[Jason Topp]

I scoffed at the methodology until playing with a partner who is a disciple.   He read some of the tough ones for me and it was like the ball was on train tracks headed to the hole. 


Subsequent experiences have not been as magical but the method does provide a good reference point.  You still need to hit the ball on your intended line and at the right speed. 



I bet I can use the process more quickly than other approaches to reading putts. 

[Rob Marshall]

I scoffed at the methodology until playing with a partner who is a disciple.   He read some of the tough ones for me and it was like the ball was on train tracks headed to the hole. 


Subsequent experiences have not been as magical but the method does provide a good reference point.  You still need to hit the ball on your intended line and at the right speed. 



I bet I can use the process more quickly than other approaches to reading putts.

I don't think it's slower. The issue is stepping all around the hole. There is no reason straddle a 3 foot putt two feet from the hole.

[Joe Zucker]

Does walking up and straddling your line really make more footprints that reading a putt from behind the hole? Or going halfway to the hole and reading the last few feet of break from there? These are things putters have been doing for decades.  This seems like something that would be impossible to police.


I remember watching some old Masters highlights from the 60s and Palmer would walk all across his own line.  You can argue imperfections made less of a difference on slower greens, but the reverence for limiting footsteps seems absurd to me.  Why or how you should be mindful of a playing partners through line on a potential missed 4 footer is beyond me.  While we are at it, let's put a weight limit on golfers or develop a formula for how many steps you can take on a green based on your BMI.

[Mike Wagner]

Does walking up and straddling your line really make more footprints that reading a putt from behind the hole? Or going halfway to the hole and reading the last few feet of break from there? These are things putters have been doing for decades.  This seems like something that would be impossible to police.


I remember watching some old Masters highlights from the 60s and Palmer would walk all across his own line.  You can argue imperfections made less of a difference on slower greens, but the reverence for limiting footsteps seems absurd to me.  Why or how you should be mindful of a playing partners through line on a potential missed 4 footer is beyond me.  While we are at it, let's put a weight limit on golfers or develop a formula for how many steps you can take on a green based on your BMI.

Yes, it does. People have not been doing like this for decades .. straddling the line .. putting up fingers. This is a whole new deal, and the younger players are the worst offenders. Completely possible to police .. it's like saying you can't police the stroke "between the legs." Of course you can .. straddling your line is completely obvious. No problem standing behind your ball, but between your ball and the hole? Cmon, it'd be as obvious as any other rule. It's not just about limiting footsteps .. I'll just defer back to David Kelly's post .. nails it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not stopping until straddling your line is banned. What a joke .. to all you that teach it BS, please tell your students they shouldn't be ANYWHERE NEAR the hole.

How do they get the ball out of the hole? 

I haven't seen a spike mark on a green for quite awhile. Kids aren't wearing metal spikes these days. I routinely play with a guy who weighs over 400 pounds and don't see spike marks.

But Mike, if AimPointers aren't repetitively straddling their line multiple times within 5-10 feet of the hole every single time, then where's the pretense for them to slam their putters down on their lines and create a little channel for the ball to roll through, in the name of fixing all of the unnecessary spike marks they've just created?

Tim continues to just… make stuff up, I guess? I don't know that I've ever seen anyone "creating a channel."

I don’t think you would see anywhere near as much if they went back to when you weren’t allowed to straddle the line. Originally you stood on the low side and if that was in someone’s line obviously you didn’t do it.

The rule was that you couldn't touch your line, not that you couldn't straddle it. So, you could pretty confidently stay to the low side of your line, while not quite touching it, but if you tried to straddle it before you even knew what your line was… it was iffy. Even when the "you can't touch your line" rule was in place, you'd see AimPoint people straddling their line, because they could confidently say "my line is somewhere here to here and I'm not touching it."

They at straddling three foot putts standing half way to the hole. If I remember correctly until you go to a 3% slope everything was inside the hole at that distance.

Some putts are 3%, and the difference between 1% and 2% can matter. Is it right-center or inside right? Or maybe it's just outside the right edge?

I don’t notice the fingers much any more. Looks to like they are now predominantly just reading slope the doing the math based off stimp and length of putt.

No, it's just that inside of about 6' or so, you can memorize what the numbers are for aiming. No need for fingers at that range.

I bet I can use the process more quickly than other approaches to reading putts.

Kudos - someone capable of thinking and learning instead of just spouting off without any real knowledge. Tim, you'd do well to apply a similar approach. Learn before spouting off. You don't seem to have learned anything since your comments on page 1.

Does walking up and straddling your line really make more footprints that reading a putt from behind the hole? Or going halfway to the hole and reading the last few feet of break from there? These are things putters have been doing for decades.  This seems like something that would be impossible to police.I remember watching some old Masters highlights from the 60s and Palmer would walk all across his own line.  You can argue imperfections made less of a difference on slower greens, but the reverence for limiting footsteps seems absurd to me.  Why or how you should be mindful of a playing partners through line on a potential missed 4 footer is beyond me.  While we are at it, let's put a weight limit on golfers or develop a formula for how many steps you can take on a green based on your BMI.

:thumbsup:

Yes, it does. People have not been doing like this for decades .. straddling the line .. putting up fingers. This is a whole new deal, and the younger players are the worst offenders. Completely possible to police .. it's like saying you can't police the stroke "between the legs." Of course you can .. straddling your line is completely obvious. No problem standing behind your ball, but between your ball and the hole? Cmon, it'd be as obvious as any other rule. It's not just about limiting footsteps.

Why? And at what distance? I straddle the line on a 30-footer in one or two places (no closer than about 10-11' from the hole).



I'll say again: AimPoint is a faster method of reading greens than many other methods. One of the problems is that some golfers ADD AimPoint to their whole routine rather than making AimPoint their whole routine for green reading. In which case I always suggest you police the slow play, not the method.

And yes, I've caddied or played in several high-level events with people using AimPoint. Or watched them. Heck, just got back from Nemacolin Woodlands where two or three of the players in my daughter's foursome used AimPoint each day. I've also, of course, played with many other people who use AimPoint (and some who don't).

And yes, if someone is actually leaving marks of some kind in your line, do call them out. You can read your putt from your ball inside of a certain distance, which is what I teach and what AimPoint teaches, and you should only go to the 2' mark on a 4' putt if you're not going to be in the line of someone else's putt and not going to leave marks.

I use AimPoint and I'm so quick about it, many people who don't know me wonder how I putt so well, or read greens so well, since they don't even see me reading the greens. They don't even process that I did it. AimPoint Express, as the name implies, is a very fast method.

Part of it's a TV issue (they cut to players doing AimPoint because they're near the ball, but they don't cut to a player reading the putt from the other side of the hole because clearly he or she is not about to hit the putt). Part of it's again the fact that players ADD it to their five different green reading methods.

[Joe Zucker]

Does walking up and straddling your line really make more footprints that reading a putt from behind the hole? Or going halfway to the hole and reading the last few feet of break from there? These are things putters have been doing for decades.  This seems like something that would be impossible to police.


I remember watching some old Masters highlights from the 60s and Palmer would walk all across his own line.  You can argue imperfections made less of a difference on slower greens, but the reverence for limiting footsteps seems absurd to me.  Why or how you should be mindful of a playing partners through line on a potential missed 4 footer is beyond me.  While we are at it, let's put a weight limit on golfers or develop a formula for how many steps you can take on a green based on your BMI.

Yes, it does. People have not been doing like this for decades .. straddling the line .. putting up fingers. This is a whole new deal, and the younger players are the worst offenders. Completely possible to police .. it's like saying you can't police the stroke "between the legs." Of course you can .. straddling your line is completely obvious. No problem standing behind your ball, but between your ball and the hole? Cmon, it'd be as obvious as any other rule. It's not just about limiting footsteps .. I'll just defer back to David Kelly's post .. nails it.

I agree the straddling is new.  But I'm not convinced the straddling adds more footsteps than other forms of reading greens that plays have been using for decades.  If I walk halfway to the hole, straddle my line and return, that is surely fewer footsteps than walking around the hole to read it from the other side.


That's more-so my point.  If straddling should be illegal, agree that's easy to police.  But that's a different argument in my view than complaining about footsteps.

[A.G._Crockett]

I written this before, but…


Many years ago, when laser rangefinders were new, I engaged in a long argument here with Tom Huckaby about pace of play and lasers.  My position was that lasers would slow play; Tom insisted that play would be faster with lasers.  Of course, Tom was right and I was 100% wrong.  At that point, I didn’t own a laser, and the simple fact was that I was arguing out of ignorance. That’s rarely a good idea, and this discussion is another example.


Objections to AimPoint are much the same, I think.  Aimpoint isn’t slower; if anything, it’s a faster (and maybe MUCH faster!) way to read greens.  My club hosted the NC Am back in May; I worked the tournament every day, and of the players I saw, well over half were using AimPoint.  I was the walking scorer for the next to last group for the third round, and all three were using it.  And guess what?  The average time for a round for four days was UNDER 4 hours!  And these were mostly college aged kids playing with a lot at stake.


Slow players are slow, regardless of how they read putts; the method is irrelevant.  You can read a putt from all four sides without delaying play if you’re intentional about it; you can also be slow as fog reading putts that way. You can plumb bob fast or slow; AimPoint is no different.


As to straddling, don’t be fooled by what you see on TV.  Many AimPointers don’t straddle at all; they read from the low side. And even those that do straddle their line don’t get in the lines of other players; they just don’t.  Dave Pelz wrote about the “lumpy donut” around the cup from people stepping up to get their ball out of the hole; draw a 4’ circle around the hole, and know to a certainty that EVERY player will be walking there, regardless of how they read putts.


If you’re bent out of shape about AimPoint, you might want to just get over it; you come across as just a grumpy old man complaining about kids on your lawn; AimPoint is here to stay, I assure you.  Otherwise, you might consider joining The Flat Earth Society and/or The Man Will Never Fly League.

[Mike Wagner]

I written this before, but…


Many years ago, when laser rangefinders were new, I engaged in a long argument here with Tom Huckaby about pace of play and lasers.  My position was that lasers would slow play; Tom insisted that play would be faster with lasers.  Of course, Tom was right and I was 100% wrong.  At that point, I didn’t own a laser, and the simple fact was that I was arguing out of ignorance. That’s rarely a good idea, and this discussion is another example.


Objections to AimPoint are much the same, I think.  Aimpoint isn’t slower; if anything, it’s a faster (and maybe MUCH faster!) way to read greens.  My club hosted the NC Am back in May; I worked the tournament every day, and of the players I saw, well over half were using AimPoint.  I was the walking scorer for the next to last group for the third round, and all three were using it.  And guess what?  The average time for a round for four days was UNDER 4 hours!  And these were mostly college aged kids playing with a lot at stake.


Slow players are slow, regardless of how they read putts; the method is irrelevant.  You can read a putt from all four sides without delaying play if you’re intentional about it; you can also be slow as fog reading putts that way. You can plumb bob fast or slow; AimPoint is no different.


As to straddling, don’t be fooled by what you see on TV.  Many AimPointers don’t straddle at all; they read from the low side. And even those that do straddle their line don’t get in the lines of other players; they just don’t.  Dave Pelz wrote about the “lumpy donut” around the cup from people stepping up to get their ball out of the hole; draw a 4’ circle around the hole, and know to a certainty that EVERY player will be walking there, regardless of how they read putts.


If you’re bent out of shape about AimPoint, you might want to just get over it; you come across as just a grumpy old man complaining about kids on your lawn; AimPoint is here to stay, I assure you.  Otherwise, you might consider joining The Flat Earth Society and/or The Man Will Never Fly League.

I've waited my whole life for Grumpy Old Man Status.


Glad those kids were fast than the MANY I've been paired with over the years. I agree with a lot of your point .. slow is just slow.


Maybe they do a better version where you're from.


Wouldn't be so sure it'll be around forever. USGA might realize one day it's kind of the same as why they banned Snead's style. They might realize it's a ridiculous thing to have to put up with .. and they might realize it takes away from green reading as an art / skill.


Then again, maybe it stays and I'll just get to grumpy old man shame them on the course ..

[Tim Martin]

I written this before, but…


Many years ago, when laser rangefinders were new, I engaged in a long argument here with Tom Huckaby about pace of play and lasers.  My position was that lasers would slow play; Tom insisted that play would be faster with lasers.  Of course, Tom was right and I was 100% wrong.  At that point, I didn’t own a laser, and the simple fact was that I was arguing out of ignorance. That’s rarely a good idea, and this discussion is another example.


Objections to AimPoint are much the same, I think.  Aimpoint isn’t slower; if anything, it’s a faster (and maybe MUCH faster!) way to read greens.  My club hosted the NC Am back in May; I worked the tournament every day, and of the players I saw, well over half were using AimPoint.  I was the walking scorer for the next to last group for the third round, and all three were using it.  And guess what?  The average time for a round for four days was UNDER 4 hours!  And these were mostly college aged kids playing with a lot at stake.


Slow players are slow, regardless of how they read putts; the method is irrelevant.  You can read a putt from all four sides without delaying play if you’re intentional about it; you can also be slow as fog reading putts that way. You can plumb bob fast or slow; AimPoint is no different.


As to straddling, don’t be fooled by what you see on TV.  Many AimPointers don’t straddle at all; they read from the low side. And even those that do straddle their line don’t get in the lines of other players; they just don’t.  Dave Pelz wrote about the “lumpy donut” around the cup from people stepping up to get their ball out of the hole; draw a 4’ circle around the hole, and know to a certainty that EVERY player will be walking there, regardless of how they read putts.


If you’re bent out of shape about AimPoint, you might want to just get over it; you come across as just a grumpy old man complaining about kids on your lawn; AimPoint is here to stay, I assure you.  Otherwise, you might consider joining The Flat Earth Society and/or The Man Will Never Fly League.

Wouldn't be so sure it'll be around forever.

Forever is a long time. We’ll see….

[Craig Sweet]

In my opinion, and observation,  range finders slow the game (shooting a distance from 20 yards off the green???)  Aimpoint slows the game, walking around the hole, then squating to read the green, slows the game, and pre-shot routines slow the game. Young golfers might be the worst offenders because they mimic what they see on TV...

[Will Lozier]

I use AimPoint and plenty of people with whom I play don't even think I'm reading the greens, and wonder (or ask me) how I make so many putts without even reading the greens. I can do an AimPoint read while walking up to get the flag, etc.

Sorry...but this just sounds like an infomercial. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I agree the straddling is new.

AimPoint is nearly 20 years old at this point. It's not that new. It started with the charts, but players have been going to the middle of their putts for a long time now. Well over a decade.

But I'm not convinced the straddling adds more footsteps than other forms of reading greens that plays have been using for decades. If I walk halfway to the hole, straddle my line and return, that is surely fewer footsteps than walking around the hole to read it from the other side.

Correct.

Dave Pelz wrote about the “lumpy donut” around the cup from people stepping up to get their ball out of the hole; draw a 4’ circle around the hole, and know to a certainty that EVERY player will be walking there, regardless of how they read putts.

Yuuuuuup.

If you’re bent out of shape about AimPoint, you might want to just get over it; you come across as just a grumpy old man complaining about kids on your lawn; AimPoint is here to stay, I assure you.  Otherwise, you might consider joining The Flat Earth Society and/or The Man Will Never Fly League.

Bunch of those around these parts.

They might realize it's a ridiculous thing to have to put up with .. and they might realize it takes away from green reading as an art / skill.

No, it does not. The player is still reading the green — he's just not using only his eyes to do it. He's still using his senses, and those senses are best tuned and practiced and refined. You're off base on this one.

Aimpoint slows the game, walking around the hole, then squating to read the green, slows the game…

Apparently, Craig, you just walk straight to your ball and putt it without reading it at all.

Sorry...but this just sounds like an infomercial. 

That's a silly thing to say. I'm not going to teach any of you AimPoint, and I don't care to. I have plenty of students and I'm not trolling for more here. I've simply taught over 1,000 people AimPoint, so I have and am sharing my experiences. When I see people saying dumb stuff about any topic with which I have experience, I tend to speak up.

[Mike Wagner]

They might realize it's a ridiculous thing to have to put up with .. and they might realize it takes away from green reading as an art / skill.

No, it does not. The player is still reading the green — he's just not using only his eyes to do it. He's still using his senses, and those senses are best tuned and practiced and refined. You're off base on this one.





I'm not off base. We have a difference of opinion. Compared to historical green reading procedures that DON'T include straddling your line between the ball and the hole, of course it detracts. I'd actually argue it's going to make worse putters out of these young players relying too heavily on it .. but that's for another time .. and even grumpier old man status.

[Rob Marshall]

This is why when I took the class we were told not to straddle the line. Basically what Erik said.


The R&A and the USGA have recently been asked about methods of reading a putting green where players stand astride or stand or walk alongside their estimated line of putt to assess the slope of the green and the break of the putt. The question is whether such actions have the potential to breach Rule 16-1a. Under Rule 16-1a, the player must not touch the line of putt. (There are exceptions to Rule 16-1a, but none of them relate to methods of reading the putting green or determining a line of putt.) The “line of putt” is defined in the Rules as “the line that the player wishes his ball to take after a stroke on the putting green” including “a reasonable distance on either side of the intended line”. The penalty for a breach of Rule 16-1a is loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play. Consequently, players who use such green-reading methods should take care to avoid walking on their line of putt in order to avoid the risk of penalty under Rule 16-1a.

[Edward Glidewell]

In my opinion, and observation,  range finders slow the game (shooting a distance from 20 yards off the green???)  Aimpoint slows the game, walking around the hole, then squating to read the green, slows the game, and pre-shot routines slow the game. Young golfers might be the worst offenders because they mimic what they see on TV...

The people that are using rangefinders from 20 yards off the green are the people who would be pacing it off by walking all the way to the flag and back if they didn't have a rangefinder. So it's still speeding up play.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not off base. We have a difference of opinion.

No, you're off base, and you tried to make a factual statement, but you made an incorrect one. A wrong statement of fact. They're still using themselves and their bodies and their senses to read the green. They're not just looking at a read on a greens book or something which requires. They're just not doing it the way you think they should be doing it. They're still using a skill.

I'd actually argue it's going to make worse putters out of these young players relying too heavily on it .. but that's for another time .. and even grumpier old man status.

Yeah, that's just a baseless thought there. It's still a skill.

[Mike Wagner]

I'm not off base. We have a difference of opinion.

No, you're off base, and you tried to make a factual statement, but you made an incorrect one. A wrong statement of fact. They're still using themselves and their bodies and their senses to read the green. They're not just looking at a read on a greens book or something which requires. They're just not doing it the way you think they should be doing it. They're still using a skill.

I'd actually argue it's going to make worse putters out of these young players relying too heavily on it .. but that's for another time .. and even grumpier old man status.

Yeah, that's just a baseless thought there. It's still a skill.

My "facts" are not unique when it comes to straddling the line between the ball and the hole.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the extra steps taken via Aimpoint can certainly be significant and in the aggregate affect the amount of "turbulence" golfers may find around the hole near the end of the day. 

For example, when my ball is 10 feet or closer to the hole, I try to limit it to one trip in and back out as the total area on a 10 foot radius is a mere 314 sq. feet which everyone must putt thru. If I make the putt great, if not continue on to finish it off or pick up, but only one trip in. 

Now if I want to get a better look at the line and walk around a bit, I will do so from a distance, say at 20 feet away from the hole, (this area is 4 times the size at 1256 sq feet).  The thinking is, extra walking around further from the hole is significantly less likely to impact someone's future line based on simple probability of where balls end up on the green.

With Aimpoint however, what I've noticed on TV and in person, is the golfer is now taking extra trips into that critical 10 foot zone, and occasionally the 5 foot zone. The end result is a minimum of doubling or in some cases tripling the amount of foot traffic in that small crucial area (as they still have to go back in to retrieve their putt from cup).

Alongside slow play considerations, I think this is just as undesirable.

[Mike Wagner]

I think the extra steps taken via Aimpoint can certainly be significant and in the aggregate affect the amount of "turbulence" golfers may find around the hole near the end of the day. 

For example, when my ball is 10 feet or closer to the hole, I try to limit it to one trip in and back out as the total area on a 10 foot radius is a mere 314 sq. feet which everyone must putt thru. If I make the putt great, if not continue on to finish it off or pick up, but only one trip in. 

Now if I want to get a better look at the line and walk around a bit, I will do so from a distance, say at 20 feet away from the hole, (this area is 4 times the size at 1256 sq feet).  The thinking is, extra walking around further from the hole is significantly less likely to impact someone's future line based on simple probability of where balls end up on the green.

With Aimpoint however, what I've noticed on TV and in person, is the golfer is now taking extra trips into that critical 10 foot zone, and occasionally the 5 foot zone. The end result is a minimum of doubling or in some cases tripling the amount of foot traffic in that small crucial area (as they still have to go back in to retrieve their putt from cup).

Alongside slow play considerations, I think this is just as undesirable.

Great points.


The hardest ones to take are when they start with a 50 footer. I watched a kid straddle in 3 different spots. Shitty putt ensued. Now from 6 feet on basically the same line, there's another straddle within 4 feet of the hole.

[Craig Sweet]

The irony, the absolute silliness, is the member that plays the same course and hasn't figured out how their greens break and how fast/slow they are rolling day in and day out.  These regular players hit the same drive, have the same length second shot on each hole, but still insist on pulling out the range finder and shoot their distance.  And don't tell me that's BS because I have watched member after member hit their regular "200 yards right down the middle" drive, have a second shot nearly hit out of the divot they left the day before, and pull out the range finder. Hey, it was 150 to the green yesterday and nothing has changed today!   Talk about slowing down the game!


Erik...I am "lining up" my putt while I am approaching the green. Based on pin position, and regularly playing the same course, I have a general idea how the ball is going to roll. Once on the green I take less than 10 seconds to calculate speed and break and then aim at a spot and putt.  I am a real good putter...in fact I would be happy to challenge you on the greens the next time you're in Montana.  Sadly, you will lose.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My "facts" are not unique when it comes to straddling the line between the ball and the hole.

The fact remains that reading the green using your senses is still relying on the golfer's skill to do so. It's not looking at a computer simulation. It's not looking at a book and looking at the correct cell in a spreadsheet. It's just not using their eyes… but Tiger Woods used to putt from memory, or rely on his memory a good bit. Others look at the grain, or plumb bob (as ineffective as that is). Those are "skills". So is feeling the tilt of the ground with your feet.

I think the extra steps taken via Aimpoint can certainly be significant and in the aggregate affect the amount of "turbulence" golfers may find around the hole near the end of the day.

What results in more steps: walking 2/3 of the way to the hole and 2/3 of the way back to the ball, or walking to the other side of the hole and back to your ball?

AimPoint doesn't require more steps. Heck, half the time, I read my putt when I'm taking the flagstick out of the hole. I've gotta walk up there anyway. So, where are the topics talking about how we should revoke the option to remove the flagstick given all this unnecessary extra traffic to spots right up to the hole.

Here's the simple gist of it:

• Most first putts are not from 4'. Most are from 15, 20, 30' out. So, AimPoint users are not getting within about 6-7' of the hole on those reads, and are often not closer than 12' or so.
• Most second putts are tap-ins that don't require a read. So, again, not straddling the line at 2'.

In other words, you're all acting like an AimPointer has a 5' putt on every hole, and thus, they are out there standing 2' from the hole 18 times a round. It's not accurate.

For example, when my ball is 10 feet or closer to the hole, I try to limit it to one trip in and back out as the total area on a 10 foot radius is a mere 314 sq. feet which everyone must putt thru.

Literally everyone is going to walk in there to get their ball, and you guys must play some of the softest greens in the world. We haven't had metal spikes at most golf courses for like 30 years. I don't remember the last time I had to think about a footprint or a spike mark on the greens.

Now if I want to get a better look at the line and walk around a bit, I will do so from a distance, say at 20 feet away from the hole, (this area is 4 times the size at 1256 sq feet).

WAY more footprints than walking 1/2 way to 2/3 of the way to the hole and back.

Alongside slow play considerations, I think this is just as undesirable.

I've yet to see anyone share any actual slow play considerations, except for those who ADD AimPoint to their other green reading methods. AimPoint Express itself is quite fast.

The irony, the absolute silliness, is the member that plays the same course and hasn't figured out how their greens break and how fast/slow they are rolling day in and day out.

So they should rely on memory entirely to read putts? Even though might not have had a putt from near that spot to near that hole location in years? Ha ha ha.

Hey, it was 150 to the green yesterday and nothing has changed today! Talk about slowing down the game!

So they have to remember everything? Because, if they get a distance while someone else is prepping to take their shot, that five seconds is affecting things… how?

I have a general idea how the ball is going to roll. Once on the green I take less than 10 seconds to calculate speed and break and then aim at a spot and putt. I am a real good putter...in fact I would be happy to challenge you on the greens the next time you're in Montana. Sadly, you will lose.

Ha ha ha. You might win over a small enough sample size, but given enough holes… nah, bro. Since I've never been to Montana and have no plans to visit… your money is safe, as is your ego. 

My routine takes just about as long as yours. Again, I've shared that several people have said things like "how do you putt so well if you don't even read the greens?" Like I said in this post, I often read the putt while getting the flagstick from the hole; they don't even notice me doing it. My read is often done before they've hit their putts.

[Rob Marshall]

https://www.golfwrx.com/747940/jim-nantz-says-he-cant-stand-this-element-of-golf/?utm_source=Front&utm_medium=Featured_Latest&utm_campaign=GolfWRX_OnSite&utm_content=unused


Jim Nantz chimes in…..

[Mike Wagner]

My "facts" are not unique when it comes to straddling the line between the ball and the hole.

The fact remains that reading the green using your senses is still relying on the golfer's skill to do so. It's not looking at a computer simulation. It's not looking at a book and looking at the correct cell in a spreadsheet. It's just not using their eyes… but Tiger Woods used to putt from memory, or rely on his memory a good bit. Others look at the grain, or plumb bob (as ineffective as that is). Those are "skills". So is feeling the tilt of the ground with your feet.

I think the extra steps taken via Aimpoint can certainly be significant and in the aggregate affect the amount of "turbulence" golfers may find around the hole near the end of the day.

What results in more steps: walking 2/3 of the way to the hole and 2/3 of the way back to the ball, or walking to the other side of the hole and back to your ball?

AimPoint doesn't require more steps. Heck, half the time, I read my putt when I'm taking the flagstick out of the hole. I've gotta walk up there anyway. So, where are the topics talking about how we should revoke the option to remove the flagstick given all this unnecessary extra traffic to spots right up to the hole.

Here's the simple gist of it:

• Most first putts are not from 4'. Most are from 15, 20, 30' out. So, AimPoint users are not getting within about 6-7' of the hole on those reads, and are often not closer than 12' or so.
• Most second putts are tap-ins that don't require a read. So, again, not straddling the line at 2'.

In other words, you're all acting like an AimPointer has a 5' putt on every hole, and thus, they are out there standing 2' from the hole 18 times a round. It's not accurate.

For example, when my ball is 10 feet or closer to the hole, I try to limit it to one trip in and back out as the total area on a 10 foot radius is a mere 314 sq. feet which everyone must putt thru.

Literally everyone is going to walk in there to get their ball, and you guys must play some of the softest greens in the world. We haven't had metal spikes at most golf courses for like 30 years. I don't remember the last time I had to think about a footprint or a spike mark on the greens.

Now if I want to get a better look at the line and walk around a bit, I will do so from a distance, say at 20 feet away from the hole, (this area is 4 times the size at 1256 sq feet).

WAY more footprints than walking 1/2 way to 2/3 of the way to the hole and back.

Alongside slow play considerations, I think this is just as undesirable.

I've yet to see anyone share any actual slow play considerations, except for those who ADD AimPoint to their other green reading methods. AimPoint Express itself is quite fast.

The irony, the absolute silliness, is the member that plays the same course and hasn't figured out how their greens break and how fast/slow they are rolling day in and day out.

So they should rely on memory entirely to read putts? Even though might not have had a putt from near that spot to near that hole location in years? Ha ha ha.

Hey, it was 150 to the green yesterday and nothing has changed today! Talk about slowing down the game!

So they have to remember everything? Because, if they get a distance while someone else is prepping to take their shot, that five seconds is affecting things… how?

I have a general idea how the ball is going to roll. Once on the green I take less than 10 seconds to calculate speed and break and then aim at a spot and putt. I am a real good putter...in fact I would be happy to challenge you on the greens the next time you're in Montana. Sadly, you will lose.

Ha ha ha. You might win over a small enough sample size, but given enough holes… nah, bro. Since I've never been to Montana and have no plans to visit… your money is safe, as is your ego. 

My routine takes just about as long as yours. Again, I've shared that several people have said things like "how do you putt so well if you don't even read the greens?" Like I said in this post, I often read the putt while getting the flagstick from the hole; they don't even notice me doing it. My read is often done before they've hit their putts.

At least you make me laugh ... the arbiter of facts .. that's great. Oh and regarding the footprints, add 3 or 4 per straddle as they settle their feet 4 or 5 times in the same spot.


Using your feet to feel slope is a TASK, not a skill.


Is Aimpoint express cheaper?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

At least you make me laugh ... the arbiter of facts .. that's great.

I'm not the arbiter of facts. You seem to be confused over what "facts" are. Again, using your feet to read a green is still a skill, and you said:

They might realize it's a ridiculous thing to have to put up with .. and they might realize it takes away from green reading as an art / skill.

Using your feet to feel slope is a TASK, not a skill.

No, you've got to know if you're feeling a 2% slope or a 2.5% slope. Just like you would to look at a putt with your eyes and know the putt will break a certain amount. I could just as easily say "looking at the line with your eyes is a TASK, not a skill." And it'd be just as silly when I say that as when you said what you said.

Is Aimpoint express cheaper?

Than what? I would bet that you're confused here - when people are straddling putts and holding up fingers, that's "AimPoint Express." The original AimPoint used charts. It was still pretty fast, but this is faster. Hence the "Express."

[Mike Wagner]

At least you make me laugh ... the arbiter of facts .. that's great.

I'm not the arbiter of facts. You seem to be confused over what "facts" are. Again, using your feet to read a green is still a skill, and you said:

They might realize it's a ridiculous thing to have to put up with .. and they might realize it takes away from green reading as an art / skill.

Using your feet to feel slope is a TASK, not a skill.

No, you've got to know if you're feeling a 2% slope or a 2.5% slope. Just like you would to look at a putt with your eyes and know the putt will break a certain amount. I could just as easily say "looking at the line with your eyes is a TASK, not a skill." And it'd be just as silly when I say that as when you said what you said.

Is Aimpoint express cheaper?

Than what? I would bet that you're confused here - when people are straddling putts and holding up fingers, that's "AimPoint Express." The original AimPoint used charts. It was still pretty fast, but this is faster. Hence the "Express."

Ok, Erik .. I'll just trust your "science"


You actually made me laugh this morning.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()