• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MattM

Using AimPoint to read greens from fairways.

8 posts in this topic

I read in one of the threads the other day that Iacas could read the greens from the fairway. I was wondering not just from him but from other OLDER aimpoint users how exactly that's done.

I started aimpoint right after they created the midpoint read and one of the things that was drilled into me was NOT to use my eyes because the eyes could be deceptive.

I know what the terms anchor refers to etc, but I didn't really practice finding that as much because of the emphasis on the midpoint read.

I have tons of pitch shots that if I could read the green pretty well from the fairway I would have stuck it close, but I always get "fooled," by my eyes.

Anyway, is there some distinct routine to take to begin to read from the fairway?

BTW....Iacas if I should post this on the aimpoint forum instead let me know, but I figured since mostly aimpoint users would know the terms it wouldn't be a big deal to talk about it here.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Originally Posted by MattM

Anyway, is there some distinct routine to take to begin to read from the fairway?

That's all it is - beginning the read. You can look at the high and low anchors. You can begin to approximate slope %. You can get all of the numbers pretty close, then quickly fine-tune them when you get onto the green.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

That's what gets me is the anchor stuff.  Before I started aimpoint I was always trying to look for the highpoint of the green but I frequently screwed that up because as I was told in my class the eyes will decieve you.

The definitions of anchor on the aimpoint website aren't very good.  From what I understand of the anchor it is just the highest point of the green and the lowest point right?

I am fine with the mid reads on the green what kills me is that I frequently never put the ball where it should be from the fairway because I dont know what to look for on the green to read it.....

It's kind of a catch 22 because I was told not to use my eyes but to read it from the fairway you have too....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by MattM

It's kind of a catch 22 because I was told not to use my eyes but to read it from the fairway you have too....

I disagree.

The point is not to RELY on your eyes for 100% of everything. You still use them to give you a general idea, to get you "in the neighborhood." Then you refine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I will try to work on it when I get to go back out onto the course....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

The anchors are not just the highest and lowest parts of the green but the highest and lowest relative to the pin location. Sometimes, high anchors can be in the middle of the green. Use your eyes to estimate slope direction and amount for approach shots. Then use midpoint once on the green to refine the read. Estimate then refine.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by John Graham

The anchors are not just the highest and lowest parts of the green but the highest and lowest relative to the pin location. Sometimes, high anchors can be in the middle of the green. Use your eyes to estimate slope direction and amount for approach shots. Then use midpoint once on the green to refine the read. Estimate then refine.

Right. And thanks for further clarifying on the anchors. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

And that was the answer! I thought I was doing something wrong! Thank you both for helping me figure that out!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Where they let Rickie take that drop from is some BS. He should've been further back.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against. I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968. There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour. The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc. Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s. I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better. That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition. Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO. I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Come on guys, I'm missing the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl. That being said, I think Fowler just sent his chances to a watery grave.
    • The Films and Movies Thread
      A little late finding this - X-Men, Days of Future Past Quicksilver scene in realtime.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions. I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled. As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries