[Tim Martin]

There are two pros on this thread, always has good stuff, the other I just laugh at. That’s all you can do.

Troll Twin right on cue with his typical contribution. Truth is, Rob, you don't just "laugh." You troll, and you make derogatory comments, and you poke, and you quote and reply. You could just "laugh" and ignore, but you don't.

I will again propose that you simply ignore me. Laugh all you want (ignorance is bliss, they say), but ignore me. Don't reply. Don't quote. And I'll ignore you both, too. Accept or don't. It really won't affect my life much either way.

Erik-When you said that Dave Pelz tried to “rip off” Aimpoint I thought that was worthy of an explanation which you either can’t or won’t supply. It’s too bad that you equate that with a troll because your response seems inadequate based on the gravity of your claim.

[Mike Wagner]

The practice is wide-spread and has been going on for at least five years, I forgot what the method is called.

Over 10, actually, and it's not going to go away. The footprints don't last on PGA Tour greens. It's not like the guy would want to risk standing in his own line if that was the case.

It's not "PGA Tour" greens I'm worried about. It's a hideous practice that's bad for the game. Do whatever you want behind the ball, but I've played with too many guys now that straddle all the way up to the hole, and they're going to be your biggest enemy in keeping it legal.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik-When you said that Dave Pelz tried to “rip off”Aimpoint I thought that was worthy of an explanation which you either can’t or won’t supply. It’s too bad that you equate that with a troll because your response seems inadequate based on the gravity of your claim.

As I already said: it's off topic, and I don't owe you an explanation. I didn't call you a troll for your posts today. I extend the same offer to you as I did to Rob.

I've played with too many guys now that straddle all the way up to the hole, and they're going to be your biggest enemy in keeping it legal.

If they're stepping on your line, call them out. If they're not… AimPoint requires fewer steps on the green than someone walking around reading their putt from three different angles. (Admittedly, some people ADD AimPoint to their routine instead of REPLACING their regular read-it-from-three-sides routine.)

[Rob Marshall]

The practice is wide-spread and has been going on for at least five years, I forgot what the method is called.

Over 10, actually, and it's not going to go away. The footprints don't last on PGA Tour greens. It's not like the guy would want to risk standing in his own line if that was the case.

It's not "PGA Tour" greens I'm worried about. It's a hideous practice that's bad for the game. Do whatever you want behind the ball, but I've played with too many guys now that straddle all the way up to the hole, and they're going to be your biggest enemy in keeping it legal.

I took the Aimpoint express class with John Graham. When I took the class you stood on the low side of the putt. Reading putts with your feet is nothing new. Lonnie Nielsen told me many years ago he read his putts with his feet. Mirroring it up with the speed of the green and how far you extend your arm are pretty subjective. A tour pro would have the time to really fine tune it but it wasn’t for me. Personally I think you can see the slope just as well as you can feel in with your feet.

[Rob Marshall]

There are two pros on this thread, always has good stuff, the other I just laugh at. That’s all you can do.

Troll Twin right on cue with his typical contribution. Truth is, Rob, you don't just "laugh." You troll, and you make derogatory comments, and you poke, and you quote and reply. You could just "laugh" and ignore, but you don't.

I will again propose that you simply ignore me. Laugh all you want (ignorance is bliss, they say), but ignore me. Don't reply. Don't quote. And I'll ignore you both, too. Accept or don't. It really won't affect my life much either way.

Physics……


I’m sure Dave Pelz wouldn’t appreciates your accusation.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I’m sure Dave Pelz wouldn’t appreciates your accusation.

It's not an accusation and since it's apparently not obvious to you… I don't really care what you or Tim think.    Enjoy the rest of your fourth.

[jeffwarne]

Quote from Mike Wagner

"It's not "PGA Tour" greens I'm worried about. It's a hideous practice that's bad for the game. Do whatever you want behind the ball, but I've played with too many guys now that straddle all the way up to the hole, and they're going to be your biggest enemy in keeping it legal."


The above.
and yes people walk on the green.
Pelz estimated a 4 ball at 500 steps years ago.
add throw in caddies, that's 250 steps.
throw in aimpoint,4 players, plus caddies, another 500-1000 steps, more near the hole than ever.
Say whatever you want, but at some point "fresh greens" are less fresh.
and NO ONE is saying there should be zero steps on a green , so relax with the caddie putting in the pin example, player getting ball out of hole etc..(that's included in the Pelz 500)


John V correctly points out we can repair spike marks, whic helps with obvious blemishes, but that's yet another step in the process, which already takes forever.


Erik is not wrong to defend or teach this practice-it's legal, and the best are doing it, and as a top teacher, which he is, he has every right and obligation to educate putters to the best of his ability.
I just think it is very bad for the game (pace, footprints etc. )and should be illegal.
Just an opinion which so far is wrong.
Same as I felt caddies lining up players should go-and eventually did.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

throw in aimpoint,4 players, plus caddies, another 500-1000 steps, more near the hole than ever.

I'll push back on that.

If you are a "read the putt from three sides" (or at least the front and back), you'll take more steps than someone who just AimPoint Expresses it. A good chunk of the time people don't even realize I read my putt as I'll do it on my way to or back from getting the flagstick or something.

Yes, as I said before, if someone ADDS APE to their "read-it-from-three-angles" routine, that's more steps, but in general, I think an APE user will take fewer steps.

Say whatever you want, but at some point "fresh greens" are less fresh.

There's more to that than just golfers walking around. The grass continues to grow, too. It may not be the dominant factor, but later in the day the greens are worse for at least two reasons, not just the one.

I just think it is very bad for the game (pace, footprints etc. )and should be illegal.

I find it's good for pace, except when already slow players ADD it to their routines, not replacing their "traditional" reads.

Just an opinion which so far is wrong.

Facts can be right or wrong, opinions no. On those, we can just agree or, as in this case, disagree.  Thanks for the post.

[Thomas Dai]

Wasn't there a period when caddies regularly used to stand behind the line of a putt lining up their player and wasn't this practice banned? Full shots too? Same sanction again maybe?
atb

[Niall C]

Am I the only person who thinks that professional golf would be quicker and more entertaining if they were only allowed bag carriers rather than caddies ? Let them use a distance aid if they must but FFS get a move on ! 


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Wasn't there a period when caddies regularly used to stand behind the line of a putt lining up their player and wasn't this practice banned? Full shots too? Same sanction again maybe?

What sanction is that exactly? "The caddie may not walk between the player's ball and the hole except to remove or replace the flagstick"? How would you write that rule?

Am I the only person who thinks that professional golf would be quicker and more entertaining if they were only allowed bag carriers rather than caddies ? Let them use a distance aid if they must but FFS get a move on !   

Yeah, damn hundreds of years of history where caddies have given advice and helped their player mentally, tactically, emotionally… 

[Niall C]

Am I the only person who thinks that professional golf would be quicker and more entertaining if they were only allowed bag carriers rather than caddies ? Let them use a distance aid if they must but FFS get a move on !   

Yeah, damn hundreds of years of history where caddies have given advice and helped their player mentally, tactically, emotionally… 

And then there are the hundreds of years of history where the majority of golfers have got round quite safely and quite well without having a caddy. We also allow steel shafted clubs, graphite shafted clubs, clubheads made of god knows what and how many years of history do they have ?


Niall

[Jon Sweet]

When one is taught AimPoint, you are taught to feel the low side at the ball, then walk down the low side for a couple of more “reads”; they specifically tell you to avoid any player’s line, including your own. I think that straddling is almost certainly more accurate, though, and I understand why Tour players want that read.


Also, I think if you watch closely, you’ll realize that you’ll never see a Tour player or caddie straddling anywhere near the possible line of another player.

Aim point is just another version of plumb bobbing.  Just something to make you feel better about what your eyes are seeing.  There is no exact scientific method that will tell you how much a putt will break.  Far too many variables. A guy holding up 1 2 or 3 fingers I think is just him reaffirming what he sees.  A plumb under the best of scenarios will tell you in which direction a ball will break, it will never ever tell you how much.  I think aim point for the masses does nothing but add to the already far too slow pace of play.  The line on the ball and 24 step offs to adjust it a 32nd of an inch is even worse.

[A.G._Crockett]

I read putts “conventionally” for 50 years.  I went to AimPoint 3 years ago because of eye problems that ruined my depth perception. 


Those of you that are critics of AimPoint won’t buy this, but I take fewer steps on the green AND less time now than before.  I NEVER look at the putt from the other side, or from the high side.  Fewer steps make it LESS likely that I’ll accidentally step in another player’s line compared to conventional green readers who look at the putt from 4 sides.


IMO, straddling is an irrelevant non-issue to the question of whether or not a player walks in the line of another player’s putt.  That’s an etiquette matter, unattached to any particular method of reading greens.

[A.G._Crockett]

When one is taught AimPoint, you are taught to feel the low side at the ball, then walk down the low side for a couple of more “reads”; they specifically tell you to avoid any player’s line, including your own. I think that straddling is almost certainly more accurate, though, and I understand why Tour players want that read.


Also, I think if you watch closely, you’ll realize that you’ll never see a Tour player or caddie straddling anywhere near the possible line of another player.

Aim point is just another version of plumb bobbing.  Just something to make you feel better about what your eyes are seeing.  There is no exact scientific method that will tell you how much a putt will break.  Far too many variables. A guy holding up 1 2 or 3 fingers I think is just him reaffirming what he sees.  A plumb under the best of scenarios will tell you in which direction a ball will break, it will never ever tell you how much.  I think aim point for the masses does nothing but add to the already far too slow pace of play.  The line on the ball and 24 step offs to adjust it a 32nd of an inch is even worse.

With all due respect, AimPoint is as unrelated to plumb bobbing as conventional green reading is.  Regardless of what one thinks of plumb bobbing OR AimPoint, thinking of them as somehow related is just incorrect. 


Same with pace of play.  Slow players cause slow play.  Preshot routines, in and of themselves, do NOT cause slow play, on the tee, in the fairway, or on the green. 

[Rob Marshall]

Am I the only guy who looks at the putt from behind the ball and goes? Who walks around and looks from all 4 sides? Your not playing in my game.

[Niall C]

Rob


I was about to post something similar. From playing in a number of BUDA's I appreciate that there are differences in practices on both sides of the Atlantic but can't recall playing with anyone on the US team who did that or playing with anyone at home who does either. Perhaps with faster green speeds in the US it is more of a thing ?


Niall

[Tim Martin]

When one is taught AimPoint, you are taught to feel the low side at the ball, then walk down the low side for a couple of more “reads”; they specifically tell you to avoid any player’s line, including your own. I think that straddling is almost certainly more accurate, though, and I understand why Tour players want that read.


Also, I think if you watch closely, you’ll realize that you’ll never see a Tour player or caddie straddling anywhere near the possible line of another player.

Aim point is just another version of plumb bobbing.  Just something to make you feel better about what your eyes are seeing.  There is no exact scientific method that will tell you how much a putt will break.  Far too many variables. A guy holding up 1 2 or 3 fingers I think is just him reaffirming what he sees.  A plumb under the best of scenarios will tell you in which direction a ball will break, it will never ever tell you how much.  I think aim point for the masses does nothing but add to the already far too slow pace of play.  The line on the ball and 24 step offs to adjust it a 32nd of an inch is even worse.

Same with pace of play.  Slow players cause slow play.  Preshot routines, in and of themselves, do NOT cause slow play, on the tee, in the fairway, or on the green.

Preshot routines do not cause slow play? If someone takes three practice swings and waggles five times before every shot that could cause/contribute to slow play no? There can be one or more contributing factors that are causation for slow play.

[Rob Marshall]

There are two pros on this thread, always has good stuff, the other I just laugh at. That’s all you can do.

Troll Twin right on cue with his typical contribution. Truth is, Rob, you don't just "laugh." You troll, and you make derogatory comments, and you poke, and you quote and reply. You could just "laugh" and ignore, but you don't.

I will again propose that you simply ignore me. Laugh all you want (ignorance is bliss, they say), but ignore me. Don't reply. Don't quote. And I'll ignore you both, too. Accept or don't. It really won't affect my life much either way.

Erik-When you said that Dave Pelz tried to “rip off” Aimpoint I thought that was worthy of an explanation which you either can’t or won’t supply. It’s too bad that you equate that with a troll because your response seems inadequate based on the gravity of your claim.

Here is an article on it. Doesn't look like anything was ever published


"As to other methods people use to read greens such as Aimpoint, Pelz doesn't want to discredit them, but simply says there's a better, more scientific way to approach green reading."

Doesn't sound like he is "ripping it off"


https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/articles/short-game-guru-dave-pelz-new-green-reading-project-the-most-important-work-hes-ever-done

[Jon Sweet]

When one is taught AimPoint, you are taught to feel the low side at the ball, then walk down the low side for a couple of more “reads”; they specifically tell you to avoid any player’s line, including your own. I think that straddling is almost certainly more accurate, though, and I understand why Tour players want that read.


Also, I think if you watch closely, you’ll realize that you’ll never see a Tour player or caddie straddling anywhere near the possible line of another player.

Aim point is just another version of plumb bobbing.  Just something to make you feel better about what your eyes are seeing.  There is no exact scientific method that will tell you how much a putt will break.  Far too many variables. A guy holding up 1 2 or 3 fingers I think is just him reaffirming what he sees.  A plumb under the best of scenarios will tell you in which direction a ball will break, it will never ever tell you how much.  I think aim point for the masses does nothing but add to the already far too slow pace of play.  The line on the ball and 24 step offs to adjust it a 32nd of an inch is even worse.

With all due respect, AimPoint is as unrelated to plumb bobbing as conventional green reading is.  Regardless of what one thinks of plumb bobbing OR AimPoint, thinking of them as somehow related is just incorrect. 


Same with pace of play.  Slow players cause slow play.  Preshot routines, in and of themselves, do NOT cause slow play, on the tee, in the fairway, or on the green.

My point is aimpoint is the new plumb bob, not how similar or alike it is to the other.  Just another method for people to try to look at the ground. They both are inexact at best.  You really just have to see it.  You either can or you can't.

[Mark Smolens]

When one is taught AimPoint, you are taught to feel the low side at the ball, then walk down the low side for a couple of more “reads”; they specifically tell you to avoid any player’s line, including your own. I think that straddling is almost certainly more accurate, though, and I understand why Tour players want that read.


Also, I think if you watch closely, you’ll realize that you’ll never see a Tour player or caddie straddling anywhere near the possible line of another player.

Aim point is just another version of plumb bobbing.  Just something to make you feel better about what your eyes are seeing.  There is no exact scientific method that will tell you how much a putt will break.  Far too many variables. A guy holding up 1 2 or 3 fingers I think is just him reaffirming what he sees.  A plumb under the best of scenarios will tell you in which direction a ball will break, it will never ever tell you how much.  I think aim point for the masses does nothing but add to the already far too slow pace of play.  The line on the ball and 24 step offs to adjust it a 32nd of an inch is even worse.

Jon,


This could well be true for you. But for me, it simply isn't. When (if?) I'm able to get back on the course, I will continue not bothering to read putts with my eyes. For whatever reason -- lack of depth perception? I'm just not sure -- what I see with my eyes does not translate to what I can feel with my feet. As for not being able to accurately tell how much a putt will break, I respectfully submit that when I have my ability to tell the difference between 1% and 2% slope in the green in tune (a skill that exists but which must be practiced to be effective), then my ability to determine how much a putt will break is uncanny. Since starting to utilize APE to read greens, I am not only significantly faster at reading the greens, but significantly better. There is a quantitative difference in the break on a 1% slope vs. a 3 or 4% slope, and while you may not consider this to be a "science," at bare minimum it is an art which (for me and many others) is greatly enhanced by the APE system.

[Jon Sweet]

When one is taught AimPoint, you are taught to feel the low side at the ball, then walk down the low side for a couple of more “reads”; they specifically tell you to avoid any player’s line, including your own. I think that straddling is almost certainly more accurate, though, and I understand why Tour players want that read.


Also, I think if you watch closely, you’ll realize that you’ll never see a Tour player or caddie straddling anywhere near the possible line of another player.

Aim point is just another version of plumb bobbing.  Just something to make you feel better about what your eyes are seeing.  There is no exact scientific method that will tell you how much a putt will break.  Far too many variables. A guy holding up 1 2 or 3 fingers I think is just him reaffirming what he sees.  A plumb under the best of scenarios will tell you in which direction a ball will break, it will never ever tell you how much.  I think aim point for the masses does nothing but add to the already far too slow pace of play.  The line on the ball and 24 step offs to adjust it a 32nd of an inch is even worse.

Jon,


This could well be true for you. But for me, it simply isn't. When (if?) I'm able to get back on the course, I will continue not bothering to read putts with my eyes. For whatever reason -- lack of depth perception? I'm just not sure -- what I see with my eyes does not translate to what I can feel with my feet. As for not being able to accurately tell how much a putt will break, I respectfully submit that when I have my ability to tell the difference between 1% and 2% slope in the green in tune (a skill that exists but which must be practiced to be effective), then my ability to determine how much a putt will break is uncanny. Since starting to utilize APE to read greens, I am not only significantly faster at reading the greens, but significantly better. There is a quantitative difference in the break on a 1% slope vs. a 3 or 4% slope, and while you may not consider this to be a "science," at bare minimum it is an art which (for me and many others) is greatly enhanced by the APE system.

I hear you, your 1% is someone else 1.5%... whatever works for you.  I just hear people tell me a putt plumbs a cup when I am caddying and it breaks 4 feet.  I read Pelz book and I tend to agree that there is no way a line will show you how far a putt will break.  I am still not sure on APE and what it does but in the end you are still making judgements on the slope I would guess unless you have the greens books which I think were outlawed anyways?  The reason I know plumb bobbing cannot tell you how much it breaks is because it cannot take in to consideration green speed.  I am not quite certain aim point does either although I will have to read up on it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And then there are the hundreds of years of history where the majority of golfers have got round quite safely and quite well without having a caddy. We also allow steel shafted clubs, graphite shafted clubs, clubheads made of god knows what and how many years of history do they have?

There's a difference between advancing something and taking something away. What you're proposing isn't really akin to a changing material, but rather… doing away with the shaft altogether or something.

Aim point is just another version of plumb bobbing.  Just something to make you feel better about what your eyes are seeing.

No.

There is no exact scientific method that will tell you how much a putt will break.

There is, and Mark Sweeney won an Emmy for its integration into television broadcasting.

A guy holding up 1 2 or 3 fingers I think is just him reaffirming what he sees.

No. I don't even really "read" the putt with my eyes. I just use the feel of what is beneath my feet. Architects do a lot to try to trick your eyes, but they can't trick gravity.

I think aim point for the masses does nothing but add to the already far too slow pace of play.

AimPoint is faster than most other methods of reading a green.

My point is aimpoint is the new plumb bob, not how similar or alike it is to the other.  Just another method for people to try to look at the ground. They both are inexact at best. You really just have to see it.  You either can or you can't.

That's not true. I could read a green in almost complete darkness (I'd need to see where to aim and to see where the ball and hole are, minimally). You don't have to "look" at it, and your eyes can deceive you quite a bit. There are some putts at my home course that most would swear break uphill, but if you use your feet, you quickly feel it. At our AimPoint thing 12 or 13 years ago… 15 of us or whatever were asked to find the straight uphill putt. One guy put his tee in the ground at almost 90° to the slope using his eyes. The tees were all over the place.

I just hear people tell me a putt plumbs a cup when I am caddying and it breaks 4 feet.

Continuing to compare it to plumb-bobbing illustrates that you do not understand APE. It's nothing like plumb-bobbing (which does not do anything except possibly give you a vertical line to compare things to visually).

I read Pelz book and I tend to agree that there is no way a line will show you how far a putt will break.

That's not APE.

I am still not sure on APE and what it does but in the end you are still making judgements on the slope I would guess unless you have the greens books which I think were outlawed anyways?

No.

The reason I know plumb bobbing cannot tell you how much it breaks is because it cannot take in to consideration green speed.  I am not quite certain aim point does either although I will have to read up on it.

It does.

[Jeff Evagues]

Am I the only guy who looks at the putt from behind the ball and goes? Who walks around and looks from all 4 sides? Your not playing in my game.

No, you are not the only one with one look.

[A.G._Crockett]

When one is taught AimPoint, you are taught to feel the low side at the ball, then walk down the low side for a couple of more “reads”; they specifically tell you to avoid any player’s line, including your own. I think that straddling is almost certainly more accurate, though, and I understand why Tour players want that read.


Also, I think if you watch closely, you’ll realize that you’ll never see a Tour player or caddie straddling anywhere near the possible line of another player.

Aim point is just another version of plumb bobbing.  Just something to make you feel better about what your eyes are seeing.  There is no exact scientific method that will tell you how much a putt will break.  Far too many variables. A guy holding up 1 2 or 3 fingers I think is just him reaffirming what he sees.  A plumb under the best of scenarios will tell you in which direction a ball will break, it will never ever tell you how much.  I think aim point for the masses does nothing but add to the already far too slow pace of play.  The line on the ball and 24 step offs to adjust it a 32nd of an inch is even worse.

With all due respect, AimPoint is as unrelated to plumb bobbing as conventional green reading is.  Regardless of what one thinks of plumb bobbing OR AimPoint, thinking of them as somehow related is just incorrect. 


Same with pace of play.  Slow players cause slow play.  Preshot routines, in and of themselves, do NOT cause slow play, on the tee, in the fairway, or on the green.

My point is aimpoint is the new plumb bob, not how similar or alike it is to the other.  Just another method for people to try to look at the ground. They both are inexact at best.  You really just have to see it.  You either can or you can't.

Jon,
You walk down the street or thru your yard with slopes comparable those on a green, and you are able to walk in a straight line without squatting down to line up your intended route.  Your feet are constantly reading the slope and sending signals to your brain to compensate, and they are quite good at it because they've been doing it since you started walking.  Why it is so hard to grasp the idea that your feet could be used to "read" putts at least as effectively as your eyes is a mystery to me.


And I don't care HOW you read putts, it isn't exact.  It is interesting that you consider what your eyes see to somehow be "exact", at least compared to AimPoint.  No matter how you read a putt, it is an approximation; your eyes don't give you the "exact" line, do they? 


I'm assuming that you haven't done any cycling, especially on rail trails; there are many, many occasions in which your eyes tell you that you are going up or down hill, while your legs and the gears you use reveal that what your eyes are telling you is incorrect. What is happening is that your eyes are being fooled by the big slopes on either side of the trail, which may run counter to the actual grade of the trail itself.  Your eyes are fooled, but your feet and legs aren't; they're VERY good at figuring out slope.

One final thought for you:  I lined up putts conventionally for half a century before I had to convert to AimPoint.  I'm only guessing, but I'm guessing that you do NOT use AimPoint, much less had a lesson in how to do it with a certified instructor.  So where does your expertise regarding AimPoint come from, exactly?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()