[Erik J. Barzeski]

We taught a guy once, in Boston, who was the club president. Private AimPoint lesson on their practice green. We had scoped out a putt that broke about 3.5' to the left. There was a flower bed by the curb behind the green that, due to the angle of the parking lot, appeared to slant the other way. Well, Mr. Club President comes out and says "Oh, I can read this putt." So he goes to the back side of the hole, walks around the other side, eventually goes up and sticks the tee in the ground about a foot outside the hole… and says confidently "that's where I'd aim." A classic under-read, you may think. Well, the guy put the tee to the left, as he thought the putt broke to the right. Maybe owing to the curb, I don't know, but he'd used his eyes, and not only under-read the break, but got the direction of the break entirely wrong. And this wasn't a 0.5% slope putt - it was significantly sloped.

When we were first trained in AimPoint like 15 years ago now, Mark Sweeney had everyone stick a tee in the ground at about 15' where the straight uphill putt was. I have known John Graham for quite awhile, so I used the method from back then to get within about 4" or so. Another fella in the group put his tee at a place that was nearly 90° to the straight uphill putt, and many were as far off as 30-45°.

Putting using your eyes is often pure folly. Read an article by Dave Pelz and he'll tell you how poorly average golfers read greens. If an AimPoint clinic or lesson did nothing but convince people how much putts actually break by rolling balls off of a Perfect Putter, it'd be worth while for most golfers. Again, I've had people put their tee in the ground 1 cup outside of a putt that breaks 8' from 25'. Very few put their tees in the ground where you can hole the putt at any speed (i.e. ~8' by speed or less, and at ~8' by it's gotta be dead middle and it'll pop up before going in).

But, by all means, keep arguing from a position of ignorance:

• It doesn't work.
• It leads to slow play.
• It leads to more footprints.

You're the ones making the claims. You need more than "it looks like" to make your case. The data and experience I and others have says the opposite.

[Niall C]

I don't play as much golf as some if not most on here in that I've probably played c.30 rounds this year which I don't think is that bad. In that time I'm fairly sure I've not played with anyone who used Aimpoint but stand to be corrected. Perhaps one of the US players did at the recent BUDA but can't recall. My point being that so far Aimpoint doesn't seem to be that big a thing amongst club golfers over here.


Now with reference to a comment Adrian Stiff made recently where he had timed a number of groups who were playing in professional/elite event at his course on how much time they spent on the green and then did a similar exercise for ordinary club golfers playing the same green. Apparently (from memory) on average the latter took between a third to half the time taken by the pro's/elite players. Not sure if that is down to the elite players using Aimpoint or some other fancy system but in the UK at least the slow play/wear of the green seems to be an elite level player issue.


Perhaps the approach should be to let them use whatever method they wish as long as get a bloody move on and don't scuff up the green while doing it. So time limit for putting; and no straddling closer than 3 or 4 feet (?) from the hole ? Thoughts ?


Niall 

[Mike Wagner]

We taught a guy once, in Boston, who was the club president. Private AimPoint lesson on their practice green. We had scoped out a putt that broke about 3.5' to the left. There was a flower bed by the curb behind the green that, due to the angle of the parking lot, appeared to slant the other way. Well, Mr. Club President comes out and says "Oh, I can read this putt." So he goes to the back side of the hole, walks around the other side, eventually goes up and sticks the tee in the ground about a foot outside the hole… and says confidently "that's where I'd aim." A classic under-read, you may think. Well, the guy put the tee to the left, as he thought the putt broke to the right. Maybe owing to the curb, I don't know, but he'd used his eyes, and not only under-read the break, but got the direction of the break entirely wrong. And this wasn't a 0.5% slope putt - it was significantly sloped.

When we were first trained in AimPoint like 15 years ago now, Mark Sweeney had everyone stick a tee in the ground at about 15' where the straight uphill putt was. I have known John Graham for quite awhile, so I used the method from back then to get within about 4" or so. Another fella in the group put his tee at a place that was nearly 90° to the straight uphill putt, and many were as far off as 30-45°.

Putting using your eyes is often pure folly. Read an article by Dave Pelz and he'll tell you how poorly average golfers read greens. If an AimPoint clinic or lesson did nothing but convince people how much putts actually break by rolling balls off of a Perfect Putter, it'd be worth while for most golfers. Again, I've had people put their tee in the ground 1 cup outside of a putt that breaks 8' from 25'. Very few put their tees in the ground where you can hole the putt at any speed (i.e. ~8' by speed or less, and at ~8' by it's gotta be dead middle and it'll pop up before going in).

But, by all means, keep arguing from a position of ignorance:

• It doesn't work.
• It leads to slow play.
• It leads to more footprints.

You're the ones making the claims. You need more than "it looks like" to make your case. The data and experience I and others have says the opposite.

Your data is all fine and / or dandy with me. All I'm hoping to get accomplished is banning straddling the line between your ball and the hole. I'm also a "ban the line on the ball" guy as well.

[Adam Uttley]

This thread is quite something.  I’ve been reluctant to join in as the conversation is quite frankly ridiculous. The fact this gets to 5 pages from grown men losing their shit is mind boggling.  How about we police the outputs (pace of play) and not the inputs? Beyond that, how about we just enjoy the game in the way we each like rather than trying to tell everyone else that they are enjoying their hobby in the wrong way?  It’s a game played for fun so if people who can’t read greens with their eyes get enjoyment from using Aimpoint, let them.  The equivalent would be banning blind book-readers from using braille!!  It’s no different from the guy who has to take a trolley / push cart.  They also look terrible but we shouldn’t ban them - they help people get around and enjoy their hobby.


To answer the call for stats, I have used Aimpoint since Nov 2016.  It took me a year to acclimatise but after 12 months my average putts per hole and per GIR dropped by 0.1, saving me 1.5-2 putts per round (now 1.74/ hole and 1.91/GIR). I used it every round at BUDA this year and even used it when playing with retro clubs and an old Dunlop 65 small ball.  Nobody would say I’m a slow player (I used it to play Pasatiempo in 2h30 and the Struie at Royal Dornoch in 1h45) but most would say I’m a good putter.  Before it became more prevalent on TV nobody even noticed me using it.

Let’s let people enjoy their hobby in the way they want and talk about some architecture instead.

[Michael Felton]

Tim, this is a false choice.  I don’t think anyone has ever even suggested that AimPoint is a substitute for good mechanics, or even helpful to putting mechanics.  Reading a green and putting a golf ball are two different skills, and NOBODY has ever suggested otherwise.


No matter how one reads a green, if they can’t get the ball started on the intended line, and/or don’t have good speed control, they won’t putt well.  And we all know that getting the speed right is almost always more important than getting the line right.  That’s been true since golf began, and always will be.

One thing to note here is if you're not good at reading putts and not good at starting the ball on the line you've chosen, it can be quite difficult to tell whether the problem was that you misread it or didn't hit your start line. If you find a method of reading the greens that is more reliable (for you), then you'll get a better idea of where you're starting the ball relative to where you want to start the ball and you may find that your ability to start it where you want to improves as you start getting better feedback.


The other thing is, if aimpoint enables you to get your first putt a foot from the hole rather than three feet from the hole, then it's going to reduce time and foot traffic significantly. Putts from a foot don't (often) get missed and don't require any/much time to line up. Putts from 3 feet get missed and require time to mark, read, put the ball down and then putt. If someone putts better with aimpoint then have at it. If someone putts better by looking then have at it.

[Tim Martin]

My only point in starting this thread was to discuss whether kids as young as seven years old should be employing Aimpoint and there were scant few replies that addressed the issue for that subset of players. It doesn’t matter to me who uses it but I question the success rate for young kids as mentioned in the article as I’m skeptical that they have the attention span required to learn the method and employ it consistently. I’m not saying that some kids can’t use the Aimpoint method at that age but I don’t think most would even be interested. Erik will most likely disagree and reference the “hundreds of millions” of shots in the data base to counter my argument which is fine if he can drill down on the data specifically for kids of that age. He should be able to as “hundreds of millions” of shots should cover every subset of player.
 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Your data is all fine and / or dandy with me. All I'm hoping to get accomplished is banning straddling the line between your ball and the hole. I'm also a "ban the line on the ball" guy as well.

Probably not gonna happen. Either one. And people aren't standing two feet away from the hole as often as you seem to think they are, anyway.

Before lines were prevalent, people just used the logo or the side stamp. (I don't putt using the line — I just put the white part of the ball facing me, and don't care if I can see a bit of a logo or something somewhere around the edges.)

This thread is quite something.  I’ve been reluctant to join in as the conversation is quite frankly ridiculous. The fact this gets to 5 pages from grown men losing their shit is mind boggling.  How about we police the outputs (pace of play) and not the inputs?

Makes too much sense, Adam. C'mon, there's no room for being reasonable here. This is for old men yelling at clouds.

Nobody would say I’m a slow player (I used it to play Pasatiempo in 2h30 and the Struie at Royal Dornoch in 1h45) but most would say I’m a good putter.  Before it became more prevalent on TV nobody even noticed me using it.

:thumbsup:

The other thing is, if aimpoint enables you to get your first putt a foot from the hole rather than three feet from the hole, then it's going to reduce time and foot traffic significantly. Putts from a foot don't (often) get missed and don't require any/much time to line up. Putts from 3 feet get missed and require time to mark, read, put the ball down and then putt. If someone putts better with aimpoint then have at it. If someone putts better by looking then have at it.

No, that makes too much sense. Michael, do better. 

My only point in starting this thread was to discuss whether kids as young as seven years old should be employing Aimpoint and there were scant few replies that addressed the issue for that subset of players.

Yes, they should. AimPoint Express was originally created for kids that age. Kids that didn't want to glance at a chart.

I don’t mean to insinuate that someone can’t use the Aimpoint method at that age

I don't think you've met many serious eight-year-old golfers. Many of them probably take golf more seriously than you do.

And… there are levels to which you can do AimPoint. I teach beginners (beginner golfers, not beginning AimPoint Express users) "stand here for a second and see which way you feel the slope, and if it's a little bit of slope or a lot of slope." Beats trying to use your eyes.

[Mike_Clayton]

Lukas Michel (ex US-mid-am champ) recently built five greens for us at Royal Perth (West Australia) and he swears by aim-point.
It's very useful for him when he's building a green and wants a pretty accurate estimation of the slope when it's all in sand.

[Ira Fishman]

The singular benefit of Aimpoint: it keeps those using it from walking around to the other side of the cup which is even slower. The secondary (yes, I know that it contradicts singular) benefit is that it allows those who teach it to get paid to do so. It does seem as if the Aimpoint clinics have receded just as the Pickleball craze has begun to do so.

[Tim Martin]

“I don’t think you’ve met many serious eight-year-old golfers. Many of them probably take golf more seriously than you do.”

How so Erik?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

…I’m skeptical that they have the attention span required to learn the method and employ it consistently. …

You shouldn't be. That's why I said "Many of them probably take golf more seriously than you do." AimPoint Express was, again, originally created for eight-year-olds.

[Tim Martin]

…I’m skeptical that they have the attention span required to learn the method and employ it consistently. …

You shouldn't be. That's why I said "Many of them probably take golf more seriously than you do." AimPoint Express was, again, originally created for eight-year-olds.

You didn’t answer my question from post 109. The eight year olds take golf more seriously than me because I don’t use Aimpoint? What in your “hundreds of millions of shots” worth of data could quantify that?

[JLahrman]

This thread is quite something.  I’ve been reluctant to join in as the conversation is quite frankly ridiculous. The fact this gets to 5 pages from grown men losing their shit is mind boggling.

A general rule of thumb on this website is once a thread reaches 5 pages, the "discussion" is bound to have become ridiculous and for entertainment purposes only. There are a handful of exceptions (like the Bill McBride Memorial thread) but not many. The fun is to read the first few posts and the last few posts and then try to guess why it went in the direction (usually down the toilet) that it did.

Let’s let people enjoy their hobby in the way they want and talk about some architecture instead.

I don't play competitive golf anymore, but for the life of me I can't bother to care much about how far my putts break. Anything outside of maybe 12 feet I give it a quick glance and let it rip. I get that others care more, especially people playing competitive events. And that's all fine and dandy. But good lord, some of the back and forth on here is, yes, ridiculous.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You didn’t answer my question from post 109. The eight year olds take golf more seriously than me because I don’t use Aimpoint?

That's not what I said. If you ever wonder why I ignore you, it's because of stupid stuff like this.

You questioned whether they had the attention span, and in saying that there are eight-year-olds that take the game more seriously than you probably do, I'm saying they're capable of focusing for the few minutes at a time that it takes to learn AimPoint Express. Again, the system was created with them specifically in mind.

[Tim Martin]

You didn’t answer my question from post 109. The eight year olds take golf more seriously than me because I don’t use Aimpoint?

That's not remotely close to what I said. If you ever wonder why I ignore you, it's because of stupid stuff like this.

Again for the third time what makes the referenced eight year olds take golf more seriously than me?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Again for the third time what makes the referenced eight year olds take golf more seriously than me?

For at least the second time today, read above. Go build some more straw men.

[Tim Martin]

Again for the third time what makes the referenced eight year olds take golf more seriously than me?

For at least the second time today, read above. Go build some more straw men.

I didn’t think you could give a reasoned answer. You a made a statement that was not provable and should just let it go.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I didn’t think you could give a reasoned answer. You a made a statement that was not provable and should just let it go.

Tim, first, this isn't even close to the topic. But you keep going on with it.

Second, AimPoint Express was designed for children, eight year olds. So, yes, inherent in that is that they can pay attention enough to do it.

Third, you questioned whether they had the patience to learn something about which you're nearly completely ignorant? It takes a few minutes at a time, a few times throughout a session. With lots of rehearsals and going through the steps. Again, it was designed for them.

Fourth, the hundreds of millions of shots from databases is relevant to scoring and strategy. It's not germane to this kind of discussion. I mean, duh.

You questioned whether they had the attention span, and in saying that there are eight-year-olds that take the game more seriously than you probably do, I'm saying they're capable of focusing for the few minutes at a time that it takes to learn AimPoint Express. Again, the system was created with them specifically in mind.

[Tim Martin]

I didn’t think you could give a reasoned answer. You a made a statement that was not provable and should just let it go.

Tim, first, this isn't even close to the topic. But you keep going on with it.

Second, AimPoint Express was designed for children, eight year olds. So, yes, inherent in that is that they can pay attention enough to do it.

Third, you questioned whether they had the patience to learn something about which you're nearly completely ignorant? It takes a few minutes at a time, a few times throughout a session. With lots of rehearsals and going through the steps. Again, it was designed for them.

Fourth, the hundreds of millions of shots from databases is relevant to scoring and strategy. It's not germane to this kind of discussion. I mean, duh.

You questioned whether they had the attention span, and in saying that there are eight-year-olds that take the game more seriously than you probably do, I'm saying they're capable of focusing for the few minutes at a time that it takes to learn AimPoint Express. Again, the system was created with them specifically in mind.

Thanks for clearing everything up. Carry on

[BHoover]

“I don’t think you’ve met many serious eight-year-old golfers. Many of them probably take golf more seriously than you do.”

How so Erik?

My eight-year old is serious about playing golf. He loves to practice, is eager to learn, wants to take lessons, and is ultra competitive. There is no chance I would ever let him take lessons from someone like Erik. I would prefer he quit the game.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My eight-year old is serious about playing golf. He loves to practice, is eager to learn, wants to take lessons, and is ultra competitive. There is no chance I would ever let him take lessons from someone like Erik. I would prefer he quit the game.

This is on topic how? You've not met me and don't know me. I guess it's "I'm ignorant but gonna talk about it anyway" night.

If your kid is serious about golf, he's likely quite capable of paying attention long enough to learn AimPoint Express.

[Tim Martin]

My eight-year old is serious about playing golf. He loves to practice, is eager to learn, wants to take lessons, and is ultra competitive. There is no chance I would ever let him take lessons from someone like Erik. I would prefer he quit the game.

This is on topic how? You've not met me and don't know me. I guess it's "I'm ignorant but gonna talk about it anyway" night.

If your kid is serious about golf, he's likely quite capable of paying attention long enough to learn AimPoint Express.

I think he’s looking to get put into the prized 5th slot on the “Generally Ignore” list. Dare to dream Brian!

[BHoover]

My eight-year old is serious about playing golf. He loves to practice, is eager to learn, wants to take lessons, and is ultra competitive. There is no chance I would ever let him take lessons from someone like Erik. I would prefer he quit the game.

This is on topic how? You've not met me and don't know me. I guess it's "I'm ignorant but gonna talk about it anyway" night.

If your kid is serious about golf, he's likely quite capable of paying attention long enough to learn AimPoint Express.

You’ve been an obnoxious ass on this forum, NLU, and probably even your own site (which, thankfully, I’ve not visited recently) for years. I respectfully suggest the common denominator may be you.


I have not asked my son about using AimPoint. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. However, I have taught him to yell “fore” when he hits a wayward shot. Do you teach your students that?

[Craig Sweet]

Most people that use analytics are obnoxious asses.  They have ruined sports. They have taken all the magic and the soul out of every sport they have touched.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You’ve been an obnoxious ass on this forum, NLU, and probably even your own site (which, thankfully, I’ve not visited recently) for years. I respectfully suggest the common denominator may be you.

Ha ha ha. You're the one making personal attacks about someone you don't know and have never met because you don't "like" what I've said or because you've added whatever "tone" into plain text while completely avoiding advancing the actual topic. Several of the people I have met and played golf with get a kick out of some of these discussions, and feel similarly about some of y'all as you seem to feel about me.

Me? I'd just rather you stick to discussing and advancing the topic. Take shots at me if you want (I think it says more about you than me), but do it while furthering the discussion.

I have not asked my son about using AimPoint. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. However, I have taught him to yell “fore” when he hits a wayward shot. Do you teach your students that?

You're right: I don't yell fore when I know a shot isn't going to hit anyone. And I don't hit into people, and tend to play with better players, so I still don't have to yell fore very often any given year.

Most people that use analytics are obnoxious asses.  They have ruined sports. They have taken all the magic and the soul out of every sport they have touched.

Ha. How many of these people have you met, Craig?

And, since I'm now guilty of not failing to advance the discussion due to a small wish to defend himself a bit, I'm out for now. Talk about the actual topic, please.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()