Aimpoint

[Orikoru]

Didn't Homer offer a while back to spend some time with you showing how it works or am I misremembering?

Would be interesting to see...

I've been trying to do the foot-reading as a kind of back-up to normal green reading with my eye. I don't think my feet are that sensitive though. Sometimes (as someone else said many pages ago) I can't feel any break in my feet at all. So I take that as a cue to hit the putt straight and it still might go off slightly to one side.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Just out of curiosity, if you have a really sloping putt (6 fingers) does this mean only people from rural places like Somerset can use aimpoint? :mmm:

 

[Khamelion]

Yeah I understand the number equates to how many fingers, I said the number arbitrary though because you can't tell me it's quantifiable. You can't feel a slope with your feet and say 'that is 3%', there's no logic in that. Your just using a scale based on your feel and prior experience.

Once again the second part is not quantifiable, it's just trial and error. Internally you'd be saying things like 'the greens are faster than I thought, so I will hold the fingers another inch closer to my face' or whatever. That's why I'm saying there's a lot of trial and error to put in before you start getting it right, I think.

If we were talking about a system which one of the forum members had thought about and put a thread saying that they had an idea while putting they give a slope a number and then hold up the corresponding number of fingers to determine the line, then that would be arbitrary.

but...

We are talking about a system of green reading that is proven, documented and used by thousands of golfers amateurs and pros all around the world.

Also using your arm to calibrate the green speed is quantifiable, you make a few putts on the practice green and you get your speed, sometime the starter hut even tells you the green speed before you go out, the pro shop will do the same occasionally, so you already have a quantifiable number you can use to calibrate your aimpoint setup.​

 

[Beezerk]

Apologies if it’s been asked already but how does Aimpoint work on double breakers or putts with break at just the start or finish?
All I’m reading here is about putting on a level slope with the same gradient for the entirety of the putt, in reality there aren’t many of them in golf.

 

[shortgame]

Apologies if it’s been asked already but how does Aimpoint work on double breakers or putts with break at just the start or finish?
All I’m reading here is about putting on a level slope with the same gradient for the entirety of the putt, in reality there aren’t many of them in golf.

That's one of the things I've asked a few times and not seen a convincing response to.

Some of the putts at one of my courses break all over the place, double, triple breakers all at varying degrees. Uphill, downhill, the lot). Not sure if I read somewhere that AP recommends breaking down these longer putts into 3 parts? (Might be from some other method though)

Personally I sometimes walk the line* and feel it through the feet whilst giving more consideration to the last 3rd of the putt.




(*well... not the line exactly as that's against the rules and I also make sure not to tread on PPs line etc)

 

[shortgame]

Just out of curiosity, if you have a really sloping putt (6 fingers) does this mean only people from rural places like Somerset can use aimpoint? :mmm:

Post of the week there :rofl:

 

[Jacko_G]

That's not true is it? I'm sure we've all rattled one in that would have gone 8 feet past if it wasn't for the hole stopping it!

A tad pedantic as "never up never in" springs to mind.

We've all hit a putt a wee tad clumsy which has smacked the back of the cup and dropped but it's not usually the case, more often than not they'll not drop.

Putting is very individual, use what "system" you like and good luck.

 

[pinberry]

Yeah I understand the number equates to how many fingers, I said the number arbitrary though because you can't tell me it's quantifiable. You can't feel a slope with your feet and say 'that is 3%', there's no logic in that. Your just using a scale based on your feel and prior experience.

Once again the second part is not quantifiable, it's just trial and error. Internally you'd be saying things like 'the greens are faster than I thought, so I will hold the fingers another inch closer to my face' or whatever. That's why I'm saying there's a lot of trial and error to put in before you start getting it right, I think.

Wrong. After just 30mins of learning AimPoint, you would be surprised by how often your assessment of the slope with your feet matches what the scale tells you. There will be errors, the same way you make errors when judging wind direction etc.

 

[pinberry]

Apologies if it’s been asked already but how does Aimpoint work on double breakers or putts with break at just the start or finish?
All I’m reading here is about putting on a level slope with the same gradient for the entirety of the putt, in reality there aren’t many of them in golf.

A significant amount of putts are. Even if they are not, green reading is all about having the best possible approximation. You can't eyeball slight changes in break the same way you can't feel it with your feet. That's why you use the middle 3rd for your read - it has been shown that the break in that part of the putt has the most influence on what the ball does.

With double breakers, the best way to do it is to play the break that you feel in the middle of the putt - it is the simplest method and works surprisingly well. You also have to realise that double breakers are harder to read and harder to sink - accept that.

One common misconception (this isn't aimed at you) is that people say AimPoint is useless because it doesn't work 100% all of the time. In reality, no one has ever taught AimPoint promising to deliver faultless reads every time. It is all about teaching a method that is rooted in science and gives a bit more structure around reading putts in different situations. If that leads to a small increase in the number of correct reads, it leads to slightly fewer putts and better scores. That is all

 

[shortgame]

That's why you use the middle 3rd for your read - it has been shown that the break in that part of the putt has the most influence on what the ball does.

That's interesting. Is that specifically identified/analysed from Aimpoint?

See this is where this discussion (nonsense posts aside) is worthwhile. I don't recall reading that from any previous AP threads so I'm pleased this one didn't close after a few pages

 

[nickjdavis]

That's interesting. Is that specifically identified/analysed from Aimpoint?

See this is where this discussion (nonsense posts aside) is worthwhile. I don't recall reading that from any previous AP threads so I'm pleased this one didn't close after a few pages

I'd be interested in a response to this as well as I always believed that the ball breaks more as it slows down... Which ideally would be close to the hole... So my intuition tells me that the slope in the last few feet is most important... Which is what the original aimpoint system was based on...i.e. the fall line through the hole.

 

[3565]

A significant amount of putts are. Even if they are not, green reading is all about having the best possible approximation. You can't eyeball slight changes in break the same way you can't feel it with your feet. That's why you use the middle 3rd for your read - it has been shown that the break in that part of the putt has the most influence on what the ball does.

With double breakers, the best way to do it is to play the break that you feel in the middle of the putt - it is the simplest method and works surprisingly well. You also have to realise that double breakers are harder to read and harder to sink - accept that.

One common misconception (this isn't aimed at you) is that people say AimPoint is useless because it doesn't work 100% all of the time. In reality, no one has ever taught AimPoint promising to deliver faultless reads every time. It is all about teaching a method that is rooted in science and gives a bit more structure around reading putts in different situations. If that leads to a small increase in the number of correct reads, it leads to slightly fewer putts and better scores. That is all

I agree, I just take a mid point read, if you have a double breaker chances are its a lengthy putt so your % of making it reduces drastically, and getting it within the 3ft range I'd accept all day long.

 

[pinberry]

Generally speaking, you take the read at the middle. On longer putts (20') the break can start to vary, so you should focus on the middle third, take two reads and play the highest break. So on a 30' putt, take a read at 10' one at 20' and play higher break.

Now, why the middle third and not nearer the hole? First, while true that the ball slows down in the final third hence spending relatively more time there, you have a problem when projecting that read on the whole putt. Let me explain it with an example. Say you have a 25' - it is 1% in the middle, 3% right by the hole. You decide to play 3%. The problem is that when you walk back, put 3 fingers up you will be playing way too much break because you are implying that the putt is 3% all the way (for same slope, aim from the edge increases as distance from the hole increase). Indeed, if you went with the 1% read, you will still miss your putt, but by a much smaller margin. Second, most putts have one big slope which is fairly constant. If anything, what happens is that the middle part of the portion slopes more than the final part. This is because holes cannot be cut on extreme slopes. When they are, this is because the whole green has one dramatic slope (common on old English greens). And if the putt breaks 1% by the hole and 3% in the middle, it will play very close to a 3% putt all the way.

In short, if you go with middle read or middle third on longer putts you have more chances of getting the correct read.

Now, there are exceptions (and AimPoint haters will say this shows how bogus AimPoint is). Exceptions are, by definition, rare and when you encounter them you can adjust. So if a putt is flat but slopes severely near the hole, take that read and play a bit less to allow for the fact that most of the putt is flat etc.

AimPoint Express (APE) is based on science, but unlike the charts which are way too rigid, it promotes flexibility to adapt to an exceptional situation. The good thing is that you have a (solid) baseline to start from)

 

[Backsticks]

AimPoint Express (APE) is based on science

What science though? Thats an easy statement to throw around.

We are talking about a system of green reading that is proven, documented and used by thousands of golfers amateurs and pros all around the world.

Where and how has it been proven ? Thousands of golfers around the world choose one type of shoe spike over another because they think it will help them play better. But that doesnt mean it does.

On the pros element, if we were to look coldly at the facts, while some known names can be cited, it is undeniable that the vast majority of the worlds best golfer dont use it. And from driven, no stone left untourned, seekers of every advantage, with great resources to do so, one would have to conclude that as a group, they dont rate it.

 

[shortgame]

Unconvinced. Still unconvinced about how to read double/triple breakers etc using primarily the middle part of the read.

I still agree having a process is key so it's definitely better than nothing.

Not convinced it's really scientific.


How are the greens mapped for the aimpoint lines shown on the tv coverage? By aimpoint or by advanced computer models and tools?

 

[SGC001]

Unconvinced. Still unconvinced about how to read double/triple breakers etc using primarily the middle part of the read.

I still agree having a process is key so it's definitely better than nothing.

Not convinced it's really scientific.


How are the greens mapped for the aimpoint lines shown on the tv coverage? By aimpoint or by advanced computer models and tools?

Speaking as someone with a Bsc with hons whos done an aimpoint course i'd put aimpoint on the semi quantitative scale.

The tv stuff is what i'd consider quantitaive.

 

[nickjdavis]

Another thing that has surfaced more than once in this thread is the reading greens with your feet... and several have expressed doubts that their or (when you get right down to it) anyone's feet can be that sensitive to a slope.

Its not your feet that is sensitive to the slope... its those balance organs in your ears that are actually doing the sensing.

 

[chrisd]

Unconvinced. Still unconvinced about how to read double/triple breakers etc using primarily the middle part of the read.

I still agree having a process is key so it's definitely better than nothing.

Not convinced it's really scientific.


How are the greens mapped for the aimpoint lines shown on the tv coverage? By aimpoint or by advanced computer models and tools?

I don't think anyone who's done Aimpoint is trying to 'convince ' someone who's not done, or ever likely to do Aimpoint of anything. I'm sure those of us who've done it don't give a stuff what non believers really think and £99 really is nothing today.

 

[Imurg]

I don't think anyone who's done Aimpoint is trying to 'convince ' someone who's not done, or ever likely to do Aimpoint of anything. I'm sure those of us who've done it don't give a stuff what non believers really think and £99 really is nothing today.

Nothing!!!???
You can buy 396 Freddo bars for that!

 

[chrisd]

Nothing!!!???
You can buy 396 Freddo bars for that!

Will they (whatever they are) help my game ?