Aimpoint

[Backsticks]

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.

That makes no sense. A miss is a miss, whether it is on the high side or the low side. If it drops from the high side, then it wasnt a miss in the first place. It was just an almost too high, but just in, good putt.
High putts dropping mor than low putts is just an illusion. For both high and lowside putts, there is a line inside of which it will drop, and outside of which it wont. The target is the same in both cases - either you are inside the window for it to drop, or you arent.

 

[user2010]

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn...…..Ad Infinitum

 

[Khamelion]

Spin it whatever way you want, but read my post again you have it wrong or shall I write, you misread it.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

That belief is mine, you spin it any way you want, as I wrote in my other reply, if you want to know the science behind Aimpoint, ask the creators to explain.

I posted the Mark Sweeney technical (scientific) response so for the technically minded the science is there. The simple answer is we both know it works, the logic and proof behind it and that it's not snake oil or any other spin

 

[Deleted member 15344]

TBH, I'm more intrigued by how defensive you guys get more than the fact you use it, whatever works for you but getting so defensive is quite amusing.

The reason why the Aimpoint threads drag on is because the people that use do get very defensive about , early days it felt a bit like talking about Scientology, all hush hush stuff

A lot of time it feels like the ultra defensive comments are almost trying to convince themselves but that’s what a good placebo does - as long as it doesn’t have any affect on any pace of play etc then there should be no issues with people using it - it is always a giggle though watching people demo it then miss

 

[shortgame]

I posted the Mark Sweeney technical (scientific) response so for the technically minded the science is there. The simple answer is we both know it works, the logic and proof behind it and that it's not snake oil or any other spin

OK but on your own Aimpoint video you significantly under read the breaks IIRC...

 

[HomerJSimpson]

OK but on your own Aimpoint video you significantly under read the breaks IIRC...

You are correct although on one I clearly said the strike wasn't great so pace was out. Aimpoint will help with reads but it's still reliant on a good strike and a good pace. Both come with practice aligned to the good read

 

[Backsticks]

I posted the Mark Sweeney technical (scientific) response so for the technically minded the science is there. The simple answer is we both know it works, the logic and proof behind it and that it's not snake oil or any other spin

That was just a wind up surely? It no more justifies finger thickness correlated to break distance than some of the other twaddle being cited here (like answering a request to prove the existence of God by quoting a few random verses from the bible).

I think aimpoint is generating a little controversy, because, unlike most golf improvement claims, some people are actually being taken in by this one. Nobody takes the various claims for clubs, balls, shoes, etc seriously. Everyone knows that its all just a bit of tongue-in-cheek : if we were to believe all the annual improvements in gear that hit the ball that bit further, that bit straighter, with more forgiveness, off a bigger sweetspot, with more control, we would all be struggling to avoid holing out in one on the longest of par fives. But we understand the code. Its just blurb. Aimpoint though, seems to have genuinely sucked in a few. Nobody defended white driver heads as helping better alignment and less glare for optimum eye-hand coordination even if we bought the club - but aimpointers do seem to be more invested in its particular delusion.

 

[Backsticks]

The Accredited Aimpoint Pro:

Is that a Level 3 or Level 4 Accredited Aimpoint Pro though ?
It makes a difference.

 

[Fish]

If you need to straddle the line with your feet to realise that your leaning to gauge which way a putt will break, then your eyesight is buggered anyway and so it still won’t help.

When you’re 1 in 4 attempts suddenly drop it’s suddenly all hail aimpoint!

It’s guff imo.

 

[chrisd]

If you need to straddle the line with your feet to realise that your leaning to gauge which way a putt will break, then your eyesight is buggered anyway and so it still won’t help.

When you’re 1 in 4 attempts suddenly drop it’s suddenly all hail aimpoint!

It’s guff imo.

Given I had a detached retina operation, then a cataract operation and then a long series of alterations to my eye vision over about 18 months perhaps I was struggling to read greens properly

 

[Fish]

Everyone’s searching for the Holy Grail in Golf, well peeps, there ain’t one!

Drivers that keep you on the fairways, longer & straighter. Irons that keep miss hits on line, and now a putting phenomenal.

Well if they all worked we wouldn’t be off the same handicaps we were last year, 2 years or even 5 years ago, we’d all be off scratch.

Marketing guff is like a flake in a 99, it’s too attractive to not enjoy or buy into, and everyone quotes all the big putts that suddenly drop, but what about the ones that don’t 🤔

The placebo effect is a wonderful thing, and in Golf, it’s exploited brilliantly by those earning a good living from ‘selling the dream’ to golfers.

I wont ridicule anyone per se, if you think it honestly helps, then fill yer boots, but if you’ve bought into all the examples I’ve listed, then why are you all not off half (at least) the handicap you were before you started with any or all of them.

 

[Jamesbrown]

The sense of balance is more sensitive than your eyes. Absolute scientific fact. Feeling gravity doesn’t usually lie unless your in space.

It’s amazing what people can denounce on here, but tomorrow will claim a shaft gave them 30 extra yards and that they use pro v1’s for more “control”.

Yes because your 20 handicap, refuse to have monthly lessons, plays once a week. Axe stabbing wedge game on soft UK greens really maximises the potential of your ball.

Get real.

 

[Hobbit]

: if we were to believe all the annual improvements in gear that hit the ball that bit further, that bit straighter, with more forgiveness, off a bigger sweetspot, with more control, we would all be struggling to avoid holing out in one on the longest of par fives. .

Oh I’ve got to respond to that utter rubbish.

I’m nearly 40 years past my best golf, and guess what? The ball goes just as far, for me, as it did when I was winning longest drives. Unfortunately the young bucks are 60 yds beyond me now.

But perhaps what really shows how straight the ball goes now, try really working it around a tree or cutting it up so that it lands like a butterfly with sore feet.

On a par 5 yesterday I hit a driver and a hybrid to 20ft. How can an old fat dodgy hip dicky tickered coffin dodger do that? Technology!

And that my friend nails your rubbish argument to the wall. Your voice is muffled coz your talking out your ass.

 

[6535]

Oh I’ve got to respond to that utter rubbish.
I’m nearly 40 years past my best golf, and guess what? The ball goes just as far, for me, as it did when I was winning longest drives. Unfortunately the young bucks are 60 yds beyond me now.
But perhaps what really shows how straight the ball goes now, try really working it around a tree or cutting it up so that it lands like a butterfly with sore feet.
On a par 5 yesterday I hit a driver and a hybrid to 20ft. How can an old fat dodgy hip dicky tickered coffin dodger do that? Technology!
And that my friend nails your rubbish argument to the wall. Your voice is muffled coz your talking out your ass.

I'm glad someone else thinks the same. 👍

 

[Backsticks]

Oh I’ve got to respond to that utter rubbish.

I’m nearly 40 years past my best golf, and guess what? The ball goes just as far, for me, as it did when I was winning longest drives. Unfortunately the young bucks are 60 yds beyond me now.

But perhaps what really shows how straight the ball goes now, try really working it around a tree or cutting it up so that it lands like a butterfly with sore feet.

On a par 5 yesterday I hit a driver and a hybrid to 20ft. How can an old fat dodgy hip dicky tickered coffin dodger do that? Technology!

And that my friend nails your rubbish argument to the wall. Your voice is muffled coz your talking out your ass.

My post was hyperbole, but you get the point - we all take gear advert blurb with a generlus dollop of salt (no one ever "Good morning my pro, bought this driver from you last week, and as you can see from the ad here, it says I would hit the ball 7 yards further with. Have checked, and not getting the 7 yards. So clearly some manufacturing fault in it. Would you mind sending it back to the supplier and geting it repaired or exchanged please? ".
But people seem to swallow aimpoint, when even a few simple queries on it, dont seem to have answers.

And for the 'if it works for you, it works for you' folk, well thats not really not what is being questioned. If there arent really grounds for thinking it might work - then its possible that it isnt working for you even if you think it is - you are simply deluded.

 

[Jacko_G]

The sense of balance is more sensitive than your eyes. Absolute scientific fact. Feeling gravity doesn’t usually lie unless your in space.

It’s amazing what people can denounce on here, but tomorrow will claim a shaft gave them 30 extra yards and that they use pro v1’s for more “control”.

Yes because your 20 handicap, refuse to have monthly lessons, plays once a week. Axe stabbing wedge game on soft UK greens really maximises the potential of your ball.

Get real.

Listen to the superiority complex of a single figure handicap. Must be true guys cos a Billy big boots thinks so.

Great rant shame 99% of it is waffle.

 

[chrisd]

I'm glad someone else thinks the same. 👍

+1 here. I'm 65 and hit the driver and irons further now than ever, and I wasn't short on distance then

 

[Foxholer]

...The chance of a miss dropping, is surely zero in both cases....

This depends on what is meant by a 'miss'

A low-side miss always misses - 100%, however 'miss' is defined.

However, because the hole is just over 4" while the ball is about 1.5", there's a tolerance either side of the 'ideal' that allows high-side 'misses' (where 'miss' is defined as 'deviation from the line that drops into the centre of the cup, relative to that line') can still drop, either side of that.

That's why a miss on the high side has previously been known as a 'professional miss'.

 

[Foxholer]

The science behind Aimpoint's calculation of required line is irrefutable. This has been shown time and again on PGA Tour coverage and it has received award(s) for it.

The issue the Aimpoint guys are trying to address is how to convert that complicated calculation, that uses known measurements, (they go out before a tournament and 'map' every green with small spirit levels) to a quick and easy assessment where several of the measurements required for the calculation are unknown. I think they have found a very reasonable approach!

Use of Aimpoint is not going to mean that a player will sink every putt. The player has to determine the slope and hit the putt 'correctly'. But if it improves the percentage of putts that drop, then it's money well spent imo. In the Pro world, it's probably better that it provides certainty, as they are far more likely to hit putts well than we Ams. And the value of a shot or 2 over the course of a tournament is considerable!

It may not be something they need (I don't need it), or may be considered poor value for money (compared with other Golf tools it's not horrendously priced), but to simply write it off as something only the deluded use is simply daft!

I can't really see why anyone should actually be arguing against it! If it's not something you need, or wish to use, don't bother with it. But I can't see the point of arguing that others shouldn't use it - except, perhaps, from a time cost pov which has been addressed by 'Express read'. I'd certainly argue that buying the latest Driver every year is a significantly greater wast of money!