Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Even if I hit the perfect putt with the perfect weight sometimes it just bounces off the flag and doesn't go in anyway......
Aimpoint
- Thread starter HomerJSimpson
- Start date
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Are you bringing flag in, flag out into this
? Noooooooooooo(It's been a while I suppose
)
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
It could be argued that if the ball bounces off the flag then you've hit it too hard
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Take the flag out
Are you bringing flag in, flag out into this
(It's been a while I suppose
It could be argued that if the ball bounces off the flag then you've hit it too hard
I refer all 3 of you to @Orikoru @DeanoMK and @YandaB
They witnessed the greatest putt that never went in.
Always flag out now Phil!!!!!!!!!!
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
SteveW86
Head Pro
Homer, if you are planning on continuing with Aimpoint for next year I think you should run a competition where we can guess your average number of putts for next season.
An Aimpoint lesson for the winner maybe?
An Aimpoint lesson for the winner maybe?
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Imurg was right, you defo hit it too hard. Downhill putt. Lucky the flag was in, it saved you from three-putting as you'd have been almost off the other side.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
It was literally rolling at 1mph and you know it
PuttingGuru
New member
What about a brand new Scotty?
Ye Olde Boomer
Well-known member
I'm and old dog and that's a new trick.
chrisd
Major Champion
I did an Aimpoint course with Jamie Donaldson some years ago, mainly just out of curiosity. I really don't use it at all, but often play with people using it without having done the course and they clearly don't know how to do it properly.
3 jabber
Active member
OK I've just watched this video and a couple of others. My brain is frazzled. Way too complicated having to stand on the green in different places then calculate the speed of the green and equate that to a bent arm or a straight one. Think I'll stick to looking from behind the hole and trying to picture the ball rolling into the hole. I'm pretty good inside 10 feet, realistically outside of 10 feet 2 or 3 out of 10 putts might drop on a good day.
From 10 feet, the pros’ one-putt percentage is 40%, 23% from 15 feet, 15% from 20 feet, 7% from 30 feet, 4% from 40 feet, 3% from 50 feet and 2% from 60 feet. Also, according to Broadie, putting from inside 10 feet is very different than putting from 10 feet. The PGA TOUR average is 88% inside 10 feet, and just 40% from 10 feet. Only in one of 10 rounds do tour pros hole 100 percent of their putts from inside 10 feet.
Whereditgo
Journeyman Pro
3 jabber
Active member
Definitely. Just takes me 2 putts to get it inside 10 feetYou sure you've got the right forum name?
Leftitshort
Well-known member
38.6 putts per round is incredibly high. You could have reduced this just by putting with your eyes open?
That's brutal but very funny
Dunesman
Active member
Its an interesting one. I think there are several possibilities to consider.
1) That aimpoint is a superior method to simply eyeballing a putt's line. I think this can be dismissed. Unlike other innovations in golf, like the proV1 type ball design, large titanium driver rather than wood, that have been adopted completely and those who dont are obsolete, aimpoint is still niche, or turned to by those trying to solve a putting problem or weakness. No clear gain over non-aimpointers seems evident.
2) That aimpoint helps some. It may only suit some for various reasons, but not others. Possibly some who have lesser 3D vision skills or spacial awareness processing can gain from a move to sensing slope through their sense of balance. Or some have a higher than normal sense of balance, making aimpoint an advantageous strategy. On the counter to this, it seems to some extent, to be something turned to to solve a problem, like putters who use awkward grips, split hands, or extra long putters, to try to crack a major weakness. But there is no fundamental advantage in any of those, and they are more a crutch, or means of breaking with the past and negative habits and associations. Aimpoint could similarly be providing comfort and certainty on determining a putting line if a mental block has arisen that they cannot 'see' a line. And on that front, may truly be beneficial, but more as mental gimmick, than truly with scientific foundation.
3) That it is entirely a gimmick, or placebo, neither contributing positively or negatively to putting performance. With putting pace being at least if not more important than line in overall putting performance, and even line being influenced by pace, is it possible to define a line independent of pace ? Add in the discrimination one might have in sensing slope, and the crude factor of finger numbers, its a valid question whether aimpoint, despite the semblance of structure of a method about it, is any better than just 'generally towards the hole'.
4) That it is counter productive, and putting is harmed. I dont see any strong indications nor seem to hear reports of golfers abandoning it as decreasing their putting performance.
I guess there is enough data from the tours to enable some with/without aimpoint analysis of higb level golfers, and it would be interesting to see that. It would also be interesting to see if there is any correlation for aimpoint switchers who also have adopted some other unorthodox putting element such as broomhandle or claw grips and the like.
My personal opinion is that it is un-golfing by its nature, and the same as long putters, whether questionably anchored or not, would like to see them banned, and exclusively traditional reading of putt lines restored.
1) That aimpoint is a superior method to simply eyeballing a putt's line. I think this can be dismissed. Unlike other innovations in golf, like the proV1 type ball design, large titanium driver rather than wood, that have been adopted completely and those who dont are obsolete, aimpoint is still niche, or turned to by those trying to solve a putting problem or weakness. No clear gain over non-aimpointers seems evident.
2) That aimpoint helps some. It may only suit some for various reasons, but not others. Possibly some who have lesser 3D vision skills or spacial awareness processing can gain from a move to sensing slope through their sense of balance. Or some have a higher than normal sense of balance, making aimpoint an advantageous strategy. On the counter to this, it seems to some extent, to be something turned to to solve a problem, like putters who use awkward grips, split hands, or extra long putters, to try to crack a major weakness. But there is no fundamental advantage in any of those, and they are more a crutch, or means of breaking with the past and negative habits and associations. Aimpoint could similarly be providing comfort and certainty on determining a putting line if a mental block has arisen that they cannot 'see' a line. And on that front, may truly be beneficial, but more as mental gimmick, than truly with scientific foundation.
3) That it is entirely a gimmick, or placebo, neither contributing positively or negatively to putting performance. With putting pace being at least if not more important than line in overall putting performance, and even line being influenced by pace, is it possible to define a line independent of pace ? Add in the discrimination one might have in sensing slope, and the crude factor of finger numbers, its a valid question whether aimpoint, despite the semblance of structure of a method about it, is any better than just 'generally towards the hole'.
4) That it is counter productive, and putting is harmed. I dont see any strong indications nor seem to hear reports of golfers abandoning it as decreasing their putting performance.
I guess there is enough data from the tours to enable some with/without aimpoint analysis of higb level golfers, and it would be interesting to see that. It would also be interesting to see if there is any correlation for aimpoint switchers who also have adopted some other unorthodox putting element such as broomhandle or claw grips and the like.
My personal opinion is that it is un-golfing by its nature, and the same as long putters, whether questionably anchored or not, would like to see them banned, and exclusively traditional reading of putt lines restored.
Neilds
Assistant Pro
You were doing really well to make a few valid points and then went and spoilt it all with a completely nonsensical last sentence.
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
1) Proven technology originally designed for TV to show the break of the putt accurately and still used. Not niche with increasing number of male and female tour players and leading amateurs using it
2) Can help anyone and there were juniors on my course that were severely under reading putts at the start and then started making 10 footers (not every one but we're not tour pros) but the read was far better. It is like anything related to the golf game, it has to be learned and practiced
3) Pace is important of course but putting is a combination of pace and line but a bad read invalidates a putt hit with perfect pace.
4) How is it counter productive if it improves a players read
I think there are many testamonials online from top players who have switched and stuck with it and improved their stats. It is no more un-natural than plumb bobbing which has its own limitations and Mark Sweeney from aimpoint has debunked (again material online)
Similar threads
