[Tim Gavrich]

If indeed AimPoint does improve one's putting, with several PGA Tour pros using it for parts of the last two decades, what would be the statistical markers to prove its superiority?


Perusing a handful of putting stats on the PGA Tour's stats pages, it doesn't seem as though the best golfers in the world putt much better than they did 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Here are some tour-average numbers on make percentages between 4 and 8 feet. This seems to be a range where AimPoint can really help out.


2004: 70.65%
2008: 67.64%
2012: 68.06%
2016: 68.50%
2020: 68.21%
2024: 69.20%


Taking a general view here, it seems as though the best golfers in the world are no better from 4 to 8 feet than they were 20 years ago. Thinking about all facets of golf that have changed since then - not just equipment but agronomy as well (I'm betting even Tour greens are at least a little better than they were 20 years ago), the evidence that putting remains as difficult as ever (for everyone except Erik - he's a really great putter! and really fast!!) is pretty interesting. There are a lot of putting placebos out there. I wonder what the next one will be.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Bigger and more contours and force people to read the grain again.

I don't think aimpoint is going away as long as our greens are flat and fast. It's just too useful when short putts are brutally difficult.

[Tim Gavrich]

Matt, unless your handicap has a + on the front of it (and even then, probably), you would be far better served by learning to use your putter to roll the ball at your intended target with your intended speed than you would be practicing AimPoint. If you hit enough 4- to 8-foot putts of all sorts of breaks and tilts, you will instinctively build a strong memory and association between what the tilt of the green looks like (and yes, probably even influenced subconsciously by what your feet feel) and how a putt should be expected to break. A lot of green reading comes from repetition and observation.


Mechanics are going to get you a lot farther than AimPoint will.

[Kalen Braley]

Keegan has been one of the biggest advocates for this method. An article came out last year comparing his Shots Gained results from 3 seasons ago to last season and he made some pretty bold proclamations.  It was a dramatic improvement no doubt, but I was curious on the bigger trends. https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2023/08/02/keegan-bradley-aimpoint-green-reading-barstool-sports/


Here are Keegan's ranks for SG and Total Putting going back 13 years.  He wasn't always a bad putter, even thou it did get pretty rough for a few seasons.  Looking at the trend, it looks like he had one good year last year, (similar to earlier in his career.)  but this past year doesn't seem to reflect well on the ongoing improvements due to Aimpoint. Additionally, his stats for the year prior to his good one suggests he was already turning things around before he started using it.

	SG	Total     Putting
2023-2024	120	105
2022-2023	20	22
2021-2022	88	93
2020-2021	186	192
2019-2020	185	184
2018-2019	178	186
2017-2018	174	164
2016-2017	149	177
2015-2016	183	168
2014-2015	128	77
2013-2014	47	26
2013	49	46
2012	35	59

[John Bouffard]

The Nantz stance on Aim Point express really surprises me. Who cares how they choose to read a putt? I get the idea that we shouldn't dally and take forever...and that we shouldn't prance around the hole and make unnecessary imprints in the green close to the hole. But you can use AimPoint express without doing any of those things.


The real problem is that we have accepted as normal an ever-lengthening time for pre-shot deliberations and study by players and caddies. That's what we need to purge--the freaking farting around. They did it in baseball with the pitch clock, and it's worked extremely well. And yet, some people stand up on their hind legs and protest that (even though in most baseball games, you don't even know it's there).


Players delay and take forever because, I'm pretty sure, it works. If you take your time, go through a routine, especially a routine that has been crafted for you in consultation with teachers, psychologists, etc., and which calms you, lowers your heart rate, increases your focus and attention, allows for your caddie to intervene and counsel, etc., you are almost certainly going to avoid many unnecessary mistakes. The problem is, none of that is any fun for anyone ELSE. Not for the fans, at the very least; and, in the end, pro sports is entertainment. Players should have a very brief time to set up to the ball and swing/putt. If that means you have to learn to do it with your heart beating fast, or while you're still fuming from the last shot, or before you've resolved every inch of the lie or the break to your satisfaction, so be it. The best man will still win. Let's keep it MOVING.

[Rob Marshall]

Funny, played today behind 4 or 5 groups in Western NY. Plenty spike marks and foot prints. To say they don’t exist makes no sense. Just takes one guy dragging his feet.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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

Gotta love it when people put "science" in quotes (even though your use there was the first time the word was used in this thread).

If indeed AimPoint does improve one's putting, with several PGA Tour pros using it for parts of the last two decades, what would be the statistical markers to prove its superiority?

Please find the place where I've made this claim, Tim. You won't find it, because I haven't.

It has improved the green reading of many golfers, yes. I've seen it with hundreds of golfers. We used to begin every AimPoint clinic by having a few players read a 20- or 25-footer. On putts that broke seven feet, we'd get reads as little as a cup out. Very rarely would you get a read high enough to hole the putt at any speed…

Bigger and more contours and force people to read the grain again.

Grain doesn't affect the actual break much; it does affect the speed (which then can affect how much break you play - into the grain putts break a bit less, down-grain putts break a bit more). Good putters do read the grain, because distance control is super important.

A cross-grain 20' putt on some of the grainiest greens on the PGA Tour broke about 1" more than a putt would break across that same slope on a green with no grain at all.

Mechanics are going to get you a lot farther than AimPoint will.

We don't disagree (speed is the most important part of putting), but the thing is… you can do both: work on your mechanics AND read greens better with AimPoint.

The Nantz stance on Aim Point express really surprises me. Who cares how they choose to read a putt? I get the idea that we shouldn't dally and take forever...and that we shouldn't prance around the hole and make unnecessary imprints in the green close to the hole. But you can use AimPoint express without doing any of those things.

Heresy! </s>

The real problem is that we have accepted as normal an ever-lengthening time for pre-shot deliberations and study by players and caddies. That's what we need to purge--the freaking farting around. They did it in baseball with the pitch clock, and it's worked extremely well. And yet, some people stand up on their hind legs and protest that (even though in most baseball games, you don't even know it's there).

Yup.

Players delay and take forever because, I'm pretty sure, it works. If you take your time, go through a routine, especially a routine that has been crafted for you in consultation with teachers, psychologists, etc., and which calms you, lowers your heart rate, increases your focus and attention, allows for your caddie to intervene and counsel, etc., you are almost certainly going to avoid many unnecessary mistakes.

There are some studies out there that have shown that players who play faster (while still taking care of stuff - not so fast they're literally pulling a club without much more than the yardage and hitting it two seconds later) score better and hit better shots. The point is, there's a sweet spot, but I think a lot of people have these protracted, long routines… because they've learned to. Even players who are fast when they get on Tour learn to slow down, because… otherwise it becomes a big ol' game of hurry up and wait. Why rush your routine when you're just gonna have to stand around longer to hit the next one?

Slow play sucks. I played 18 holes, walking (push carts) with one of my college players once… in 2:25, and we waited on the last three holes for an older single player (he wasn't slow, he was just old, so he didn't walk as fast). This summer I'd play with another of my former college players and we'd go out just at about 7 and I'd schedule a lesson at the academy for 10am and be there with plenty of prep time.

The PGA Tour, unfortunately, is a member-run organization, and I don't know that they could pass a "shot clock" type rule. I don't think the members would support it. "We're playing for our livelihood out here, man!" Blah blah blah.

[Tim Gavrich]

If indeed AimPoint does improve one's putting, with several PGA Tour pros using it for parts of the last two decades, what would be the statistical markers to prove its superiority?

Please find the place where I've made this claim, Tim. You won't find it, because I haven't.

It has improved the green reading of many golfers, yes. I've seen it with hundreds of golfers. We used to begin every AimPoint clinic by having a few players read a 20- or 25-footer. On putts that broke seven feet, we'd get reads as little as a cup out. Very rarely would you get a read high enough to hole the putt at any speed…

I must be misunderstanding something here, Erik. Do you not believe AimPoint to be a superior way to read greens and therefore something that helps golfers putt better?


Either you stand by this method that you've spilled thousands of words defending, or you don't. Which is it?


Dozens of PGA Tour players use AimPoint, and have for years. Why? Presumably it's because they've been persuaded that it will help them putt better. If it really was a better way to putt, wouldn't it exhibit some objective effect on putting statistics over time?


If you're not able to furnish that evidence - which is especially surprising given your well-known affinity for data as the guiding light for how golfers should play - it's reasonable to wonder whether AimPoint actually works in practice.

[A.G._Crockett]

Matt, unless your handicap has a + on the front of it (and even then, probably), you would be far better served by learning to use your putter to roll the ball at your intended target with your intended speed than you would be practicing AimPoint. If you hit enough 4- to 8-foot putts of all sorts of breaks and tilts, you will instinctively build a strong memory and association between what the tilt of the green looks like (and yes, probably even influenced subconsciously by what your feet feel) and how a putt should be expected to break. A lot of green reading comes from repetition and observation.


Mechanics are going to get you a lot farther than AimPoint will.

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.


Aimpoint is just a way to read greens; it’s not a putting method, and it’s never been advertised that way. You are absolutely 100% correct that putting mechanics (and practice!) will get ANY golfer a lot farther than any method of reading greens, but that has dead zero to do with which method one uses to read greens.


I have a suggestion for those of you that don’t like AimPoint; DON’T USE IT!  Read greens with your eyes, rather than your feet, and just enjoy golf. And if other players using AimPoint somehow offends you, don’t play with those guys, and just avert your gaze while watching the pros that use it.


But all the angst over pace of play, and straddling, and cherry-picked statistics from the Tour, and all the rest just comes across as trying to justify being a afraid of something different because it might mean there is a better way that you just don’t want to try. 

[Kalen Braley]

Matt, unless your handicap has a + on the front of it (and even then, probably), you would be far better served by learning to use your putter to roll the ball at your intended target with your intended speed than you would be practicing AimPoint. If you hit enough 4- to 8-foot putts of all sorts of breaks and tilts, you will instinctively build a strong memory and association between what the tilt of the green looks like (and yes, probably even influenced subconsciously by what your feet feel) and how a putt should be expected to break. A lot of green reading comes from repetition and observation.


Mechanics are going to get you a lot farther than AimPoint will.

I have a suggestion for those of you that don’t like AimPoint; DON’T USE IT!  Read greens with your eyes, rather than your feet, and just enjoy golf. And if other players using AimPoint somehow offends you, don’t play with those guys, and just avert your gaze while watching the pros that use it.

But all the angst over pace of play, and straddling, and cherry-picked statistics from the Tour, and all the rest just comes across as trying to justify being a afraid of something different because it might mean there is a better way that you just don’t want to try.

AG,

I enjoy your posts, but I don't agree with these last few bits.

Claiming just don't use it is one thing, but in this case Aimpoint is similar to those who blast music on the course or don't repair ball marks or fix divots....their actions affect everyone. And in this case we all suffer from the slow play and tramping all over the greens.

Lord knows, golf has a long laundry list of tips and claims, I was especially fond of the plumb-bob years ago. As for whether Aimpoint is actually helpful, Tim summed it up nicely in the post above yours... the onus of validity remains on the ones making the claims.  Until then I'll stick with a default of Hitchen's razor...""What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor#:~:text=%22What%20can%20be%20asserted%20without,author%20and%20journalist%20Christopher%20Hitchens.

[A.G._Crockett]

Kalen, I don't know what to tell you.  "Tramping" is something you might see on TV; it isn't the way AimPoint is taught, nor practiced by the vast, vast majority of players that use it.  The way AimPoint is typically used, it nets out to far less steps than guys who read a putt from all four sides, or even just two sides.  I've NEVER had a AimPoint golfer step in my line to read a putt; when that happens, it's never about reading the green anyway; it's about marking a putt or retrieving a holed putt or a gimme.
And the slow play thing is just a complete red herring; slow players cause slow play, forever and always.  Preshot routines don't, lasers or gps devices or pacing yardage doesn't, golf carts don't, and green reading methods don't.  Guys who don't start whatever they are doing until it's their turn to play are SLOW; what they actually DO is pretty much irrelevant.
I read greens with my eyes for half a century and thousands of rounds.  I started using AimPoint when my eyes, especially my depth perception, went bad after 8 procedures on my right eye, just like I had to learn to chip with a hybrid because I just couldn't use a lofted wedge anymore.  I've used it for 4 years and hundreds of rounds, and I can tell you to an absolute certainty that I putt FASTER using AimPoint than I did before.  I never, EVER go to the other side of the hole to look at a putt anymore, much less circle the hole looking from all sides, I almost never squat down and take the time to read a putt that way.  Typically, unless I putting first or someone else's line is too close, I'm done with all of that BEFORE it's my turn to putt, and that's they way most AimPoint users go about it.  The ones that don't are SLOW, but they're not slow because of that, just like the guy who sits in the cart until the guy he's riding with hits, then rides 20 yards, then gets out his rangefinder, and so on, isn't slow because of golf carts or measuring or preshot routines.
Painting yourself as a victim of golfers who use AimPoint is just not accurate.  You might be a victim of slow play, and you might be a victim of people stepping in your line, but that's bad manners, not any particular method of play.

[Mike Wagner]

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

Gotta love it when people put "science" in quotes (even though your use there was the first time the word was used in this thread).

If indeed AimPoint does improve one's putting, with several PGA Tour pros using it for parts of the last two decades, what would be the statistical markers to prove its superiority?

Lol .. You infer "science" and / or "studies" in so many posts, it's hard to keep track.

[Mike Wagner]

Kalen, I don't know what to tell you.  "Tramping" is something you might see on TV; it isn't the way AimPoint is taught, nor practiced by the vast, vast majority of players that use it.  The way AimPoint is typically used, it nets out to far less steps than guys who read a putt from all four sides, or even just two sides.  I've NEVER had a AimPoint golfer step in my line to read a putt; when that happens, it's never about reading the green anyway; it's about marking a putt or retrieving a holed putt or a gimme.
And the slow play thing is just a complete red herring; slow players cause slow play, forever and always.  Preshot routines don't, lasers or gps devices or pacing yardage doesn't, golf carts don't, and green reading methods don't.  Guys who don't start whatever they are doing until it's their turn to play are SLOW; what they actually DO is pretty much irrelevant.
I read greens with my eyes for half a century and thousands of rounds.  I started using AimPoint when my eyes, especially my depth perception, went bad after 8 procedures on my right eye, just like I had to learn to chip with a hybrid because I just couldn't use a lofted wedge anymore.  I've used it for 4 years and hundreds of rounds, and I can tell you to an absolute certainty that I putt FASTER using AimPoint than I did before.  I never, EVER go to the other side of the hole to look at a putt anymore, much less circle the hole looking from all sides, I almost never squat down and take the time to read a putt that way.  Typically, unless I putting first or someone else's line is too close, I'm done with all of that BEFORE it's my turn to putt, and that's they way most AimPoint users go about it.  The ones that don't are SLOW, but they're not slow because of that, just like the guy who sits in the cart until the guy he's riding with hits, then rides 20 yards, then gets out his rangefinder, and so on, isn't slow because of golf carts or measuring or preshot routines.
Painting yourself as a victim of golfers who use AimPoint is just not accurate.  You might be a victim of slow play, and you might be a victim of people stepping in your line, but that's bad manners, not any particular method of play.

AG - are you playing tournaments that include 18-25 year olds? Or is this Wednesday afternoon with Jim, Joe & Bob?

[Craig Sweet]

It is flat out untrue that range finders, pre shot routines, Aimpoint, don't slow down golf. Take them away and a round of golf would be 30 minutes faster. Why hand a slow player a tool to play even slower?

[Ken Fry]

Not wanting to weigh in on the merits of or arguments against AimPoint, I only offer this.

Watching a PGA Tour event a few weeks ago, the telecast showed a view of a ball and hole and no players in few.  What was visible was a clear line of spikes on both sides of the putting line from the ball to the hole (approximately 10-12 feet).  Two straight lines of spikes a player made while straddling the line of the putt every inch of the way.

I understand what A.G. is saying, but this is what's being practiced on tour.  It's maddening to watch and I can't fathom being the golfer in the group behind that has to possibly see this on their putting line.

At home, I have a fellow member that tries to use AimPoint.  He's a nice guy but not a very good golfer.  He can't putt to save his life.  In a recent round he straddled the line of a 3 foot putt, then proceeded to miss the hole by almost a foot.

If you're on a trip and using Waze to get where you're going, it gives you great directions but doesn't make you a better driver.  Like someone said earlier, if you can't putt to a distinct point on a consistent basis, green reading is not what you should be worrying about!

Ken

[A.G._Crockett]

Kalen, I don't know what to tell you.  "Tramping" is something you might see on TV; it isn't the way AimPoint is taught, nor practiced by the vast, vast majority of players that use it.  The way AimPoint is typically used, it nets out to far less steps than guys who read a putt from all four sides, or even just two sides.  I've NEVER had a AimPoint golfer step in my line to read a putt; when that happens, it's never about reading the green anyway; it's about marking a putt or retrieving a holed putt or a gimme.
And the slow play thing is just a complete red herring; slow players cause slow play, forever and always.  Preshot routines don't, lasers or gps devices or pacing yardage doesn't, golf carts don't, and green reading methods don't.  Guys who don't start whatever they are doing until it's their turn to play are SLOW; what they actually DO is pretty much irrelevant.
I read greens with my eyes for half a century and thousands of rounds.  I started using AimPoint when my eyes, especially my depth perception, went bad after 8 procedures on my right eye, just like I had to learn to chip with a hybrid because I just couldn't use a lofted wedge anymore.  I've used it for 4 years and hundreds of rounds, and I can tell you to an absolute certainty that I putt FASTER using AimPoint than I did before.  I never, EVER go to the other side of the hole to look at a putt anymore, much less circle the hole looking from all sides, I almost never squat down and take the time to read a putt that way.  Typically, unless I putting first or someone else's line is too close, I'm done with all of that BEFORE it's my turn to putt, and that's they way most AimPoint users go about it.  The ones that don't are SLOW, but they're not slow because of that, just like the guy who sits in the cart until the guy he's riding with hits, then rides 20 yards, then gets out his rangefinder, and so on, isn't slow because of golf carts or measuring or preshot routines.
Painting yourself as a victim of golfers who use AimPoint is just not accurate.  You might be a victim of slow play, and you might be a victim of people stepping in your line, but that's bad manners, not any particular method of play.

AG - are you playing tournaments that include 18-25 year olds? Or is this Wednesday afternoon with Jim, Joe & Bob?

So far in 2024, I’ve played 17 CGA tournaments, and I have at least three more to go before the end of the year.  This includes individual tournaments, 4 ball tournaments, and both the NC Super Senior Championship and the Carolinas Super Senior 4 Ball Championship.  I’m not including in that count various tournaments at my club, or interclub matches; all told, I’ve played 41 competition rounds in 2024, and I’ll end up right around 50.  (Given that I’ve posted 132 scores so far in 2024, I play a lot of “Wednesday afternoon” rounds, but we don’t have any guys named Jim or Joe; there are two Bob’s in our group, though, and there used to be a Jim…)


I’m 72, so no, I’m not PLAYING in tournaments with 18-25 year olds. HOWEVER, I marshaled or scored all four days when our club hosted the NC Am earlier this year, which was absolutely dominated by 18-25 year olds.  As I’ve already written several times, way more than half of those kids were using AimPoint, and the average round time for the 4 days was well under 4 hours. I was the walking scorer for the next to last group each of the last two days; all six players that I scored those two days were using AimPoint, and they were FAST!  All of them were in the 18-25 range, either playing college golf, or having just finished.


Same thing with women; I have a close friend who played on the LPGA Tour and is now an assistant coach for the UNC women’s team; I watch them every year when UNC hosts the Ruth’s Criss Invitational with 16 teams from around the country.


I think your point must have been that AimPoint IN COMPETITION makes for slow play, especially among younger players.  I feel like I have a pretty decent level of exposure to both, and in MY experience this is simply not true; it’s not even close to true.

[Rob Marshall]

I have a hard time believing that the average time to play the NC am was “well” under 4 fours unless they played in twosomes.


Why would someone be afraid of aimpoint?  I’ve used it. I took the class from someone who teaches it to tour pros. No not Erik. I unfortunately just didn’t have the time or the ability to pick up the feel so I stopped using it. The issues are the footprints and pace of play. If nothing else the caddies shouldn’t be allowed to straddle lines. It just doubles the traffic.


Go back to the 2023 thread on this topic. I think Jeff W. somes it up very well.

[A.G._Crockett]

I have a hard time believing that the average time to play the NC am was “well” under 4 fours unless they played in twosomes.

You can believe or not believe whatever you wish; I’m not responsible for that.  I’ve told you the simple truth about the average round times; like anyone, I’d prefer to be believed, but if you choose not to believe a simple matter of fact, that’s your problem.



They played in threesomes the first three days, twosomes on the last day.  Players had the option to pay for a cart and ride; most did, even though it’s a great walking course, because we had pretty intense heat and humidity that week, and with a practice round, 5 days walking in a row was tough, even for young guys.

[A.G._Crockett]

It is flat out untrue that range finders, pre shot routines, Aimpoint, don't slow down golf. Take them away and a round of golf would be 30 minutes faster. Why hand a slow player a tool to play even slower?

Of course it’s slower to get distances than not, to have a preshot routine than not, and to read putts than not; nobody has EVER said otherwise.  But players are going to do those things, period.


Lasers are faster than pacing, and that’s been proven many times now. It’s silly to argue otherwise.


And I think we all know that almost everyone is going to have a preshot routine, including reading putts. So the question becomes how and when does the player go about those things, much more that the “contents” of a preshot routine, including reading putts.


I’ve taken my shot at this.  I read putts with my eyes for half a century, and now I use AimPoint.  You can, of course, write anything you want on this forum, but when you make a blanket statement that AimPoint is slower, you’re just flat out wrong. 

[Edward Glidewell]

It is flat out untrue that range finders, pre shot routines, Aimpoint, don't slow down golf. Take them away and a round of golf would be 30 minutes faster. Why hand a slow player a tool to play even slower?

I just don't understand why you think this is true re: range finders.

In my experience, they make the slow players a little bit faster, which is always helpful. I've never seen someone take longer because of a range finder; it's always sped them up compared to how they play without one because they aren't spending all their time wandering around the course to pace off shots and distances. I know one guy who probably saves 10+ minutes a round because of his range finder compared to how long it took him to play without it.

[Mike Wagner]

Kalen, I don't know what to tell you.  "Tramping" is something you might see on TV; it isn't the way AimPoint is taught, nor practiced by the vast, vast majority of players that use it.  The way AimPoint is typically used, it nets out to far less steps than guys who read a putt from all four sides, or even just two sides.  I've NEVER had a AimPoint golfer step in my line to read a putt; when that happens, it's never about reading the green anyway; it's about marking a putt or retrieving a holed putt or a gimme.
And the slow play thing is just a complete red herring; slow players cause slow play, forever and always.  Preshot routines don't, lasers or gps devices or pacing yardage doesn't, golf carts don't, and green reading methods don't.  Guys who don't start whatever they are doing until it's their turn to play are SLOW; what they actually DO is pretty much irrelevant.
I read greens with my eyes for half a century and thousands of rounds.  I started using AimPoint when my eyes, especially my depth perception, went bad after 8 procedures on my right eye, just like I had to learn to chip with a hybrid because I just couldn't use a lofted wedge anymore.  I've used it for 4 years and hundreds of rounds, and I can tell you to an absolute certainty that I putt FASTER using AimPoint than I did before.  I never, EVER go to the other side of the hole to look at a putt anymore, much less circle the hole looking from all sides, I almost never squat down and take the time to read a putt that way.  Typically, unless I putting first or someone else's line is too close, I'm done with all of that BEFORE it's my turn to putt, and that's they way most AimPoint users go about it.  The ones that don't are SLOW, but they're not slow because of that, just like the guy who sits in the cart until the guy he's riding with hits, then rides 20 yards, then gets out his rangefinder, and so on, isn't slow because of golf carts or measuring or preshot routines.
Painting yourself as a victim of golfers who use AimPoint is just not accurate.  You might be a victim of slow play, and you might be a victim of people stepping in your line, but that's bad manners, not any particular method of play.

AG - are you playing tournaments that include 18-25 year olds? Or is this Wednesday afternoon with Jim, Joe & Bob?

So far in 2024, I’ve played 17 CGA tournaments, and I have at least three more to go before the end of the year.  This includes individual tournaments, 4 ball tournaments, and both the NC Super Senior Championship and the Carolinas Super Senior 4 Ball Championship.  I’m not including in that count various tournaments at my club, or interclub matches; all told, I’ve played 41 competition rounds in 2024, and I’ll end up right around 50.  (Given that I’ve posted 132 scores so far in 2024, I play a lot of “Wednesday afternoon” rounds, but we don’t have any guys named Jim or Joe; there are two Bob’s in our group, though, and there used to be a Jim…)


I’m 72, so no, I’m not PLAYING in tournaments with 18-25 year olds. HOWEVER, I marshaled or scored all four days when our club hosted the NC Am earlier this year, which was absolutely dominated by 18-25 year olds.  As I’ve already written several times, way more than half of those kids were using AimPoint, and the average round time for the 4 days was well under 4 hours. I was the walking scorer for the next to last group each of the last two days; all six players that I scored those two days were using AimPoint, and they were FAST!  All of them were in the 18-25 range, either playing college golf, or having just finished.


Same thing with women; I have a close friend who played on the LPGA Tour and is now an assistant coach for the UNC women’s team; I watch them every year when UNC hosts the Ruth’s Criss Invitational with 16 teams from around the country.


I think your point must have been that AimPoint IN COMPETITION makes for slow play, especially among younger players.  I feel like I have a pretty decent level of exposure to both, and in MY experience this is simply not true; it’s not even close to true.

Totally respect this. My experience in AZ is different. Could be down to policy .. is this Carolina GA?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do you not believe AimPoint to be a superior way to read greens and therefore something that helps golfers putt better?

I do. What I haven't said is whatever you're going on about with regards to PGA Tour stats you're selectively culling.

Either you stand by this method that you've spilled thousands of words defending, or you don't. Which is it?

I think even you can figure out which side of that I'm on. C'mon.

If it really was a better way to putt, wouldn't it exhibit some objective effect on putting statistics over time?

I've got a ton of data and stats to show students reading greens (and putting) better. But why am I going to spend an hour or something to try to convince you? Your mind is set.

The professionals I've taught all improved their SG:P over the the next six to nine months (depending on length of season remaining).

But all the angst over pace of play, and straddling, and cherry-picked statistics from the Tour, and all the rest just comes across as trying to justify being a afraid of something different because it might mean there is a better way that you just don’t want to try.

Yup.

Claiming just don't use it is one thing, but in this case Aimpoint is similar to those who blast music on the course or don't repair ball marks or fix divots....their actions affect everyone. And in this case we all suffer from the slow play and tramping all over the greens.

This is awfully close to just making stuff up.

Again, I take fewer footsteps walking halfway to the hole and back to my ball than someone who walks to the other side of the hole to read their putt. I take even less footsteps when I read the putt on the way to or back from getting the flagstick. And again, most of these footsteps are occurring away from the hole, because most people aren't reading a ton of their second putts. I'll read my 30-footer for birdie and, should I miss, go tap the ball in and get it from the hole, which almost everyone else will have to do, too. What I won't have to do is walk all the way to the other side of the hole. WHere's the angst over those people stepping to only five or six feet behind the hole to read their putts?

As for whether Aimpoint is actually helpful, Tim summed it up nicely in the post above yours... the onus of validity remains on the ones making the claims.

Good putting is three things:

• Reading the green.

• Hitting the ball on your chosen line.

• Hitting it the right distance/speed.

AimPoint (often dramatically) improves the first of those. The golfer still has to do other two.

The way AimPoint is typically used, it nets out to far less steps than guys who read a putt from all four sides, or even just two sides.

Stop making sense. This topic is for fear mongering and just making stuff up.</s>

I read greens with my eyes for half a century and thousands of rounds.  I started using AimPoint when my eyes, especially my depth perception, went bad after 8 procedures on my right eye, just like I had to learn to chip with a hybrid because I just couldn't use a lofted wedge anymore.  I've used it for 4 years and hundreds of rounds, and I can tell you to an absolute certainty that I putt FASTER using AimPoint than I did before.  I never, EVER go to the other side of the hole to look at a putt anymore, much less circle the hole looking from all sides, I almost never squat down and take the time to read a putt that way.  Typically, unless I putting first or someone else's line is too close, I'm done with all of that BEFORE it's my turn to putt, and that's they way most AimPoint users go about it.

Yuuuuuup.

It is flat out untrue that range finders, pre shot routines, Aimpoint, don't slow down golf. Take them away and a round of golf would be 30 minutes faster. Why hand a slow player a tool to play even slower?

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

[Paul Jones]

Aimpoint works but it takes practice to learn it...  I read greens better using Aimpoint and no one has ever called me a slow golfer.  I learned it since I travel quite often and would always struggle reading greens on a new course. 


People have different strategies to read greens, some start while they are walking up to the green, some will only read the putt from the low point, some will pace the putt off, some will read from both sides and some still plum-bob.


I have played with fast golfers that use multiple green reading techniques and I have played with slow golfers that have only done 1.  Sum it up, IMO Aimpoint does not have anything to do with slow play and most people get aggravated because they think it looks goofy and use to be a penalty to step in your own line and rude to step in someone else line (some people still find this rude), but it does not bother me since no on wears spikes and I have the ability to fix imperfections in my line.  I will not step in anyones line during a tournament, but normal weekend game, we do not care.

[Tim Gavrich]

Do you not believe AimPoint to be a superior way to read greens and therefore something that helps golfers putt better?

I do. What I haven't said is whatever you're going on about with regards to PGA Tour stats you're selectively culling.

Either you stand by this method that you've spilled thousands of words defending, or you don't. Which is it?

I think even you can figure out which side of that I'm on. C'mon.

If it really was a better way to putt, wouldn't it exhibit some objective effect on putting statistics over time?

I've got a ton of data and stats to show students reading greens (and putting) better. But why am I going to spend an hour or something to try to convince you? Your mind is set.

The professionals I've taught all improved their SG:P over the the next six to nine months (depending on length of season remaining).

The thing I'm "going on about with regards to PGA Tour stats" is something I would think you would be willing to say: that AimPoint has made PGA Tour players better putters over the years. But you seem unwilling to actually make that claim. Could you explain why you don't believe AimPoint has raised the standard of putting on the PGA Tour?


As for your attempt to play coy on the data that supposedly proves AimPoint's superiority but has somehow been secreted away for years, it is very difficult to believe that you or any other AimPoint proponent has not created a persuadable, easily-digestible set of unimpeachable data-driven evidence to show why all of us non-AimPoint golfers are fools...especially if, as you say, it would take you just an hour to put it together for the good of golfers present and future. That sounds like time well spent to me, because it would put skeptics like myself in our place and open up perhaps millions more golfers' wallets for AimPoint lessons.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The thing I'm "going on about with regards to PGA Tour stats" is something I would think you would be willing to say: that AimPoint has made PGA Tour players better putters over the years. But you seem unwilling to actually make that claim. Could you explain why you don't believe AimPoint has raised the standard of putting on the PGA Tour?

Tim, beyond just being stubbornly attached to a straw man, I'm not sure why you're having a hard time wrapping your head around this: AimPoint isn't just for PGA Tour players. I've got data on over a hundred golfers, and the improvements to green reading are remarkable, and the improvements to putting aren't always immediate (see below*), but they're there after the adjustment period and they're pretty sizable, too.

As I said, of the Tour players I've taught, all improved their SG:P over the next year. I don't know when Justin Thomas implemented AimPoint or how he even uses it, despite having worked with John Graham for years.

And to truly understand PGA Tour putting performance, you'd have to track when and how players not only learned AimPoint, but when they implemented it. Furthermore, as has already been stated, AimPoint or green reading is but one facet of putting performance.

* In teaching regular golfers, we often had this happen: we'd put a tee three feet right of a hole where players were supposed to aim, and because their old putting method (where they'd read two cups out) was to subconsciously shove the ball toward the target, they'd lock on to the tee and… shove the ball and hit the tee. I used to joke that in an AimPoint class you've never seen so many people hit tees from 25 feet in your life. We noticed this and began telling golfers to make sure their last look is at the hole, as that helps eliminate (particularly for the non-linear putters out there) their tendency to push or pull the putt to get it to the target. A tendency born of years of under-reading break and having their bodies subconsciously try to help out.

So, for some, there's a period of adjustment where they play more break (the right amount of break), but their bodies still tend to shove or pull the ball a bit. For many, this period might literally last an hour. For some, it takes a week or three. They miss a lot of putts high early on, because they're still pushing/pulling.

As for your attempt to play coy on the data that supposedly proves AimPoint's superiority

It's not playing coy. I've just not made any claims about PGA Tour putting performance. The margins there are awfully thin, too, and multi-factorial, as I and others have tried to point out to you. I've got data on hundreds of regular golfers. The improvements are often substantial. If you want PGA Tour data, ask Mark Sweeney. He'd be the best guy to answer that question. I haven't taught a bunch of Tour players AimPoint. Just a few, and some caddies.

to show why all of us non-AimPoint golfers are fools...

You're doing a good enough job of that yourself.

especially if, as you say, it would take you just an hour to put it together for the good of golfers present and future.

It's an hour of my time to try to convince a brick wall who seems to be enjoying his ignorance. (And that time would be compiling my student data, not PGA Tour players in total, as that's the data I've got. The time would be spent putting it into something visually appealing and understandable.)

But, your mind is is made up. Always has been on this. It'd be a waste of time and effort.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()