Aimpoint is slow - FACT

[Birchy]

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.

Even then if you get the calculations bang on and have the correct aimpoint it can still miss

 

[CMAC]

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.

calm down dear, maybe re-read my very short and very impersonal statement about all golfers-


these help

 

[Foxholer]

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.

There is nothing inaccurate about the method - that's where the 'too fiddly/complicated' criticism can be relevant. But the actual execution of the putt, after working it out, is still manual and capable of being messed up - as are any of the factors involved.

The Aimpointers I've seen - apart from the 2 that gave up - certainly scare the hole almost every time and a couple of them - including a now +3 player - were quite poor putters before they used it!

As for the 'challenge' of getting a read right, that still exists (determining the right slope for example), though the pleasure of the challenge is now more weighted towards getting the execution of the putt right imo!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

calm down dear, maybe re-read my very short and very impersonal statement about all golfers-


these help View attachment 10865

In which case it was a shame you ommitted the word ALL

 

[ger147]

There is nothing inaccurate about the method - that's where the 'too fiddly/complicated' criticism can be relevant. But the actual execution of the putt, after working it out, is still manual and capable of being messed up - as are any of the factors involved.

The Aimpointers I've seen - apart from the 2 that gave up - certainly scare the hole almost every time and a couple of them - including a now +3 player - were quite poor putters before they used it!

As for the 'challenge' of getting a read right, that still exists (determining the right slope for example), though the pleasure of the challenge is now more weighted towards getting the execution of the putt right imo!

I did not say the method was inaccurate, merely that it is not 100% accurate i.e. you do not automatically know the line of every putt if you employ the method, but you do have a method to try and work it out for yourself.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

There is nothing inaccurate about the method - that's where the 'too fiddly/complicated' criticism can be relevant. But the actual execution of the putt, after working it out, is still manual and capable of being messed up - as are any of the factors involved.

The Aimpointers I've seen - apart from the 2 that gave up - certainly scare the hole almost every time and a couple of them - including a now +3 player - were quite poor putters before they used it!

As for the 'challenge' of getting a read right, that still exists (determining the right slope for example), though the pleasure of the challenge is now more weighted towards getting the execution of the putt right imo!

There is nothing inaccurate about the theory, there has to be something inaccurate about the practice.

It's like someone giving you a box,a tape measure and a calculator and asking you to work out the volume. Easy right?

Now take away the tape measure and the calculator and guess the length of each side and do the calculation in your head. Not quite so easy. You might get close but you won't get it right.

What Aimpoint does is give you the "getting close" bit, which, if you weren't very good at reading greens in the first place will improve your putting. But finding the right point of the slope, guessing the amount of slope, guessing the stimp rating and then actually aiming your ball exactly x number of inches outside the hole are all variables that make it impossible for a person to get exactly right.

Aimpoint gives you the tools to make a better guess, that is all.

 

[Foxholer]

There is nothing inaccurate about the theory, there has to be something inaccurate about the practice.

We are saying the same thing! That's what my 'as are any of the factors involved' was about - badly phrased apparently.

There is, of course some 5.5 inches or more of tolerance (hole size plus 2 times just under half ball width) where it will drop in anyway.

As I posted, committed Aimpointers normally at least 'scare' the hole!

Good analogy btw!

 

[CMAC]

In which case it was a shame you ommitted the word ALL

no need as anyone who understands English knows the 's' is plural:smirk:

 

[Simbo]

There is nothing inaccurate about the method - that's where the 'too fiddly/complicated' criticism can be relevant. But the actual execution of the putt, after working it out, is still manual and capable of being messed up - as are any of the factors involved.

The Aimpointers I've seen - apart from the 2 that gave up - certainly scare the hole almost every time and a couple of them - including a now +3 player - were quite poor putters before they used it!

As for the 'challenge' of getting a read right, that still exists (determining the right slope for example), though the pleasure of the challenge is now more weighted towards getting the execution of the putt right imo!

What did the +3 guy play off when he was a "poor" putter?? Is his +3 handicap being attributed to aimpoint??
I find it hard to beleive he got anywhere near scratch being a "poor" putter.

Homer is making his point extremely well and in a good manner, although I'm sceptical about the aimpoint procedure I can now see the basis for it. Not really any different to using a laser!

 

[Foxholer]

What did the +3 guy play off when he was a "poor" putter?? Is his +3 handicap being attributed to aimpoint??
I find it hard to beleive he got anywhere near scratch being a "poor" putter.

Think he was Scratch or a little lower. Pretty huge hitter and good into/around the greens, but was definitely shaky on them! Markedly more confident on them now.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There is nothing inaccurate about the method - that's where the 'too fiddly/complicated' criticism can be relevant. But the actual execution of the putt, after working it out, is still manual and capable of being messed up - as are any of the factors involved.

The Aimpointers I've seen - apart from the 2 that gave up - certainly scare the hole almost every time and a couple of them - including a now +3 player - were quite poor putters before they used it!

As for the 'challenge' of getting a read right, that still exists (determining the right slope for example), though the pleasure of the challenge is now more weighted towards getting the execution of the putt right imo!

Of which the bit in bold suggests proof that it gives the player an advantage - using 'factual' information not otherwise available.

But I admit to not liking stuff that takes away from the key mind-over-matter aspects of the game. So for me assessing borrow is in the same category of key golfing skill as assessing distance. My grudging acceptance of DMDs is that the information that they provide can in the majority of circumstances be determined from other sources available to all. I do not believe that to be the case for borrow.

 

[3565]

I really can't see what the problem is with players using a system that helps with getting the breaks on the green. It's available to all, there is a fee to learn the system just like there's a fee to learn Harmons teachings, Foleys, Cowans, Leadbetters, your own local Pros method. There will always be sceptics to new methods who will put up barriers or obstacles in the way or try and discredit it in some form or another. We as in those who have done Aimpoint, are not the experts in this, there has been a lot of research by the founder of Aimpoint that they could answer your questions, we are simply explaining the outline of Aimpoint in what it does, to give you a number of the amount of break to play from a measured distance on a measured slope, no different then your 150yd marker post, or 153 to the pin techno stuff. You still have to play the shot. At the end of the day it's there to help ALL who choose to do so, just like NGT recently, we all play the game for differing reasons we all use different clubs, and have our purist way of thinking or our tech way of thinking. Neither is right or wrong, it's down to each individual to make their own mind up what's best for them.

If you don't think it's right or money for old rope, like someone posted here earlier, Move on, leave it be and let those who use/do or say get on with it. Is that too much to ask?

 

[c1973]

I really can't see what the problem is with players using a system that helps with getting the breaks on the green. It's available to all, there is a fee to learn the system just like there's a fee to learn Harmons teachings, Foleys, Cowans, Leadbetters, your own local Pros method. There will always be sceptics to new methods who will put up barriers or obstacles in the way or try and discredit it in some form or another. We as in those who have done Aimpoint, are not the experts in this, there has been a lot of research by the founder of Aimpoint that they could answer your questions, we are simply explaining the outline of Aimpoint in what it does, to give you a number of the amount of break to play from a measured distance on a measured slope, no different then your 150yd marker post, or 153 to the pin techno stuff. You still have to play the shot. At the end of the day it's there to help ALL who choose to do so, just like NGT recently, we all play the game for differing reasons we all use different clubs, and have our purist way of thinking or our tech way of thinking. Neither is right or wrong, it's down to each individual to make their own mind up what's best for them.

If you don't think it's right or money for old rope, like someone posted here earlier, Move on, leave it be and let those who use/do or say get on with it. Is that too much to ask?

Yet this is a thread about it being slow, should those who disagree with that view not 'move on,leave it be.....'? Just a thought.

Not everyone thinks that taking a punt on it is worthwhile, some believe it negatively affects pace of play also, even after reading the explanations of it on here, witnessing golfers using it, talking to Pros and reading about it online. Why can't people accept that these views are as valid on an online forum as others?

I may well be wrong (and apologies if I am) but you appear (to me) to be ultra defensive of Aimpoint to the point of being obsessive.

Edit: spelling.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I really can't see what the problem is with players using a system that helps with getting the breaks on the green. It's available to all, there is a fee to learn the system just like there's a fee to learn Harmons teachings, Foleys, Cowans, Leadbetters, your own local Pros method. There will always be sceptics to new methods who will put up barriers or obstacles in the way or try and discredit it in some form or another. We as in those who have done Aimpoint, are not the experts in this, there has been a lot of research by the founder of Aimpoint that they could answer your questions, we are simply explaining the outline of Aimpoint in what it does, to give you a number of the amount of break to play from a measured distance on a measured slope, no different then your 150yd marker post, or 153 to the pin techno stuff. You still have to play the shot. At the end of the day it's there to help ALL who choose to do so, just like NGT recently, we all play the game for differing reasons we all use different clubs, and have our purist way of thinking or our tech way of thinking. Neither is right or wrong, it's down to each individual to make their own mind up what's best for them.

If you don't think it's right or money for old rope, like someone posted here earlier, Move on, leave it be and let those who use/do or say get on with it. Is that too much to ask?

I hear what you say but I see a very big difference between something that gives you a pretty good idea of the break on a green and something that gives you a distance from your ball to the green. I can pace out the distance to the green if I must - but I have absolutely no way of getting a fairly accurate measure of the break on a putt.

My wonder is why many are so determined to find ways of deskilling golf - and for me assessing the break on a putt is deskilling golf. I may be in minority on this as I am on DMDs. But hey!

 

[chrisd]

My wonder is why many are so determined to find ways of deskilling golf - and for me assessing the break on a putt is deskilling !

Surely every golfer on the planet is looking for a way to assess the break on a putt and everyone has their way of trying to do it - I don't see how learning how to do it constitutes deskilling the game, any more than a lesson on bunker play is deskilling

 

[3565]

Yet this is a thread about it being slow, should those who disagree with that view not 'move on,leave it be.....'? Just a thought.

Not everyone thinks that taking a punt on it is worthwhile, some believe it negatively affects pace of play also, even after reading the explanations of it on here, witnessing golfers using it, talking to Pros and reading about it online. Why can't people accept that these views are as valid on an online forum as others?

I may well be wrong (and apologies if I am) but you appear (to me) to be ultra defensive of Aimpoint to the point of being obsessive.

Edit: spelling.

Ive never come on here and stated guys you'd be a fool not to do Aimpoint as it's freaky how it reads the green for you and blah blah, I like Homer and Virtuocity, have TRIED to explain the system,if you want validation on results look no further then Scott who, and before you jump down my throat it's not cos of Aimpoint alone that's got him to break into the top 100 for the first time in putting stats in past 5yrs but his general play has improved, more fairways greens and holing more lengthier putts.

As for pace of play it takes no longer then normal methods ie, if you look at the putt from both sides of the hole, but if your a player that crouches down quick 3 second look stand and hit it player then obviously any method i going to be slower then that, but I don't know how you go about with your putting routine so I'm not going to insult you.

As for the obsessive defense of Aimpoint, I could say you and others are being obsessively attacking, but that's your view and it means nothing to me, I think Homer has put over good points and for every negative there's a positive, if you want to think negatively that's your choice. So good luck

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Surely every golfer on the planet is looking for a way to assess the break on a putt and everyone has their way of trying to do it - I don't see how learning how to do it constitutes deskilling the game, any more than a lesson on bunker play is deskilling

Yes...learn to do it in practice and take that learning onto the course. On your comparison with bunker play - difference obvious I'd have thought. You learn and practice how to play out of a bunker off the course using whatever aids you wish to deploy - on the course you are on your own.

 

[c1973]

Ive never come on here and stated guys you'd be a fool not to do Aimpoint as it's freaky how it reads the green for you and blah blah, I like Homer and Virtuocity, have TRIED to explain the system,if you want validation on results look no further then Scott who, and before you jump down my throat it's not cos of Aimpoint alone that's got him to break into the top 100 for the first time in putting stats in past 5yrs but his general play has improved, more fairways greens and holing more lengthier putts.

As for pace of play it takes no longer then normal methods ie, if you look at the putt from both sides of the hole, but if your a player that crouches down quick 3 second look stand and hit it player then obviously any method i going to be slower then that, but I don't know how you go about with your putting routine so I'm not going to insult you.

As for the obsessive defense of Aimpoint, I could say you and others are being obsessively attacking, but that's your view and it means nothing to me, I think Homer has put over good points and for every negative there's a positive, if you want to think negatively that's your choice. So good luck

Well, thanks for not insulting me. I'm not a negative thinker though, generally I'm extremely positive but I can look at the negatives without it affecting my mind set.

My point was, this was a 'negative' aimpoint thread and that 'positive' thinkers in regard to Aimpoint (like yourself) should consider, what was it you said others should do again?, ah yes, 'move on and let it be' whilst perusing this particular thread.

Also, you are quite right, Homer has made some decent points.

 

[chrisd]

Yes...learn to do it in practice and take that learning onto the course. On your comparison with bunker play - difference obvious I'd have thought. You learn and practice how to play out of a bunker off the course using whatever aids you wish to deploy - on the course you are on your own.

Oh, I get it, taking a chart on the course! Outrageous, and of course, nothing like taking the old course planner with loads of extra notes on it like we did before Laser devices were ok'd

 

[3565]

Well, thanks for not insulting me. I'm not a negative thinker though, generally I'm extremely positive but I can look at the negatives without it affecting my mind set.

My point was, this was a 'negative' aimpoint thread and that 'positive' thinkers in regard to Aimpoint (like yourself) should consider, what was it you said others should do again?, ah yes, 'move on and let it be' whilst perusing this particular thread.

Also, you are quite right, Homer has made some decent points.

I apologise, yes your right, it is a negative thread from the outset and I have no right to interfere in it.