Aimpoint

[TheDiablo]

As I wrote, thousands of golfers the world over have chosen aimpoint as a method to read greens, calibrate speed and gain accuracy when putting, they, we are proof it works. Comparing golf spikes to Aimpoint is chalk and cheese.

The majority of the worlds golfers do not use it in competition, some do, a lot don't I'll give you that, but it will be interesting come 2019 and green books are banned just how many try Aimpoint, how many along with their caddies on practice days map out greens (not 100% sure they will be allowed to do that or not) and how many pros combine the two, as in their own books and the use of Aimpoint.

And the stats show that

I don't give 2 hoots about Aimpoint either way but claiming stats show Spieth as an 'awful' putter is baloney.

In a career bad year, with media driven storylines about his 'putting woes' you'd think he hasn't holed a single putt yet he's only giving up 1 shot on the greens every 5 tournaments. If the Masters were included in SG data he would likely be positive.

In the previous 3 years he gained over 2 shots per tournament with the flatstick.

Awful putter 🙄

Take out Jason Day I highly doubt there's any top 50 golfer in the world with better putting stats over the last 5 seasons than Spieth. Couple this with a seriously underrated iron game and you get 11 wins with 3 majors before you're 25.

 

[MendieGK]

I don't give 2 hoots about Aimpoint either way but claiming stats show Spieth as an 'awful' putter is baloney.

In a career bad year, with media driven storylines about his 'putting woes' you'd think he hasn't holed a single putt yet he's only giving up 1 shot on the greens every 5 tournaments. If the Masters were included in SG data he would likely be positive.

In the previous 3 years he gained over 2 shots per tournament with the flatstick.

Awful putter 🙄

Take out Jason Day I highly doubt there's any top 50 golfer in the world with better putting stats over the last 5 seasons than Spieth. Couple this with a seriously underrated iron game and you get 11 wins with 3 majors before you're 25.

This year Spieth has been A bad putter, that cannot he argued. No where have I said anything about his iron play etc this year....

Considering how good his iron play is, there is a reason he has done very little this year, and is falling down the rankings at the momentn

 

[Jamesbrown]

Meandmygolf have just today put a video up on Aimpoint.
Perhaps those who don’t understand the technique could watch it.

 

[pokerjoke]

Meandmygolf have just today put a video up on Aimpoint.
Perhaps those who don’t understand the technique could watch it.

To be honest ive seen this and although i can see the logic he never actually made the putt.
He also doubted his read and on the first one he actually thought he needed to start it wider.

At the end of the day its always about line and pace,some can do it without and some need help,i suppose thats
true in all aspects of golf.

Ive also watched Buzza do it and everytime i have to look away its excruciating to watch.

 

[TheDiablo]

As I wrote, thousands of golfers the world over have chosen aimpoint as a method to read greens, calibrate speed and gain accuracy when putting, they, we are proof it works. Comparing golf spikes to Aimpoint is chalk and cheese.

The majority of the worlds golfers do not use it in competition, some do, a lot don't I'll give you that, but it will be interesting come 2019 and green books are banned just how many try Aimpoint, how many along with their caddies on practice days map out greens (not 100% sure they will be allowed to do that or not) and how many pros combine the two, as in their own books and the use of Aimpoint.

This year Spieth has been A bad putter, that cannot he argued. No where have I said anything about his iron play etc this year....

Considering how good his iron play is, there is a reason he has done very little this year, and is falling down the rankings at the momentn

You agreed that Spieth was an awful putter. No context whatsoever and that simply isn't true. And I'd argue he has been a distinctly average putter this season compared to peers, not a bad one. Bad only when viewed through the lens of his previous success in that area of the game.

Anyway, I'll let you crack on with defending aimpoint. Never done it myself, nor played with anyone who does. No idea why people knock something they haven't tried though. They've probably all bought jailbreak twistface bubbleshaft technology though just because they're told it'll get a few extra yards without challenging that to with the same rigour they kill aimpoint with.

 

[nickjdavis]

Meandmygolf have just today put a video up on Aimpoint.
Perhaps those who don’t understand the technique could watch it.

Cant find it....can find an audio podcast of them talking to Jamie Donaldson....but no video....do you have a link?

 

[Jamesbrown]

Cant find it....can find an audio podcast of them talking to Jamie Donaldson....but no video....do you have a link?

https://youtu.be/aYjkjOC9a7U

 

[drdel]

Perhaps Aimpoint causes a more concentrated and structured approach to putting, its is possible that the same level of effort with another approach could make the same improvement in results. It's a subjective assessment.

Golf gurus look to make money, Aimpoint is just more snake oil for some but a cure for others.

No way to objectively test as once tried the clock cannot be reversed. Best make up your own mind.

 

[Backsticks]

Aimpoint claims to be scientific (although I have seen nothing to back this up : being systematic and numerically based does not make something scientific - systematic and numerically based garbage, is still garbage as it were), but I am sure we can have a more scientific look at it than study Rose's stats. If it stands up, it stands up, regardless of any one persons experience or stats using or not using it.

For example. Just to focus on one element of it for the moment (and leaving aside for the sake of argument other elements such as the accuracy and repeatability of our ability to learn to judge slope through our sense of balance, the thickness of our fingers, or the taking of a very limited number of sample points on the path of a putt to judge its slope), is the following logic correct :

- slope is evaluated on a scale of 0 to 6
- this can be to either side of the hole
- giving 13 possible options for the judger to choose
- while there can in some cases, be uncertainty on whether a putt is breaking left or right, that is a rare exception, and likely because either the putt doesnt break at all, or there is both left and right break in its path, and the sum of those is difficult to evaluate
- so in practice, slope is chosen from one of seven options, 0-6
- so aimpoint, at this part of the process, imposes a digitising filter with only 7 possible outcomes
- so every putt has seven possible lines to choose from
- and that a correctly weighted putt, sent on the correct one of these 7 possible options (ie. with 16.7% gaps between perfectly straight to max scale) will hole out ?

Is aimpoint saying this ?
If so, is it plausibe ?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Aimpoint claims to be scientific (although I have seen nothing to back this up : being systematic and numerically based does not make something scientific - systematic and numerically based garbage, is still garbage as it were), but I am sure we can have a more scientific look at it than study Rose's stats. If it stands up, it stands up, regardless of any one persons experience or stats using or not using it.

For example. Just to focus on one element of it for the moment (and leaving aside for the sake of argument other elements such as the accuracy and repeatability of our ability to learn to judge slope through our sense of balance, the thickness of our fingers, or the taking of a very limited number of sample points on the path of a putt to judge its slope), is the following logic correct :

- slope is evaluated on a scale of 0 to 6
- this can be to either side of the hole
- giving 13 possible options for the judger to choose
- while there can in some cases, be uncertainty on whether a putt is breaking left or right, that is a rare exception, and likely because either the putt doesnt break at all, or there is both left and right break in its path, and the sum of those is difficult to evaluate
- so in practice, slope is chosen from one of seven options, 0-6
- so aimpoint, at this part of the process, imposes a digitising filter with only 7 possible outcomes
- so every putt has seven possible lines to choose from
- and that a correctly weighted putt, sent on the correct one of these 7 possible options (ie. with 16.7% gaps between perfectly straight to max scale) will hole out ?

Is aimpoint saying this ?
If so, is it plausibe ?

Try this. Mark Sweeney explains it a little here. If you put Mark Sweeney into youtube there's some introductory videos and some from Jamie Donaldson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xsMrpr-SwM

 

[Backsticks]

Try this. Mark Sweeney explains it a little here. If you put Mark Sweeney into youtube there's some introductory videos and some from Jamie Donaldson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xsMrpr-SwM

Thanks. Had a look at a few. They dont really seem to get into any explanation backing up what they are claiming though (other than people using it on tour, in use in all 4 majors this year, can teach anyone, in 1.5 hours you can make the same read as a Level 4 coach, etc : which doesnt mean to say it is correct though).

One putt caught my eye also :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAdt5N960A4

Have a look at the putt at about 4:50.
He says "2 fingers outside the left, 5-6 inches'. And holes it. But line of the put, from the line of the first few feet of travel, and the total arc, makes it look as if the putter started it on an 'aimpoint' about 18 inches to the left.

 

[Backsticks]

If the resolution of line selection is one finger, or +/- half a finger, then :

If we take 4" as the useful width of the hole to hole a putt at the desired finish-past-the-hole speed, then that is +/- 2" error from the perfect centre line for the put to hole out. +/- half finger for +/- 2" giving is 4" per finger. And that any break greater than that, or six fingers x 4" =24", is beyond the scope of aimpoint to be able to handle with a resolution accurate enough to be useful aiming at a 4" hole. Does aimpoint limit itself to breaks of 2' or less ? I am not a scientist, but interested in any better analysis of this.

 

[3565]

There’s a saying, paralysis by analysis. Think someone has smoked too much gange today.

 

[Khamelion]

Easiest way to put this to bed.

1. Some people use it some don't
2. Of those that use it, it works.
3. Of those that do not use it:-
4. They have not tried it
5. They do not want to try it
6. They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it
7. Are totally dismissive of it
8. See it as a crutch
9. Do not understand it
10. Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.

 

[Jacko_G]

Easiest way to put this to bed.

1. Some people use it some don't
2. Of those that use it, it works.
3. Of those that do not use it:-
4. They have not tried it
5. They do not want to try it
6. They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it
7. Are totally dismissive of it
8. See it as a crutch
9. Do not understand it
10. Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.

I wasn't going to post in this thread again however you are wrong!

4, 6, 7, 9 & 10 are just plain nonsense.

 

[Khamelion]

Easiest way to put this to bed.

1. Some people use it some don't
2. Of those that use it, it works.
3. Of those that do not use it:-
4. They have not tried it
5. or They do not want to try it
6. or They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it (sarcasm aside, they have a good green reading technique already)
7. or Are totally dismissive of it
8. or See it as a crutch
9. or Do not understand it
10. Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.

I wasn't going to post in this thread again however you are wrong!

4, 6, 7, 9 & 10 are just plain nonsense.

Amended the list.

Not sure why you deem those points as nonsense as there are people who in this thread have written replies to which, some or all of those points are relevant. Having read the thread again there are some who have tried it and decided it wasn't for them, one being yourself, which is fair play. The points above are mainly aimed at those which start at point 4, those who would knock it without trying it.

 

[AmandaJR]

Easiest way to put this to bed.

1. Some people use it some don't
2. Of those that use it, it works.
3. Of those that do not use it:-
4. They have not tried it
5. They do not want to try it
6. They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it
7. Are totally dismissive of it
8. See it as a crutch
9. Do not understand it
10. Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.

Just to throw my hat in the ring - despite resisting so far. I've done the course and don't (currently) use it so that refutes points 4 and 5 I think?

 

[Khamelion]

Amended the list.

Not sure why you deem those points as nonsense as there are people who in this thread have written replies to which, some or all of those points are relevant. Having read the thread again there are some who have tried it and decided it wasn't for them, one being yourself and AmandaJR which is fair play. The points above are mainly aimed at those which start at point 4, those who would knock it without trying it.

Just to throw my hat in the ring - despite resisting so far. I've done the course and don't (currently) use it so that refutes points 4 and 5 I think?

Amended my reply to Jacko_G above.

 

[shortgame]

... or #11... are asking questions and having a sensible discussion to try and understand it in a bit more detail in order to make a balanced decision. You know, on a discussion forum of all places!

On the face of it some of the 'science' doesn't appear to stack up or actually be all that scientific, hence people are quite rightly challenging it.

Honestly some of the people 'for it' are almost as bad as some of those 'against it' IMO

 

[3565]

Easiest way to put this to bed.

1. Some people use it some don't
2. Of those that use it, it works.
3. Of those that do not use it:-
4. They have not tried it
5. They do not want to try it
6. They have tour level green reading ability and do not need to use it
7. Are totally dismissive of it
8. See it as a crutch
9. Do not understand it
10. Would prefer to knock it than try it, go back to point 4

At the end of the day, for me Aimpoint works and for all the posts I read knocking it, I take those reads as two fingers, slightly right of the cup.

My thoughts exactly.

None of us are saying YOU MUST TRY IT, Aimpoint only comes up when someone doesn’t know anything about it and want advice on it. Then you get the detractors who THINK they know about it (possibly through 2nd hand teaching) calling it snake oil, or crutch, and everything else.