Aimpoint

[Backsticks]

Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were.
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were.
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.

Yes very true, golfers as a rule will clutch at anything they think will make the game easier irrespective of whether or not it does.

Regarding reading greens, ever since I first picked up a club over 45 years ago I have stood over putts and been able to feel my balance tilting me backwards, forwards or to the side denoting uphill or downhill slopes. Nobody taught me, it has always just happened. Maybe I invented aimpoint without realising it? I have never taken the course, I have no intention of taking the course either because I feel no need to based on the above. If people want to part with hard earned cash to be told something that is obvious then that is up to them.

 

[pokerjoke]

Well that's not a very good advert for it then as whenever I watch your videos you never hole any putts

Your watching the wrong ones Gordon,did you not see the fantastic review of the free vice balls Homer was given by Golfhacker(plug),he sunk two 6 inch putts.And of course that's the length of putt required to tell if a ball is good off the face.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Your watching the wrong ones Gordon,did you not see the fantastic review of the free vice balls Homer was given by Golfhacker(plug),he sunk two 6 inch putts.And of course that's the length of putt required to tell if a ball is good off the face.

Thanks Tony, that's my Monday night viewing sorted now :thup:

 

[r0wly86]

Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were.
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.

Never used Aimpoint and only just looked up the method but:

There is no scientific method of reading a green, or at least not one legal while playing. It is all down to you brain computing the course the ball will take and the effects of any slopes, there is no tip or trick really it is all down to your brain doing the computations.

Of course you can give your brain more information or physical clues, such as getting low behind the ball, using the pendulum method etc

Aimpoint isn't a scientific system, is it just another way to give your brain physical clues so it can do it's computations better. Probably for people who struggle otherwise

 

[pinberry]

Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were.
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.

What is your scientific knowledge that allows you to state that aimpoint is scientifically nonsense?

Because when I look at Mark Sweeney, Aimpoint founder, he looks quite solid in that department. Quoting from a GolfWRX article "I have background in high tech really. I worked in finance, but did a lot of software development. I worked at Hewlett Packard for five years, dealing with technology applications. I had played golf as an amateur, and because I had a background in software development I tried to apply it to putting. I started off really for fun, trying to see if I could write some software to predict break. The research at the time was all dealing with theoretical surfaces, where if you had a surface in the shape of a parabola, how would the ball break"

Moreover, several people in the industry have reviewed his metholodogy in detailed studies, presented at leading golf conference. A few examples are https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/ and https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/.

I'm open to hear from you what type of study you have conducted to critique the scientific foundations of AimPoint.

Cheers

 

[HomerJSimpson]

What is your scientific knowledge that allows you to state that aimpoint is scientifically nonsense?

Because when I look at Mark Sweeney, Aimpoint founder, he looks quite solid in that department. Quoting from a GolfWRX article "I have background in high tech really. I worked in finance, but did a lot of software development. I worked at Hewlett Packard for five years, dealing with technology applications. I had played golf as an amateur, and because I had a background in software development I tried to apply it to putting. I started off really for fun, trying to see if I could write some software to predict break. The research at the time was all dealing with theoretical surfaces, where if you had a surface in the shape of a parabola, how would the ball break"

Moreover, several people in the industry have reviewed his metholodogy in detailed studies, presented at leading golf conference. A few examples are https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/ and https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/.

I'm open to hear from you what type of study you have conducted to critique the scientific foundations of AimPoint.

Cheers

Neatly sums up my post (#34). Clearly never tried it but happy to dismiss it out of hand. More funny was dismissing it as unscientific or unproven when it was TV that initially approached Sweeney as he'd developed the software to predict the putts. I have no issues if someone tries it and then turns round and says it made no difference to their putting or green reading.

 

[chrisd]

Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were.
So much of golf is in the mind, that a mental approach, a hook or trick or routine, than even if it contributes nothing of itself, blocks out other thoughts or distractions can be beneficial. Or by simply instilling confidence even if the foundation for the confidence has no real substance.
Its why these kind of fads come and go.

This post is like a lot of things in golf too - bunkum !

 

[User2021]

Neatly sums up my post (#34). Clearly never tried it but happy to dismiss it out of hand. More funny was dismissing it as unscientific or unproven when it was TV that initially approached Sweeney as he'd developed the software to predict the putts. I have no issues if someone tries it and then turns round and says it made no difference to their putting or green reading.

A Transvestite approached Sweeney to predict a putt, what did the TV want aiming up????????

 

[shortgame]

IMO it's a useful crutch for those who struggle to read the greens. Not convinced by the science of it and whether you can really tell out on the course if a putt slope 1° or 2° etc and if a green is stimping at 10.5 or 11 etc (very few courses will have uniform green speeds across all 18 holes).

However I don't doubt there's some placebo effect - having 100% confidence in a read is far better than having any doubts (even if the read is actually wrong!)

 

[Jacko_G]

What is your scientific knowledge that allows you to state that aimpoint is scientifically nonsense?

Because when I look at Mark Sweeney, Aimpoint founder, he looks quite solid in that department. Quoting from a GolfWRX article "I have background in high tech really. I worked in finance, but did a lot of software development. I worked at Hewlett Packard for five years, dealing with technology applications. I had played golf as an amateur, and because I had a background in software development I tried to apply it to putting. I started off really for fun, trying to see if I could write some software to predict break. The research at the time was all dealing with theoretical surfaces, where if you had a surface in the shape of a parabola, how would the ball break"

Moreover, several people in the industry have reviewed his metholodogy in detailed studies, presented at leading golf conference. A few examples are https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/ and https://www.paulhurrion.com/media/speed-changes-everything/.

I'm open to hear from you what type of study you have conducted to critique the scientific foundations of AimPoint.

Cheers

Using a computer programme to predict putts on Sky Sports and the like on a computer generated green for the viewers is totally different to the individual user "inputting" their own idea of breaks from their "zero line". This is the crucial part, you will not always be correct, you will not always be aimed correctly. Therefore while I can appreciate that the computer programme is scientific, the user hitting the putt is really still relying on a degree of guess work which if the user fully understands and believes in aimpoint may make them more confident.

Personally I just think aimpoint overcomplicates the putting process. Good luck to the guys who believe in it.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

If it helps someone with putting, without too much delay, what does it matter what anyone thinks about it?
As long as it works for that person thats all that matters.

 

[Val]

I find aimpoint (and similar subject) threads funny more than anything. Why do folk have to criticise those that do things like aimpoint, S&T, sticking lines on a ball, using tees tied up with string, poker chip markers etc etc............... it's a big world out there, live and let live FFS

 

[Bunkermagnet]

I find aimpoint (and similar subject) threads funny more than anything. Why do folk have to criticise those that do things like aimpoint, S&T, sticking lines on a ball, using tees tied up with string, poker chip markers etc etc............... it's a big world out there, live and let live FFS

You gotta shout louder

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I find aimpoint (and similar subject) threads funny more than anything. Why do folk have to criticise those that do things like aimpoint, S&T, sticking lines on a ball, using tees tied up with string, poker chip markers etc etc............... it's a big world out there, live and let live FFS

I draw the line at tees tied together with string

 

[spongebob59]

I draw the line at tees tied together with string

I agree ,should be forged steel wire 😉

 

[patricks148]

None one i know uses it but have witnessed a couple of Visitors doing it. Seems to slow up players who are already slow, us it if you think it helps you but should not add to the time it already takes TBH

 

[Qwerty]

I found this an interesting video once it gets going..

Karl Morris talking about the forgotten art of putting. How we’ve become very mechanical in our approach and how he rates the importance of pace.


[video=youtube_share;CSA3f0Eg1DA]https://youtu.be/CSA3f0Eg1DA[/video]

 

[nickjdavis]

Aimpoint is like a lot of things in golf : bunkum. But, and it is not a trivial but, that is not to say that there are not people who gain a benefit from it simply by believing they gain a benefit from it. Scientifically, aimpoint is nonsense, but given that most golfers are not really scientific, then they are not alone not going to realise that its nonsense, but their lack of ability really evaluate it also makes it possible for them to believe in the nonsense as it were.

Utter claptrap.

Aimpoint IS scientifically based, fundamentally it is really simple...

On a slope with a known gradient with a known coefficient of friction, gravity (which is a constantly acting force) will cause a ball to roll down a slope at a given pace.

This can be mathematically modelled. As can the effect of gravity on a ball rolling across a slope rather than up or down it.

Science and mathematics.... pure and simple.

 

[User20205]

He’s a question, one without prejudice, if the green books are to be banned, will aimpoint be??