Another AimPoint Convert

Exactly. A poor stroke is a poor stroke. However if you practice both the reads and the mechanics, there's no excuse not to improve. I know I have

If your putting has become so improved how come your handicap continues to rise?

If aimpoint was the be all and end all of reading greens that users on here seem to think it is and get oh so defensive about using it don't you think a high percentage of touring pros would be using it.
 
Simple. I am crap from 100 yards and in until I get to the green. Putts per round gone from 33.16 to 31.71 since using it. If I can get the short game sorted I'll be coming down. Putting has been one thing that's got better and remains a constantly good part. The rest isn't where I want it
 
Simple. I am crap from 100 yards and in until I get to the green. Putts per round gone from 33.16 to 31.71 since using it. If I can get the short game sorted I'll be coming down. Putting has been one thing that's got better and remains a constantly good part. The rest isn't where I want it

So by your own admission you are "crap from 100 yards and in", in which case must mean you miss your fair share of greens therefore meaning you are chipping from around the greens more often which means on average you will be chipping it closer to the hole than when you actually hit a green with your approach which in turn leads to fewer putts per round.

Maybe it's your chipping that's improved due to whatever jiggery pokery method your using this week
 
So by your own admission you are "crap from 100 yards and in", in which case must mean you miss your fair share of greens therefore meaning you are chipping from around the greens more often which means on average you will be chipping it closer to the hole than when you actually hit a green with your approach which in turn leads to fewer putts per round.

Maybe it's your chipping that's improved due to whatever jiggery pokery method your using this week

Aimpoint can be used with chip and runs as well. You can still take the same read as you would for a put, just with a chip pick you landing spot do you best to land the ball there and let the green do the rest. Once the ball is on the green the same breaks you read through Aimpoint for putting are in play for the chip and run.

I was out on the practice green tonight for the first time after my Aimpoint course at the weekend, I read the breaks and never in a million years would I have just looked at the green and placed the break as far out as Aimpoint told me to, but sure enough it was correct, putts made with the correct line and pace were dropping in the hole.

As Homer writes, eludes to, Aimpoint is not the be all and end all of putting, it is another weapon in the armoury for reading greens, it has improved his putting and I dare say it will improve mine.
 
So by your own admission you are "crap from 100 yards and in", in which case must mean you miss your fair share of greens therefore meaning you are chipping from around the greens more often which means on average you will be chipping it closer to the hole than when you actually hit a green with your approach which in turn leads to fewer putts per round.

Maybe it's your chipping that's improved due to whatever jiggery pokery method your using this week

Totally wrong and clearly your using it as an argument to disprove Aimpoint and I'll reply to this and then I'm out.

I aim crap and can take two from 100 yards with a duffel pitch and if I miss a green the chances are I'll duff or thin the chip so the likelyhood of actually getting close is small. It's the one area I know is in a mess and most is now in the head. As a result I usually have a standard Aimpoint read to get up and down at best so put simply, no, I don't get it closer to mean the putts are reducing because of tap ins. It's a result of working hard on improving in the 3-6 feet area of putting.

As I said this is clearly starting to turn into a debate on my short game skewing the putting improvements I know I've made since taking up Aimpoint and my views are well documented on here about the whole subject so it feels like old ground. I'm happy using it. I think it makes a difference and I feel it was money well spent so that, to me is all that matters
 
^^^^^

I know its off topic but have you ever thought of using a chipper?

Honestly they are so lethal I wonder if they churn them out at Ollivanders!
 
Totally wrong and clearly your using it as an argument to disprove Aimpoint and I'll reply to this and then I'm out.

I aim crap and can take two from 100 yards with a duffel pitch and if I miss a green the chances are I'll duff or thin the chip so the likelyhood of actually getting close is small. It's the one area I know is in a mess and most is now in the head. As a result I usually have a standard Aimpoint read to get up and down at best so put simply, no, I don't get it closer to mean the putts are reducing because of tap ins. It's a result of working hard on improving in the 3-6 feet area of putting.

As I said this is clearly starting to turn into a debate on my short game skewing the putting improvements I know I've made since taking up Aimpoint and my views are well documented on here about the whole subject so it feels like old ground. I'm happy using it. I think it makes a difference and I feel it was money well spent so that, to me is all that matters

Funny Homer, there's lots of people here who know your game better than you do, yet they've never played with you ??
 
Pretty sure the leader of the masters is using Aimpoint.
he must be a chopper with no idea how to putt etc etc
 
Pretty sure the leader of the masters is using Aimpoint.
he must be a chopper with no idea how to putt etc etc

Comments like this are what make me chuckle. One incident doesn't prove or disprove the rule. Said aimpoint fan got beaten by Sergio who's second to Westwood for how poor he putts.
 
Top