[John Kavanaugh]

JR Smith gets a lesson in Aimpoint in episode 2 of his docuseries. I share his reaction.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

Your experiences are not the totality of reality. AimPoint reads take less time than a regular read. They require less walking around, etc.

The problem is often that sometimes people will do AimPoint at the end, after they've done all or most of a "traditional" read.

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.

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.

You're in a small minority if you can't tell the difference between 1 and 3%. And for those with one longer leg, we typically advise them to always keep the one leg (whichever works best for them) on the uphill side.

[Jeff Schley]

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.

Cal yes it has been painful watching MLB the last decade plus, as it takes what seems like forever. This new pitch clock is a good step and also causes batters to stop adjusting gloves, shirt, helmet, cup after every pitch.

[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.

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.

Thank you AG, I hadn't thought of it that way.  Youtube has some pretty incredible optical illusions. 


Vestibular illusions?  Well, those don't really exist on any generalizable scale because the perception is so much farther down the phylogenetic tree. 

[Max Prokopy]

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.

You're in a small minority if you can't tell the difference between 1 and 3%. And for those with one longer leg, we typically advise them to always keep the one leg (whichever works best for them) on the uphill side.

Your brain has incredibly reliable adjustments to leg length discrepancies.  It takes 5 steps or less for your feed-forward and feed-back loops to adjust to these types of changes.  And those changes stick, so if someone has a true leg length discrepancy the central nervous system isn't fooled.  Same is true for shoes...it takes a just couple steps for your brain to learn which muscles to tune to minimize vestibular noise and bone vibration. 


Not that I'm an Aimpoint instructor or guru, but I am a biomechanics expert and I've never seen a neurotypical with two legs who can't tell 1% from 2% slopes. 

[Mike Wagner]

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.

Your experiences are not the totality of reality. AimPoint reads take less time than a regular read. They require less walking around, etc.

The problem is often that sometimes people will do AimPoint at the end, after they've done all or most of a "traditional" read.

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.

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.

You're in a small minority if you can't tell the difference between 1 and 3%. And for those with one longer leg, we typically advise them to always keep the one leg (whichever works best for them) on the uphill side.

Word salad. Never said my experiences equaled the totality of reality. My experiences are pretty simple though ... the aimpoint guys are slower in tournaments. Please just tell me you've seen this, and if you haven't, go to a random state event and you'll see someone that's not your student using it. Watch the pacing up to the hole and in other player's through lines. I'm not saying the system isn't valuable, it's just that I haven't seen anyone in a high level amateur tournament using it that wasn't slower or quite frankly, ruder to other players. You could use this real world observation to remind players to be respectful of other player's lines.


I can totally see where you're faster, but you're also using examples of outliers that take forever reading greens "normally." I despise them too. I'm also the guy that believes we should ban lining up the line on the ball.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

Not sure how long you been around GCA, but if you hate the "cheater line", then this epic 47 page, 1170 post thread from several years back is for you. 

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29286.0.html

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,

Not sure how long you been around GCA, but if you hate the "cheater line", then this epic 47 page, 1170 post thread from several years back is for you. 

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29286.0.html

LOL .. been around plenty long and remember the thread. It's a disgrace they banned anchoring ... then the whole flagstick debacle (in the name of speeding up play) ... but have no issue with people slowing down play using that stupid line.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Word salad. Never said my experiences equaled the totality of reality.

You said "Unless you're talking the fastest few people that use aimpoint vs the slowest green readers, you're not representing reality." I'm here to say your experiences are not reality either.

I haven't seen anyone in a high level amateur tournament using it that wasn't slower or quite frankly, ruder to other players.

Not a one, eh!? Big fan of absolutes. "Not representing reality" and "haven't seen anyone." I'd wager that you haven't even noticed some of the faster players using AimPoint.

I can totally see where you're faster, but you're also using examples of outliers that take forever reading greens "normally." I despise them too. I'm also the guy that believes we should ban lining up the line on the ball.

I feel I'm comparing them to someone who reads a putt from behind the ball and behind the hole, which is pretty commonplace.

The simple fact is this: an AimPoint read takes about five to ten seconds. The "read" itself is about three seconds spread over two parts: a second or so at the "spot" to "get a number" and then two seconds at the ball to hold up fingers if you want to. If you have to get a number at multiple parts… add a second for each. The rest of the time is walking around a little, which AimPoint readers have to do much less of than someone who goes to the other side of the hole.

If you only quickly read the putt while crouching behind the ball and replacing it, that would be the only faster way of "reading" greens, but nobody playing anything serious does that.

Slow players are slow. AimPoint is, in and of itself, pretty fast.

I've been watching my daughter's college event the past few days. One girl (using AimPoint) took just over a minute to hit a five-foot putt. My daughter took 23 seconds the next hole to hit a putt of the same length. The same girl in the first took 76 seconds to hit a tee shot… while my daughter took 18.

Slow players are slow. Methodical players are methodical.

You can also do a lot of your AimPoint read before it's your turn to putt (as you can with the "traditional" way to read a green).

[Tim Martin]

Word salad. Never said my experiences equaled the totality of reality.

You said "Unless you're talking the fastest few people that use aimpoint vs the slowest green readers, you're not representing reality." I'm here to say your experiences are not reality either.

I haven't seen anyone in a high level amateur tournament using it that wasn't slower or quite frankly, ruder to other players.

Not a one, eh!? Big fan of absolutes. "Not representing reality" and "haven't seen anyone." I'd wager that you haven't even noticed some of the faster players using AimPoint.

I can totally see where you're faster, but you're also using examples of outliers that take forever reading greens "normally." I despise them too. I'm also the guy that believes we should ban lining up the line on the ball.

I feel I'm comparing them to someone who reads a putt from behind the ball and behind the hole, which is pretty commonplace.

The simple fact is this: an AimPoint read takes about five to ten seconds. The "read" itself is about three seconds spread over two parts: a second or so at the "spot" to "get a number" and then two seconds at the ball to hold up fingers if you want to. If you have to get a number at multiple parts… add a second for each. The rest of the time is walking around a little, which AimPoint readers have to do much less of than someone who goes to the other side of the hole.

If you only quickly read the putt while crouching behind the ball and replacing it, that would be the only faster way of "reading" greens, but nobody playing anything serious does that.

Slow players are slow. AimPoint is, in and of itself, pretty fast.

I've been watching my daughter's college event the past few days. One girl (using AimPoint) took just over a minute to hit a five-foot putt. My daughter took 23 seconds the next hole to hit a putt of the same length. The same girl in the first took 76 seconds to hit a tee shot… while my daughter took 18.

Slow players are slow. Methodical players are methodical.

You can also do a lot of your AimPoint read before it's your turn to putt (as you can with the "traditional" way to read a green).

You are timing the player’s pre shot routines as a spectator? Were you commissioned by the teams to collect the data or is that just something you do on your own?   As an advocate of Aimpoint how about addressing the premise of the thread which is kids as young as seven years old using the “system.”

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You are timing the player’s pre shot routines as a spectator?

After this topic, yeah, I did four times. Those times feel representative, but they're literally just four times.

As an advocate of Aimpoint how about addressing the premise of the thread which is kids as young as seven years old using the “system.”

I've addressed it several times, TT.

AimPoint Express was originally created FOR kids. The old AimPoint system used charts (which were still pretty darn quick, but not as fast as Express), and Express was created so that kids could do it without as many steps. I don't see an issue with seven-year-olds using it? They can do it quickly, too, and it sure beats guessing. Plus, if they take fewer putts because they can skip gaining "experience" putting with a mini shortcut, that can also speed up play slightly.

Part of the problem is perception. TV cameras know not to cut to a guy walking around reading the greens because he's obviously not about to putt in the next five seconds, but since AimPoint is done in a smaller area… producers cut to the player and we see them walking around a bit.

[Tim Martin]

You are timing the player’s pre shot routines as a spectator?

After this topic, yeah, I did four times. Those times feel representative, but they're literally just four times.

As an advocate of Aimpoint how about addressing the premise of the thread which is kids as young as seven years old using the “system.”

I've addressed it several times, TT.

AimPoint Express was originally created FOR kids. The old AimPoint system used charts (which were still pretty darn quick, but not as fast as Express), and Express was created so that kids could do it without as many steps. I don't see an issue with seven-year-olds using it? They can do it quickly, too, and it sure beats guessing. Plus, if they take fewer putts because they can skip gaining "experience" putting with a mini shortcut, that can also speed up play slightly.

Part of the problem is perception. TV cameras know not to cut to a guy walking around reading the greens because he's obviously not about to putt in the next five seconds, but since AimPoint is done in a smaller area… producers cut to the player and we see them walking around a bit.

I appreciate the clarification DE, as it’s the first reference I’ve seen to kids on this thread.

[Mike Wagner]

Word salad. Never said my experiences equaled the totality of reality.

You said "Unless you're talking the fastest few people that use aimpoint vs the slowest green readers, you're not representing reality." I'm here to say your experiences are not reality either.

I haven't seen anyone in a high level amateur tournament using it that wasn't slower or quite frankly, ruder to other players.

Not a one, eh!? Big fan of absolutes. "Not representing reality" and "haven't seen anyone." I'd wager that you haven't even noticed some of the faster players using AimPoint.

I can totally see where you're faster, but you're also using examples of outliers that take forever reading greens "normally." I despise them too. I'm also the guy that believes we should ban lining up the line on the ball.

I feel I'm comparing them to someone who reads a putt from behind the ball and behind the hole, which is pretty commonplace.

The simple fact is this: an AimPoint read takes about five to ten seconds. The "read" itself is about three seconds spread over two parts: a second or so at the "spot" to "get a number" and then two seconds at the ball to hold up fingers if you want to. If you have to get a number at multiple parts… add a second for each. The rest of the time is walking around a little, which AimPoint readers have to do much less of than someone who goes to the other side of the hole.

If you only quickly read the putt while crouching behind the ball and replacing it, that would be the only faster way of "reading" greens, but nobody playing anything serious does that.

Slow players are slow. AimPoint is, in and of itself, pretty fast.

I've been watching my daughter's college event the past few days. One girl (using AimPoint) took just over a minute to hit a five-foot putt. My daughter took 23 seconds the next hole to hit a putt of the same length. The same girl in the first took 76 seconds to hit a tee shot… while my daughter took 18.

Slow players are slow. Methodical players are methodical.

You can also do a lot of your AimPoint read before it's your turn to putt (as you can with the "traditional" way to read a green).

No, not one. I try to not speak in absolutes, and  that was just an easy fact. No, no one's slipped under the radar I didn't notice. They're hard to miss in tournaments .. or anywhere else.

[Max Prokopy]

If, and it's a big if, one thinks that 7-year-olds should spend time reading greens then there is no special problem with AimPoint. 


My anecdotal observations are that Aimpoint itself is not at all slow, but the people who use AimPoint AND their eyes AND their caddie AND the pin charts will be slow...as Erik eloquently suggested, that's not a fault of AimPoint per se. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Nobody is slow because of AimPoint, or the line on the ball, or GPS apps or lasers or pacing, or walking around 4 sides looking at a putt, or plumb bobbing, or walking vs riding, or age, or gender, or nationality, or anything else you can think of that gets blamed for slow play.
Slow players are slow because they are SLOW.  What they DO while they are being slow is beside the point.  The point is that they are SLOW.

[Mike Wagner]

Nobody is slow because of AimPoint, or the line on the ball, or GPS apps or lasers or pacing, or walking around 4 sides looking at a putt, or plumb bobbing, or walking vs riding, or age, or gender, or nationality, or anything else you can think of that gets blamed for slow play.
Slow players are slow because they are SLOW.  What they DO while they are being slow is beside the point.  The point is that they are SLOW.

This is an extremely fair point in my view. However, I don't want to add things like lining up the line on the ball to the equation, I'd rather take them away ... and then slow shame.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If, and it's a big if, one thinks that 7-year-olds should spend time reading greens then there is no special problem with AimPoint.

My anecdotal observations are that Aimpoint itself is not at all slow, but the people who use AimPoint AND their eyes AND their caddie AND the pin charts will be slow...as Erik eloquently suggested, that's not a fault of AimPoint per se.

Nobody is slow because of AimPoint, or the line on the ball, or GPS apps or lasers or pacing, or walking around 4 sides looking at a putt, or plumb bobbing, or walking vs riding, or age, or gender, or nationality, or anything else you can think of that gets blamed for slow play.Slow players are slow because they are SLOW.  What they DO while they are being slow is beside the point.  The point is that they are SLOW.

Yep.

This is an extremely fair point in my view. However, I don't want to add things like lining up the line on the ball to the equation, I'd rather take them away ... and then slow shame.

I hate slow play.

So, yes, enforce slow play penalties. Then, whatever green reading method someone uses, they'll speed the heck up!

[Max Prokopy]

Nobody is slow because of AimPoint, or the line on the ball, or GPS apps or lasers or pacing, or walking around 4 sides looking at a putt, or plumb bobbing, or walking vs riding, or age, or gender, or nationality, or anything else you can think of that gets blamed for slow play.
Slow players are slow because they are SLOW.  What they DO while they are being slow is beside the point.  The point is that they are SLOW.

Amen to that, though I'll say the Scots sure seem to get around pretty quickly.  I play at a good clip and felt like I was holding up the whole course. 

[Mike Wagner]

Just finished an event. 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.

[Tim Gavrich]

Just finished an event. 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.

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?

[Kalen Braley]

Just finished an event. 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.

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?

To boot...

If you're unlucky enough to have a late afternoon tee time, the area right around the cup is going to be absolutely hammered with all that extra traffic over the course of the day. 

[David Kelly]

I think Aimpoint violates 2 of the 3 aspects of the R&A's edict that "All players are expected to play in the spirit of the game..."


2) "Showing consideration to others – for example, by playing at a prompt pace, looking out for the safety of others, and not distracting the play of another player."


3) "Taking good care of the course..."


However, as the R&A says, unless the violations are considered as serious,  "There is no penalty under the Rules for failing to act in this way." 


It just makes the game less enjoyable.

[Rob Marshall]

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.


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.


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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()