Aimpoint is slow - FACT

[Slab]

Homers point to you is spot on, I've learnt so much thru Aimpoint that you can, after using it over a period of time, pretty much know how fast the greens are by just hitting a general putt across the green without doing the speed putt drill using the chart. Someone said earlier that thru time and knowledge in doing Aimpoint, you can judge the break virtually straight away. But it's really helpful when you play greens that are so much quicker then your own course.

As for differing speeds on the course your playing, tbh, if they are vastly different then the club ought to sack the GK, if it's half a foot out either side from green to green, it's not going to make a great deal of difference.

I've stayed away from commenting on all the aimpoint threads because... well its obvious, but I have reviewed them so would like to ask a question as we're now talking about speed.

Do the charts account for nap (grain/growth direction) on a green and the impact it has on the amount of break through the different speed required to achieve the same distance of putt on an identical gradient of slope?

Which kind of leads to another point really, what about putting at different times of the day and the impact of dew etc, are these within the scope of aimpoint?

Thanks

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I've stayed away from commenting on all the aimpoint threads because... well its obvious, but I have reviewed them so would like to ask a question as we're now talking about speed.

Do the charts account for nap (grain/growth direction) on a green and the impact it has on the amount of break through the different speed required to achieve the same distance of putt on an identical gradient of slope?

Which kind of leads to another point really, what about putting at different times of the day and the impact of dew etc, are these within the scope of aimpoint?

Thanks

At the end of the day, and taking the cost of the course out of the equation, Aimpoint is only a green reading device. It will give you a break in inches based on where your ball lies in comparison to the contours of the green. Like anything, it won't take into account grain, moisture etc. Having taken a reading, and got a break from the chart, it is still up to the player to refine this to take into account the conditions. That's no different to what non-Aimpoint players do but the only difference I can see and which is the big plus for me is that Aimpointers have a specific starting point to begin with

 

[HawkeyeMS]

At the end of the day, and taking the cost of the course out of the equation, Aimpoint is only a green reading device. It will give you a break in inches based on where your ball lies in comparison to the contours of the green. Like anything, it won't take into account grain, moisture etc. Having taken a reading, and got a break from the chart, it is still up to the player to refine this to take into account the conditions. That's no different to what non-Aimpoint players do but the only difference I can see and which is the big plus for me is that Aimpointers have a specific starting point to begin with

Not wanting to be argumentative, but is the aimpoint starting point any more specific than any other method? I mean, there are a lot of variables and judgements to be taken into account before you get your aimpoint result, if you get those wrong, there is nothing specific about the result is there?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Not wanting to be argumentative, but is the aimpoint starting point any more specific than any other method? I mean, there are a lot of variables and judgements to be taken into account before you get your aimpoint result, if you get those wrong, there is nothing specific about the result is there?

Therefore are you suggesting that 'the method' gives you a starting point to aim at then you change it in accordance to what your eyes and conditions tell you - and that could mean that your final 'aimpoint' is a good bit away from that which 'the method' told you. Seems a little pointless in that case. But hey.

 

[Foxholer]

Seems to me that there are a number of additional factors that could potentially reduce the value of Aimpoint.

However it's rare for any of those to be present on the greens I encounter - save the uneven/puddle style of green.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Therefore are you suggesting that 'the method' gives you a starting point to aim at then you change it in accordance to what your eyes and conditions tell you - and that could mean that your final 'aimpoint' is a good bit away from that which 'the method' told you. Seems a little pointless in that case. But hey.

I'm saying I don't think it is possible for a person to calculate the variables needed to give an exact aimpoint reading. I think you can get it within a few inches and I think, as I said earlier, that using it people will learn how much more a putt should break than they had originally thought which will enable them to hit more putts close to the hole and therefore have more go in - that's a good thing.

I dispute however that it is possible to get the line of every putt to the inch and that an Aimpoint read is any more specific than for example, my read.

 

[Twire]

At the end of the day, and taking the cost of the course out of the equation, Aimpoint is only a green reading device. It will give you a break in inches based on where your ball lies in comparison to the contours of the green. Like anything, it won't take into account grain, moisture etc. Having taken a reading, and got a break from the chart, it is still up to the player to refine this to take into account the conditions. That's no different to what non-Aimpoint players do but the only difference I can see and which is the big plus for me is that Aimpointers have a specific starting point to begin with

Not wanting to be argumentative, but is the aimpoint starting point any more specific than any other method? I mean, there are a lot of variables and judgements to be taken into account before you get your aimpoint result, if you get those wrong, there is nothing specific about the result is there?

Therefore are you suggesting that 'the method' gives you a starting point to aim at then you change it in accordance to what your eyes and conditions tell you - and that could mean that your final 'aimpoint' is a good bit away from that which 'the method' told you. Seems a little pointless in that case. But hey.

This is very much like DMD's it give you a base line, somewhere to work from. You still need to take course conditions, weather etc into consideration, as with every other shot you play.

I know DMD's give me the confidence that I've made the right choice. If Aimpoint gives you that same confidence on the green then that's great.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

And surely that is the crux. It gives me a definitve reading based on standard conditions. I don't play on greens with funky grass so grain is rarely an issue and once I've got a base speed from the practice ground I've an idea already of how conditions may or may not affect the reading.

It's simply a reading albeit one based on scientific theory than just eyes and experience. How that information is then interpreted is not different to knowing it's 153 to the flag and deciding which club to use based on wind, firmness of greens.

 

[Foxholer]

This is very much like DMD's it give you a base line, somewhere to work from. You still need to take course conditions, weather etc into consideration, as with every other shot you play.

I know DMD's give me the confidence that I've made the right choice. If Aimpoint gives you that same confidence on the green then that's great.

I think the baseline DMDs provide - adjusted for the conditions - would give you a great deal more 'confidence' than the one Aimpoint would do - when additional considerations exist. That's because the idea of the shot int a green, say, is to get it close and a small error isn't all that important. With putting, the idea is to get it exact, so the additional considerations would make it virtually impossible to use Aimpoint for me - except as confirmation of the 'standard' break as one of the elements of the putt.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Putting my 'purist' (some might say 'Philistine', some might say 'snob') hat on - it seems to me that Aimpoint method is perhaps a good teaching/learning/practice aid - but should be left on the practice green.

I have said similar for DMDs in the past but accept that there are many other sources of the factual information on distance that DMDs provide so have come to an acceptance. But reading the line of a putt - even by the player or caddy with great knowledge of the course - comes down to skill and experience; simply due the infinite combinations of balls and pin positions.

Whether the Aimpoint Method helps a great deal or not is to me a moot point. It gives factual information to players not available in any other form and not available to players who do not use it - and therefore will reduce uncertainty in the player's mind. And as I do not feel that players should not feel it necessary to master the Aimpoint Method to be on a level playing field with those that have, I think it should be left on the practice green.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I have to be honest though, in the normal run of things, I can make the read based on the slope and stimp and make NO adjustments and be confident that 8/10 times it has an excellent chance of going in (subject to pace which is a variable in all putts irrespective of targetting) and the other 2/10 times would be close enough to make the one back a certainty if the read is a little out. That sort of accuracy at my level I can live with

The only time I make any real adjustment is if the greens are saturated. If not I'll usually go with what I have as my read and make no account for whatever grass makeup the greens are comprised of. On the courses I play I've found there has been little real difference in the makeup of away courses to my own in terms of the effect of nap or grain.

In plain terms, unless the greens are really wet I go with my read. It's getting the ball on the right line most of the time and those times it doesn't it is causing little cause for concern. The three putts I still have come purely from distance control especially on the long ones. No method other than improving my own technique will change that

 

[garyinderry]

on a 30 foot putt, how can one be sure they are aimed 4inches outside the hole rather than 5inches. you can try but being that precise is rather difficult imo.


some find I difficult to aim square at a green from 150 yards !

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

To answer both questions in one hit, the idea is you work out the stimp on the practice putting green before hand, usually from around 10 feet. There is a drill as part of the initial course which explains this but in essence, find a gentle slope (average 2) and work out the break from the chart. Decide which stimp chart the greens are (8-11) and make the putt. If it isn't accurate go to a slower/quicker chart as necessary and play for that amount of break. If you are out on the course and the practice green bears no semblance to the real ones it isn't too hard to make an adjustment to the next stimp chart.

A links and heathland course will be vastly different hence the differing speeds on offer. To be honest the fasted I've ever played was the Grove at 11. My own course is usually an 8 which is classed as medium. Camberley on the day we played was a 9. West Hill last year was the same and so I'd be surprised if many links got too far over 10. The point is there is a stimp speed for each scenario

just wondering Homer, how slow on the stimp does Aimpoint cover? I've definitely played some exceptionally slow greens in the last year!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

just wondering Homer, how slow on the stimp does Aimpoint cover? I've definitely played some exceptionally slow greens in the last year!

Charts start at 8 which is pretty average. For slower greens than that I'd simply add an inch to each reading

 

[Qwerty]

Putting my 'purist' (some might say 'Philistine', some might say 'snob') hat on - it seems to me that Aimpoint method is perhaps a good teaching/learning/practice aid - but should be left on the practice green.

I have said similar for DMDs in the past but accept that there are many other sources of the factual information on distance that DMDs provide so have come to an acceptance. But reading the line of a putt - even by the player or caddy with great knowledge of the course - comes down to skill and experience; simply due the infinite combinations of balls and pin positions.

Whether the Aimpoint Method helps a great deal or not is to me a moot point. It gives factual information to players not available in any other form and not available to players who do not use it - and therefore will reduce uncertainty in the player's mind. And as I do not feel that players should not feel it necessary to master the Aimpoint Method to be on a level playing field with those that have, I think it should be left on the practice green.

Id say purist. Good post :thup:

If low scores and low handicaps are that important to you and you think aimpoint works then crack on.
However, if your someone who wants to enjoy the challenges that golf brings...

 

[CMAC]

Charts start at 8 which is pretty average. For slower greens than that I'd simply add an inch to each reading

cause golfers are that accurate:mmm:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Id say purist. Good post :thup:

If low scores and low handicaps are that important to you and you think aimpoint works then crack on.
However, if your someone who wants to enjoy the challenges that golf brings...

Plus unlike the swing as a whole - surely of all club swings the easiest to make 'mechanical' and hence endlessly repeatable is that of the putter. Where my putting goes wrong is when I am unsure - and it's usually uncertainty of line rather than length. It's then that things like 'lifting my head' too quick - or snatching the putt - start to creep in. Reduce or indeed remove uncertainly from the players mind around putting - give him the point to aim at and a mechanical swing. Nah. Just doesn't feel right to me.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

cause golfers are that accurate:mmm:

Already said that 8/10 times I start it on the right line in terms of giving it a very good chance to drop subject to pace. Mind you I am spending a lot of time on the putting green this season working on it so maybe I am just reaping what I'm sowing. Said what I think and how its benefitted me so please don't come on here suggesting an average golfer like me is incapable of accurately get a ball on line from relatively short distances on a regular basis.

 

[ger147]

Plus unlike the swing as a whole - surely of all club swings the easiest to make 'mechanical' and hence endlessly repeatable is that of the putter. Where my putting goes wrong is when I am unsure - and it's usually uncertainty of line rather than length. It's then that things like 'lifting my head' too quick - or snatching the putt - start to creep in. Reduce or indeed remove uncertainly from the players mind around putting - give him the point to aim at and a mechanical swing. Nah. Just doesn't feel right to me.

I think you are overestimating how accurate the method is by quite some considerable way.

If Adam Scott who uses this method can still get the line wrong, and he has a caddy and the green maps available to pros on top of AimPoint, then I seriously doubt a club golfer spending a few hours on a course will suddenly have the line to every putt on earth unlocked and available to him.

As I understand it, it is simply a method of calculating a point of aim based on a number of factors that the golfer using it has to assess for himself and doesn't take into account some others so I don't think it goes any further than giving the average Jo a method by which to try and ascertain an aiming point.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I think you are overestimating how accurate the method is by quite some considerable way.

If Adam Scott who uses this method can still get the line wrong, and he has a caddy and the green maps available to pros on top of AimPoint, then I seriously doubt a club golfer spending a few hours on a course will suddenly have the line to every putt on earth unlocked and available to him.

As I understand it, it is simply a method of calculating a point of aim based on a number of factors that the golfer using it has to assess for himself and doesn't take into account some others so I don't think it goes any further than giving the average Jo a method by which to try and ascertain an aiming point.

Exactly my point. Aimpoint is no more accurate when calculated by a person than any other method. The maths behind it can't be questioned, the inputs by the golfer can. Aimpoint results may be to the inch or even half inch but there has to be a margin of error.