Aimpoint

[garyinderry]

I think Dustin Johnson and his brother make an aim point read and a normal read and see if they match up.


I could be completely wrong but I like the idea of that.

 

[3565]

I think Dustin Johnson and his brother make an aim point read and a normal read and see if they match up.


I could be completely wrong but I like the idea of that.

amateurs underread greens in the first place. And those at my club who have asked about it have proven it to me.

 

[shortgame]

I think Dustin Johnson and his brother make an aim point read and a normal read and see if they match up.


I could be completely wrong but I like the idea of that.

Sounds confusing to me. Vaguelly remember hearing Butch moan about DJ and his brother AP'ing but I think that was more to do with them specifically not really knowing what they're doing rather than AP itself... DJ's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed

 

[HomerJSimpson]

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.

Taken from a reply by Mark Sweeney on the Aimpoint Golf Student page prompted by a post from someone on here relating this thread. If you want science and this has been lifted directly and without edit

In analyzing the frictional force acting on a rolling ball it is usual to define a coefficient of rolling friction, .rho., which is equal to b/R where b is the position of the contact point and R is the radius of the golf ball. The acceleration of a golf ball rolling on a horizontal surface is given by: a=-.rho.g/(1+I/mR.sup.2), (3) where g is the acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/s.sup.2), m is the mass of the golf ball, and I is the moment of inertia of the golf ball about its center. Approximating the golf ball as a solid sphere results in I= mR.sup.2 and its acceleration is, therefore, given by: a=- 5/7 .rho.g (4)

The deformation of the turf and the resulting coefficient of rolling friction, .rho., increase with the softness of the turf and the speed of the rolling golf ball. Research by A. R. Penner shows that .rho. can be determined by the following expression: .rho.=(0.7028/s)(1+0.0065v.sup.2) (5) where s is the stimpmeter reading of the green and v is the speed of the golf ball. The frictional force can also be adjusted for the effect of grain with the formula: .rho.'=.rho.*(.delta.*cos(.gamma.-.beta.)); Where .delta. is the magnitude of grain effect on the ball, .gamma. is the grain direction in degrees, and .beta. is the direction the ball is moving.

For a golf ball rolling on a sloped green, in addition to the frictional force, the ball will also experience a component of the gravitational force acting along its direction of motion. The acceleration of a golf ball on a green sloped along both the x-axis (.theta.) and the y-axis (.psi.) is given by: a.sub.x=- 5/7 .rho.g cos .theta. cos .psi. sin .beta.- 5/7 g sin .theta. (6a) a.sub.y=- 5/7 .rho.g cos .theta. cos .psi. cos .beta.- 5/7 g cos .theta. sin .psi. (6b) where .beta. is the direction that the ball is moving with respect to the y-axis. "

 

[Backsticks]

Ill be generous and say the ball starts off at least 13in left of the hole

I added 3 extra holes for scale. The far left hole is the ''real'' hole.

View attachment 25441

A big no-no in teaching is to describe a shot one way and then demonstrate it in a completely different way.
That is exactly what he did in the video.

I am not sure it is deliberate. But may be part of the disagreement that we see even in our little discussion here. It does look like his visual judgement of the required line overrides his aimpoint method. But he doesnt realise this - and so thinks aimpoint has helped him to hole the putt.

The same may be the case with those reporting how it is helping their putting and so has merit. They may be like the above, and while thinking they are following the system, are actually just making a normal visual break judgement. Or, they may even be following aimpoint to the letter, yet be incorrect in their judgement that their putting is the better for using aimpoint.

Those sceptical or asking questions, are not just knocking it for the sake of it, but because it really has a whiff of snake oil about it (the lack of scientific explanation being part of it, but that exacerbated by the price to be inducted into the secret, the 'Levels' of instructor which is all a bit scientology, the casual throwing around of statements like 'scientifically based', 'thousands of lines of computer code', and the like, and statistically meaningless facts about pros using on tour), and they are simply interested in hearing whether it really has something, or whether it is just a rather convoluted wheeze having its 15 minutes of fame.

 

[Khamelion]

Someone needs to invent “PacePoint” so those who rubbish aimpoint have something to defend.

I think the Aimpoint people already have that covered, there are two other products ( for want of a better word ) to come out, one is called "Drop Point", don't ask me what that is not been told yet, nor have I asked and I think there is one other which the name escapes me at the moment.

 

[Backsticks]

Taken from a reply by Mark Sweeney on the Aimpoint Golf Student page prompted by a post from someone on here relating this thread. If you want science and this has been lifted directly and without edit

In analyzing the frictional ........... the y-axis. "

Not sure if you are really presenting that as an answer to my question or not.

I am particularly interested in aimpoints thesis, if I understand it correctly, that for a putt breaking one way, there are only 6 possible lines, of which one, is the correct one. Giving a range of +/-10% for each line on that scale. Which seems either impossibly course as a system, or if sufficiently precise, to be a rather wide target to hit a successful putt at and still have it drop.

 

[MendieGK]

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?

I’ll read your putts tommorow then 😉

 

[User 99]

I have a question in regards the standing astride the line. I believe it's in reference to weight on one side or other to find out whether it's left or right break, surely your eyes can tell if it is L to R or R to L ???? or am I over simplifying this ?

 

[3565]

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.

To quote Mark Sweeney who produced the computer program for the Emmy award winning Aimpoint line that was on tv, which then became the chart and now is AE, read your post as I was confused as hell about it and thought utter waffle.

Classic example of someone trying to make sense of something they dont understand by making up their own facts. I'm even confused reading that post. AimPoint Express is based on the same math as was the AimChart and the software used on Golf Channel for 6 years to predict break. AimPoint used to be criticized for being too technical, now its being questioned for not being scientific! As the world turns.... Mark Sweeney.

 

[3565]

I am not sure it is deliberate. But may be part of the disagreement that we see even in our little discussion here. It does look like his visual judgement of the required line overrides his aimpoint method. But he doesnt realise this - and so thinks aimpoint has helped him to hole the putt.

The same may be the case with those reporting how it is helping their putting and so has merit. They may be like the above, and while thinking they are following the system, are actually just making a normal visual break judgement. Or, they may even be following aimpoint to the letter, yet be incorrect in their judgement that their putting is the better for using aimpoint.

Those sceptical or asking questions, are not just knocking it for the sake of it, but because it really has a whiff of snake oil about it (the lack of scientific explanation being part of it, but that exacerbated by the price to be inducted into the secret, the 'Levels' of instructor which is all a bit scientology, the casual throwing around of statements like 'scientifically based', 'thousands of lines of computer code', and the like, and statistically meaningless facts about pros using on tour), and they are simply interested in hearing whether it really has something, or whether it is just a rather convoluted wheeze having its 15 minutes of fame.

😂 now it is waffle your spewing.

 

[Backsticks]

To quote Mark Sweeney who produced the computer program for the Emmy award winning Aimpoint line that was on tv, which then became the chart and now is AE, read your post as I was confused as hell about it and thought utter waffle.

Classic example of someone trying to make sense of something they dont understand by making up their own facts. I'm even confused reading that post. AimPoint Express is based on the same math as was the AimChart and the software used on Golf Channel for 6 years to predict break. AimPoint used to be criticized for being too technical, now its being questioned for not being scientific! As the world turns.... Mark Sweeney.

No, that is waffle. Instead of quoting advert blurb, explain the flaw in the post you quote, if there is one.

 

[AmandaJR]

I’ll read your putts tommorow then 😉

Partly why I resisted replying ;-) It will be interesting to see how I fare using my current "eyeball" the curve/line of the putt and hit the ball along that "method". Woburn's greens have always beaten me up so I might be getting you to straddle away!!!!

 

[3565]

No, that is waffle. Instead of quoting advert blurb, explain the flaw in the post you quote, if there is one.

Which post are you on about? The post of yours where I’d think no one has a clue what your talking about? Think your taken in by your own blurb.

 

[Khamelion]

I have a question in regards the standing astride the line. I believe it's in reference to weight on one side or other to find out whether it's left or right break, surely your eyes can tell if it is L to R or R to L ???? or am I over simplifying this ?

Not at all, many golfers can read a line simply by looking at the which way a slope runs, as you write L to R or R to L, but what many of those golfers do is under read the break. Lets assume they have pace correct an under read break will see the ball miss under the hole.

 

[Khamelion]

Why does Aimpoint have to be scruntinised down to an atomic level? Someone worked out a way of calculating the break on a putting green as a percentage, that was then given a value and that value is represent by your fingers. 1% is one finger, 2% two fingers and so on. It's not complicated, it is a straight forward way of getting a read. It's not snake oil or bunkum.

I have no idea what the science is behind the methodology that was worked out to create Aimpoint, do I want to know from a scientific angle why the ball breaks at a certain point on any given line between start and finish, hell no, I'm not in Physics at school any more, I play golf with my mates and use a method to read greens that helps me reduce the number of putts per round. The more I use it the better I will become, but I still couldn't are what formula was used. For that matter even if I did know the formula would knowing it make me putt any better, not a chance.

 

[Hobbit]

Why does Aimpoint have to be scruntinised down to an atomic level? Someone worked out a way of calculating the break on a putting green as a percentage, that was then given a value and that value is represent by your fingers. 1% is one finger, 2% two fingers and so on. It's not complicated, it is a straight forward way of getting a read. It's not snake oil or bunkum.

I have no idea what the science is behind the methodology that was worked out to create Aimpoint, do I want to know from a scientific angle why the ball breaks at a certain point on any given line between start and finish, hell no, I'm not in Physics at school any more, I play golf with my mates and use a method to read greens that helps me reduce the number of putts per round. The more I use it the better I will become, but I still couldn't are what formula was used. For that matter even if I did know the formula would knowing it make me putt any better, not a chance.

Broom handle putters were originally laughed at, and then anchoring was banned for being too good. People don't like stuff that challenges their precepts. Green reading books appear to be going the same way, and look at the arguments around DMD's in the early days.

I'll be honest, I'm sceptical about the finger thing when the arm is bent. The closer the finger is to the eye the more of the view is obscured. And what if you have thin or fat fingers.

But I don't care if someone uses it or not. Actually, I do care. If it increases their enjoyment of the game, good for them.

 

[chrisd]

But I don't care if someone uses it or not. Actually, I do care. If it increases their enjoyment of the game, good for them.

And really this should end the discussion until next time someone asks about Aimpoint and there's another 400 posts of identical arguing 😁

 

[Jacko_G]

Not at all, many golfers can read a line simply by looking at the which way a slope runs, as you write L to R or R to L, but what many of those golfers do is under read the break. Lets assume they have pace correct an under read break will see the ball miss under the hole.

And lets assume that they didn't under read the break and got it correct.

Lets assume that using Aimpoint they under read the break and missed.

Lets assume that using Aimpoint they didn't get the pace correct.

Lets assume that they didn't get the pace correct while reading the green.

Lets assume the ball hits a bobble.

Lets assume the user using either method doesn't make a good stroke.

Your point makes absolutely no sense nor does it add weight to either the Aimpoint or the "normal" reading of a green.

 

[ademac]

Well I had no idea that aimpoint caused such a stir when I started this thread.

I have done a small amount of research online, read through (most) of the posts and asked around for opinions.

I dont think its for me. All seems a bit too scientific to me and not really how I enjoy playing my golf but each to their own 👍