News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2020, 08:54:29 AM »
 8)


My thinking in posing this question was that the Tiger phenomenon caused golf course committees to run to architects to "defend par". It made for a decade or more of lengthening and toughening of the golf course. Many here appreciated the more artistic defenders of architecture, the minimalists, who railed against the machine. Some great work ensued and I would argue the last twenty years have been quite impressive.


Personally , I think that Bryson's win will be less traumatic than Tiger's and result in less wringing of hands given that Bryson is so different in his approach to the game. He will be considered an outlier rather than a "new wave". But given his non-conformity it just might prompt the establishment to push a "tour ball" once and for all.  Particularly if he wins a lot. Only time will tell!




John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2020, 09:10:28 AM »
Here are the driving distance leaders for the tournament:
https://www.usopen.com/stats/player-stats.html#!driving-distance
DeChambeau finished 7th in driving distance.  Wolff was 2nd.  Every player in the top 10 in driving distance finished in the top 25 in the tournament, including the 1st, 2nd, T6 and T8 finishers.  (note these final stats do not include players that failed to make the cut)  The shortest driver, Zach Johnson (only 289 yards) finished T8.

I remember back in the 1980s when the top 10 driving distance leaders had little or even negative correlation with overall golfing success.  It's a big change.

It's interesting how DeChambeau is identified as the poster child for driving distance issues.


Ross Tuddenham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2020, 09:18:15 AM »
Archie, I think that is the key point. How replicable is the big Golfers approach. Players in the late 90's/early 00's were, if we are being honest, not in shape at all. All they had to do was achieve the bare minimum of fitness to see gains.  BDC has taken golf athleticism to level that not all players will be able to copy.  Even if long players (conventionally) with great swings like Rory or oostie bullk up they don't have the physical stature to replicate what BDC has done.


Tiger also arrived just before the prov1 and so the shock to the sport was two fold. BDC is just using pretty much the same tech we have had for a few years now.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2020, 09:23:01 AM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2020, 09:24:42 AM »
All these guys can hit it insane distances.  The difference was Bryson was hitting driver more often than most because the rough didn’t bother him as much as it did some of the others.  Justin Thomas can hit is as far as anyone but out of the heavy rough is another matter.  That is where Bryson has the big advantage with his brute strength. 


I don’t for example think Bryson has as big of an advantage over most of the field at Augusta.  There is no heavy rough.  He won’t win there is my prediction.  Any even when there is heavy rough you still need some breaks.  Bryson didn’t win at Olympia Fields which proved just as tough as WF.

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2020, 10:13:23 AM »
I remember back in the 1980s when the top 10 driving distance leaders had little or even negative correlation with overall golfing success.  It's a big change.
Was that really the case in the past?  Wasn't Nicklaus a very long hitter in his day?  It is going back farther than 1980 but he is a quote from a story on Nicklaus winning the 1963 PGA Championship in very hot conditions in Dallas.  It sounds very similar to Bryson, other than the heat:
Quote
Helped by the fact that he was hitting a warm ball through the thin Texas air, Jack was getting tremendous distance. He rarely had to take anything out of his golf bag but his driver, wedge, putter and towel. (He had set a PGA record on Wednesday when he won the driving contest with a smasher of 341 yards.) Meanwhile, just about everybody else, including Hart and Mayfield, was wilting in the heat like a yellow rose of somewhere.

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2020, 10:29:25 AM »
Will BDC wear his body out hitting the ball this hard?  TW's knee and back problems and Keopka's knee ......


The left knee could be the weak link.
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2020, 10:53:20 AM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2020, 11:16:09 AM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.


I asked Erik B this on another thread, but I have seen those green books, including the heat maps and % of slope, but how exactly does one use those to predict anything other than general break?  If you know.....
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2020, 11:22:12 AM »
Agree with past responses, thus no green books (artificial aids) and a shot clock.
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2020, 11:22:18 AM »
I remember back in the 1980s when the top 10 driving distance leaders had little or even negative correlation with overall golfing success.  It's a big change.
Was that really the case in the past?  Wasn't Nicklaus a very long hitter in his day?  It is going back farther than 1980 but he is a quote from a story on Nicklaus winning the 1963 PGA Championship in very hot conditions in Dallas.  It sounds very similar to Bryson, other than the heat:
Quote
Helped by the fact that he was hitting a warm ball through the thin Texas air, Jack was getting tremendous distance. He rarely had to take anything out of his golf bag but his driver, wedge, putter and towel. (He had set a PGA record on Wednesday when he won the driving contest with a smasher of 341 yards.) Meanwhile, just about everybody else, including Hart and Mayfield, was wilting in the heat like a yellow rose of somewhere.


Well certainly Lon Hinkle, Dan Pohl, et al (very long and/or the longest of their day) were not world-beaters.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2020, 11:26:35 AM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.


The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.


Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2020, 11:28:52 AM »
All these guys can hit it insane distances.  The difference was Bryson was hitting driver more often than most because the rough didn’t bother him as much as it did some of the others.  Justin Thomas can hit is as far as anyone but out of the heavy rough is another matter.  That is where Bryson has the big advantage with his brute strength. 


I don’t for example think Bryson has as big of an advantage over most of the field at Augusta.  There is no heavy rough.  He won’t win there is my prediction.  Any even when there is heavy rough you still need some breaks.  Bryson didn’t win at Olympia Fields which proved just as tough as WF.


I think there's a lot of truth here. DeChambeau had very little trouble blasting his ball out of the thickest grass -- that seemed to be where his strength gave him his greatest advantage. That will be no factor at Augusta.


That would argue for less rough, not more, at major championships. Jeff Warne's suggestion of more penal bunkers makes sense to me (though, don't try this at home; we did a bunker project at our club a few years ago, and the one fairway bunker that kept our best players from getting to the green in regulation has already been softened.)


Ultimately, the most foolproof way to prevent bomb-and-gouge is with water. But who wants to play a course with water on both sides of every hole?
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2020, 11:34:01 AM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.


The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.


How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2020, 11:59:37 AM »
Jeff, the initial books a few years ago had an arrow and grade number for each square yard of the green...seriously, if you had a 30 footer, you went through at least 10 squares that these guys were trying to add up...they took forever.


The USGA did in fact eliminate that level of detail to be sold. The current books have good detail about direction and severity of slope and the player IS allowed to add as much detail as they want based on their own effort. I wouldn't be surprised if BD is spending a good deal of time with a digital level during practice days because he sure does go to the book a lot.


On this week...he was simply better than everyone else. His drives were closer to his target than anyone and he made every putt.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2020, 12:04:34 PM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.


The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.


How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.


The rules on the greens books were well thought out in IMO:


Golfers may continue to use a putting-green map or other putting-green information, except that:[/color][size=1rem]Any image of a putting green must be limited to a scale of 3/8 inch to 5 yards (1:480) or smaller (the “scale limit”).[/size][size=1rem]Any book or other paper containing a map or image of a putting green must not be larger than 4 ¼ inches x 7 inches (the “size limit”), although a “hole location sheet” that displays nine or more holes on a single sheet of paper may be larger, provided that any image of a single putting green meets the scale limit.[/size][size=1rem]No magnification of putting-green information is allowed other than a player’s normal wearing of prescription glasses or lenses.[/size][size=1rem]Hand-drawn or written information about a putting green is only allowed if contained in a book or paper meeting the size limit and written by the player and/or his or her caddie.[/size]

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2020, 12:05:11 PM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.


The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.


How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.


Those books are just something else to slow the game down. Get rid of the books. Give them lasers and lets move the game along at a much quicker pace. Watching and listening to Bryson discuss various percentages with his caddy is painful. Pick a club and hit the Fing thing. Jack was blamed for slowing the game down. This is taking it to a whole new level. Do you really need the dew point and relative humidity to hit a quality golf shot?
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2020, 12:18:21 PM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.


The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.


How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.


The rules on the greens books were well thought out in IMO:


Golfers may continue to use a putting-green map or other putting-green information, except that:[size=1rem]Any image of a putting green must be limited to a scale of 3/8 inch to 5 yards (1:480) or smaller (the “scale limit”).[/size][size=1rem]Any book or other paper containing a map or image of a putting green must not be larger than 4 ¼ inches x 7 inches (the “size limit”), although a “hole location sheet” that displays nine or more holes on a single sheet of paper may be larger, provided that any image of a single putting green meets the scale limit.[/size][size=1rem]No magnification of putting-green information is allowed other than a player’s normal wearing of prescription glasses or lenses.[/size][size=1rem]Hand-drawn or written information about a putting green is only allowed if contained in a book or paper meeting the size limit and written by the player and/or his or her caddie.[/size]

Oh my....
yep, no loopholes there.
Are my 5x drugstore readers "normal prescription"
because I need them to read, but use them for nothing else.
hard to see where any of that is "good for the game"

Now "get off my lawn"  :)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2020, 12:20:37 PM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.


The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.


How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.


Those books are just something else to slow the game down. Get rid of the books. Give them lasers and lets move the game along at a much quicker pace. Watching and listening to Bryson discuss various percentages with his caddy is painful. Pick a club and hit the Fing thing. Jack was blamed for slowing the game down. This is taking it to a whole new level. Do you really need the dew point and relative humidity to hit a quality golf shot?


Guys have been carrying yardage books (and green books) for many, many years.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2020, 12:27:43 PM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.


The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.


How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.


Those books are just something else to slow the game down. Get rid of the books. Give them lasers and lets move the game along at a much quicker pace. Watching and listening to Bryson discuss various percentages with his caddy is painful. Pick a club and hit the Fing thing. Jack was blamed for slowing the game down. This is taking it to a whole new level. Do you really need the dew point and relative humidity to hit a quality golf shot?


Guys have been carrying yardage books (and green books) for many, many years.


Yardage books yes green reading books no. I wouldn't consider 5 years many many years.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2020, 12:28:21 PM »
There have been bombers in all eras.  I've seen Nicklaus in the early '70s at a Major hit a 1 or 2 iron on a 230+ yard par 3 into a stiff wind when his competitors were coming up short with fairway woods.  He had a huge competitive advantage because of his length and ability to keep the ball between the trees.


In the mid-70s, post Troon, I played behind Weiskopf once and saw him hit a 400+ yard drive with a 60 yard hook (on Scarlet #15) and a mid-iron into the wind on a 210 yard par 3 (#17) just before Jim Brown hit a 3-wood to the same green (Coach Brown knocked it closer).  Weiskopf just wasn't able to keep the ball in play when he swung as hard in competition (or maybe he lacked the confidence).


As a kid I often played sandlot baseball on a field with a high, but short left field fence.  To protect the cars and houses, anything over the fence left of a line in centerfield was an automatic out.  Hit a second ball out and the player was ejected.


Personally, I think that bifurcation is the answer to a problem which is not existential to the game.   But if it really bothers so many one-set-of-rules purists that a few guys can rip the ball while keeping it in play, paint a line at a radius of 300 - 325 yards from the tee on selected long holes and impose a 1-stroke penalty via a local rule for those who hit past it.  It would be a silly rule as are most of the distance arguments continuing since the days of the featheries, gutties, haskels, and so on. 


I do like the idea of speeding up the game via a clock or other means.  But in addition to limiting the use of detailed notes during play, I'd like to see the role of the caddie greatly reduced to just carrying and cleaning clubs, tending the flagstick, and tidying up the course.  I'm good with scopes sans slope and other functions, and a "normal" course guide with a few scribbles.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2020, 12:34:48 PM »
One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.


They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.


The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.


How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.


Those books are just something else to slow the game down. Get rid of the books. Give them lasers and lets move the game along at a much quicker pace. Watching and listening to Bryson discuss various percentages with his caddy is painful. Pick a club and hit the Fing thing. Jack was blamed for slowing the game down. This is taking it to a whole new level. Do you really need the dew point and relative humidity to hit a quality golf shot?


Guys have been carrying yardage books (and green books) for many, many years.


Yardage books yes green reading books no. I wouldn't consider 5 years many many years.


My first green book was probably 1995. They were hand-drawn, but many were of excellent detail. Certainly they were not done using lasers, if that's what you are referring to.


But you'd have to see a new one that conforms to the rules to understand what I'm talking about. They are definitely helpful in terms of overall slope, but they do not really help you make a "birdie length" putt much. They can help you avoid 3-putting, and they can definitely help you when chipping/pitching.


Another thing to consider that most non-tournament players don't know is that the "Aimpoint" system has REALLY helped guys putt better. And I'm not talking about the "stick your finger out" thing that Adam Scott and some others do, I'm just talking about the "spread your feet and feel the green" part of it. It's amazing how much that can tell you about a green's slope. I started using it as part of a complete putting revamp about two years ago, and it's been a game-changer for me (and many pros).

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2020, 12:54:04 PM »
I'm not knocking Bryson(other than his pace)


But "feeling the green" by straddling your line, with your feet should be illegal.
It(can) slow the game and there is no question that there is additional traffic on the green from all this straddling.
"Reading" the green is an art-feeling it? other than in your address stance, should not be legal IMHO but that's of course simply an opinion.
Drives me crazy when I see people do it all around (and often on)my line and future lines of later players.
I'm sure there's a good defense, but why not just then let me just touch my line with my hand o feel it-probably faster.


So forearm anchoring should be illegal, but straddling your line OK?


I will agree though since it's legal, and the game has gone glacial-with no one monitoring actual pace unless group is out of position, that it's all good-I just don't like it.
hard to get out of position when the group in front is going through the same nonsense.





"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2020, 12:59:15 PM »
I'm not knocking Bryson(other than his pace)


But "feeling the green" by straddling your line, with your feet should be illegal.
It(can) slow the game and there is no question that there is additional traffic on the green from all this straddling.
"Reading" the green is an art-feeling it? other than in your address stance, should not be legal IMHO but that's of course simply an opinion.
Drives me crazy when I see people do it all around (and often on)my line and future lines of later players.
I'm sure there's a good defense, but why not just then let me just touch my line with my hand o feel it-probably faster.


So forearm anchoring should be illegal, but straddling your line OK?


I will agree though since it's legal, and the game has gone glacial-with no one monitoring actual pace unless group is out of position, that it's all good-I just don't like it.
hard to get out of position when the group in front is going through the same nonsense.


Jeff,


I don't need to straddle my line to use my feet to help me read greens. I can do it off the the side and it still helps on virtually all putts. And, honestly, the place it helps me the most is standing parallel to my line, at the hole -- especially on unfamiliar greens. I want to know if the green is flat, slopping toward me, or sloping AWAY at the hole so that I can get my SPEED correct.


Truly has been a game changer for me.


And by the way, guys have been doing this for many years with not penalty. People just didn't notice it because there were so few of them...

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2020, 01:00:48 PM »

WELCOME TO THE GREEN BOOK WEBSITE"Our 'Green Book' has become widely recognised as the world's most detailed and accurate green reading book. The books were launched on the European Tour in 2015 at the Scottish Open and were used by the event winner Ricky Fowler. Since then they have been used by 7 of the Worlds Top Ten Golfers and by more than 20 event winners on the European Tour. We are proud to have been able to support the British Olympic Team at the recent games where Justin Rose won a gold medal and to be supporting the Ryder Cup Europe Team in 2016.The information in our books is used to help inform shot choices and speed up decision making and make it more accurate. Using the information is all part of effective planning the way around a golf course – just like knowing wind direction, driving lines and shot distances. The better the information golfers have available, the more accurate their planning and shot making will be. Less shots, in less time. Simple.We have now made the Green Book available for golfers outside of the professional tours. We have developed a special book which enables amateur golfers to quickly see the slopes on greens, saving time reading putts from multiple angles and helping prevent mis-reads and dropped shots. The production of these books is exclusive and we can only carry out a limited number of projects each season with our tour commitments. Please contact us for more information."

I would not count someone's hand drawn book. Maybe this is wrong. Aimpoint reading the greens with your feet is not new. I was told use your feet when I was junior 40+ years ago by ann old pro.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett