D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
The PGA Pros have complained about a Pro is very slow - they also have said he uses aimpoint and point to that as a reason
Aimpoint is slow - FACT
- Thread starter Robobum
- Start date
The PGA Pros have complained about a Pro is very slow - they also have said he uses aimpoint and point to that as a reason
dont think you understand the concept of a fact
just for the avoidance of doubt, I think aimpoint is a bunch of tosh but so is stating incorrect facts
starting a bit early tonight:smirk:
User20205
Money List Winner
No darth, I fully understand the concept of fact, it was a question, if one doesn't prove it, two likewise, what sample size would you need? Or as in this case is anecdotal evidence enough?dont think you understand the concept of a fact
just for the avoidance of doubt, I think aimpoint is a bunch of tosh but so is stating incorrect facts
G_Mulligan
Tour Rookie
sample sizes vary greatly depending on what you are testing but for something like this I would suggest at least 30; 10 experienced in using aim point, 10 using 'normal' green reading methods, and a control group of 10 that just line up and go. The bigger the sample the more confident you can be in the validity of the results.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
:rofl:
Foxholer
Blackballed
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
An infinite amount! If an infinite number of golfers used Aimpoint on an infinite number of greens then one of them would win the masters.
stevek1969
Money List Winner
I've never read so much much cack ,Aimpoint,charts, pfft get a grip. Putting look at the how the hole is cut then a putt to that side, simple.
Some people just make the game ben harder than it is.
Some people just make the game ben harder than it is.
seems to be for you
Foxholer
Blackballed
Without rigorous proof, a single discrepancy provides enough to disprove - or at least bring into question - the assertion! Whereas, without rigorous proof, larger samples only increase the level of confidence - they never 'prove' the assertion!
That's (one of the reasons) why the introduction of new drugs is such a long-winded process!
srixon 1
Journeyman Pro
Aimpoint, never heard of it. If somebody can post up a decent link I will have a look.
I've heard of it but I have no idea what it is and I don't need anymore confusion in this already extremely technical game 
Foxholer
Blackballed
I've heard of it but I have no idea what it is and I don't need anymore confusion in this already extremely technical game
Absolutely nothing wrong with that approach either!
Learning and applying it seems pretty much analogous to taking a swing change directly to the course!
User20205
Money List Winner
So if my group is 1, Darren's also 1. The overall number of golfers in our study is 2, both of which are painfully slow.
That makes our study 100% accurate, therefore the statement is true, aimpoint is slow. You can't argue with the percentages. :ears:
I'll let Ethan decide if my little study was statistically relevant
Robobum
Money List Winner
The guy did not pull the chart out too often, especially after he missed a couple by a mile, so I am assuming he was using the 'Express' version!!??
But, and if this isn't how it should be done I am very happy to stand corrected, a putt of (say) 20' would mean walking down the line of the putt and standind there feeling the slope. Dependant on length? it would either be 1/2 way or 1/3 and 2/3. Then, return behind the ball and use the thumb & finger(s) pointing at the hole to get the Aimpoint.
This guy then lined the mark on his ball towards this line (I know that isn't part of it) and then went onto practice stroke and then putt.
Whichever way you dress it up, that takes time.
Now, there are 2 scenarios I can see where that doesn't impact....
1. You hit it closest, so are last to putt and can go thru that rigmarole whilst others putt
2. You get to the green first so can do the Aimpoint whilst others mark and clean balls and grab the flag etc.
But, and if this isn't how it should be done I am very happy to stand corrected, a putt of (say) 20' would mean walking down the line of the putt and standind there feeling the slope. Dependant on length? it would either be 1/2 way or 1/3 and 2/3. Then, return behind the ball and use the thumb & finger(s) pointing at the hole to get the Aimpoint.
This guy then lined the mark on his ball towards this line (I know that isn't part of it) and then went onto practice stroke and then putt.
Whichever way you dress it up, that takes time.
Now, there are 2 scenarios I can see where that doesn't impact....
1. You hit it closest, so are last to putt and can go thru that rigmarole whilst others putt
2. You get to the green first so can do the Aimpoint whilst others mark and clean balls and grab the flag etc.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Load of old Bullocks.
D
Deleted Member 1156
Guest
Possibly the most sensible comment yet on this subject :thup:
Foxholer
Blackballed
So if my group is 1, Darren's also 1. The overall number of golfers in our study is 2, both of which are painfully slow.
That makes our study 100% accurate, therefore the statement is true, aimpoint is slow. You can't argue with the percentages. :ears:
I'll let Ethan decide if my little study was statistically relevant
Try applying the same 'logic' to Cricket. First over and first 2 balls are dots. I know Cricket can be a little dull at times, but do those 'facts' mean that at the end of the day, the score is still going to be 0 for 0? A slightly daft analogy (the events, not the analogy) but it pretty clearly demonstrates the sort of flawed 'conclusions' that small samples can throw up.
I par-ed the first 3 holes yesterday. Should I have stopped there and put the card in for level par? Bubba birdied the first 2 today. Why didn't he just sign for a 56?
And in the 'tests', was the time for the guys pre-Aimpoint measured and compared? Or was it simply assumed that the additional time that the guys too was ALL down to Aimpoint.
You can surely see how from that pair of tests, the no valid conclusions could really be made. That doesn't alter the facts that they used Aimpoint and that they were slow, so it would be possible for the observers to say that 'Every Aimpoint practitioner I have seen has been slow'.
Last edited:
3565
Journeyman Pro
god Foxholer your so far out there that I need to hit 20 drives to catch up with you in the intelligence department and never get there, but I think I know what you mean. I'll just stick to the Vulcan 'V' sign to get my green reads and possibly turn it round for the detractors and flick it at them...........
Is that an infraction?
