Aimpoint

[bobmac]

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 

For me that's the answer.
People learn in different ways.
Faldo was very technical and would probably have used it whereas Seve was always a feel type of player and wouldn't.
Neither were right or wrong just different.

 

[ademac]

For me that's the answer.
People learn in different ways.
Faldo was very technical and would probably have used it whereas Seve was always a feel type of player and wouldn't.
Neither were right or wrong just different.

Exactly that IMO

 

[Khamelion]

And lets assume that they didn't under read the break and got it correct. Then ball would drop in the hole

Lets assume that using Aimpoint they under read the break and missed. That is quite possible, Aimpoint does not guarantee 100% success

Lets assume that using Aimpoint they didn't get the pace correct. Aimpoint is then not the issue, the player is for not getting the speed correct.

Lets assume that they didn't get the pace correct while reading the green. See above point, player issue.

Lets assume the ball hits a bobble. Not really relevant, not matter what green reading method you use you cannot account for the state of the green

Lets assume the user using either method doesn't make a good stroke. This is 50/50 even with a bad stroke a putt could be sunk, or missed as is the discussion point here.

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

The point is, a none Aimpoint user hitting the ball at the correct pace with a misread, will miss under the hole. Under the hole means no chance of the ball dropping on a misread. An accomplished Aimpoint user hitting the ball with the correct pace would with a misread, will more often than not miss top of the hole. Top of the hole means an increased chance of the ball dropping on a misread.

 

[bobmac]

The point is, a none Aimpoint user hitting the ball at the correct pace with a misread, will miss under the hole. Under the hole means no chance of the ball dropping on a misread. An accomplished Aimpoint user hitting the ball with the correct pace would with a misread, will more often than not miss top of the hole. Top of the hole means an increased chance of the ball dropping on a misread.

So what you are saying is that putts missed by a non AP user will miss on the low side and AP users will miss on the high side?

 

[Jacko_G]

The point is, a none Aimpoint user hitting the ball at the correct pace with a misread, will miss under the hole. Under the hole means no chance of the ball dropping on a misread. An accomplished Aimpoint user hitting the ball with the correct pace would with a misread, will more often than not miss top of the hole. Top of the hole means an increased chance of the ball dropping on a misread.

Fair enough and I appreciate your input however I will politely disagree. Would an "accomplished" reader of the green not also miss on the high side?

I feel that certain people believe that they have an air of superiority since they "use" Aimpoint. (not yourself khamelion)

 

[Backsticks]

Top of the hole means an increased chance of the ball dropping on a misread.

Slightly off topic from the aimpoint discussion, but not sure that that last bit is true at all. A miss on the low side is a miss, a miss on the high side is a miss. The chance of a miss dropping, is surely zero in both cases. Possibly the illusion comes from perception - most people can see that a low side miss is a miss early. But a high side miss gives a sense of not being a done deal until later on, if they hold on to the hope that the putt "might" drop with a late turn. Even though its fate as a miss is already sealed, its just less obvious, leading to the feeling that it had a better chance than the low side miss.

 

[Backsticks]

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.

It might be bunkum though. That is the point of the discussion.
Of course estimating slope, choosing a value, and using fingers to produce a target aim, is not complicated. Thats not what is being queried. The question is whether that pretty simple to execute system is fundamentally any use to give you a useful putting line. It gives you a line all right. But is it the right one ?
The articles, vids, and teacher emphasise regularly how quickly people can learn it, read putts, and be aiming at the same line as experience aimpoint 'experts' (then usual caveats on putting stroke, technique, consistency, dexterity to hit it with the intended pace, etc). But that could be that people can systematically, repeatedly, quickly, with confidence....be all choosing the wrong line.....

 

[Khamelion]

So what you are saying is that putts missed by a non AP user will miss on the low side and AP users will miss on the high side?

More often than not, yes.

 

[Khamelion]

Fair enough and I appreciate your input however I will politely disagree. Would an "accomplished" reader of the green not also miss on the high side?

I feel that certain people believe that they have an air of superiority since they "use" Aimpoint. (not yourself khamelion)

Of course an accomplished green reader has every chance of missing putts on the high side. Contrary to what some posters are trying to deduce from Aimpoint and make it a science, it's not. Aimpoint is a tool to help golfers get a read first and foremost, there are a lot of other elements to Aimpoint, but they are not the thread topic.

Aimpoint like any other green reading method, is not an exact science, there are to many elements that can affect the putt, swing, speed, line, green condition, weather, slope. As golfers we have to take all of those into consideration to make a putt and some do it better than others, regardless of their green reading method.

As I wrote above in other posts, Aimpoint is used by a lot of golfers around the world because it works for them, just as plumb bobbing works for others as does just looking at the green for many others. Aimpoint users are not part of some secret club trying to hide how it works, there are many videos online and many users happy to explain the basics.

 

[Khamelion]

Slightly off topic from the aimpoint discussion, but not sure that that last bit is true at all. A miss on the low side is a miss, a miss on the high side is a miss. The chance of a miss dropping, is surely zero in both cases. Possibly the illusion comes from perception - most people can see that a low side miss is a miss early. But a high side miss gives a sense of not being a done deal until later on, if they hold on to the hope that the putt "might" drop with a late turn. Even though its fate as a miss is already sealed, its just less obvious, leading to the feeling that it had a better chance than the low side miss.

We all know that on a breaking putt, as the ball slows it breaks more, what I was getting at is, a miss on the low side will miss 100% every time, but a miss read on the high side still has a chance of the ball dropping. A putt made on the correct line will drop in the cup through the front, but if the there is a misread on the high side as the ball slows it will break more towards the cup and has a chance of dropping in the side.

 

[Khamelion]

It might be bunkum though. That is the point of the discussion.Of course estimating slope, choosing a value, and using fingers to produce a target aim, is not complicated. Thats not what is being queried.

The question is whether that pretty simple to execute system is fundamentally any use to give you a useful putting line. It gives you a line all right. But is it the right one ?

It's the correct line if you think it is. They are your feet, the slope determination is your interpretation of what you feel, the line you start the ball on is your choice, as is the speed and your swing, so yes it is the right one for you, in that moment, for that putt, you made the choices.

The articles, vids, and teacher emphasise regularly how quickly people can learn it, read putts, and be aiming at the same line as experience aimpoint 'experts' (then usual caveats on putting stroke, technique, consistency, dexterity to hit it with the intended pace, etc). But that could be that people can systematically, repeatedly, quickly, with confidence....be all choosing the wrong line.....

That can be for any green reading method. Aimpoint is not guaranteeing you 100% success on every read, that would be plain stupid, the method is giving you a way of reading the green which the creators and many users believe is an alternative way of getting a line and making putts, which along with the caveats of speed, swing, weather etc when they all fall into place you make a putt. No different to plumb bobbing if that is what you believe in and use, or just using your eyes, all are just as good as the other if you believe in that technique.

 

[Britishshooting]

We all know that on a breaking putt, as the ball slows it breaks more, what I was getting at is, a miss on the low side will miss 100% every time, but a miss read on the high side still has a chance of the ball dropping. A putt made on the correct line will drop in the cup through the front, but if the there is a misread on the high side as the ball slows it will break more towards the cup and has a chance of dropping in the side.

I don't use Aimpoint and I miss on the high side more often than low, this is completely down to each individual. You can't make a sweeping statement that all non aim point users will miss low as it's not true.

I'll never use Aimpoint, not for me. Much more of a feel guy and my putting is definitely above average.

 

[Khamelion]

I don't use Aimpoint and I miss on the high side more often than low, this is completely down to each individual. You can't make a sweeping statement that all non aim point users will miss low as it's not true.

I'll never use Aimpoint, not for me. Much more of a feel guy and my putting is definitely above average.

I should have edited my original post and added, "more often than not", it would have made the comment less contentious and less sweeping.

The point is, a none Aimpoint user hitting the ball at the correct pace with a misread, will more often than not miss under the hole.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If it tickles your fancy as a proscriptive and techie pre-putt routine then go for it - just don't take all day about it (see also use of alignment line on ball...)

 

[6535]

When I’m practising putting with Aimpoint I get players asking me what’s it about. When I explain i get the same reaction as we do on here.
I ask them to read a 15ft putt as that apparently is about average distance for amateurs. It’s 3% slope right to left and I ask them to show me where they aim for that putt. Place a tee peg get them lined up and they putt. 9 out of 10 will miss low as they’ve under read the putt. The next putt at their Aimpoint is hit harder, still miss low. When I show them where Aimpoint says the aim should be, they are bemused and scratching heads saying I didn’t think it’s that far out. When I align them up and they putt it’s either holed or more often then not just missed on the high side.

You tube John Graham and watch line and speed video.

 

[Khamelion]

I've copied the below with the permission of Mark Sweeney from the Aimpoint users group on Facebook, hopefully this will go some way to explaining if Aimpoint is scientific or not.

"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]

Thanks for the effort, and I am not trying to be dismissive, but in short, it doesnt at all. I am puzzled that anyone could consider it did. Yes, its scientific style language, some equations, contstants. And me even be correct for what it is describing. But it no way justifies the fundamental premise of aimpoint as practised by golfers on the course (I dont speak of aimpoints computer driven equations calculating the lines for fully mapped greens on TV), which centres on their being only 6 possible lines for a putt breaking a given way, that one if them is (approximately) correct to hole a well paced putt, and that these lines correlate, even roughly, to a projection according to the thickness of ones fingers. I asked these questions earlier and they were dismissed as ramblings. And they may seem such to someone of no scientific or analytic thought. But to anyone of some scientific knowledge, they are fair questions - and I fully accept there may be good answer to them that do indeed justify aimpoint as a reliable and genuinely relevant, innovative, and useful aiming system. But I have yet to see it explained.

 

[Backsticks]

It's the correct line if you think it is.

Surely you cannot stand by that statement. There is an objectively corrrect line (for a give pace of ball, with a certain margin of error). Just because you think its the correct line doesnt mean it IS the best line. That surely is nonsense ?

 

[Khamelion]

Surely you cannot stand by that statement. There is an objectively corrrect line (for a give pace of ball, with a certain margin of error). Just because you think its the correct line doesnt mean it IS the best line. That surely is nonsense ?

Yes, I do, because in the moment you are determining your line, you are not thinking about the what ifs, you're not worried about constants, gravitational pull, whether R over X squared equals roll over Y distance or whatever, you're just thinking about getting the line and pace right, so at the precise moment putter face hits the ball, you believe the line you have chosen is the correct one.

 

[Khamelion]

Thanks for the effort, and I am not trying to be dismissive, but in short, it doesnt at all. I am puzzled that anyone could consider it did. Yes, its scientific style language, some equations, contstants. And me even be correct for what it is describing. But it no way justifies the fundamental premise of aimpoint as practised by golfers on the course (I dont speak of aimpoints computer driven equations calculating the lines for fully mapped greens on TV), which centres on their being only 6 possible lines for a putt breaking a given way, that one if them is (approximately) correct to hole a well paced putt, and that these lines correlate, even roughly, to a projection according to the thickness of ones fingers. I asked these questions earlier and they were dismissed as ramblings. And they may seem such to someone of no scientific or analytic thought. But to anyone of some scientific knowledge, they are fair questions - and I fully accept there may be good answer to them that do indeed justify aimpoint as a reliable and genuinely relevant, innovative, and useful aiming system. But I have yet to see it explained.

The only person that can answer your specific scientific questions on how Aimpoint works, would be the creators. The people who use Aimpoint do so from the practicality of wanting to get a read on a green, I can't speak or write for all Aimpoint users, but I don't care about the maths behind why a ball breaks at a certain point along a line on a slope, just that what I do when using Aimpoint give me a better chance of holing a putt.