Aimpoint

[user2010]

Nope.

Clown.

 

[Backsticks]

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 £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]

Clown.

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]

Apologies if already posted.

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

 

[3565]

Apologies if already posted.

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

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

 

[garyinderry]

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]

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.

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 £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]

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]

Any putt that doesn’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 don’t do it, you’ll never be consistent.

 

[Orikoru]

Any putt that doesn’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 don’t do it, you’ll never be consistent.

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]

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!

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]

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!

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]

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]

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

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]

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

Absolutely 👍 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]

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

​

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.

​

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.

​

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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...