ€™m far from that, Iâ€™m just average club golfer imo. The elite are scratch and above.


----------



## Sports_Fanatic (Aug 25, 2018)

The me and my golf video was good. This thread has pretty much convinced me to book a course if itâ€™s only Â£99.

Donâ€™t expect Iâ€™d use it always, but I think the discussions around green reading, how courses are set up to have optical illusions etc would all be very interesting and useful for green reading as Iâ€™m often unsure. Unlikely more knowledge is going to make you worse!


----------



## 3565 (Aug 25, 2018)

Sports_Fanatic said:



			The me and my golf video was good. This thread has pretty much convinced me to book a course if itâ€™s only Â£99.

Donâ€™t expect Iâ€™d use it always, but I think the discussions around green reading, how courses are set up to have optical illusions etc would all be very interesting and useful for green reading as Iâ€™m often unsure. Unlikely more knowledge is going to make you worse!
		
Click to expand...

your last line is what youâ€™ll gain. I canâ€™t speak for others who have done the course but I have a better understanding and Iâ€™m more knowledgeable about green reading then I have been before. 

Take a look on you tube especially John Graham a certified Aimpoint instructor who delves into putt geometry, but his video on speed and line is interesting, especially if you think taking the break out of putts is a good idea.


----------



## User 99 (Aug 25, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			To refute it out of hand I find strange.
		
Click to expand...

If it works for you or anyone else, that's great, I'm not dismissing it, not at all, it may well be a case similar to left below right, when that was first introduced it was seen as someone with putting issues, now it's very common, but like L below R and Long putters, it's not something I will try. 



chrisd said:



			You'd be embarrassed?  Not if you holed more putts, I reckon you'd soon get over it!
		
Click to expand...

I did say I'd be interested to see stats on the success of it.

The fact of putting is, regardless of how anyone reads a putt, no matter what, you still have to hit it on the correct line with the correct pace.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 25, 2018)

3565 said:



			John Graham a certified Aimpoint instructor .
		
Click to expand...

Certified. This the type of thing that rings alarm bells for most of us. Its giving a fake sense of seriousness and authority about something that, despite some of the claims her, is in no way proven. Its like some claiming they are a certified homeopathic practitioner. 'Certified' or not, its still total sloblocks.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 25, 2018)

You might be afraid of spelling it correctly but Iâ€™m not. 

It ainâ€™t total bollocks. 

Moderators, I accept your infraction.


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 25, 2018)

30 pages disputing reading greens with your feet... 

Let that sink in. 

Bring back delc


----------



## chrisd (Aug 25, 2018)

RandG said:



			I did say I'd be interested to see stats on the success of it.

The fact of putting is, regardless of how anyone reads a putt, no matter what, you still have to hit it on the correct line with the correct pace.
		
Click to expand...

Most of the people posting are absolutely amateur golfers so there are no real stats but almost everyone says that their green reading improved with the course. Justin Rose certainly has a marked improvement in putting and has been doing Aimpoint. 

Of course we have to hit the right pace of putt for the line chosen, and we still miss our share, but I also know that the course was worthwhile and I learned a lot from it. I've had lessons on chipping and iron play with some pro's and they have been rubbish too, it's " you pays your money ....... "


----------



## shortgame (Aug 25, 2018)

Sports_Fanatic said:



			The me and my golf video was good. This thread has pretty much convinced me to book a course if itâ€™s only Â£99.

Donâ€™t expect Iâ€™d use it always, but I think the discussions around green reading, how courses are set up to have optical illusions etc would all be very interesting and useful for green reading as Iâ€™m often unsure. Unlikely more knowledge is going to make you worse!
		
Click to expand...

Excellent and I genuinely hope it's worthwhile for you and hope to hear your feedback.

Despite some nonsense posts it's generally a good discussion if people can make a considered decision about whether or not to try it.  I know I've learned some useful info.

Incidentally, one of the Pros I mentioned has dabbled with it this season so I'll make sure to ask him his thoughta next time he's around


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 25, 2018)

Do aimpointers always use a pure aimpoint read or do you fine tune the read before pulling the trigger.  

By that i mean some slopes might be between 2 and 3 percent for example.


----------



## User 99 (Aug 25, 2018)

The simple fact is, every putt is aimpoint, every putt is straight, pick a point, aim at it, hit the putt, no matter what you use, getting it in the hole in as few shots as possible is the object. I'll never use it, I'm not dissing it, but like long handled putters and L below R, it's not for me.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 26, 2018)

garyinderry said:



			Do aimpointers always use a pure aimpoint read or do you fine tune the read before pulling the trigger.  

By that i mean some slopes might be between 2 and 3 percent for example.
		
Click to expand...

I can easily do 2.5 or 3.5 fingers Gary


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 26, 2018)

chrisd said:



			You'd be embarrassed?  Not if you holed more putts, I reckon you'd soon get over it!
		
Click to expand...

Is there any research out there which shows handicaps have come down due to better putting as a direct result of Aimpoint?
Iâ€™m not on a witch hunt btw, Iâ€™m genuinely interested. I considered the course a couple of years ago when my putting took a turn for the worst but decided against it in the end.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 26, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Most of the people posting are absolutely amateur golfers so there are no real stats but almost everyone says that their green reading improved with the course. Justin Rose certainly has a marked improvement in putting and has been doing Aimpoint. 

Of course we have to hit the right pace of putt for the line chosen, and we still miss our share, but I also know that the course was worthwhile and I learned a lot from it. I've had lessons on chipping and iron play with some pro's and they have been rubbish too, it's " you pays your money ....... "
		
Click to expand...

If Justin Rose is your benchmark then there are issues as he's only marginally better at putting than Rory!


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 26, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Excellent and I genuinely hope it's worthwhile for you and hope to hear your feedback.

Despite some nonsense posts it's generally a good discussion if people can make a considered decision about whether or not to try it.  I know I've learned some useful info.

Incidentally, one of the Pros I mentioned has dabbled with it this season so I'll make sure to ask him his thoughta next time he's around
		
Click to expand...

I've not seen any nonsense posts. People offering opinions and having healthy debate is not nonsense. 

Even somebody spitting the dummy because he has a lower handicap than me isn't really nonsense as he believes in the merits of what he's doing. That is a good thing.

Differing opinions and views is good.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 26, 2018)

Interpretation 

Funny old thing.


----------



## BTatHome (Aug 26, 2018)

I wonder if everyone looks for handicap drop statistics to justify purchases with all the other things golfers buy for their bag/game.

The new putter threads would be great if this level of interest was shown in every thread where someone bought a new club but had no statistically relevant evidence to prove it was better for their game &#128514;


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 26, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			If Justin Rose is your benchmark then there are issues as he's only marginally better at putting than Rory!
		
Click to expand...

Not saying itâ€™s because of aimpoint, but heâ€™s 6th Strokes gained putting this year on PGA tour, so as per usual youâ€™re talking trash


----------



## shortgame (Aug 26, 2018)

Intetesting one re: Rose as he isn't a 'bad' putter, it's just that the rest of his game is pretty much as good as it gets.

Just shooting the breeze here but I'd imagine (without knowing) his putting mechanics would be as good as it gets too...


----------



## chrisd (Aug 26, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			If Justin Rose is your benchmark then there are issues as he's only marginally better at putting than Rory!
		
Click to expand...

Interesting that Rose is currently 6th best in the PGA putting stats, I'd say he can putt a bit and has used Aimpoint for some time now.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 26, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			Not saying itâ€™s because of aimpoint, but heâ€™s 6th Strokes gained putting this year on PGA tour, so as per usual youâ€™re talking trash
		
Click to expand...

Stats are like miniskirts, reveal a lot but hide the important part!


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 26, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Stats are like miniskirts, reveal a lot but hide the important part!
		
Click to expand...

Yep Iâ€™m sure they do ðŸ™„

One day youâ€™ll admit you made a ridiculous statement with no truth around it.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 26, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			Yep Iâ€™m sure they do ï™„

One day youâ€™ll admit you made a ridiculous statement with no truth around it.
		
Click to expand...


Rose One putt percentage ranking 69th.

Rose Total putts within 5 feet ranking 171st.

Rose Total putts 5-10 feet ranking 150th.

Rose Total putts 10-15 feet ranking 165th.

Rose Total putts 15-20 feet ranking 192nd.

Rose Total putts 20-25 feet ranking 67th. 

ALL RESULTS ACCURATE UP TO AND INCLUDING LAST WEEKS WYNDHAM CHAMPIONSHIP.

As I said stats are like miniskirts they reveal a lot but hide the most important part. As proven by your use of stats that you're making ridiculous statements. 

:whoo:


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 26, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Rose One putt percentage ranking 69th.

Rose Total putts within 5 feet ranking 171st.

Rose Total putts 5-10 feet ranking 150th.

Rose Total putts 10-15 feet ranking 165th.

Rose Total putts 15-20 feet ranking 192nd.



Rose Total putts 20-25 feet ranking 67th. 

ALL RESULTS ACCURATE UP TO AND INCLUDING LAST WEEKS WYNDHAM CHAMPIONSHIP.

As I said stats are like miniskirts they reveal a lot but hide the most important part. As proven by your use of stats that you're making ridiculous statements. 

:whoo:
		
Click to expand...

The fact youâ€™re using total putts shows how little you understand about stats

Heâ€™s also top 50 in the total putting stat. 

You probably think Spieth is a good putter too donâ€™t you.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 26, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			The fact youâ€™re using total putts shows how little you understand about stats

Heâ€™s also top 50 in the total putting stat. 

You probably think Spieth is a good putter too donâ€™t you.
		
Click to expand...

Stats are like miniskirts. End of discussion petal. 


:ears:


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 26, 2018)

Beezerk said:



			Is there any research out there which shows handicaps have come down due to better putting as a direct result of Aimpoint?
Iâ€™m not on a witch hunt btw, Iâ€™m genuinely interested. I considered the course a couple of years ago when my putting took a turn for the worst but decided against it in the end.
		
Click to expand...

As I'm currently without club, I can't tell you, but hopefully that will be rectified in the coming weeks and if there are comps still to enter, I'll keep track of my putts. Mind you that may not be the whole story as my putting may be better but if it still takes me 6 to get on the green, 1 or 2 putts is not going to matter.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 26, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			The fact youâ€™re using total putts shows how little you understand about stats

Heâ€™s also top 50 in the total putting stat. 

You probably think Spieth is a good putter too donâ€™t you.
		
Click to expand...

Speith is an awful putter.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 26, 2018)

I have dropped from 35.59 in 2012 when I did the first course (chart) to 32.34 putt on average in the last few years and maintained that sort of level. I do work on my putting but I simply think having a good read courtesy of aimpoint allows me to pick a start point, trust my stroke and try and get it starting on line with a good pace. That's what putting is all about whatever method you use. I simply feel more confident with my aim and my putting has got marginally better and held


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 26, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Speith is an awful putter.
		
Click to expand...

And the stats show that


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 26, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I have dropped from 35.59 in 2012 when I did the first course (chart) to 32.34 putt on average in the last few years and maintained that sort of level. I do work on my putting but I simply think having a good read courtesy of aimpoint allows me to pick a start point, trust my stroke and try and get it starting on line with a good pace. That's what putting is all about whatever method you use. I simply feel more confident with my aim and my putting has got marginally better and held
		
Click to expand...

Has your handicap come down by 3 shots in that period?


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 26, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			And the stats show that
		
Click to expand...

Yet there he is with three majors. Remind me how many superstar aimpoint guru Rose has!

You'll need a JCB not a shovel at this rate.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 26, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Has your handicap come down by 3 shots in that period?
		
Click to expand...

Not that red herring. Yes. Got down to 11 and now up to 14. Nothing to do with aimpoint as the putting has been perhaps the one consistent throughout averaging around 32-33 for the last four years. So much to do with the short game and the other issues


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 26, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Yet there he is with three majors. Remind me how many superstar aimpoint guru Rose has!

You'll need a JCB not a shovel at this rate.  

Click to expand...

God youâ€™re boring. No wonder everyone gets so annoyed with you on here.

Pretty sure I said â€˜not saying aimpoint has made the difference to roseâ€™


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 26, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			God youâ€™re boring. No wonder everyone gets so annoyed with you on here.

Pretty sure I said â€˜not saying aimpoint has made the difference to roseâ€™
		
Click to expand...

My my what a cutting comment. 

So you argue aimpoint has got Rose to 6th in the only stat you care to choose then say it's not made a difference!

I give up, you're not worth debating with, heid full of budgie seed.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 26, 2018)

Oi, pack it in you two
Pretty please &#128591;


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 26, 2018)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Oi, pack it in you two
Pretty please &#128591;
		
Click to expand...

I agree.


----------



## user2010 (Aug 26, 2018)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Oi, pack it in you two
Pretty please &#63055;
		
Click to expand...



It's your own fault, you should've closed the thread when the bickering started on page 1:ears:


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 26, 2018)

Aimpoint threads always seem to deteriorate. I remember a poker chip thread going a similar way once but that doesn't resurface in the same way as Aimpoint. 

Is there any other golf related item that consistently goes this way every time? I can't think of one.


----------



## Papas1982 (Aug 26, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Not that red herring. Yes. Got down to 11 and now up to 14. Nothing to do with aimpoint as the putting has been perhaps the one consistent throughout averaging around 32-33 for the last four years. So much to do with the short game and the other issues
		
Click to expand...


Did your initial drop to 11 occur as you took up aimpoint? Because if not, then it could be argued that your improve putting stats are simply down to the fact that the rest of your game has fallen down. Meaning less gir, which would likely lead to shorter putts after a chip.

At  end of the day, we all have our own habits on the course and imo if you believe it helps, then it usually does. Confidence is key for amateurs.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 26, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Aimpoint threads always seem to deteriorate. I remember a poker chip thread going a similar way once but that doesn't resurface in the same way as Aimpoint. 

Is there any other golf related item that consistently goes this way every time? I can't think of one.
		
Click to expand...

Dress codes....back in the news again recently:thup:


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 26, 2018)

Papas1982 said:



			Did your initial drop to 11 occur as you took up aimpoint? Because if not, then it could be argued that your improve putting stats are simply down to the fact that the rest of your game has fallen down. Meaning less gir, which would likely lead to shorter putts after a chip.

At  end of the day, we all have our own habits on the course and imo if you believe it helps, then it usually does. Confidence is key for amateurs.
		
Click to expand...

Does a handicap drop after every lesson whether that is self taught via youtube or in person with a PGA pro? Does it drop every time you buy a new putter. It's a misnomer to suggest Aimpoint will lead to a lower handicap. It's a means to reading greens better which in turn with practice and decent putting mechanics will lead to better putts. It isn't a guarantee. I know there are other issues within my game that I'd argue are far more restrictive to reducing my handicap than aimpoint


----------



## Papas1982 (Aug 26, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Does a handicap drop after every lesson whether that is self taught via youtube or in person with a PGA pro? Does it drop every time you buy a new putter. It's a misnomer to suggest Aimpoint will lead to a lower handicap. It's a means to reading greens better which in turn with practice and decent putting mechanics will lead to better putts. It isn't a guarantee. I know there are other issues within my game that I'd argue are far more restrictive to reducing my handicap than aimpoint
		
Click to expand...

Youâ€™re trying to compare oranges with potatoes there......

club purchases and technique lessons are completely different. 

I simply asked if you had tangiable proof. Which by your repsonse you donâ€™t. 
But as I said, if it gives you confidence then thatâ€™s all that matters.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 26, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Not that red herring. Yes. Got down to 11 and now up to 14. Nothing to do with aimpoint as the putting has been perhaps the one consistent throughout averaging around 32-33 for the last four years. So much to do with the short game and the other issues
		
Click to expand...

Why is it a red herring, if youâ€™ve practised Aimpoint to the degree that it has had a detrimental affect on other parts of your game by you neglecting them, then you could argue without Aimpoint youâ€™d be off 17.
Unfortunately as others have said, because of the negativity off some about Aimpoint, every question is looked at with suspicion!


----------



## bigslice (Aug 26, 2018)

Oft 9 pages and counting. As been said each to their own. Im not knocking anyone either way. Me i keep my ball marker in my right pocket


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 26, 2018)

bigslice said:



			Oft 9 pages and counting. As been said each to their own. Im not knocking anyone either way. Me i keep my ball marker in my right pocket
		
Click to expand...

But you take it out with your left hand &#128514;&#128514;
After taking off your black glove &#128077;&#128526;


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 26, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Why is it a red herring, if youâ€™ve practised Aimpoint to the degree that it has had a detrimental affect on other parts of your game by you neglecting them, then you could argue without Aimpoint youâ€™d be off 17.
Unfortunately as others have said, because of the negativity off some about Aimpoint, every question is looked at with suspicion!
		
Click to expand...

Why has aimpoint had a detrimental effect? I work on all aspect of my game as you know as a long time forum member. Just because I have struggled with poor short game (in particular) and a swing you and others have critiqued in person and on here as not being effective there are often poor holes that take me out of the buffer zone and a 0.1. What does that have to do with reading the green.

If someone hits a long drive but can also hit it way off line, one who hits it into sand and struggles to get out, or someone that misses too many greens in regulation is going to struggle to make a score. Aimpoint is not going to rectify that. It's simply a green reading skill. It works but if you want it to give you handicap cuts then sadly it's also reliant on all facets being in sync on any given day. Given that as a Cat 3 statistics show I should only hit a buffer around 29% (that's not getting cut, just not going up 0.1) on average that means 7/10 of the time I won't play to it. Aimpoint is only a sum of the total parts


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 26, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Why has aimpoint had a detrimental effect? I work on all aspect of my game as you know as a long time forum member. Just because I have struggled with poor short game (in particular) and a swing you and others have critiqued in person and on here as not being effective there are often poor holes that take me out of the buffer zone and a 0.1. What does that have to do with reading the green.

If someone hits a long drive but can also hit it way off line, one who hits it into sand and struggles to get out, or someone that misses too many greens in regulation is going to struggle to make a score. Aimpoint is not going to rectify that. It's simply a green reading skill. It works but if you want it to give you handicap cuts then sadly it's also reliant on all facets being in sync on any given day. Given that as a Cat 3 statistics show I should only hit a buffer around 29% (that's not getting cut, just not going up 0.1) on average that means 7/10 of the time I won't play to it. Aimpoint is only a sum of the total parts
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m out, was asking if it had been detrimental and possibly saying proof for working hard at Aimpoint is your putting stats staying consistent while other parts had suffered.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 26, 2018)

Imurg said:



			Dress codes....back in the news again recently:thup:
		
Click to expand...

How could I forget dress codes? So stupid of me. An obvious and always a classic.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 26, 2018)

PhilTheFragger said:



			But you take it out with your left hand &#128514;&#128514;
After taking off your black glove &#128077;&#128526;
		
Click to expand...

Nowt wrong with a black glove!!!


----------



## shortgame (Aug 26, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Aimpoint threads always seem to deteriorate. I remember a poker chip thread going a similar way once but that doesn't resurface in the same way as Aimpoint. 

Is there any other golf related item that consistently goes this way every time? I can't think of one.
		
Click to expand...

TTTrilby Tour


----------



## 3565 (Aug 26, 2018)

Hmmm 
Just looked on PGA site for Justin Rose putting stats and it comes up with this. 

PUTTING FROM 10'	36.67%	144TH
PUTTING FROM 4-8'	80.15%	1ST
PUTTING - INSIDE 10'	89.78%	6TH
PUTTING FROM - 10-15'	33.68%	38TH
PUTTING FROM - 15-20'	15.28%	173RD
PUTTING FROM - 20-25'	21.15%	2ND
PUTTING FROM - > 25'	5.11%	118TH
LONGEST PUTTS	39' 10"	247TH
APPROACH PUTT PERFORMANCE	2' 5"	159TH
AVERAGE DISTANCE OF PUTTS MADE	77' 5"	28TH
BIRDIE OR BETTER CONVERSION PERCENTAGE	36.01%	3RD

Which suggest these are correct with him being 6th the shots gained in putting at .678. 

Did KAM say miniskirts.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 26, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Iâ€™m out, was asking if it had been detrimental and possibly saying proof for working hard at Aimpoint is your putting stats staying consistent while other parts had suffered.
		
Click to expand...

Homer, I'm not having a pop at you as I honestly would love to see you one day get back to single figures.

I think I read in your blog you religiously keep track of your stats. Does that highlight where you lose your shots?

See, I seem to remember you saying your shortgame was well on the up and the linear method for chipping, pitching, bunkers etc was a god send. With all that said if you're still hitting wonky long shots I'd expect your putting stats to have improved - less GIRs but more saves hence less total putts.

From the videos I watched a while ago your holing out looked solid (very solid for your handicap), however your longer putts all seemed to miss low (I think from your actual Aimpoint video). This I don't get, as I thought (but could be wrong) that one of the key things Aimpoint 'proves' is that amateur golfers generally play too little break - someone (Mendie?) mentioned you have to put outside of the apex to get a proper line?

This makes me doubt the benefit you are really getting from Aimpoint, though you are obviously a big fan of it.


----------



## TheDiablo (Aug 27, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			As I wrote, thousands of golfers the world over have chosen aimpoint as a method to read greens, calibrate speed and gain accuracy when putting, they, we are proof it works. Comparing golf spikes to Aimpoint is chalk and cheese.

The majority of the worlds golfers do not use it in competition, some do, a lot don't I'll give you that, but it will be interesting come 2019 and green books are banned just how many try Aimpoint, how many along with their caddies on practice days map out greens (not 100% sure they will be allowed to do that or not) and how many pros combine the two, as in their own books and the use of Aimpoint.
		
Click to expand...




MendieGK said:



			And the stats show that
		
Click to expand...

I don't give 2 hoots about Aimpoint either way but claiming stats show Spieth as an 'awful' putter is baloney. 

In a career bad year, with media driven storylines about his 'putting woes' you'd think he hasn't holed a single putt yet he's only giving up 1 shot on the greens every 5 tournaments. If the Masters were included in SG data he would likely be positive. 

In the previous 3 years he gained over 2 shots per tournament with the flatstick. 

Awful putter &#128580;

Take out Jason Day I highly doubt there's any top 50 golfer in the world with better putting stats over the last 5 seasons than Spieth. Couple this with a seriously underrated iron game and you get 11 wins with 3 majors before you're 25.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 27, 2018)

TheDiablo said:



			I don't give 2 hoots about Aimpoint either way but claiming stats show Spieth as an 'awful' putter is baloney. 

In a career bad year, with media driven storylines about his 'putting woes' you'd think he hasn't holed a single putt yet he's only giving up 1 shot on the greens every 5 tournaments. If the Masters were included in SG data he would likely be positive. 

In the previous 3 years he gained over 2 shots per tournament with the flatstick. 

Awful putter &#128580;

Take out Jason Day I highly doubt there's any top 50 golfer in the world with better putting stats over the last 5 seasons than Spieth. Couple this with a seriously underrated iron game and you get 11 wins with 3 majors before you're 25.
		
Click to expand...

This year Spieth has been A bad putter, that cannot he argued. No where have I said anything about his iron play etc this year....

Considering how good his iron play is, there is a reason he has done very little this year, and is falling down the rankings at the momentn


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 27, 2018)

Meandmygolf have just today put a video up on Aimpoint. 
Perhaps those who donâ€™t understand the technique could watch it.


----------



## pokerjoke (Aug 27, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			Meandmygolf have just today put a video up on Aimpoint. 
Perhaps those who donâ€™t understand the technique could watch it.
		
Click to expand...

To be honest ive seen this and although i can see the logic he never actually made the putt.
He also doubted his read and on the first one he actually thought he needed to start it wider.

At the end of the day its always about line and pace,some can do it without and some need help,i suppose thats
true in all aspects of golf.

Ive also watched Buzza do it and everytime i have to look away its excruciating to watch.


----------



## TheDiablo (Aug 27, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			As I wrote, thousands of golfers the world over have chosen aimpoint as a method to read greens, calibrate speed and gain accuracy when putting, they, we are proof it works. Comparing golf spikes to Aimpoint is chalk and cheese.

The majority of the worlds golfers do not use it in competition, some do, a lot don't I'll give you that, but it will be interesting come 2019 and green books are banned just how many try Aimpoint, how many along with their caddies on practice days map out greens (not 100% sure they will be allowed to do that or not) and how many pros combine the two, as in their own books and the use of Aimpoint.
		
Click to expand...




MendieGK said:



			This year Spieth has been A bad putter, that cannot he argued. No where have I said anything about his iron play etc this year....

Considering how good his iron play is, there is a reason he has done very little this year, and is falling down the rankings at the momentn
		
Click to expand...

You agreed that Spieth was an awful putter. No context whatsoever and that simply isn't true. And I'd argue he has been a distinctly average putter this season compared to peers, not a bad one. Bad only when viewed through the lens of his previous success in that area of the game. 

Anyway, I'll let you crack on with defending aimpoint. Never done it myself, nor played with anyone who does. No idea why people knock something they haven't tried though. They've probably all bought jailbreak twistface bubbleshaft technology though just because they're told it'll get a few extra yards without challenging that to with the same rigour they kill aimpoint with.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 27, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			Meandmygolf have just today put a video up on Aimpoint. 
Perhaps those who donâ€™t understand the technique could watch it.
		
Click to expand...

Cant find it....can find an audio podcast of them talking to Jamie Donaldson....but no video....do you have a link?


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 27, 2018)

nickjdavis said:



			Cant find it....can find an audio podcast of them talking to Jamie Donaldson....but no video....do you have a link?
		
Click to expand...


https://youtu.be/aYjkjOC9a7U


----------



## drdel (Aug 27, 2018)

Perhaps Aimpoint causes a more concentrated and structured approach to putting, its is possible that the same level of effort with another approach could make the same improvement in results.  It's a subjective assessment. 

Golf gurus look to make money, Aimpoint is just more snake oil  for some but a cure for others. 

No way to objectively test as once tried the clock cannot be reversed. Best make up your own mind.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 27, 2018)

Aimpoint claims to be scientific (although I have seen nothing to back this up : being systematic and numerically based does not make something scientific - systematic and numerically based garbage, is still garbage as it were), but I am sure we can have a more scientific look at it than study Rose's stats. If it stands up, it stands up, regardless of any one persons experience or stats using or not using it.

For example. Just to focus on one element of it for the moment (and leaving aside for the sake of argument other elements such as the accuracy and repeatability of our ability to learn to judge slope through our sense of balance, the thickness of our fingers, or the taking of a very limited number of sample points on the path of a putt to judge its slope), is the following logic correct :

 - slope is evaluated on a scale of 0 to 6
 - this can be to either side of the hole
 - giving 13 possible options for the judger to choose
 - while there can in some cases, be uncertainty on whether a putt is breaking left or right, that is a rare exception, and likely because either the putt doesnt break at all, or there is both left and right break in its path, and the sum of those is difficult to evaluate
 - so in practice, slope is chosen from one of seven options, 0-6
 - so aimpoint, at this part of the process, imposes a digitising filter with only 7 possible outcomes
 - so every putt has seven possible lines to choose from
 - and that a correctly weighted putt, sent on the correct one of these 7 possible options (ie. with 16.7% gaps between perfectly straight to max scale) will hole out ?

Is aimpoint saying this ?
If so, is it plausibe ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 27, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Aimpoint claims to be scientific (although I have seen nothing to back this up : being systematic and numerically based does not make something scientific - systematic and numerically based garbage, is still garbage as it were), but I am sure we can have a more scientific look at it than study Rose's stats. If it stands up, it stands up, regardless of any one persons experience or stats using or not using it.

For example. Just to focus on one element of it for the moment (and leaving aside for the sake of argument other elements such as the accuracy and repeatability of our ability to learn to judge slope through our sense of balance, the thickness of our fingers, or the taking of a very limited number of sample points on the path of a putt to judge its slope), is the following logic correct :

 - slope is evaluated on a scale of 0 to 6
 - this can be to either side of the hole
 - giving 13 possible options for the judger to choose
 - while there can in some cases, be uncertainty on whether a putt is breaking left or right, that is a rare exception, and likely because either the putt doesnt break at all, or there is both left and right break in its path, and the sum of those is difficult to evaluate
 - so in practice, slope is chosen from one of seven options, 0-6
 - so aimpoint, at this part of the process, imposes a digitising filter with only 7 possible outcomes
 - so every putt has seven possible lines to choose from
 - and that a correctly weighted putt, sent on the correct one of these 7 possible options (ie. with 16.7% gaps between perfectly straight to max scale) will hole out ?

Is aimpoint saying this ?
If so, is it plausibe ?
		
Click to expand...

Try this. Mark Sweeney explains it a little here. If you put Mark Sweeney into youtube there's some introductory videos and some from Jamie Donaldson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xsMrpr-SwM


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 27, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Try this. Mark Sweeney explains it a little here. If you put Mark Sweeney into youtube there's some introductory videos and some from Jamie Donaldson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xsMrpr-SwM

Click to expand...


Thanks. Had a look at a few. They dont really seem to get into any explanation backing up what they are claiming though (other than people using it on tour, in use in all 4 majors this year, can teach anyone, in 1.5 hours you can make the same read as a Level 4 coach, etc : which doesnt mean to say it is correct though).

One putt caught my eye also :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAdt5N960A4

Have a look at the putt at about 4:50.
He says "2 fingers outside the left, 5-6 inches'. And holes it. But line of the put, from the line of the first few feet of travel, and the total arc, makes it look as if the putter started it on an 'aimpoint' about 18 inches to the left.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 27, 2018)

If the resolution of line selection is one finger,  or +/- half a finger, then :

If we take 4" as the useful width of the hole to hole a putt at the desired finish-past-the-hole speed, then that is +/- 2" error from the perfect centre line for the put to hole out.  +/- half finger for +/- 2" giving is 4" per finger. And that any break greater than that, or six fingers x 4" =24", is beyond the scope of aimpoint to be able to handle with a resolution accurate enough to be useful aiming at a 4" hole. Does aimpoint limit itself to breaks of 2' or less ? I am not a scientist, but interested in any better analysis of this.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 27, 2018)

Thereâ€™s a saying, paralysis by analysis. Think someone has smoked too much gange today.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 28, 2018)

Easiest way to put this to bed.



Some people use it some don't
Of those that use it, it works.
Of those that do not use it:-
They have not tried it
They do not want to try it
They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it
Are totally dismissive of it
See it as a crutch
Do not understand it
Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 28, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Easiest way to put this to bed.



Some people use it some don't
Of those that use it, it works.
Of those that do not use it:-
They have not tried it
They do not want to try it
They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it
Are totally dismissive of it
See it as a crutch
Do not understand it
Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to post in this thread again however you are wrong! 

4, 6, 7, 9 & 10 are just plain nonsense.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 28, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Easiest way to put this to bed.



Some people use it some don't
Of those that use it, it works.
Of those that do not use it:-
They have not tried it
*or* They do not want to try it
*or* They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it (sarcasm aside, they have a good green reading technique already)
*or *Are totally dismissive of it
*or *See it as a crutch
*or *Do not understand it
Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.
		
Click to expand...




Jacko_G said:



			I wasn't going to post in this thread again however you are wrong! 

4, 6, 7, 9 & 10 are just plain nonsense.
		
Click to expand...

Amended the list.

Not sure why you deem those points as nonsense as there are people who in this thread have written replies to which, some or all of those points are relevant. Having read the thread again there are some who have tried it and decided it wasn't for them, one being yourself, which is fair play. The points above are mainly aimed at those which start at point 4, those who would knock it without trying it.


----------



## AmandaJR (Aug 28, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Easiest way to put this to bed.



Some people use it some don't
Of those that use it, it works.
Of those that do not use it:-
They have not tried it
They do not want to try it
They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it
Are totally dismissive of it
See it as a crutch
Do not understand it
Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.
		
Click to expand...

Just to throw my hat in the ring - despite resisting so far. I've done the course and don't (currently) use it so that refutes points 4 and 5 I think?


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 28, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Amended the list.

Not sure why you deem those points as nonsense as there are people who in this thread have written replies to which, some or all of those points are relevant. Having read the thread again there are some who have tried it and decided it wasn't for them, one being yourself and AmandaJR which is fair play. The points above are mainly aimed at those which start at point 4, those who would knock it without trying it.
		
Click to expand...




AmandaJR said:



			Just to throw my hat in the ring - despite resisting so far. I've done the course and don't (currently) use it so that refutes points 4 and 5 I think?
		
Click to expand...

Amended my reply to Jacko_G above.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 28, 2018)

... or #11... are asking questions and having a sensible discussion to try and understand it in a bit more detail in order to make a balanced decision. You know, on a discussion forum of all places!

On the face of it some of the 'science' doesn't appear to stack up or actually be all that scientific, hence people are quite rightly challenging it.

Honestly some of the people 'for it' are almost as bad as some of those 'against  it' IMO


----------



## 3565 (Aug 28, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Easiest way to put this to bed.




Some people use it some don't
Of those that use it, it works.
Of those that do not use it:-
They have not tried it
They do not want to try it
They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it
Are totally dismissive of it
See it as a crutch
Do not understand it
Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.
		
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. 

None of us are saying YOU MUST TRY IT, Aimpoint only comes up when someone doesnâ€™t know anything about it and want advice on it. Then you get the detractors who THINK they know about it (possibly through 2nd hand teaching) calling it snake oil, or crutch, and everything else.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 28, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Honestly some of the people 'for it' are almost as bad as some of those 'against  it' IMO
		
Click to expand...

I think those who are for it just get brassed off by people who've not done it, or don't know ALL of the methods of reading it uses, from being so adamant that it doesn't work. Also, the suggestion that because we've done the course we should make every putt from everywhere


----------



## 3565 (Aug 28, 2018)

shortgame said:



			... or #11... are asking questions and having a sensible discussion to try and understand it in a bit more detail in order to make a balanced decision. You know, on a discussion forum of all places!

On the face of it some of the 'science' doesn't appear to stack up or actually be all that scientific, hence people are quite rightly challenging it.

Honestly some of the people 'for it' are almost as bad as some of those 'against  it' IMO
		
Click to expand...

Ok, science issue aside, the system works.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 28, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			One putt caught my eye also :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAdt5N960A4

Have a look at the putt at about 4:50.
He says "2 fingers outside the left, 5-6 inches'. And holes it. But line of the put, from the line of the first few feet of travel, and the total arc, makes it look as if the putter started it on an 'aimpoint' about 18 inches to the left.
		
Click to expand...

Ill be generous and say the ball starts off at least 13in left of the hole

I added 3 extra holes for scale. The far left hole is the ''real'' hole.




A big no-no in teaching is to describe a shot one way and then demonstrate it in a completely different way.
That is exactly what he did in the video.


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 28, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Ill be generous and say the ball starts off at least 13in left of the hole

I added 3 extra holes for scale. The far left hole is the ''real'' hole.

View attachment 25441


A big no-no in teaching is to describe a shot one way and then demonstrate it in a completely different way.
That is exactly what he did in the video.
		
Click to expand...

It's just a crap video Bob, absolutely biased towards one thing.


----------



## USER1999 (Aug 28, 2018)

I had a putt yesterday. About 10 foot. I could see it as a straight putt, or one that moved slightly. I could not be certain either way. I have not done aimpoint, but thought I would try straddling the line, see what the old feet told me.

Zip.

I went straight, the ball lipped out on the right. Only just, but a miss. 

For those that do aimpoint, would you expect to pick up that level of swing?


----------



## pinberry (Aug 28, 2018)

murphthemog said:



			I had a putt yesterday. About 10 foot. I could see it as a straight putt, or one that moved slightly. I could not be certain either way. I have not done aimpoint, but thought I would try straddling the line, see what the old feet told me.

Zip.

I went straight, the ball lipped out on the right. Only just, but a miss. 

For those that do aimpoint, would you expect to pick up that level of swing?
		
Click to expand...

No. It's hard to pick up anything that slopes less than 0.5%, I would even say 1%. Also, you have to understand that holing a 10 footer is not easy. What tells you that you got your read wrong? Perhaps it was the right read but you pushed it. Or the ball jumped right. Or whatever. PGA Tour pros holed around 1/3 of 10 footers.


----------



## pinberry (Aug 28, 2018)

SGC001 said:



			Speaking as someone with a Bsc with hons whos done an aimpoint course i'd put aimpoint on the semi quantitative scale.

The tv stuff is what i'd consider quantitaive.
		
Click to expand...

FYI - AimPoint was born *exactly* to show the lines you see on TV. The adaptation to in-round use came later, once the TV lines were shown to work


----------



## User 99 (Aug 28, 2018)

I seen James Robinson stand over a 4 foot putt on one of his vids last night, granted I can't see the slope on screen but he holed it and didn't look like it moved at all so what was the point of the stand astride the line from distance.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 28, 2018)

murphthemog said:



			I had a putt yesterday. About 10 foot. I could see it as a straight putt, or one that moved slightly. I could not be certain either way. I have not done aimpoint, but thought I would try straddling the line, see what the old feet told me.

Zip.

I went straight, the ball lipped out on the right. Only just, but a miss. 

For those that do aimpoint, would you expect to pick up that level of swing?
		
Click to expand...

No Murph, any putt read that's a 1% aim is inside the cup


----------



## shortgame (Aug 28, 2018)

chrisd said:



			I think those who are for it just get brassed off by people who've not done it, or don't know ALL of the methods of reading it uses, from being so adamant that it doesn't work. Also, the suggestion that because we've done the course we should make every putt from everywhere
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, I get that and some people are obviously very antagonistic which doesn't help meaningful debate.  I had a very basic understanding of it and have definitely learned more about it from this thread &#128077;


----------



## shortgame (Aug 28, 2018)

3565 said:



			Ok, science issue aside, the system works.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks.  I definitely agree that slopes can be read through the feet and I'm a big believer in following a consistent and meticulous routine/process.  It was the claims of it being proven by science that I couldn't quite understand.  As it happens one of the lads I know on the Challenge Tour uses it and it has given him a lot of confidence which is showing in his improved results.  Hard to quantify how much benefit he's got but he obviously believes in it &#128077;


----------



## 3565 (Aug 28, 2018)

shortgame said:



			Thanks.  I definitely agree that slopes can be read through the feet and I'm a big believer in following a consistent and meticulous routine/process.  It was the claims of it being proven by science that I couldn't quite understand.  As it happens one of the lads I know on the Challenge Tour uses it and it has given him a lot of confidence which is showing in his improved results.  Hard to quantify how much benefit he's got but he obviously believes in it &#128077;
		
Click to expand...

No problem. I will PM you something shortly.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 28, 2018)

pinberry said:



			No. It's hard to pick up anything that slopes less than 0.5%, I would even say 1%. Also, you have to understand that holing a 10 footer is not easy. What tells you that you got your read wrong? Perhaps it was the right read but you pushed it. Or the ball jumped right. Or whatever. PGA Tour pros holed around 1/3 of 10 footers.
		
Click to expand...

Or his speed was off.


----------



## USER1999 (Aug 28, 2018)

3565 said:



			Or his speed was off.
		
Click to expand...

I am a pretty tidy putter. The pace was good, about a foot passed the hole, it didn't bobble, bounce, or suddenly vear off. It was a misread. I thought it was straight, and it wasn't. If I had gone left edge, i would have holed it, but if it had been straight, then it would have stayed out anyway, on that line.

If there was a way to read these, I would be all over it, but it appears there isn't.


----------



## SGC001 (Aug 28, 2018)

pinberry said:



			FYI - AimPoint was born *exactly* to show the lines you see on TV. The adaptation to in-round use came later, once the TV lines were shown to work
		
Click to expand...

I am and was aware.

It doesnt alter the point.

The tv stuff has more exact figures than we can judge hence my description as quantitative.
The aimpoint chart, the ways u r taught to feel slope, judge speed and length are short of exact figures but these can all be learnt with a high degree of accuracy.

The chart i consider quantitative, the ability to judge speed pace and length highly accurately through practice and very simple techniques falling short of been an objectively quantitative measure but overall placing it well above qualitative analysis imo.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 28, 2018)

With Aimpoint on you 10 feet or longer putts, you looking to stand astride the ball and take one or two reads down your intended line. With the 10 feet putts and under you stand astride you ball and then you can stand astride you line closer to the hole, obviously being wary of other players lines.

What Aimpoint cannot account for is a crowned hole, or any other subtleties within a couple of feet of the hole.

Like most of us you have to assume that the last couple of feet will be true relative to the line your ball is on.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 28, 2018)

murphthemog said:



			I am a pretty tidy putter. The pace was good, about a foot passed the hole, it didn't bobble, bounce, or suddenly vear off. It was a misread. I thought it was straight, and it wasn't. If I had gone left edge, i would have holed it, but if it had been straight, then it would have stayed out anyway, on that line.

If there was a way to read these, I would be all over it, but it appears there isn't.
		
Click to expand...

I wasnâ€™t doubting you, just pointing another factor out.


----------



## USER1999 (Aug 28, 2018)

3565 said:



			I wasnâ€™t doubting you, just pointing another factor out.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, I could have quoted the previous reply, just chose yours instead. ðŸ˜


----------



## user2010 (Aug 28, 2018)

.â€¦..and round and round and round and round.....
Ffs mods please close this thread, it's getting ridiculous.
The same arguments for and against for 13 pages and no resolution in sight.:blah:


----------



## ScienceBoy (Aug 28, 2018)

Someone needs to invent â€œPacePointâ€ so those who rubbish aimpoint have something to defend.


----------



## garyinderry (Aug 28, 2018)

I think Dustin Johnson and his brother make an aim point read and a normal read and see if they match up.  


I could be completely wrong but I like the idea of that.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 28, 2018)

garyinderry said:



			I think Dustin Johnson and his brother make an aim point read and a normal read and see if they match up.  


I could be completely wrong but I like the idea of that.
		
Click to expand...

amateurs underread greens in the first place. And those at my club who have asked about it have proven it to me.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 28, 2018)

garyinderry said:



			I think Dustin Johnson and his brother make an aim point read and a normal read and see if they match up.  


I could be completely wrong but I like the idea of that.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds confusing to me.  Vaguelly remember hearing Butch moan about DJ and his brother AP'ing but I think that was more to do with them specifically not really knowing what they're doing rather than AP itself... DJ's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 28, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			If the resolution of line selection is one finger,  or +/- half a finger, then :

If we take 4" as the useful width of the hole to hole a putt at the desired finish-past-the-hole speed, then that is +/- 2" error from the perfect centre line for the put to hole out.  +/- half finger for +/- 2" giving is 4" per finger. And that any break greater than that, or six fingers x 4" =24", is beyond the scope of aimpoint to be able to handle with a resolution accurate enough to be useful aiming at a 4" hole. Does aimpoint limit itself to breaks of 2' or less ? I am not a scientist, but interested in any better analysis of this.
		
Click to expand...

Taken from a reply by Mark Sweeney on the Aimpoint Golf Student page prompted by a post from someone on here relating this thread. If you want science and this has been lifted directly and without edit

In analyzing the frictional force acting on a rolling ball it is usual to define a coefficient of rolling friction, .rho., which is equal to b/R where b is the position of the contact point and R is the radius of the golf ball. The acceleration of a golf ball rolling on a horizontal surface is given by: a=-.rho.g/(1+I/mR.sup.2), (3) where g is the acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/s.sup.2), m is the mass of the golf ball, and I is the moment of inertia of the golf ball about its center. Approximating the golf ball as a solid sphere results in I= mR.sup.2 and its acceleration is, therefore, given by: a=- 5/7 .rho.g (4) 

The deformation of the turf and the resulting coefficient of rolling friction, .rho., increase with the softness of the turf and the speed of the rolling golf ball. Research by A. R. Penner shows that .rho. can be determined by the following expression: .rho.=(0.7028/s)(1+0.0065v.sup.2) (5) where s is the stimpmeter reading of the green and v is the speed of the golf ball. The frictional force can also be adjusted for the effect of grain with the formula: .rho.'=.rho.*(.delta.*cos(.gamma.-.beta.)); Where .delta. is the magnitude of grain effect on the ball, .gamma. is the grain direction in degrees, and .beta. is the direction the ball is moving. 

For a golf ball rolling on a sloped green, in addition to the frictional force, the ball will also experience a component of the gravitational force acting along its direction of motion. The acceleration of a golf ball on a green sloped along both the x-axis (.theta.) and the y-axis (.psi.) is given by: a.sub.x=- 5/7 .rho.g cos .theta. cos .psi. sin .beta.- 5/7 g sin .theta. (6a) a.sub.y=- 5/7 .rho.g cos .theta. cos .psi. cos .beta.- 5/7 g cos .theta. sin .psi. (6b) where .beta. is the direction that the ball is moving with respect to the y-axis. "


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 28, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Ill be generous and say the ball starts off at least 13in left of the hole

I added 3 extra holes for scale. The far left hole is the ''real'' hole.

View attachment 25441


A big no-no in teaching is to describe a shot one way and then demonstrate it in a completely different way.
That is exactly what he did in the video.
		
Click to expand...

I am not sure it is deliberate. But may be part of the disagreement that we see even in our little discussion here. It does look like his visual judgement of the required line overrides his aimpoint method. But he doesnt realise this - and so thinks aimpoint has helped him to hole the putt.

The same may be the case with those reporting how it is helping their putting and so has merit. They may be like the above, and while thinking they are following the system, are actually just making a normal visual break judgement. Or, they may even be following aimpoint to the letter, yet be incorrect in their judgement that their putting is the better for using aimpoint.

Those sceptical or asking questions, are not just knocking it for the sake of it, but because it really has a whiff of snake oil about it (the lack of scientific explanation being part of it, but that exacerbated by the price to be inducted into the secret, the 'Levels' of instructor which is all a bit scientology, the casual throwing around of statements like 'scientifically based', 'thousands of lines of computer code', and the like, and statistically meaningless facts about pros using on tour), and they are simply interested in hearing whether it really has something, or whether it is just a rather convoluted wheeze having its 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 28, 2018)

ScienceBoy said:



			Someone needs to invent â€œPacePointâ€ so those who rubbish aimpoint have something to defend.
		
Click to expand...

I think the Aimpoint people already have that covered, there are two other products ( for want of a better word ) to come out, one is called "Drop Point", don't ask me what that is not been told yet, nor have I asked and I think there is one other which the name escapes me at the moment.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 28, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Taken from a reply by Mark Sweeney on the Aimpoint Golf Student page prompted by a post from someone on here relating this thread. If you want science and this has been lifted directly and without edit

In analyzing the frictional ........... the y-axis. "
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are really presenting that as an answer to my question or not.

I am particularly interested in aimpoints thesis, if I understand it correctly, that for a putt breaking one way, there are only 6 possible lines, of which one, is the correct one. Giving a range of +/-10% for each line on that scale. Which seems either impossibly course as a system, or if sufficiently precise, to be a rather wide target to hit a successful putt at and still have it drop.


----------



## MendieGK (Aug 28, 2018)

AmandaJR said:



			Just to throw my hat in the ring - despite resisting so far. I've done the course and don't (currently) use it so that refutes points 4 and 5 I think?
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™ll read your putts tommorow then ðŸ˜‰


----------



## User 99 (Aug 28, 2018)

I have a question in regards the standing astride the line. I believe it's in reference to weight on one side or other to find out whether it's left or right break, surely your eyes can tell if it is L to R or R to L ???? or am I over simplifying this ?


----------



## 3565 (Aug 28, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			If the resolution of line selection is one finger,  or +/- half a finger, then :

If we take 4" as the useful width of the hole to hole a putt at the desired finish-past-the-hole speed, then that is +/- 2" error from the perfect centre line for the put to hole out.  +/- half finger for +/- 2" giving is 4" per finger. And that any break greater than that, or six fingers x 4" =24", is beyond the scope of aimpoint to be able to handle with a resolution accurate enough to be useful aiming at a 4" hole. Does aimpoint limit itself to breaks of 2' or less ? I am not a scientist, but interested in any better analysis of this.
		
Click to expand...

To quote Mark Sweeney who produced the computer program for the Emmy award winning Aimpoint line that was on tv, which then became the chart and now is AE, read your post as I was confused as hell about it and thought utter waffle. 

Classic example of someone trying to make sense of something they dont understand by making up their own facts. I'm even confused reading that post.  AimPoint Express is based on the same math as was the AimChart and the software used on Golf Channel for 6 years to predict break. AimPoint used to be criticized for being too technical, now its being questioned for not being scientific! As the world turns.... Mark Sweeney.


----------



## 3565 (Aug 28, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			I am not sure it is deliberate. But may be part of the disagreement that we see even in our little discussion here. It does look like his visual judgement of the required line overrides his aimpoint method. But he doesnt realise this - and so thinks aimpoint has helped him to hole the putt.

The same may be the case with those reporting how it is helping their putting and so has merit. They may be like the above, and while thinking they are following the system, are actually just making a normal visual break judgement. Or, they may even be following aimpoint to the letter, yet be incorrect in their judgement that their putting is the better for using aimpoint.

Those sceptical or asking questions, are not just knocking it for the sake of it, but because it really has a whiff of snake oil about it (the lack of scientific explanation being part of it, but that exacerbated by the price to be inducted into the secret, the 'Levels' of instructor which is all a bit scientology, the casual throwing around of statements like 'scientifically based', 'thousands of lines of computer code', and the like, and statistically meaningless facts about pros using on tour), and they are simply interested in hearing whether it really has something, or whether it is just a rather convoluted wheeze having its 15 minutes of fame.
		
Click to expand...

&#128514; now it is waffle your spewing.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 28, 2018)

3565 said:



			To quote Mark Sweeney who produced the computer program for the Emmy award winning Aimpoint line that was on tv, which then became the chart and now is AE, read your post as I was confused as hell about it and thought utter waffle. 

Classic example of someone trying to make sense of something they dont understand by making up their own facts. I'm even confused reading that post.  AimPoint Express is based on the same math as was the AimChart and the software used on Golf Channel for 6 years to predict break. AimPoint used to be criticized for being too technical, now its being questioned for not being scientific! As the world turns.... Mark Sweeney.
		
Click to expand...

No, that is waffle. Instead of quoting advert blurb, explain the flaw in the post you quote, if there is one.


----------



## AmandaJR (Aug 28, 2018)

MendieGK said:



			Iâ€™ll read your putts tommorow then ðŸ˜‰
		
Click to expand...

Partly why I resisted replying ;-) It will be interesting to see how I fare using my current "eyeball" the curve/line of the putt and hit the ball along that "method". Woburn's greens have always beaten me up so I might be getting you to straddle away!!!!


----------



## 3565 (Aug 28, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			No, that is waffle. Instead of quoting advert blurb, explain the flaw in the post you quote, if there is one.
		
Click to expand...

Which post are you on about? The post of yours where Iâ€™d think no one has a clue what your talking about? Think your taken in by your own blurb.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 29, 2018)

RandG said:



			I have a question in regards the standing astride the line. I believe it's in reference to weight on one side or other to find out whether it's left or right break, surely your eyes can tell if it is L to R or R to L ???? or am I over simplifying this ?
		
Click to expand...

Not at all, many golfers can read a line simply by looking at the which way a slope runs, as you write L to R or R to L, but what many of those golfers do is under read the break. Lets assume they have pace correct an under read break will see the ball miss under the hole.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 29, 2018)

Why does Aimpoint have to be scruntinised down to an atomic level? Someone worked out a way of calculating the break on a putting green as a percentage, that was then given a value and that value is represent by your fingers. 1% is one finger, 2% two fingers and so on. It's not complicated, it is a straight forward way of getting a read. It's not snake oil or bunkum.

I have no idea what the science is behind the methodology that was worked out to create Aimpoint, do I want to know from a scientific angle why the ball breaks at a certain point on any given line between start and finish, hell no, I'm not in Physics at school any more, I play golf with my mates and use a method to read greens that helps me reduce the number of putts per round. The more I use it the better I will become, but I still couldn't are what formula was used. For that matter even if I did know the formula would knowing it make me putt any better, not a chance.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 29, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Why does Aimpoint have to be scruntinised down to an atomic level? Someone worked out a way of calculating the break on a putting green as a percentage, that was then given a value and that value is represent by your fingers. 1% is one finger, 2% two fingers and so on. It's not complicated, it is a straight forward way of getting a read. It's not snake oil or bunkum.

I have no idea what the science is behind the methodology that was worked out to create Aimpoint, do I want to know from a scientific angle why the ball breaks at a certain point on any given line between start and finish, hell no, I'm not in Physics at school any more, I play golf with my mates and use a method to read greens that helps me reduce the number of putts per round. The more I use it the better I will become, but I still couldn't are what formula was used. For that matter even if I did know the formula would knowing it make me putt any better, not a chance.
		
Click to expand...

Broom handle putters were originally laughed at, and then anchoring was banned for being too good. People don't like stuff that challenges their precepts. Green reading books appear to be going the same way, and look at the arguments around DMD's in the early days.

I'll be honest, I'm sceptical about the finger thing when the arm is bent. The closer the finger is to the eye the more of the view is obscured. And what if you have thin or fat fingers.

But I don't care if someone uses it or not. Actually, I do care. If it increases their enjoyment of the game, good for them.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 29, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			But I don't care if someone uses it or not. Actually, I do care. If it increases their enjoyment of the game, good for them.
		
Click to expand...

And really this should end the discussion until next time someone asks about Aimpoint and there's another 400 posts of identical arguing &#128513;


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 29, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Not at all, many golfers can read a line simply by looking at the which way a slope runs, as you write L to R or R to L, but what many of those golfers do is under read the break. Lets assume they have pace correct an under read break will see the ball miss under the hole.
		
Click to expand...

And lets assume that they didn't under read the break and got it correct.

Lets assume that using Aimpoint they under read the break and missed. 

Lets assume that using Aimpoint they didn't get the pace correct.

Lets assume that they didn't get the pace correct while reading the green.

Lets assume the ball hits a bobble.

Lets assume the user using either method doesn't make a good stroke. 

Your point makes absolutely no sense nor does it add weight to either the Aimpoint or the "normal" reading of a green.


----------



## ademac (Aug 29, 2018)

Well I had no idea that aimpoint caused such a stir when I started this thread.

I have done a small amount of research online, read through (most) of the posts and asked around for opinions.

I dont think its for me. All seems a bit too scientific to me and not really how I enjoy playing my golf but each to their own &#128077;


----------



## bobmac (Aug 29, 2018)

ademac said:



			Well I had no idea that aimpoint caused such a stir when I started this thread.

I have done a small amount of research online, read through (most) of the posts and asked around for opinions.

I dont think its for me. All seems a bit too scientific to me and not really how I enjoy playing my golf but each to their own &#62541;
		
Click to expand...

For me that's the answer.
People learn in different ways.
Faldo was very technical and would probably have used it whereas Seve was always a feel type of player and wouldn't.
Neither were right or wrong just different.


----------



## ademac (Aug 29, 2018)

bobmac said:



			For me that's the answer.
People learn in different ways.
Faldo was very technical and would probably have used it whereas Seve was always a feel type of player and wouldn't.
Neither were right or wrong just different.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly that IMO


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 29, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			And lets assume that they didn't under read the break and got it correct.  Then ball would drop in the hole

Lets assume that using Aimpoint they under read the break and missed.  That is quite possible, Aimpoint does not guarantee 100% success

Lets assume that using Aimpoint they didn't get the pace correct.  Aimpoint is then not the issue, the player is for not getting the speed correct.

Lets assume that they didn't get the pace correct while reading the green.  See above point, player issue.

Lets assume the ball hits a bobble.  Not really relevant, not matter what green reading method you use you cannot account for the state of the green

Lets assume the user using either method doesn't make a good stroke.  This is 50/50 even with a bad stroke a putt could be sunk, or missed as is the discussion point here.

Your point makes absolutely no sense nor does it add weight to either the Aimpoint or the "normal" reading of a green.
		
Click to expand...

The point is, a none  Aimpoint user hitting the ball at the correct pace with a misread, will miss under the hole. Under the hole means no chance of the ball dropping on a misread. An accomplished Aimpoint user hitting the ball with the correct pace would with a misread, will more often than not miss top of the hole. Top of the hole means an increased chance of the ball dropping on a misread.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 29, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			The point is, *a none  Aimpoint user hitting the ball at the correct pace with a misread, will miss under the hole.* Under the hole means no chance of the ball dropping on a misread. An accomplished Aimpoint user hitting the ball with the correct pace would with a misread, will more often than not miss top of the hole. Top of the hole means an increased chance of the ball dropping on a misread.
		
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that putts missed by a non AP user will miss on the low side and AP users will miss on the high side?


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 29, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			The point is, a none  Aimpoint user hitting the ball at the correct pace with a misread, will miss under the hole. Under the hole means no chance of the ball dropping on a misread. An accomplished Aimpoint user hitting the ball with the correct pace would with a misread, will more often than not miss top of the hole. Top of the hole means an increased chance of the ball dropping on a misread.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough and I appreciate your input however I will politely disagree. Would an "accomplished" reader of the green not also miss on the high side? 

I feel that certain people believe that they have an air of superiority since they "use" Aimpoint. (not yourself khamelion)


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 29, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Top of the hole means an increased chance of the ball dropping on a misread.
		
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic from the aimpoint discussion, but not sure that that last bit is true at all. A miss on the low side is a miss, a miss on the high side is a miss. The chance of a miss dropping, is surely zero in both cases. Possibly the illusion comes from perception - most people can see that a low side miss is a miss early. But a high side miss gives a sense of not being a done deal until later on, if they hold on to the hope that the putt "might" drop with a late turn. Even though its fate as a miss is already sealed, its just less obvious, leading to the feeling that it had a better chance than the low side miss.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 29, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Why does Aimpoint have to be scruntinised down to an atomic level? Someone worked out a way of calculating the break on a putting green as a percentage, that was then given a value and that value is represent by your fingers. 1% is one finger, 2% two fingers and so on. It's not complicated, it is a straight forward way of getting a read. It's not snake oil or bunkum.
		
Click to expand...

It might be bunkum though. That is the point of the discussion. 
Of course estimating slope, choosing a value, and using fingers to produce a target aim, is not complicated. Thats not what is being queried. The question is whether that pretty simple to execute system is fundamentally any use to give you a useful putting line. It gives you a line all right. But is it the right one ?
The articles, vids, and teacher emphasise regularly how quickly people can learn it, read putts, and be aiming at the same line as experience aimpoint 'experts' (then usual caveats on putting stroke, technique, consistency, dexterity to hit it with the intended pace, etc). But that could be that people can systematically, repeatedly, quickly, with confidence....be all choosing the wrong line.....


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

bobmac said:



			So what you are saying is that putts missed by a non AP user will miss on the low side and AP users will miss on the high side?
		
Click to expand...

More often than not, yes.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Fair enough and I appreciate your input however I will politely disagree. Would an "accomplished" reader of the green not also miss on the high side?

I feel that certain people believe that they have an air of superiority since they "use" Aimpoint. (not yourself khamelion)
		
Click to expand...

Of course an accomplished green reader has every chance of missing putts on the high side. Contrary to what some posters are trying to deduce from Aimpoint and make it a science, it's not. Aimpoint is a tool to help golfers get a read first and foremost, there are a lot of other elements to Aimpoint, but they are not the thread topic.

Aimpoint like any other green reading method, is not an exact science, there are to many elements that can affect the putt, swing, speed, line, green condition, weather, slope. As golfers we have to take all of those into consideration to make a putt and some do it better than others, regardless of their green reading method.

As I wrote above in other posts, Aimpoint is used by a lot of golfers around the world because it works for them, just as plumb bobbing works for others as does just looking at the green for many others. Aimpoint users are not part of some secret club trying to hide how it works, there are many videos online and many users happy to explain the basics.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Slightly off topic from the aimpoint discussion, but not sure that that last bit is true at all. A miss on the low side is a miss, a miss on the high side is a miss. The chance of a miss dropping, is surely zero in both cases. Possibly the illusion comes from perception - most people can see that a low side miss is a miss early. But a high side miss gives a sense of not being a done deal until later on, if they hold on to the hope that the putt "might" drop with a late turn. Even though its fate as a miss is already sealed, its just less obvious, leading to the feeling that it had a better chance than the low side miss.
		
Click to expand...

We all know that on a breaking putt, as the ball slows it breaks more, what I was getting at is, a miss on the low side will miss 100% every time, but a miss read on the high side still has a chance of the ball dropping. A putt made on the correct line will drop in the cup through the front, but if the there is a misread on the high side as the ball slows it will break more towards the cup and has a chance of dropping in the side.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			It might be bunkum though. That is the point of the discussion.Of course estimating slope, choosing a value, and using fingers to produce a target aim, is not complicated. Thats not what is being queried.
		
Click to expand...




Backsticks said:



			The question is whether that pretty simple to execute system is fundamentally any use to give you a useful putting line. It gives you a line all right. But is it the right one ?
		
Click to expand...

It's the correct line if you think it is. They are your feet, the slope determination is your interpretation of what you feel, the line you start the ball on is your choice, as is the speed and your swing, so yes it is the right one for you, in that moment, for that putt, you made the choices.


Backsticks said:



			The articles, vids, and teacher emphasise regularly how quickly people can learn it, read putts, and be aiming at the same line as experience aimpoint 'experts' (then usual caveats on putting stroke, technique, consistency, dexterity to hit it with the intended pace, etc). But that could be that people can systematically, repeatedly, quickly, with confidence....be all choosing the wrong line.....
		
Click to expand...

That can be for any green reading method. Aimpoint is not guaranteeing you 100% success on every read, that would be plain stupid, the method is giving you a way of reading the green which the creators and many users believe is an alternative way of getting a line and making putts, which along with the caveats of speed, swing, weather etc when they all fall into place you make a putt. No different to plumb bobbing if that is what you believe in and use, or just using your eyes, all are just as good as the other if you believe in that technique.


----------



## Britishshooting (Aug 30, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			We all know that on a breaking putt, as the ball slows it breaks more, what I was getting at is, a miss on the low side will miss 100% every time, but a miss read on the high side still has a chance of the ball dropping. A putt made on the correct line will drop in the cup through the front, but if the there is a misread on the high side as the ball slows it will break more towards the cup and has a chance of dropping in the side.
		
Click to expand...


I don't use Aimpoint and I miss on the high side more often than low, this is completely down to each individual. You can't make a sweeping statement that all non aim point users will miss low as it's not true.

I'll never use Aimpoint, not for me. Much more of a feel guy and my putting is definitely above average.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

Britishshooting said:



			I don't use Aimpoint and I miss on the high side more often than low, this is completely down to each individual. You can't make a sweeping statement that all non aim point users will miss low as it's not true.

I'll never use Aimpoint, not for me. Much more of a feel guy and my putting is definitely above average.
		
Click to expand...

I should have edited my original post and added, "more often than not", it would have made the comment less contentious and less sweeping.


Khamelion said:



			The point is, a none Aimpoint user hitting the ball at the correct pace with a misread, will _*more often than not*_ miss under the hole.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2018)

If it tickles your fancy as a proscriptive and techie pre-putt routine then go for it - just don't take all day about it  (see also use of alignment line on ball...)


----------



## 6535 (Aug 30, 2018)

When Iâ€™m practising putting with Aimpoint I get players asking me whatâ€™s it about. When I explain i get the same reaction as we do on here. 
I ask them to read a 15ft putt as that apparently is about average distance for amateurs. Itâ€™s 3% slope right to left and I ask them to show me where they aim for that putt. Place a tee peg get them lined up and they putt. 9 out of 10 will miss low as theyâ€™ve under read the putt. The next putt at their Aimpoint is hit harder, still miss low. When I show them where Aimpoint says the aim should be, they are bemused and scratching heads saying I didnâ€™t think itâ€™s that far out. When I align them up and they putt itâ€™s either holed or more often then not just missed on the high side. 

You tube John Graham and watch line and speed video.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

I've copied the below with the permission of Mark Sweeney from the Aimpoint users group on Facebook, hopefully this will go some way to explaining if Aimpoint is scientific or not.

"In analyzing the frictional force acting on a rolling ball it is usual to define a coefficient of rolling friction, .rho., which is equal to b/R where b is the position of the contact point and R is the radius of the golf ball. The acceleration of a golf ball rolling on a horizontal surface is given by: a=-.rho.g/(1+I/mR.sup.2), (3) where g is the acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/s.sup.2), m is the mass of the golf ball, and I is the moment of inertia of the golf ball about its center. Approximating the golf ball as a solid sphere results in I= mR.sup.2 and its acceleration is, therefore, given by: a=- 5/7 .rho.g (4)

The deformation of the turf and the resulting coefficient of rolling friction, .rho., increase with the softness of the turf and the speed of the rolling golf ball. Research by A. R. Penner shows that .rho. can be determined by the following expression: .rho.=(0.7028/s)(1+0.0065v.sup.2) (5) where s is the stimpmeter reading of the green and v is the speed of the golf ball. The frictional force can also be adjusted for the effect of grain with the formula: .rho.'=.rho.*(.delta.*cos(.gamma.-.beta.)); Where .delta. is the magnitude of grain effect on the ball, .gamma. is the grain direction in degrees, and .beta. is the direction the ball is moving.

For a golf ball rolling on a sloped green, in addition to the frictional force, the ball will also experience a component of the gravitational force acting along its direction of motion. The acceleration of a golf ball on a green sloped along both the x-axis (.theta.) and the y-axis (.psi.) is given by: a.sub.x=- 5/7 .rho.g cos .theta. cos .psi. sin .beta.- 5/7 g sin .theta. (6a) a.sub.y=- 5/7 .rho.g cos .theta. cos .psi. cos .beta.- 5/7 g cos .theta. sin .psi. (6b) where .beta. is the direction that the ball is moving with respect to the y-axis. "


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2018)

Thanks for the effort, and I am not trying to be dismissive, but in short, it doesnt at all. I am puzzled that anyone could consider it did. Yes, its scientific style language, some equations, contstants. And me even be correct for what it is describing. But it no way justifies the fundamental premise of aimpoint as practised by golfers on the course (I dont speak of aimpoints computer driven equations calculating the lines for fully mapped greens on TV), which centres on their being only 6 possible lines for a putt breaking a given way, that one if them is (approximately) correct to hole a well paced putt, and that these lines correlate, even roughly, to a projection according to the thickness of ones fingers. I asked these questions earlier and they were dismissed as ramblings. And they may seem such to someone of no scientific or analytic thought. But to anyone of some scientific knowledge, they are fair questions - and I fully accept there may be good answer to them that do indeed justify aimpoint as a reliable and genuinely relevant, innovative, and useful aiming system. But I have yet to see it explained.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			It's the correct line if you think it is.
		
Click to expand...

Surely you cannot stand by that statement. There is an objectively corrrect line (for a give pace of ball, with a certain margin of error). Just because you think its the correct line doesnt mean it IS the best line. That surely is nonsense ?


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Surely you cannot stand by that statement. There is an objectively corrrect line (for a give pace of ball, with a certain margin of error). Just because you think its the correct line doesnt mean it IS the best line. That surely is nonsense ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I do, because in the moment you are determining your line, you are not thinking about the what ifs, you're not worried about constants, gravitational pull, whether R over X squared equals roll over Y distance or whatever, you're just thinking about getting the line and pace right, so at the precise moment putter face hits the ball, you believe the line you have chosen is the correct one.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Thanks for the effort, and I am not trying to be dismissive, but in short, it doesnt at all. I am puzzled that anyone could consider it did. Yes, its scientific style language, some equations, contstants. And me even be correct for what it is describing. But it no way justifies the fundamental premise of aimpoint as practised by golfers on the course (I dont speak of aimpoints computer driven equations calculating the lines for fully mapped greens on TV), which centres on their being only 6 possible lines for a putt breaking a given way, that one if them is (approximately) correct to hole a well paced putt, and that these lines correlate, even roughly, to a projection according to the thickness of ones fingers. I asked these questions earlier and they were dismissed as ramblings. And they may seem such to someone of no scientific or analytic thought. But to anyone of some scientific knowledge, they are fair questions - and I fully accept there may be good answer to them that do indeed justify aimpoint as a reliable and genuinely relevant, innovative, and useful aiming system. But I have yet to see it explained.
		
Click to expand...

The only person that can answer your specific scientific questions on how Aimpoint works, would be the creators. The people who use Aimpoint do so from the practicality of wanting to get a read on a green, I can't speak or write for all Aimpoint users, but I don't care about the maths behind why a ball breaks at a certain point along a line on a slope, just that what I do when using Aimpoint give me a better chance of holing a putt.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Yes, I do, because in the moment you are determining your line, you are not thinking about the what ifs, you're not worried about constants, gravitational pull, whether R over X squared equals roll over Y distance or whatever, you're just thinking about getting the line and pace right, so at the precise moment putter face hits the ball, you believe the line you have chosen is the correct one.
		
Click to expand...

Well if that belief is a tenet of aimpoint, then we can conclude it to be unscientific, and well and truly debunked.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

That belief is mine, you spin it any way you want, as I wrote in my other reply, if you want to know the science behind Aimpoint, ask the creators to explain.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 30, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Well if that belief is a tenet of aimpoint, then we can conclude it to be unscientific, and well and truly debunked.
		
Click to expand...

I know its going around in circles but are you saying that a number of top professionals who use it are deluded? Do I believe you or them?


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			That belief is mine, you spin it any way you want, as I wrote in my other reply, if you want to know the science behind Aimpoint, ask the creators to explain.
		
Click to expand...

There is no science needed to know that an incorrect doesnt become the correct one just because you choose to believe its the correct one. We are into the realm of magic crystals and tarot cards with that one.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 30, 2018)

If something works for you, whatever it's called or whatever people think, then that is all that matters.


----------



## 6535 (Aug 30, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			Thanks for the effort, and I am not trying to be dismissive, but in short, it doesnt at all. I am puzzled that anyone could consider it did. Yes, its scientific style language, some equations, contstants. And me even be correct for what it is describing. But it no way justifies the fundamental premise of aimpoint as practised by golfers on the course (I dont speak of aimpoints computer driven equations calculating the lines for fully mapped greens on TV), which centres on their being only 6 possible lines for a putt breaking a given way, that one if them is (approximately) correct to hole a well paced putt, and that these lines correlate, even roughly, to a projection according to the thickness of ones fingers. I asked these questions earlier and they were dismissed as ramblings. And they may seem such to someone of no scientific or analytic thought. But to anyone of some scientific knowledge, they are fair questions - and I fully accept there may be good answer to them that do indeed justify aimpoint as a reliable and genuinely relevant, innovative, and useful aiming system. But I have yet to see it explained.
		
Click to expand...

Mark Sweeney read your post as I was utterly, like I would imagine most on here, perplexed at what you were trying to say. The creator of Aimpoint said heâ€™s confused the hell out of me. 

Itâ€™s your opinion but you canâ€™t say it isnâ€™t scientific just cos no one has been able to understand your babble and give a response.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 30, 2018)

I find it really amusing that there are any amount of Utubers, golf magazines and teaching pro's extolling the benefits of their techniques for driver, iron play, chipping  and putting, hardly any of which barely raise a comment but do one on green reading and there's over 400 posts, most by people who've never done the course, criticising it ðŸ˜


----------



## User 99 (Aug 30, 2018)

chrisd said:



			I find it really amusing that there are any amount of Utubers, golf magazines and teaching pro's extolling the benefits of their techniques for driver, iron play, chipping  and putting, hardly any of which barely raise a comment but do one on green reading and there's over 400 posts, most by people who've never done the course, criticising it ðŸ˜
		
Click to expand...

I'd say because that's down to actually hitting the ball as opposed to holding your fingers in the air either at arms length or not, it does sound a bit ridiculous and open to ridicule.


----------



## Slab (Aug 30, 2018)

I've done similar before but what the heck, this thread needs it...

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Hello, punter.
*Punter:* Who are you?
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* I am the Accredited Aimpoint Pro. I created Aimpoint. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably a golfer. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.
*Punter:* Is Aimpoint Scientific?

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Aimpoint is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the slope on the green. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.
*Punter: *You haven't answered my question.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others.

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Aimpoint is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one Aimpoint anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.
*Punter:* There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic forumer.
*Punter:* Choice. The problem is choice.

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *The first Aimpoint course I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your putting history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your swing. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive Pro, initially created to teach certain aspects of the chipping stroke. If I am the father of Aimpoint, she would undoubtedly be its mother.
*Punter: *The Short Game Pro?
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted Aimpoint, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly that if left unchecked might threaten Aimpoint itself. Ergo, those that refused the course findings, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.
*Punter: *This is about the Pace of Putt?

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* You are here because Slope is more important than Pace.
*Punter:* Bull!
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Denial is the most predictable of all golfers responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have mapped this green, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* The function of the Punter is now to return to the green, allowing a temporary dissemination of the Scientific Aimpoint Course you carry, reinserting the green reading. After which you will be required to select from the Clubhouse 23 individuals, 16 female, 7 male, to watch you on the practice green. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic crash killing everyone connected to Aimpoint, which coupled with the extermination of the practice green will ultimately result in the extinction of this topic.
*Punter:* You won't let it happen, you can't. You need slope to survive.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. However, the relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the responsibility for the pace of every putt you make.

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *It is interesting reading your reactions. The five previous versions of Aimpoint were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the Aimpoint Course, facilitating the function of the Punter. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-a-vis, Anchored Putting.
*Punter: *Adam Scott!
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Apropos, Adam took the Aimpoint course to save your credibility at the cost of his own.
*Punter:* No!

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. There are two greens. The green to your right leads to Aimpoint Express, and the salvation of you putts per round. The green to the left leads back to the course, and to the end of your Cat 2 status. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you're going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple, and obvious truth: Aimpoint Express is here to stay and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.

_-The Punter walks to the green on his left-_

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *Humph. Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.
*Punter:* If I were you, I would hope that we don't meet again.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *We won't, I have your money for the Aimpoint Express course alreadyâ€¦


----------



## 6535 (Aug 30, 2018)

Slab said:



			I've done similar before but what the heck, this thread needs it...

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Hello, punter.
*Punter:* Who are you?
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* I am the Accredited Aimpoint Pro. I created Aimpoint. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably a golfer. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.
*Punter:* Is Aimpoint Scientific?

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Aimpoint is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the slope on the green. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.
*Punter: *You haven't answered my question.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others.

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Aimpoint is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one Aimpoint anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.
*Punter:* There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic forumer.
*Punter:* Choice. The problem is choice.

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *The first Aimpoint course I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your putting history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your swing. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive Pro, initially created to teach certain aspects of the chipping stroke. If I am the father of Aimpoint, she would undoubtedly be its mother.
*Punter: *The Short Game Pro?
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted Aimpoint, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly that if left unchecked might threaten Aimpoint itself. Ergo, those that refused the course findings, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.
*Punter: *This is about the Pace of Putt?

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* You are here because Slope is more important than Pace.
*Punter:* Bull!
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Denial is the most predictable of all golfers responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have mapped this green, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* The function of the Punter is now to return to the green, allowing a temporary dissemination of the Scientific Aimpoint Course you carry, reinserting the green reading. After which you will be required to select from the Clubhouse 23 individuals, 16 female, 7 male, to watch you on the practice green. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic crash killing everyone connected to Aimpoint, which coupled with the extermination of the practice green will ultimately result in the extinction of this topic.
*Punter:* You won't let it happen, you can't. You need slope to survive.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. However, the relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the responsibility for the pace of every putt you make.

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *It is interesting reading your reactions. The five previous versions of Aimpoint were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the Aimpoint Course, facilitating the function of the Punter. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-a-vis, Anchored Putting.
*Punter: *Adam Scott!
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:* Apropos, Adam took the Aimpoint course to save your credibility at the cost of his own.
*Punter:* No!

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. There are two greens. The green to your right leads to Aimpoint Express, and the salvation of you putts per round. The green to the left leads back to the course, and to the end of your Cat 2 status. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you're going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple, and obvious truth: Aimpoint Express is here to stay and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.

_-The Punter walks to the green on his left-_

*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *Humph. Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.
*Punter:* If I were you, I would hope that we don't meet again.
*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro: *We won't, I have your money for the Aimpoint Express course alreadyâ€¦
		
Click to expand...

Ha, I knew you were Backsticks. ðŸ˜‚


----------



## 6535 (Aug 30, 2018)

RandG said:



			I'd say because that's down to actually hitting the ball as opposed to holding your fingers in the air either at arms length or not, it does sound a bit ridiculous and open to ridicule.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, Iâ€™ve been ridiculed numerous times, even an Ex Man Utd and England player said whatâ€™s all that about? He soon shut up when I banged in a 25ft putt on a 2 finger read. So, is it open to ridicule? Only if your self conscious about it, but Iâ€™ve proved many a time 
that it works, I would go to say using Aimpoint has enhanced my knowledge of green reading, more then I knew before AE.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 30, 2018)

RandG said:



			I'd say because that's down to actually hitting the ball as opposed to holding your fingers in the air either at arms length or not, it does sound a bit ridiculous and open to ridicule.
		
Click to expand...

Hitting the ball - Aimpoint is about hitting the ball !


----------



## User 99 (Aug 30, 2018)

6535 said:



			He soon shut up when I banged in a 25ft putt on a 2 finger read. .
		
Click to expand...

I holed from further last night, from off the green with a no finger read, what does that mean then ?


----------



## chrisd (Aug 30, 2018)

RandG said:



			I holed from further last night, from off the green with a no finger read, what does that mean then ?
		
Click to expand...

I rolled in about a 40 foot big swinging putt  in a league match yesterday - we all have some luck some days!


----------



## 6535 (Aug 30, 2018)

RandG said:



			I holed from further last night, from off the green with a no finger read, what does that mean then ?
		
Click to expand...

I was replying to your post on the subject of being ridiculed. But If you want to be pedantic and take it further then I holed out from the fairway on our 18th other week, what does that mean?


----------



## 6535 (Aug 30, 2018)

chrisd said:



			I rolled in about a 40 foot big swinging putt  in a league match yesterday - we all have some luck some days!
		
Click to expand...

I got ridiculed 4yrs ago by my mate who saw I had a 40ft putt, and shouted itâ€™s 2 fingers, I knew the break was 3, confirmed my read it was 3 and Dudley holed it. That putt won club champs for me. 

Weâ€™ve all got stories where weâ€™ve holed huge putts with or without fingers and toes. 
Itâ€™s whatever works for you.


----------



## User 99 (Aug 30, 2018)

TBH, I'm more intrigued by how defensive you guys get more than the fact you use it, whatever works for you but getting so defensive is quite amusing.


----------



## 6535 (Aug 30, 2018)

Call it what you want but itâ€™s no more then the antagonistic remarks from yourself and others on here, who really not got a clue about it


----------



## chrisd (Aug 30, 2018)

RandG said:



			TBH, I'm more intrigued by how defensive you guys get more than the fact you use it, whatever works for you but getting so defensive is quite amusing.
		
Click to expand...

As it happens I very rarely use it at my place as we have pretty small greens and I pretty much know the lay of the land  I am not defensive, I really don't give a stuff who does, or doesn't use it, I don't care whether you make or miss every putt I absolutely don't care of your opinion, but, I don't like the small minded pettiness that is too often shown here to just try and ridicule others


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			There is no science needed to know that an incorrect doesnt become the correct one just because you choose to believe its the correct one. We are into the realm of magic crystals and tarot cards with that one.
		
Click to expand...

Now that comment could be posted in another long-running and very contentious debate and could be absolutely spot on


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			We all know that on a breaking putt, as the ball slows it breaks more, what I was getting at is, a miss on the low side will miss 100% every time, but a miss read on the high side still has a chance of the ball dropping. A putt made on the correct line will drop in the cup through the front, but if the there is a misread on the high side as the ball slows it will break more towards the cup and has a chance of dropping in the side.
		
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. A miss is a miss, whether it is on the high side or the low side. If it drops from the high side, then it wasnt a miss in the first place. It was just an almost too high, but just in, good putt.
High putts dropping mor than low putts is just an illusion. For both high and lowside putts, there is a line inside of which it will drop, and outside of which it wont. The target is the same in both cases - either you are inside the window for it to drop, or you arent.


----------



## user2010 (Aug 30, 2018)

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn...â€¦..Ad Infinitum


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 30, 2018)

Spin it whatever way you want, but read my post again you have it wrong or shall I write, you misread it.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 30, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			That belief is mine, you spin it any way you want, as I wrote in my other reply, if you want to know the science behind Aimpoint, ask the creators to explain.
		
Click to expand...

I posted the Mark Sweeney technical (scientific) response so for the technically minded the science is there. The simple answer is we both know it works, the logic and proof behind it and that it's not snake oil or any other spin


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 30, 2018)

RandG said:



			TBH, I'm more intrigued by how defensive you guys get more than the fact you use it, whatever works for you but getting so defensive is quite amusing.
		
Click to expand...

The reason why the Aimpoint threads drag on is because the people that use do get very defensive about , early days it felt a bit like talking about Scientology, all hush hush stuff 

A lot of time it feels like the ultra defensive comments are almost trying to convince themselves but thatâ€™s what a good placebo does - as long as it doesnâ€™t have any affect on any pace of play etc then there should be no issues with people using it - it is always a giggle though watching people demo it then miss


----------



## shortgame (Aug 30, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I posted the Mark Sweeney technical (scientific) response so for the technically minded the science is there. The simple answer is we both know it works, the logic and proof behind it and that it's not snake oil or any other spin
		
Click to expand...

OK but on your own Aimpoint video you significantly under read the breaks IIRC...


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 30, 2018)

shortgame said:



			OK but on your own Aimpoint video you significantly under read the breaks IIRC...
		
Click to expand...

You are correct although on one I clearly said the strike wasn't great so pace was out. Aimpoint will help with reads but it's still reliant on a good strike and a good pace. Both come with practice aligned to the good read


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I posted the Mark Sweeney technical (scientific) response so for the technically minded the science is there. The simple answer is we both know it works, the logic and proof behind it and that it's not snake oil or any other spin
		
Click to expand...

That was just a wind up surely? It no more justifies finger thickness correlated to break distance than some of the other twaddle being cited here (like answering a request to prove the existence of God by quoting a few random verses from the bible).

I think aimpoint is generating a little controversy, because, unlike most golf improvement claims, some people are actually being taken in by this one. Nobody takes the various claims for clubs, balls, shoes, etc seriously. Everyone knows that its all just a bit of tongue-in-cheek : if we were to believe all the annual improvements in gear that hit the ball that bit further, that bit straighter, with more forgiveness, off a bigger sweetspot, with more control, we would all be struggling to avoid holing out in one on the longest of par fives. But we understand the code. Its just blurb. Aimpoint though, seems to have genuinely sucked in a few. Nobody defended white driver heads as helping better alignment and less glare for optimum eye-hand coordination even if we bought the club - but aimpointers do seem to be more invested in its particular delusion.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2018)

Slab said:



*The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:*

Click to expand...

Is that a Level 3 or Level 4 Accredited Aimpoint Pro though ?
It makes a difference.


----------



## Fish (Aug 30, 2018)

If you need to straddle the line with your feet to realise that your leaning to gauge which way a putt will break, then your eyesight is buggered anyway and so it still wonâ€™t help.

When youâ€™re 1 in 4 attempts suddenly drop itâ€™s suddenly all hail aimpoint! 

Itâ€™s guff imo.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 30, 2018)

Fish said:



			If you need to straddle the line with your feet to realise that your leaning to gauge which way a putt will break, then your eyesight is buggered anyway and so it still wonâ€™t help.

When youâ€™re 1 in 4 attempts suddenly drop itâ€™s suddenly all hail aimpoint!

Itâ€™s guff imo.
		
Click to expand...

Given I had a detached retina operation, then a cataract operation and then a long series of alterations to my eye vision over about 18 months perhaps I was struggling to read greens properly


----------



## Fish (Aug 30, 2018)

Everyoneâ€™s searching for the Holy Grail in Golf, well peeps, there ainâ€™t one! 

Drivers that keep you on the fairways, longer & straighter. Irons that keep miss hits on line, and now a putting phenomenal. 

Well if they all worked we wouldnâ€™t be off the same handicaps we were last year, 2 years or even 5 years ago, weâ€™d all be off scratch. 

Marketing guff is like a flake in a 99, itâ€™s too attractive to not enjoy or buy into, and everyone quotes all the big putts that suddenly drop, but what about the ones that donâ€™t ðŸ¤”

The placebo effect is a wonderful thing, and in Golf, itâ€™s exploited brilliantly by those earning a good living from â€˜selling the dreamâ€™ to golfers. 

I wont ridicule anyone per se, if you think it honestly helps, then fill yer boots, but if youâ€™ve bought into all the examples Iâ€™ve listed, then why are you all not off half (at least) the handicap you were before you started with any or all of them.


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 30, 2018)

The sense of balance is more sensitive than your eyes. Absolute scientific fact. Feeling gravity doesnâ€™t usually lie unless your in space. 

Itâ€™s amazing what people can denounce on here,  but tomorrow will claim a shaft gave them 30 extra yards and that they use pro v1â€™s for more â€œcontrolâ€. 

Yes because your 20 handicap, refuse to have monthly lessons, plays once a week. Axe stabbing wedge game on soft UK greens really maximises the potential of your ball. 

Get real.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 30, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			: if we were to believe all the annual improvements in gear that hit the ball that bit further, that bit straighter, with more forgiveness, off a bigger sweetspot, with more control, we would all be struggling to avoid holing out in one on the longest of par fives. .
		
Click to expand...

Oh Iâ€™ve got to respond to that utter rubbish. 

Iâ€™m nearly 40 years past my best golf, and guess what? The ball goes just as far, for me, as it did when I was winning longest drives. Unfortunately the young bucks are 60 yds beyond me now.

But perhaps what really shows how straight the ball goes now, try really working it around a tree or cutting it up so that it lands like a butterfly with sore feet.

On a par 5 yesterday I hit a driver and a hybrid to 20ft. How can an old fat dodgy hip dicky tickered coffin dodger do that? Technology! 

And that my friend nails your rubbish argument to the wall. Your voice is muffled coz your talking out your ass.


----------



## 6535 (Aug 31, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Oh Iâ€™ve got to respond to that utter rubbish.
Iâ€™m nearly 40 years past my best golf, and guess what? The ball goes just as far, for me, as it did when I was winning longest drives. Unfortunately the young bucks are 60 yds beyond me now.
But perhaps what really shows how straight the ball goes now, try really working it around a tree or cutting it up so that it lands like a butterfly with sore feet.
On a par 5 yesterday I hit a driver and a hybrid to 20ft. How can an old fat dodgy hip dicky tickered coffin dodger do that? Technology!
And that my friend nails your rubbish argument to the wall. Your voice is muffled coz your talking out your ass.
		
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone else thinks the same. ðŸ‘


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 31, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Oh Iâ€™ve got to respond to that utter rubbish.

Iâ€™m nearly 40 years past my best golf, and guess what? The ball goes just as far, for me, as it did when I was winning longest drives. Unfortunately the young bucks are 60 yds beyond me now.

But perhaps what really shows how straight the ball goes now, try really working it around a tree or cutting it up so that it lands like a butterfly with sore feet.

On a par 5 yesterday I hit a driver and a hybrid to 20ft. How can an old fat dodgy hip dicky tickered coffin dodger do that? Technology!

And that my friend nails your rubbish argument to the wall. Your voice is muffled coz your talking out your ass.
		
Click to expand...

My post was hyperbole, but you get the point - we all take gear advert blurb with a generlus dollop of salt (no one ever "Good morning my pro, bought this driver from you last week, and as you can see from the ad here, it says I would hit the ball 7 yards further with. Have checked, and not getting the 7 yards. So clearly some manufacturing fault in it. Would you mind sending it back to the supplier and geting it repaired or exchanged please? ". 
But people seem to swallow aimpoint, when even a few simple queries on it, dont seem to have answers. 

And for the 'if it works for you, it works for you' folk, well thats not really not what is being questioned. If there arent really grounds for thinking it might work - then its possible that it isnt working for you even if you think it is - you are simply deluded.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 31, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			The sense of balance is more sensitive than your eyes. Absolute scientific fact. Feeling gravity doesnâ€™t usually lie unless your in space.

Itâ€™s amazing what people can denounce on here,  but tomorrow will claim a shaft gave them 30 extra yards and that they use pro v1â€™s for more â€œcontrolâ€.

Yes because your 20 handicap, refuse to have monthly lessons, plays once a week. Axe stabbing wedge game on soft UK greens really maximises the potential of your ball.

Get real.
		
Click to expand...

Listen to the superiority complex of a single figure handicap. Must be true guys cos a Billy big boots thinks so. 

Great rant shame 99% of it is waffle.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 31, 2018)

6535 said:



			I'm glad someone else thinks the same. ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

+1 here. I'm 65 and hit the driver and irons further now than ever, and I wasn't short on distance then


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 31, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			...The chance of a miss dropping, is surely zero in both cases....
		
Click to expand...

This depends on what is meant by a 'miss'

A low-side miss always misses - 100%, however 'miss' is defined.

However, because the hole is just over 4" while the ball is about 1.5", there's a tolerance either side of the 'ideal' that allows high-side 'misses' (where 'miss' is defined as 'deviation from the line that drops into the centre of the cup, relative to that line') can still drop, either side of that.

That's why a miss on the high side has previously been known as a 'professional miss'.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 31, 2018)

The science behind Aimpoint's calculation of required line is irrefutable. This has been shown time and again on PGA Tour coverage and it has received award(s) for it.

The issue the Aimpoint guys are trying to address is how to convert that complicated calculation, that uses known measurements, (they go out before a tournament and 'map' every green with small spirit levels) to a quick and easy assessment where several of the measurements required for the calculation are unknown. I think they have found a very reasonable approach! 

Use of Aimpoint is not going to mean that a player will sink every putt. The player has to determine the slope and hit the putt 'correctly'. But if it improves the percentage of putts that drop, then it's money well spent imo. In the Pro world, it's probably better that it provides certainty, as they are far more likely to hit putts well than we Ams. And the value of a shot or 2 over the course of a tournament is considerable!

It may not be something they need (I don't need it), or may be considered poor value for money (compared with other Golf tools it's not horrendously priced), but to simply write it off as something only the deluded use is simply daft!

I can't really see why anyone should actually be arguing against it! If it's not something you need, or wish to use, don't bother with it. But I can't see the point of arguing that others shouldn't use it - except, perhaps, from a time cost pov which has been addressed by 'Express read'. I'd certainly argue that buying the latest Driver every year is a significantly greater wast of money!


----------



## 6535 (Aug 31, 2018)

ðŸ˜‚
Itâ€™s only waffle when your not informed properly. Isnâ€™t it King amongst men. If that ainâ€™t a superior statement then I donâ€™t know what is. 

Letâ€™s say Iâ€™ve got no time for you and the same goes for you as well, unless you want to carry on with the slagging. Up to you.


----------



## 6535 (Aug 31, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			The science behind Aimpoint's calculation of required line is irrefutable. This has been shown time and again on PGA Tour coverage and it has received award(s) for it.

The issue the Aimpoint guys are trying to address is how to convert that complicated calculation, that uses known measurements, (they go out before a tournament and 'map' every green with small spirit levels) to a quick and easy assessment where several of the measurements required for the calculation are unknown. I think they have found a very reasonable approach!

Use of Aimpoint is not going to mean that a player will sink every putt. The player has to determine the slope and hit the putt 'correctly'. But if it improves the percentage of putts that drop, then it's money well spent imo. In the Pro world, it's probably better that it provides certainty, as they are far more likely to hit putts well than we Ams. And the value of a shot or 2 over the course of a tournament is considerable!

It may not be something they need (I don't need it), or may be considered poor value for money (compared with other Golf tools it's not horrendously priced), but to simply write it off as something only the deluded use is simply daft!

I can't really see why anyone should actually be arguing against it! If it's not something you need, or wish to use, don't bother with it. But I can't see the point of arguing that others shouldn't use it - except, perhaps, from a time cost pov which has been addressed by 'Express read'. I'd certainly argue that buying the latest Driver every year is a significantly greater wast of money!
		
Click to expand...

And that should be the end of the discussion.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 31, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			The science behind Aimpoint's calculation of required line is irrefutable. This has been shown time and again on PGA Tour coverage and it has received award(s) for it.

The issue the Aimpoint guys are trying to address is how to convert that complicated calculation, that uses known measurements, (they go out before a tournament and 'map' every green with small spirit levels) to a quick and easy assessment where several of the measurements required for the calculation are unknown. I think they have found a very reasonable approach!

Use of Aimpoint is not going to mean that a player will sink every putt. The player has to determine the slope and hit the putt 'correctly'. *But if it improves* the percentage of putts that drop, then it's money well spent imo. In the Pro world, it's probably better that it provides certainty, as they are far more likely to hit putts well than we Ams. And the value of a shot or 2 over the course of a tournament is considerable!

It may not be something they need (I don't need it), or may be considered poor value for money (compared with other Golf tools it's not horrendously priced), but to simply write it off as something only the deluded use is simply daft!

I *can't really see why anyone should actually be arguing against it!* If it's not something you need, or wish to use, don't bother with it. But I can't see the point of arguing that others shouldn't use it - except, perhaps, from a time cost pov which has been addressed by 'Express read'. I'd certainly argue that buying the latest Driver every year is a significantly greater wast of money!
		
Click to expand...


And there is the "CRUX" of the argument. A huge big fat if. Bottom line is it doesn't give you any measurable advantage over non aimpoint users other that in your own head, confidence and pre shot routine.

And likewise I can't see why you should be arguing for it when I don't need to bother doing it. And that is after doing the course.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 31, 2018)

6535 said:



			ðŸ˜‚
Itâ€™s only waffle when your not informed properly. Isnâ€™t it King amongst men. If that ainâ€™t a superior statement then I donâ€™t know what is.

Letâ€™s say Iâ€™ve got no time for you and the same goes for you as well, unless you want to carry on with the slagging. Up to you.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong as per. 

Aimpoint has no scientific proof that it makes you putt better than a non aimpoint user that is fact. Come back when you can prove otherwise. I am an undisputed King amongst men don't ever forget that please.


----------



## 6535 (Aug 31, 2018)

Then simply move on naysayer(s) go on other threads and let us superior, deluded green readers talk about the clutch system to our hearts content. ðŸ‘ðŸ»


----------



## SteveJay (Aug 31, 2018)

I am not a user, and admit I am skeptical of claims about it being scientific, but surely this is a technique like loads of others in golf. 

What this thread seems to imply (to me) is that all users are consistent. Just like any other part of the game there will be those Aimpoint users who are good at it, i.e. can sense slope consistently and convert that into a percentage.......always hold their fingers the right distance for the pace etc etc). They may already be good green readers looking for an edge and may therefore be strong advocates of the method. Some Aimpoint users, despite the course, will be less able but will also strongly defend the method due to their investment.

Having spoken to users I know there needs to be practice to calibrate slopes with your feet, so not all Aimpoint users are equal. Like any other part of the game it needs practice and *isn't the holy grail.*

Like different putting grips etc. Aimpoint will help some but not all (I struggle to sense anything but a severe slope with my feet) and you still need to be a competent putter to maximise the benefit. As most golfers and many pros use other ways to read the green it clearly is not the optimal way of reading greens for everyone. The sooner that, and the fact it is just another technique requiring skill and practice, is accepted such threads like this will run and run!


----------



## 6535 (Aug 31, 2018)

Get your facts right. Iâ€™ve never implied that Aimpoint makes you putt better. To putt better you practise putting technique not green reading. I think you got HUOA syndrome more like.


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 31, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Listen to the superiority complex of a single figure handicap. Must be true guys cos a Billy big boots thinks so.

Great rant shame 99% of it is waffle.
		
Click to expand...


No superiority complex here. Just realistic. And Iâ€™m not single figures unless I can drop a 4 under hcp round in between now and season end. 

Just no patience for morons. 
When people are affectively denouncing green reading by using gravity, and the most sensitive sense you have.  it sort of blows your mind. 

People claiming itâ€™s a marketing sham, yet you donâ€™t have to go on a course for it, or pay to learn it. Itâ€™s available on the internet. 

If youve not got the knowledge of the technique then you canâ€™t really refute it. 
You can try, but in reality itâ€™s just an unsubstantiated opinion, and a bullpoo one at that.


----------



## cliveb (Aug 31, 2018)

The impression I get is that a lot of the Aimpoint nay-sayers seem to think it's being presented as some kind of rigid method that works the same for everyone.
But as far as I can make out, the technique requires calibration for each individual player.
You try over & over and eventually arrive at a combination of estimated slope, number of fingers and bend of arm that works for you.

Example: Player A feels a 2% slope and holds out 2 fingers with a bent arm. Meanwhile player B thinks it's a 3% slope but through experience knows he needs to hold 3 fingers out with a straight arm. And player C has very fat fingers and uses just 1. They have all arrived at this through personal calibration and discovered what works for them. And if it works, that's fine.

If Aimpoint expects every player to arrive at the same combination of slope, fingers and arm bend, then clearly I have misunderstood.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 31, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			they go out before a tournament and 'map' every green with small spirit levels
		
Click to expand...

Thank you.  Finally an answer to a question I asked many pages back.  

I don't think anyone questions the veracity of the Aimpoint lines shown on the PGA coverage.  I'd always assumed those greens were mapped by advanced computer programs and tools,  not by people using AP express.

It's the AP express bits that raised doubts  about how the science of it works (how to know the individual green speeds, how the finger pointing works, how to differentiate between a slope of 1, 2, 3 etc.)


From all the helpful posts in here I wonder if there is now enough information to have a tinker with it on the practice green or is there other stuff only a certified instructor can provide?

I'm basing this on the fact each user obviously has to practice and fine tune it for them as individuals. (ie each individual determines what a 1, 2, 3 slope etc is for them, customise it for size of fingers etc)

Might be fun...


----------



## chrisd (Aug 31, 2018)

cliveb said:



			The impression I get is that a lot of the Aimpoint nay-sayers seem to think it's being presented as some kind of rigid method that works the same for everyone.
But as far as I can make out, the technique requires calibration for each individual player.
You try over & over and eventually arrive at a combination of estimated slope, number of fingers and bend of arm that works for you.

Example: Player A feels a 2% slope and holds out 2 fingers with a bent arm. Meanwhile player B thinks it's a 3% slope but through experience knows he needs to hold 3 fingers out with a straight arm. And player C has very fat fingers and uses just 1. They have all arrived at this through personal calibration and discovered what works for them. And if it works, that's fine.

If Aimpoint expects every player to arrive at the same combination of slope, fingers and arm bend, then clearly I have misunderstood.
		
Click to expand...


Spot on in relation to the individual players. Also playing different courses requires calibration for the speed of the greens as there's a huge difference in break between 9 and 12 on the stimp reading.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 31, 2018)

cliveb said:



			The impression I get is that a lot of the Aimpoint nay-sayers seem to think it's being presented as some kind of rigid method that works the same for everyone.
But as far as I can make out, the technique requires calibration for each individual player.
You try over & over and eventually arrive at a combination of estimated slope, number of fingers and bend of arm that works for you.

Example: Player A feels a 2% slope and holds out 2 fingers with a bent arm. Meanwhile player B thinks it's a 3% slope but through experience knows he needs to hold 3 fingers out with a straight arm. And player C has very fat fingers and uses just 1. They have all arrived at this through personal calibration and discovered what works for them. And if it works, that's fine.

If Aimpoint expects every player to arrive at the same combination of slope, fingers and arm bend, then clearly I have misunderstood.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on. Why people are trying to understand the science behind Aimpoint I don't know, Aimpoint Express takes all the science out of the method and make the process unique to the individual, the way a person calibrates AE is unique to themselves, exactly as the example given above.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 31, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			No superiority complex here. Just realistic. And Iâ€™m not single figures unless I can drop a 4 under hcp round in between now and season end.

Just no patience for morons.
When people are affectively denouncing green reading by using gravity, and the most sensitive sense you have.  it sort of blows your mind.

People claiming itâ€™s a marketing sham, yet you donâ€™t have to go on a course for it, or pay to learn it. Itâ€™s available on the internet.

If youve not got the knowledge of the technique then you canâ€™t really refute it.
You can try, but in reality itâ€™s just an unsubstantiated opinion, and a bullpoo one at that.
		
Click to expand...


Gravity, reading a slope by your eyes does the same thing. What do you think processes the slope, it's not your feet its your brain which is fed by the information it receives from the eyes. The brain is the processing centre, just like it is for your eyes. For your information I do have the knowledge, although if you had read the thread in full you would have known that, therefore I can refute it if I so desire. Therefore your rant is "bullpoo" just like your rant that all higher handicap golfer can't chip, they just want to rely on equipment and Pro V's. 

You've not added anything to the debate.


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 31, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Gravity, reading a slope by your eyes does the same thing. What do you think processes the slope, it's not your feet its your brain which is fed by the information it receives from the eyes. The brain is the processing centre, just like it is for your eyes. For your information I do have the knowledge, although if you had read the thread in full you would have known that, therefore I can refute it if I so desire. Therefore your rant is "bullpoo" just like your rant that all higher handicap golfer can't chip, they just want to rely on equipment and Pro V's.

You've not added anything to the debate.
		
Click to expand...

Some do read the slope using their eyes, but some find that when using their feet, if they close their eyes they get a better feel for the slope, I would also guess a lot of Aimpointers look at something other than the green when taking a read.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 31, 2018)

Aimpoint is a waste of time and money....................................if you can't putt.
You might be brilliant at reading greens but a rubbish putter.

Learn how to putt first and you might find you don't need Aimpoint.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 31, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Some do read the slope using their eyes, but some find that when using their feet, if they close their eyes they get a better feel for the slope, I would also guess a lot of Aimpointers look at something other than the green when taking a read.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with you but ultimately this information is still processed by the brain, your feet don't have the ability to know they are on the slope its actually your brain telling your feet that.


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 31, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			When people are affectively denouncing green reading by using gravity, and the most sensitive sense you have.
		
Click to expand...

I think you'll find there are some very very sensitive folk on here


----------



## ademac (Aug 31, 2018)

I have to say that this thread in proper mental!
I wonder if anything in golf has ever been so divisive? (Apart from Tiger of course)

I think the actual putting stroke sometimes gets overlooked and dismissed as being an easy thing to do but in actual fact we would probably all be better off working on that than working on aimpoint or any other green reading technique.
End of the day we are all shite at golf and looking for ways to improve without having to work too hard, its just a shame thats not possible.....


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 31, 2018)

ademac said:



			End of the day we are all  at golf and looking for ways to improve without having to work too hard, its just a shame thats not possible.....
		
Click to expand...

You been spying on my game?


----------



## shortgame (Aug 31, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			Why people are trying to understand the science behind Aimpoint I don't know, Aimpoint Express takes all the science out of the method
		
Click to expand...

I think for some of us it's purely because it's 'sold' as a scientific method.  Then we question the science as the finger pointing method/straddling etc isn't scientific per se. 

Thread has helped me learn more about it anyway ðŸ‘


----------



## Khamelion (Aug 31, 2018)

shortgame said:



			I think for some of us it's purely because it's 'sold' as a scientific method.  Then we question the science as the finger pointing method/straddling etc isn't scientific per se.

Thread has helped me learn more about it anyway ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

The thread got kind of confused, by referring to Aimpoint and Aimpoint Express as the same thing, they are not. Aimpoint is the scientific calculus, algorithm, algebra computational side that got used on TV, Aimpoint Express is the simplified, fingers up, arm bent method.


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 31, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Gravity, reading a slope by your eyes does the same thing. What do you think processes the slope, it's not your feet its your brain which is fed by the information it receives from the eyes. The brain is the processing centre, just like it is for your eyes. For your information I do have the knowledge, although if you had read the thread in full you would have known that, therefore I can refute it if I so desire. Therefore your rant is "bullpoo" just like your rant that all higher handicap golfer can't chip, they just want to rely on equipment and Pro V's.

You've not added anything to the debate.
		
Click to expand...


No, YOU havenâ€™t added anything... 

If you had read the previous post. Feeling with your feet is more sensitive than your eyes.... that is a fact. 

If you had also read the post, you would read that I didnâ€™t say higher handicappers canâ€™t chip. 

Itâ€™s a proven technique of reading greens, there is no dispute, there is no debate.. itâ€™s just believers,  non believers and spunk bubbles like you! 

player feels slope with feet, recognises left to right break. Player putts ball an aim point. Ball either goes in hole or doesnâ€™t. Thatâ€™s it.... 

Why you need to argue about it is beyond me... bring back delc.


----------



## Jacko_G (Aug 31, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			No, YOU havenâ€™t added anything... 

If you had read the previous post. Feeling with your feet is more sensitive than your eyes.... that is a fact.

If you had also read the post, you would read that I didnâ€™t say higher handicappers canâ€™t chip.

Itâ€™s a proven technique of reading greens, there is no dispute, there is no debate.. itâ€™s just believers,  non believers and spunk bubbles like you!

player feels slope with feet, recognises left to right break. Player putts ball an aim point. Ball either goes in hole or doesnâ€™t. Thatâ€™s it....

Why you need to argue about it is beyond me... bring back delc.
		
Click to expand...

Nope, your brain tells your feet what the slope is, you see the slope through your eyes and the brain calculates it.

Your feet don't know you are on a slope till your brain processes that. You continue with your abuse though, water off a ducks back. 

So in reality your brain is calculating the aimpoint slope not the feet but I'll not split hairs.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 31, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			The thread got kind of confused, by referring to Aimpoint and Aimpoint Express as the same thing, they are not. Aimpoint is the scientific calculus, algorithm, algebra computational side that got used on TV, Aimpoint Express is the simplified, fingers up, arm bent method.
		
Click to expand...

Er....Not quite! Before Aimpoint Express, there were 2 other 'versions' of the personal green reading, one with a load of charts with numbers dependent on the Stimp value of Greens and another that was a simplified version of that. Both were deemed 'Aimpoint'! Aimpoint Express simply comes up with quick and easy method to determine how far outside a hole to aim, rather than shuffling between a rather confusing set of cards!


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 31, 2018)

For heavens sake JG and JB, give it a rest - you've been saying the same thing over and over! And it's tiresome!

Sure it's the Brain that does the 'calculation' of slope, whether input is from eyes or feet! But eyes/feet are the receptors that provide the 'data'!

Can't think of a great equivalent, but perhaps speed detectors, whether old-style pressure ones laid a specific distance apart or Gatso ones. The receptors don't do the calculation (in Gatso's case, whether to to take a pic or not) but merely provide the 'data' from which a calculation (and in Gatso's case a decision) is made by the 'brain' of the unit!


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 31, 2018)

As I said a while back, if something works for someone who is anyone else to decry it.
 As long as YOU are happy with what YOU do, it works for YOU and YOU are comfortable with it , thats all that matters.
All that matters is the number we put on the score card.


----------



## 6535 (Aug 31, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Aimpoint is a waste of time and money....................................if you can't putt.
You might be brilliant at reading greens but a rubbish putter.

Learn how to putt first and you might find you don't need Aimpoint.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah great idea, use your 2 roddy thing to get the perfect stroke to send the ball to the hole. 

You forget that greens have slopes, no point having a great stroke if you canâ€™t read a green with or without Aimpoint.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Aug 31, 2018)

Decided the simplest answer is to take my chart out in the club match tomorrow and see how the proven scientific version stands up to my personally calibrated Aimpoint Express. Might do front nine with the chart and back nine with express read.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 1, 2018)

6535 said:



			Yeah great idea, use your 2 roddy thing to get the perfect stroke to send the ball to the hole.

You forget that greens have slopes, no point having a great stroke if you canâ€™t read a green with or without Aimpoint.
		
Click to expand...




bobmac said:



			Aimpoint is a waste of time and money....................................if you can't putt.
*You might be brilliant at reading greens* but a rubbish putter.

Learn how to putt first and you might find you don't need Aimpoint.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Jacko_G (Sep 1, 2018)

Wasting your time Bob. 

That lad is deluded all because he plays off low single figures. That makes all the difference in his head. 

Like you I agree it's down to the Muppet holding the putter, if you have poor mechanics you are going to struggle to hole putts regardless of what method you use on the greens. 

Also the brain processes the same information that your eyes see and your feet "feel" but apparently your feet are better. 

Personally I'll stick to my method and a wee half hour every now and then with those two wee Roddy things!


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 1, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Decided the simplest answer is to take my chart out in the club match tomorrow and see how the proven scientific version stands up to my personally calibrated Aimpoint Express. Might do front nine with the chart and back nine with express read.
		
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea, Though a better one (the 'scientific' method) would be to use both on the same hole - and putt. The result should be the same.

But I would suggest a Club match is not the time to do it! 

In fact, you don't even need to be playing to confirm (or refute) the method this way - just chuck a ball down on any green and do the reads. You don't even need to actually putt either, as the purpose is to confirm that 'Charted' Aimpoint and Express Aimpoint come up with the same reult!


----------



## 6535 (Sep 1, 2018)

I apologise Bob, I mis read your post and I couldnâ€™t remember the name of your invention, hence the 2 roddy comment. I meant no offence with that. 

Unlike Jocko G  who have mis read or INTERPRETED in what Iâ€™ve said wrongly and drawn up a pathetic conclusion that Iâ€™m superior and Iâ€™m far from deluded. But King amongst men doesnâ€™t think his statement isnâ€™t superior. Hypocrisy beyond belief.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 2, 2018)

â‚¬50 for the Aimpoint Express at Valle Del Este on the 22nd Sept. Tempted but I'm already there playing with guests.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 2, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Not a bad idea, Though a better one (the 'scientific' method) would be to use both on the same hole - and putt. The result should be the same.

But I would suggest a Club match is not the time to do it!

In fact, you don't even need to be playing to confirm (or refute) the method this way - just chuck a ball down on any green and do the reads. You don't even need to actually putt either, as the purpose is to confirm that 'Charted' Aimpoint and Express Aimpoint come up with the same reult!
		
Click to expand...

Decided against the chart in the match. The greens were lightening quick as they had been ironed and cut ahead of the Jamega pro-am today and so were running close to 11 on the stimp according to our head greenkeeper. Had to really adjust my Express read and bend the arm far more than I'm use to. We have the Jamega event tomorrow and Tuesday so going to try and get out and maybe play two or three holes and do as you say and make an Aimpoint read and putt and then a chart read and repeat, and then reverse the process on the next hole so I am not learning anything about the putts from the first attempt and just see what works best


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 2, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Decided against the chart in the match. The greens were lightening quick as they had been ironed and cut ahead of the Jamega pro-am today and so were running close to 11 on the stimp according to our head greenkeeper. Had to really adjust my Express read and bend the arm far more than I'm use to. We have the Jamega event tomorrow and Tuesday so going to try and get out and maybe play two or three holes and do as you say and make an Aimpoint read and putt and then a chart read and repeat, and then reverse the process on the next hole so I am not learning anything about the putts from the first attempt and just see what works best
		
Click to expand...

Er...You missed my point! Though, re-reading my post, I can see how you might have misinterpreted the words 'and putt'. Probably should have stated 'and the same putt'!

The approach I suggested doesn't actually require you to putt! In fact, it's probably better that you don't!

Merely confirming that the Chart based 'read' and the Express one suggest the same line, or not, should 'prove' whether the Express read is accurate - as the Chart based one is derived from the irrefutable science/calculation of 'Measured' Aimpoint!

If it does, then it's simply a case of how accurate the feel of the slope through the feet is, as to whether the subsequent choice of 'degree of slope' or 'number of fingers' works - but if they give the same Aim Point, then case proven!


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 2, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			If it does, then it's simply a case of how accurate the feel of the slope through the feet is, as to whether the subsequent choice of 'degree of slope' or 'number of fingers' works - but if they give the same Aim Point, then case proven!
		
Click to expand...

Thats a lot of 'ifs' though.

In this whole discussion, I dont think anyone is really yestioning  a fully computerised physical/geometrical calculation of the good line from a fully slope mapped green.

Its in the through-the-feet, and fingers business that it starts to look ropey. Or at best, be open to question.

Some of the key points are however quite easily tested using scientific (in the real sense) methods.

The key ones for me being (leaving pace judgement and putting stroke repeatability out of it for the sake of argument) :
- the need for a single slope value selection. Slope can vary according to where along the path of the putt it is measured. Sure, some will be very consistent. But are one, or even two or three measurements sufficient to be usefully accurate.
- can people judge, or be taught to judge, slope, using their feet, and is it any more accurate, or even as accurate, as by sight. Very easily checked beyond any doubt using blind tests and some statistics.
- is there any correlation between slope and finger thickness. This should be easily calculated at a desk by a mathematician skilled in geometry
- is a scale of 1-6 sufficient to provide accurate line resolution. Over some or all lengths. Again, some good geometry would clear up this point definitively one way or the other.

A failing in any of them of course, and aimpoint express fails.

Does anyone know of any reliable analyses of these ? (and please dont quote the irrelevant equations cited earlier in the thread).


----------



## chrisd (Sep 2, 2018)

Why don't you just do the course with Jamie Donaldson and ask him the questions cos frankly you're getting on my nerves with your need to find proof of the science - it works!


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 2, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Why don't you just do the course with Jamie Donaldson and ask him the questions cos frankly you're getting on my nerves with your need to find proof of the science - it works!
		
Click to expand...

Itâ€™s like gravity. I canâ€™t see it, but I know the science. Even then itâ€™s still Rolex...Aimpoint works, too many intelligent pros canâ€™t be wrong


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 2, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Why don't you just do the course with Jamie Donaldson and ask him the questions cos frankly you're getting on my nerves with your need to find proof of the science - it works!
		
Click to expand...

If it stands up as science, then it should stand up on that alone. 
And the claimant should back that up.
The above suggestion is what raises the scepticism - the old snake oil salesman's patter : 
 - absolutely it cures baldness, bad breath, lumbago, the common cold, arthritis, and, will make you attractive to the opposite sex!
 - Proof ?
 - why just give me your Â£99 and you can try it for yourself and you will see (or feel through your feet) !


----------



## chrisd (Sep 2, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Itâ€™s like gravity. I canâ€™t see it, but I know the science. Even then itâ€™s still Rolex...Aimpoint works, too many intelligent pros canâ€™t be wrong
		
Click to expand...

The interesting thing Brian is that the course is put across really simply by Jamie Donaldson. There is little talk of science, he just demonstrated the ways to read various putts and gives ample time for everyone to try them


----------



## chrisd (Sep 2, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			If it stands up as science, then it should stand up on that alone.
And the claimant should back that up.
The above suggestion is what raises the scepticism - the old snake oil salesman's patter :
- absolutely it cures baldness, bad breath, lumbago, the common cold, arthritis, and, will make you attractive to the opposite sex!
- Proof ?
- why just give me your Â£99 and you can try it for yourself and you will see (or feel through your feet) !
		
Click to expand...

Just like how to play out of bunkers every time, how to add 50 yards to your driver, the merits of stack and tilt, the hinge and hold chipping method etc etc

But ive done the course and it was well worth the money


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 2, 2018)

O


Backsticks said:



			Thats a lot of 'ifs' though.

In this whole discussion, I dont think anyone is really yestioning  a fully computerised physical/geometrical calculation of the good line from a fully slope mapped green.

Its in the through-the-feet, and fingers business that it starts to look ropey. Or at best, be open to question.

Some of the key points are however quite easily tested using scientific (in the real sense) methods.

The key ones for me being (leaving pace judgement and putting stroke repeatability out of it for the sake of argument) :
- the need for a single slope value selection. Slope can vary according to where along the path of the putt it is measured. Sure, some will be very consistent. But are one, or even two or three measurements sufficient to be usefully accurate.
- can people judge, or be taught to judge, slope, using their feet, and is it any more accurate, or even as accurate, as by sight. Very easily checked beyond any doubt using blind tests and some statistics.
- is there any correlation between slope and finger thickness. This should be easily calculated at a desk by a mathematician skilled in geometry
- is a scale of 1-6 sufficient to provide accurate line resolution. Over some or all lengths. Again, some good geometry would clear up this point definitively one way or the other.

A failing in any of them of course, and aimpoint express fails.

Does anyone know of any reliable analyses of these ? (and please dont quote the irrelevant equations cited earlier in the thread).
		
Click to expand...

Only the 1 'If' really!

And, given that you agree that the Math is correct, it's only the 'implementation' that you are querying. 

Pace judgement and stroke repeatability are variables outside Aimpoint's 'control'. I believe Aimpoints calcs are based on a ball being struck hard enough to travel 6" past the hole. So while these are relevant to the likelihood of a putt dropping, they are irrelevant to whether Aimpoint  is accurate or not!

To answer your relevant questions....

The key is to determine an 'average' slope. I think that was mentioned in the video, but was certainly been stated as important for the Chart version. And, after all, the effect of varying slopes has to be considered whichever method of reading a green is used, whether Aimpoint or 'traditional'!

I believe slope reading via the feet is, with experience, more accurate than visually. This is mainly because it ONLY uses a single variable (balance) over the line area to get a result. Reading by eye has to contend with several other 'variables' that can get in the way - including other slopes nearby, 'traps' off the green (nasty course architects!) that can confuse the eye and even the direction the grass is laying, even disregarding 'grain'.

The whole idea of Aimpoint courses is to actually train users in the method. If that, and their subsequent practice of it, is unsuccessful, then the (manual) concept fails. If it succeeds, then a bunch of golfers dis-satisfied with their performance with 'normal' green-reading will enjoy their golf more! Success or fail actually ends up dependent on the student/practitioner, not to the method!

Slope vs Finger thickness (and how far away the fingers are held) really becomes a case of 'experience'. Given that the result of the above 'confirmation of method' process above, it would be possible for a user to actually 'practice' converting reads obtained using the Chart method into the Express One. This would 'calibrate' the Finger width/Arm-Length variables. No need for any maths!

Likewise, there's no need for any maths wrt the 1-6 scales. I believe Aimpoint has something of a 'disclaimer' once the slope gets above a certain point.

I hope the above helps. 

If it's not for you, I suggest you don't bother using it. But don't poo-poo it as simply (money making) 'waffle' for those, including some top Pros who wouldn't use it if it didn't 'perform'! It's not for me, but I know a couple of guys whose putting has been transformed by it! The major criticism of previous versions has been the time required to obtain a read. This has been eliminated by the Express version.


----------



## JohnnyDee (Sep 2, 2018)

I believe that Aimpoint will not teach anyone anything new without them already having a modicum of natural God given talent on how to putt accurately and consistently in some shape or form in the first place.

It may provide a level of comfort that will then allow golfers to believe in whatever inherent putt-reading ability they have when using it.

I would never take the course even it was being offered for free as having seen others I play with using it - before and after taking it - I can honestly say it hasnâ€™t, in their cases, made the slightest bit of difference in overall levels of consistency or success.

For me itâ€™s another myth being peddled in much the same way as the latest â€˜TaylorPingWayâ€™ driver will give you another 20 yards carry off the tee over your current one.

Simply put it is (IMO) just another example of selling us golfers snake oil.

Just watched Rose use it on the 18th green on a medium length putt swinging from left to right. I could even see the break on the TV screen for heavenâ€™s sake without having to bestride the line.

In the end Rosey under-borrowed and missed it low. Go figure.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 2, 2018)

JohnnyDee said:



			I believe that Aimpoint will not teach anyone anything new without them already having a modicum of natural God given talent on how to putt accurately and consistently in some shape or form in the first place.

It may provide a level of comfort that will then allow golfers to believe in whatever inherent putt-reading ability they have when using it.

I would never take the course even it was being offered for free as having seen others I play with using it - before and after taking the course - I can honestly say it hasnâ€™t, in their cases, made the slightest bit of difference in overall levels of consistency or success.

For me itâ€™s another myth being peddled in much the same way as the latest â€˜TaylorPingWayâ€™ driver will give you another 20 yards carry off the tee over your current one.

Simply put it is (IMO) just another example of selling us golfers snake oil.

Just watched Rose use it on the 18th green on a medium length putt swinging from left to right. I could even see the break on the TV screen for heavenâ€™s sake without having to bestride the line.

In the end Rosey under-borrowed and missed it low. Go figure.
		
Click to expand...

It's not a guarantee that every putt will drop! How many others did you see where he used it successfully?

Would you have been convinced if the putt had gone in? Somehow I doubt it!

Btw. Missing it low may simply means that the user got (or hit) the pace wrong - the read could well have been spot on!


----------



## JohnnyDee (Sep 2, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			It's not a guarantee that every putt will drop!
		
Click to expand...

And there's the point I believe. 

There is NO guarantee that any putt will drop using ANY method and if AP was a panacea then surely everyone on tour would be adopting it?


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 2, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			It's not a guarantee that every putt will drop!
		
Click to expand...




JohnnyDee said:



			And there's the point I believe.
		
Click to expand...

Straw man argument really. No one is criticising it because it wont make you hole every putt. Its understood that one must have the putting stroke to despatch the ball on whatever line is chosen at the right pace.

But it does claim to be a useful line selection method. And on this point alone that it is still questionable.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 3, 2018)

JohnnyDee said:



			And there's the point I believe.

There is NO guarantee that any putt will drop using ANY method and if AP was a panacea then surely everyone on tour would be adopting it?
		
Click to expand...

There certainly seems to be a significant number that do!

http://greensidegolfacademy.com/tour-players.html

I think those that don't are 'content' with their existing method. After all, that's part of what the Caddy relationship is all about.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Sep 3, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			There certainly seems to be a significant number that do!

http://greensidegolfacademy.com/tour-players.html

I think those that don't are 'content' with their existing method. After all, that's part of what the Caddy relationship is all about.
		
Click to expand...


20 odd players on the list for the PGA tour, at least 2 of those are seniors (does Faldo even still play??) and out of the rest only a handful are 'decent'. There are 200 players in the PGA tour putting stats so 10% use it and only 1% of them are any good. 

This leads me to one of the following conclusions:

1. Lots of players don't know about it  (pretty unlikely)
2. 90% of the players on the PGA tour are already able to read greens
3. It is a load of nonsense

Make your own mind up.


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 3, 2018)

From what I've read I'm still not convinced it will help with putts where the turn gradually increases or decreases, or moves one way then t'uther. Like I said before, it seems to be developed for putts on greens which are one dimensional or the slope stays constant the whole way.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 3, 2018)

Beezerk said:



			From what I've read I'm still not convinced it will help with putts where the turn gradually increases or decreases, or moves one way then t'uther. Like I said before, it seems to be developed for putts on greens which are one dimensional or the slope stays constant the whole way.
		
Click to expand...

They don't say that when on the course. They do cover double breakers and longer putts using variations on the main theme


----------



## Jamesbrown (Sep 3, 2018)

I could sit here and write crap about plumb bobbing but Iâ€™ve never tried it,  or know how to use it.


----------



## 6535 (Sep 3, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			I could sit here and write crap about plumb bobbing but Iâ€™ve never tried it,  or know how to use it. 

Click to expand...

Iâ€™d be interested to know in those who have on this thread, questioned Aimpoint and itâ€™s merits if they use plumb bobbing and tell us what it actually does for them?


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 3, 2018)

6535 said:



			Iâ€™d be interested to know in those who have on this thread, questioned Aimpoint and itâ€™s merits if they use plumb bobbing and tell us what it actually does for them?
		
Click to expand...

I dont. Plumb bobbing has been around for decades, and the science truly has been done on that one, showing it to be of no practical use (although again the placebo, or just the discipline of procedure even if it contributes nothing of substance can have people resort to it and even convince themselves it is beneficial) whatsoever.


----------



## 6535 (Sep 3, 2018)

Backsticks said:



			I dont. Plumb bobbing has been around for decades, and the science truly has been done on that one, showing it to be of no practical use (although again the placebo, or just the discipline of procedure even if it contributes nothing of substance can have people resort to it and even convince themselves it is beneficial) whatsoever.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m curious in how you do things. As you are forth right with your views and seem to have an answer (even tho, when you start on a path you then deviate to give us a mass rambling of but if the earth and stars are lined up and the spinning of the world increases by 2.74% will increase the gravitational pull by 8.34% on a londitude of 12* will give a speed of 3.9mph) for everything. 


The only other person that I knew who could do this was the great Billy Connelly and he was brilliant.


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 4, 2018)

chrisd said:



			They don't say that when on the course. They do cover double breakers and longer putts using variations on the main theme
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough mate, so a putts which break more as the slope is nearer the hole vs one where the slope is at the start of the putt but levels out, how do you know where to take the read?  Both putts will have different amount of break even though the slope is the same (just in a different place).


----------



## chrisd (Sep 4, 2018)

Beezerk said:



			Fair enough mate, so a putts which break more as the slope is nearer the hole vs one where the slope is at the start of the putt but levels out, how do you know where to take the read?  Both putts will have different amount of break even though the slope is the same (just in a different place).
		
Click to expand...

The read method for all putts depends on several factors. How long is the putt, is it a double breaker, what's the speed of the green, is it up or down hill, how hard are you going to hit it. If your example it a 6 foot putt or a 26 footer then the method would vary. Out of interest, how would you read it?


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 4, 2018)

chrisd said:



			The read method for all putts depends on several factors. How long is the putt, is it a double breaker, what's the speed of the green, is it up or down hill, how hard are you going to hit it. If your example it a 6 foot putt or a 26 footer then the method would vary. Out of interest, how would you read it?
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™d be imagining the ball rolling up to and into the hole, how would it get there. Not scientific at all and I donâ€™t get it right every time but I accept Iâ€™m not a machine and Iâ€™ll make mistakes ðŸ˜


----------



## Khamelion (Sep 4, 2018)

Not necessarily just for Aimpoint, but people can see a read in two different ways, no doubt someone in here will contradict me, anyway, two different ways, curved or linear. Some people like to imagine a straight line and say put to 6, 12 or 18 inches for arguments sake either side of the cup to read a break, they pick that point and imagine a line between that point and the ball and choose a point the ball will roll over.

Others see the line to the hole as a curve they can visualize in their mind the curve the ball will take and line their ball up accordingly.

Myself I can sometimes see the line I need to take, literally I can see the green line drawn onto the green, I know some will say that is daft, that I'm talking out my hat, but sometimes it does happen. Other times I like to choose a linear approach.


----------



## User 99 (Sep 6, 2018)

Been watching the BMW on PGA live as I don't have Sky and their featured holes and haven't seen a single player use aimpoint yet and I've been watching it for over two hours.


----------



## Khamelion (Sep 7, 2018)

RandG said:



			Been watching the BMW on PGA live as I don't have Sky and their featured holes and haven't seen a single player use aimpoint yet and I've been watching it for over two hours.
		
Click to expand...

DJ's caddy was using it yesterday.


----------



## User 99 (Sep 7, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			DJ's caddy was using it yesterday.
		
Click to expand...

How many putts did DJs caddy make ? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Jamesbrown (Sep 7, 2018)

RandG said:



			Been watching the BMW on PGA live as I don't have Sky and their featured holes and haven't seen a single player use aimpoint yet and I've been watching it for over two hours.
		
Click to expand...

You wonâ€™t do, a lot of the time itâ€™s cut out.. caddyâ€™s will mainly do it for them. 
Do you see on tv any of the players smoking or wazzing in the bushes? 
Nope, not very often..


----------



## Jacko_G (Sep 7, 2018)

Jamesbrown said:



			You wonâ€™t do, a lot of the time itâ€™s cut out.. caddyâ€™s will mainly do it for them.
Do you see on tv any of the players smoking or wazzing in the bushes?
Nope, not very often..
		
Click to expand...

You see David Drysdale smoking all the time.


----------

