Im constantly misreading greens

[jamo]

Under what conditions?

For example: stimp = 9, slope = 4%, d = 20 ft, angle = 60˚ down. To be able to actually interpret that, you've got to take the class. (Any deeper and I'll have to just urge you to take the class. I'm not going to read off the whole AimChart for you.)

[Golfingdad]

For example: stimp = 9, slope = 4%, d = 20 ft, angle = 60˚ down. To be able to actually interpret that, you've got to take the class. (Any deeper and I'll have to just urge you to take the class. I'm not going to read off the whole AimChart for you.)

I will elaborate for you slightly ... By comparison, that putt breaks 8" MORE than a 20' putt that is 90* to the same slope.

[jamo]

I will elaborate for you slightly ... By comparison, that putt breaks 8" MORE than a 20' putt that is 90* to the same slope.

Yeah, sorry. Didn't mean to omit the important part. :-)

[boil3rmak3r]

It's comprised of skills, and you need to know how to develop those skills. It's not just "calculations" (there are no "calculations" really - just estimating a few inputs).

OT, I know... I still don't understand why Aimpoint doesn't package their methodology. I know you've said that it can be only be taught in person, but I just don't see it... I can use a little tool to help me gauge slope, I can walk off distances, I can figure speed. If I can take those data points and plug them into a chart, that's half the battle. I know there are other things the class teaches, but all they'd have to do is videotape an ACTUAL Aimpoint class and include that video with every purchase. That would save me a 4 hour drive to the nearest Aimpoint instructor and, I would guess, would greatly improve sales for Aimpoint... Ok, my rant is over. I just wish I had easier access...

[jamo]

OT, I know... I still don't understand why Aimpoint doesn't package their methodology. I know you've said that it can be only be taught in person, but I just don't see it... I can use a little tool to help me gauge slope, I can walk off distances, I can figure speed. If I can take those data points and plug them into a chart, that's half the battle. I know there are other things the class teaches, but all they'd have to do is videotape an ACTUAL Aimpoint class and include that video with every purchase. That would save me a 4 hour drive to the nearest Aimpoint instructor and, I would guess, would greatly improve sales for Aimpoint... Ok, my rant is over. I just wish I had easier access...

Part of it is just that you really need to get the teaching in person. You need to have someone teach you how and where to find the slope, and you really need to be testing it out on a green while you're learning; that feedback is important. Finding the stimp yourself is also something that really needs to be taught in person as well because trial-and-error is part of it. You really need the "aha!" moment when you learn it. I think it's important to them that people actually learn it . They want the validation that the students actually know the method. They're wary of people half learning it on a website or a DVD, trying it for 2 holes without practicing, and becoming upset that it "didn't work," when in reality they never actually learned it. And I imagine part of it is piracy and being able to control the delivery. People are definitely less likely to try to teach it to a friend if it's something they had to spend an hour learning in a group than if it's a DVD they bought online.

[parallax]

I will elaborate for you slightly ... By comparison, that putt breaks 8" MORE than a 20' putt that is 90* to the same slope.

How are you measuring the amount of break? It seems as though the aimpoint for Aimpoint is different than with the spider/vector method (as I understand it).

[Always an 80]

Just mounted 3x7 scope to putter. Night vision optional in case of low light. 3 reticals with built in range finder. 3X flip up magnifier. Dials in for. 308 or 7.62x54. Not sure what caliber my ball is. Will update. :)

[iacas]

How are you measuring the amount of break?

It seems as though the aimpoint for Aimpoint is different than with the spider/vector method (as I understand it).

Yes, the aim point is more accurate for AimPoint than the spider method. Heck, there are situations where 30° downhill putts break more than a sidehill 90° putt. The spider assumes that the 90° putt will always have the most break, and also assumes that downhill putts break the same amount as uphill putts from the same angle.

[Golfingdad]

How are you measuring the amount of break? It seems as though the aimpoint for Aimpoint is different than with the spider/vector method (as I understand it).

I'm not. I figured out the stimp before the round, then I pace off the distance, measure the slope and angle of slope WITH MY FEET ... And from that info I know the break from the chart. I don't know what spider/vector is. ;)

[parallax]

Yes, the aim point is more accurate for AimPoint than the spider method. Heck, there are situations where 30° downhill putts break more than a sidehill 90° putt. The spider assumes that the 90° putt will always have the most break, and also assumes that downhill putts break the same amount as uphill putts from the same angle.

It would depend on your method of measuring "break", wouldn't it? For example, if you measured the angle between the "aim-vector" and the straight line to the hole, your statement would be false, correct?

[parallax]

If you are not choosing an aim point that includes speed information, like the spider system, the you are choosing an arbitrary point based on geometry. Two options I can think of are: 1. The point at the end of the 'aimline' which is equidistant from the hole. 2. The point at the end of the 'aimline' which intersects with the line perpendicular to the shortest line to the hole. Each measurement will yield a different "amount of break" value (except in a few specific instances), correct?

[iacas]

It would depend on your method of measuring "break", wouldn't it? For example, if you measured the angle between the "aim-vector" and the straight line to the hole, your statement would be false, correct?

No, I'm measuring break the way it's commonly measured - by how far the ball moves laterally or in a direction perpendicular to the line on which it starts (for the first two inches or so of the putt). If it starts off going at a spot 18 inches right of the lip of the cup, and dies into the middle of the cup, the ball broke 20 inches.

I'm well aware of how the "spider" method works, and it fails on faster greens and steeper slopes.

If you are not choosing an aim point that includes speed information, like the spider system, the you are choosing an arbitrary point based on geometry.

All AimPoint reads come with a built-in capture speed.

1. The point at the end of the 'aimline' which is equidistant from the hole.

2. The point at the end of the 'aimline' which intersects with the line perpendicular to the shortest line to the hole.

Each measurement will yield a different "amount of break" value (except in a few specific instances), correct?

The second one makes no sense. The shortest distance to the hole is going to be straight at it, and the point at which the airline would intersect with that line is where the ball is sitting because that's the only place those two lines intersect.

The aim point in AimPoint is measured in inches from the high edge of the hole perpendicular to the line straight AT the hole. It doesn't trace an arc out (i.e. a 20' putt producing a 20' arc), though for all but the shortest of putts and those with a LOT of break, a perpendicular line and an arc are going to be awfully darn close as far as the aimline is concerned (if you plotted the aim point both perpendicular and on the arc).

So, that's that.

[parallax]

Well, first of all, I am here to learn, and my questions are genuine; I am not trying to prove anyone wrong or win a battle of wits. :-) But you have contradicted yourself, and it is still not clear how you are measuring break. Is the measurement perpendicular to the start line, or perpendicular to the straight line to the hole? The #2 measurement system I mentioned (that you said doesn't make sense), is how you say Aimpoint measures break. (FYI, the "shortest line to the hole" = "the line straight at the hole")...... But this is after you said the measurement is perpendicular to the aim line. Also, nothing I have said is with regard to the arc, or anything perpendicular to the arc. That is way too complicated.:~( I have used the spider method with some success, because it is an easy system for visualization, and it combines the speed and direction in one read, and I can easily switch to 'feel mode' once I have found the aimpoint on the fall line.

[iacas]

But you have contradicted yourself, and it is still not clear how you are measuring break. Is the measurement perpendicular to the start line, or perpendicular to the straight line to the hole?

That's not contradicting myself - a ball hit at a point that's eight inches to the right of a hole (as measured perpendicular to the line straight to the hole) will break ten inches if it goes into the middle of the cup.

You also have to realize that when your read is "eight inches" the difference between "perpendicular to the start line" and "perpendicular to the straight line to the hole" is a blade of grass or two away. :)

I have used the spider method with some success, because it is an easy system for visualization, and it combines the speed and direction in one read, and I can easily switch to 'feel mode' once I have found the aimpoint on the fall line.

And as I and others have said, the spider method fails on steeper slopes and faster greens. It also assumes that putts from below the hole break as much as putts from above the hole.

[saevel25]

Agree with Erik, he read a few of my putts today with aimpoint, it works. Once you grasp the method, it's easy to visualize.

[mvmac]

Agree with Erik, he read a few of my putts today with aimpoint, it works. Once you grasp the method, it's easy to visualize.

Yeah it def works.  Makes putting a lot more simple.  Don't let your eyes fool you

[parallax]

And as I and others have said, the spider method fails on steeper slopes and faster greens. It also assumes that putts from below the hole break as much as putts from above the hole.

If you use a different spider from above the hole (by finding the aim point on the fall line from above the hole) it works pretty well. From above the hole, on steep sliders, I just try to put the ball on the fall line, and finding the point to aim at from above the fall line works well. I have found that putts above the hole, on steep slopes have most of their break at the first part of the putt, while putts below the hole are the opposite. They definately don't heave the same break. I don't understand why it would fail on faster greens, since your aim point moves with faster greens.

[parallax]

Agree with Erik, he read a few of my putts today with aimpoint, it works. Once you grasp the method, it's easy to visualize.

Does he bring the chart to the green with him? Or is it possible to become experienced enough with it that you can forego the chart? Also, the main concern I have with Aimpoint is the ability to judge the slope angle, and correctly quantify it. The reason I have yet to take the class, is that I am not convinced that it is possible to accurately make such calculations. Another question is, is there a method for compensating for the angle of the slope where your ball lies? The more slope you have where your ball lies the sooner it will start to break.....