[Tim Martin]

https://links.si.com/u/click?_t=170d9ea49fb54ead944fb7b5be3df3eb&_m=c3e36ee7aaca4717a49b29fe3754d30f&_e=B6r7LlSH7jlFjbM8W5XEBp1hwnmwxuyyuDDfXoGGk8Hlaoz22iP3uKk2jso1DgPaIRV3XctkB2wCi7ufp7_EM6v5A5lerFIY-0BdH__94wzL6wzHQJseNqQrCu70y8vPN6_yYIbNZ2gJYCSj_KrA891qi3X3XKFWYR-HW-HugleBNDEuTyt_aOzVqgEE4aVlEcYKFbO4iAAPS_3oIChWkPbvtNvH2awAbpK25DkVnWkIDMsqidSDHofr2z0Z7qwH9_vFcu7LGLx77A7pjoIkNFq2o7BMyE92lrvLVdZeah8PVpsKbwTV88jJtHpRE2FUJfCwR2gPJi39on-2S3_sEqLHswOTxzEyG8hNCDexJwnUyRwj-n1FH2CmIdLUEz3oGThER3C9NtjZePMPd-wDU0By99K_E2ivUWjcj5xdrpgQedRLlsUWp0cUJr9wKnIb

What say you?

[archie_struthers]

 


Good stuff Tim!  Plumb bobbing was all the rage when I was young. Perhaps the straddle will die a quicker death.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Even if I knew it would improve my putting (and I should try anything as I'm a terrible putter), I would never be so rude to my playing partners, that I'd try it. I don't like broom handle putters and didn't like anchoring, but Aimpoint is so much worse; it's an abomination. 

[Tom_Doak]

I didn't think I was going to like the pitch clock in baseball, but after seeing it in action I think it is going to be great.  You are allowed a certain number of exceptions / time outs [I don't know how many], but otherwise you have to get on with it, instead of taking a long mental break before every single pitch.


The pro golf tour should do it, too.  You don't have to ban AimPoint; if there was a timer on players they just wouldn't have time for it.

[JMEvensky]

I didn't think I was going to like the pitch clock in baseball, but after seeing it in action I think it is going to be great.  You are allowed a certain number of exceptions / time outs [I don't know how many], but otherwise you have to get on with it, instead of taking a long mental break before every single pitch.


The pro golf tour should do it, too.  You don't have to ban AimPoint; if there was a timer on players they just wouldn't have time for it.

+1 on the baseball part

[Tim Gavrich]

I like learning new things, but it feels likely that I'll never understand how a golfer's feet, clad in what is often a thick and stiff layer of leather/plastic/TPU/whatever material, could somehow be a better judge of the tilt of a putting green than that same golfer's eyes.

[Tom_Doak]

I like learning new things, but it feels likely that I'll never understand how a golfer's feet, clad in what is often a thick and stiff layer of leather/plastic/TPU/whatever material, could somehow be a better judge of the tilt of a putting green than that same golfer's eyes.

Actually, I have used my feet [in addition to my eyes] to try and feel the slope for many years, after Tom Watson said something about it in a long-ago article.  I just never did it as annoyingly as the AimPoint method suggests.

[Steve Lang]

   Nothing wrong with using the senses...


I always seem to putt better when playing with someone who uses the Aimpoint approach...which btw drives me crazy... guess its extra incentive.  I'll normally mention the phase of the moon, current dew point and wind speed and direction versus the grain after making putts of more than 2 paces...  good psyops 

[Mike Wagner]

https://links.si.com/u/click?_t=170d9ea49fb54ead944fb7b5be3df3eb&_m=c3e36ee7aaca4717a49b29fe3754d30f&_e=B6r7LlSH7jlFjbM8W5XEBp1hwnmwxuyyuDDfXoGGk8Hlaoz22iP3uKk2jso1DgPaIRV3XctkB2wCi7ufp7_EM6v5A5lerFIY-0BdH__94wzL6wzHQJseNqQrCu70y8vPN6_yYIbNZ2gJYCSj_KrA891qi3X3XKFWYR-HW-HugleBNDEuTyt_aOzVqgEE4aVlEcYKFbO4iAAPS_3oIChWkPbvtNvH2awAbpK25DkVnWkIDMsqidSDHofr2z0Z7qwH9_vFcu7LGLx77A7pjoIkNFq2o7BMyE92lrvLVdZeah8PVpsKbwTV88jJtHpRE2FUJfCwR2gPJi39on-2S3_sEqLHswOTxzEyG8hNCDexJwnUyRwj-n1FH2CmIdLUEz3oGThER3C9NtjZePMPd-wDU0By99K_E2ivUWjcj5xdrpgQedRLlsUWp0cUJr9wKnIb

What say you?

I'd ban the straddle in a heartbeat ... and the pacing .. good grief. Played a tournament recently and one guy was pacing his putts right to the hole opposite other players putts. They need to teach a different, faster, more respectful way.

[Dan_Callahan]

A shot clock would be amazing. Because as annoying as the aim point stuff is, in terms of slowing down play it's no worse than the person who needs to walk around the hole twice to see his put from every conceivable angle. Or the person who doesn't even start to read his putt until it is his turn to go (a huge pet peeve of mine).

[John Bouffard]

I didn't think I was going to like the pitch clock in baseball, but after seeing it in action I think it is going to be great.  You are allowed a certain number of exceptions / time outs [I don't know how many], but otherwise you have to get on with it, instead of taking a long mental break before every single pitch.


The pro golf tour should do it, too.  You don't have to ban AimPoint; if there was a timer on players they just wouldn't have time for it.

Amen!!


I've heard people say "that's NOT BASEBALL," and similar gripes. "Baseball" today is nothing like what it was when most of the rules were written. Rewriting rules of games should be routine. As players exploit gaps in the rules, you change the rules to expose those gaps. In baseball, going slow helps pitchers. They can recover athletically between pitches. They can avoid mistakes with signs. They can wait until the butterfly of peace settles on their soul and they are fully ready to deliver the pitch. It's just gotten out of hand, and someone needed to do something to tell them "stop f-ing around and play baseball."


In the case of golf and putting (even full shots in many cases), I think it's quite similar. Players take a long time over putts because, I assume, it works. They putt better, to a point, the longer they take to assess the putt, line up their putt, and so forth. But eventually there is a point when it ceases to be athletics and becomes chess (bad example, even they put clocks on players). For the televised pro game, it's boring and it's rude to make spectators sit there while the player fusses for 2 minutes on where the line of their ball is pointing. I think it's a serious issue of politeness and threatens the appeal of the game; the rule to "play without delay" has been flouted so often that they've redefined "delay."


It's gotten quite extreme, and I don't care how much money they are playing for, they have to change things so that the game moves along.


Aim point can still be used; at the very least, feeling the slope of the green by straddling the line of putt can still be used. And if the player is sensible about it, they can use the entire system, if they just get on with it. Some aimpoint'ers are faster than traditional green readers. So it's not so much a question of a specific method as it is that what is considered ok and what is expected regarding preparing for shots has gotten way out of control.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I like learning new things, but it feels likely that I'll never understand how a golfer's feet, clad in what is often a thick and stiff layer of leather/plastic/TPU/whatever material, could somehow be a better judge of the tilt of a putting green than that same golfer's eyes.

And yet… they are. The height of the soles of the shoes doesn't change, really, and we're really pretty good at sensing/feeling slope. Much better with our feet, particularly once trained, than by using our eyes, which tend to be fooled pretty easily. You should find an AimPoint instructor and give it a try, especially if you like learning new things.

As to the article… AimPoint is no slower (and is often quite a bit faster) than "traditional" green reading.

As with many things… slow players are slow. Regardless of the method. I'm all in favor of enforcing slow play.

[Tim Martin]

The game definitely needs nine and ten year kids acting like little automatons using Aimpoint. What are the chances of them slowing anything down?

[Rob Marshall]

I took the class from John Graham. It's interesting, I don't think it was slowing anything down when I used but. I stopped after about a month.

[Tim Martin]

I took the class from John Graham. It's interesting, I don't think it was slowing anything down when I used but. I stopped after about a month.

Rob-It wasn’t slowing you down but what about kids between the ages of 7 and 15 as referenced in the article?

[Ronald Montesano]

Having a shot clock would be fiscally irresponsible. Think of how many monitors you would have to pay to monitor EVERY SINGLE GOLFER ON EVERY SINGLE SHOT ON EVERY SINGLE HOLE OF EVERY SINGLE DAY.

At which level would you start implementing it? Would you pay those people, too?

Stop this nonsense now. Come up with an idea that you didn't steal from another sport.

[Tom_Doak]

Fiscally irresponsible for the PGA Tour?  You've gotta be kidding.  They could fund it by forfeiting 8th place from the PIP, if they wanted to.  There's a scoreboard by every green.  There are three cameras triangulated so they can pinpoint the location of every shot hit all week long. 


They could do a timer.  But it wouldn't be popular among the players, so it would be up to the USGA or The Masters to implement it first.

[A.G._Crockett]

I like learning new things, but it feels likely that I'll never understand how a golfer's feet, clad in what is often a thick and stiff layer of leather/plastic/TPU/whatever material, could somehow be a better judge of the tilt of a putting green than that same golfer's eyes.

Tim, you walk on somewhat sloped surfaces all day, every day without relying on your eyes; only the sensitivity of your feet.  The idea of feeling slope with your feet is as old as golf itself, not only in putting, but in full swings, the short game, and just walking the course.  Aimpoint is nothing more than a quantified method for putting.


Second, if a golfer is slow AND using Aimpoint, he’s not slow BECAUSE of AimPoint; he’s slow because he’s slow. The vast majority of the AimPoint Express method can be, and SHOULD be done while others are putting, and I’d add that you NEVER walk around and look a the putt from all four sides in AimPoint.  If a golfer does that anyway, that again is just generic slow play; it is NOT AimPoint.


Third, the reasons for using AimPoint might vary, and might go beyond just putting.  I’ve had 8 procedures on my right eye in the last 4+ years, and that eye is effectively destroyed now.  I have very poor depth perception, and while that bothers my full swing only minimally, I have had to completely relearn the short game, including putting, especially reading greens.  I chip with a hybrid whenever I can, for instance, to minimize my issues with x act ly where the ground is; it looks closer than it actually is on chips.  Putting is much the same.


Aimpoint has saved my putting, and my ability to compete. 5 years ago, I was a great putter, and while I’ll never be that again, I’m competent and competitive again. My eyes just can’t see small slopes anymore, but my feet can feel’em. 


And I play pretty fast, btw.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm an eyes guy almost exclusively when it comes to greens and trying to figure out how the green ties into the local surroundings and beyond.  In terms of mental exercises, the one thing that stuck with me thru the years is imagining a massive bucket of water being dropped on the green from above and visualizing how it would drain.

[Max Prokopy]

I like learning new things, but it feels likely that I'll never understand how a golfer's feet, clad in what is often a thick and stiff layer of leather/plastic/TPU/whatever material, could somehow be a better judge of the tilt of a putting green than that same golfer's eyes.

Actually, it's the other way around.  The eyes are far, far easier to fool.  The brain reconstitutes signals into perception with a pretty astonishing array of processes in the visual field.


Much of our proprioception is carried out in simpler systems that are much more resilient.  If anything, aimpoint is a big improvement over visual reads and the results are pretty clear on that. 

[A.G._Crockett]

I like learning new things, but it feels likely that I'll never understand how a golfer's feet, clad in what is often a thick and stiff layer of leather/plastic/TPU/whatever material, could somehow be a better judge of the tilt of a putting green than that same golfer's eyes.

Actually, it's the other way around.  The eyes are far, far easier to fool.  The brain reconstitutes signals into perception with a pretty astonishing array of processes in the visual field.


Much of our proprioception is carried out in simpler systems that are much more resilient.  If anything, aimpoint is a big improvement over visual reads and the results are pretty clear on that.

Max, we used to ride bicycles on rail trails all over the SE.  it is commonplace to be visually positive that you are going uphill (or down) because of the surroundings, only to have your legs and gears tell you that the opposite was true. 


My feet never get fooled, unlike my lying eyes.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I went to a couple of Spring Training games this year and they were 2:05 and 2:15.  What a change from previous years.  I love it.  All the controversies of pitch clock/batter readiness early in ST was eliminated by the end of ST.  Players adapted...amazingly /s. 

[Cal Carlisle]

According to Baseball Reference the average length of a baseball game was as follows:
1950: 2:21
1960: 2:38
1970: 2:34
1980: 2:38
1990: 2:52
2000: 3:01
2010: 2:54
2020: 3:06


So far this year? 2:38. People got used to the farting around (or they just quit watching the game).


Purely from an everyday golf standpoint, it is disheartening to see the kind of time-wasting that goes on around a green.

[Mike Wagner]

As to the article… AimPoint is no slower (and is often quite a bit faster) than "traditional" green reading.

Possibly true if you are talking bout the slowest players out there. I have NEVER seen someone doing Aimpoint in a tournament that was the same or faster than someone who wasn't doing it. Ever.


Unless you're talking the fastest few people that use aimpoint vs the slowest green readers, you're not representing reality.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I dont have many regrets in this world.


However, one of them is the $180 i flushed on an AimPoint lesson.
After some balky putting i succumbed to tempatation and our teaching pro (one of the best in the state) showed me this black magic trick.


Neat, but if you cannot discern a 1% grade from a 3% grade with your big old feet, then this is "tits on a bull".
And since one of my legs is 1/2" longer than the other, it's just pointless.


I shelfed it after 3 days and avoided the ridicule.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()