The relevance of the dominant eye in green reading

Interesting, but isnt the 'uphill side of the break' not on either end of the putt, but in the middle and above the putt line? And usually dominant eye positions are considered when you are over a putt, ready to stroke, so does this article mean that the dominant eye should have a look and 'read' from an uphill position? Wouldn't we always naturally be reading greens with our dominant eye?

What if you don't use your eyes to read the greens? :-P

Not being glib here. I use my eyes, but not the way you're talking about. I use my feet more than my eyes.

I'm sorry and I do not mean to offend you, but I could not get very far on the site. $24.00 for a heap of typos and grammar errors? It looks like an "As seen on TV!" advertisement and I was waiting for John O'Hurley to pop out at any moment.

"I honestly don't know what I'm looking at, or thinking, when I line up for a putt. My body kind of goes numb and so does my brain. I guess after so many putts, you just learn where the ball needs to go. I've been asked for putting advice though, in the past and present, and I can't really give any. I really don't think anyone can give any - unless you know what that guy is thinking about. I take my putter in my hand, I walk up, I stop thinking and then I hit the ball." - Greg Norman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White 

It's hard to believe you wrote that.

 

I was addressing "all those who seriously read greens before putting" and never seen a golf pro reading greens with feet. Visit my site (www.puttinglines.com) and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

Marcel, the clue is in iacas's forum signature. He's an AimPoint Instructor so feet are far more important than eyes for him. As an example:

Looks like magic but in reality is simple, effective and far easier than "seriously reading guessing greens"

Might be some typos on the webpage but the e-book looks to be pretty well constructed and visually appealing.  I can't say anything about the validity of the content but I've definitely seen e-books that are worse.  It would be interesting for someone with AimPoint knowledge to review the book for the rest of us. 

I use both eyes to read the greens

To answer your question: 0 relevance

My 2 cents....

Eh, i really don't believe that statement. i would bet it doesn't matter

Iacas beats me there again. I use a lot of foot feedback these days too. Feet just seem to sense less confusing info about the green. Feel it, become it.

Does your eBook explain how your parabolas work on multi-tiered greens or greens with crowns (dome) or saddles (cup)?

Based on the description on the website it seems like using parabolas may be less guesswork but still a whole lot of guesswork nevertheless, especially when the above scenarios are taken into account?

Your "I don’t need to carry a book in my pocket to make a putt." made me chuckle; I'd place a fair sized wager on an experienced "book-carrying" AimPointer being able to hole more putts than you. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White 

It's hard to believe you wrote that.

 

I was addressing "all those who seriously read greens before putting" and never seen a golf pro reading greens with feet.

Yeah, sorry. Was in a rush. AimPoint, buddy. Can't argue with physics. :-) AimPoint is as good a method as there is. Lots of things will fool your eyes - you're not fooling your feet, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White 

I wrote my thread to all those who need to read putts from both sides with the dominant eye wide open. If someone is blessed with the ability to do it with the feet, please ignore my thread.

It's not a matter of being "blessed," simply understanding how to use your feet. We walk all over the place and don't fall over all the time. Our feet are all "blessed." We just have to listen to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White 

I just invited people to test that tip I got from someone else and that seems to work. If it proves to be good I just want to share.

Aren't you trying to sell something? There's a big "Buy Now" link on the site you linked to (since removed - please don't violate the policy of the site. We have programs if you'd like to advertise! :-D).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White 

My approach to breaking putts is based on the understanding of the behaviour of the ball on sloping greens and shapes of the ball tracks (parabolas). I don’t need to carry a book in my pocket to make a putt.

I'll be honest, I haven't looked at your book at all.

But your slam against "carrying a book in your pocket" is unwarranted. I guarantee that I can get better reads faster than you can walking around to the other side of the hole. I've read people's putts from the tee (of a par three).

But more importantly, a ball rolling across a green, on a green with the exact same amount of break the entire length of the putt, doesn't curve in a parabola. It's not even close. If your method is based on the ball tracing a parabolic shape, it's inherently flawed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White 

Being so assertive about typos and grammar errors seems to reflect the idea that US English is the only English on the planet. But if there are some, I regret and apologise.

I don't think anyone was being rude about that. I think that if you're expecting people to pay you, they don't want the thing they receive to be poorly written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon 

Marcel, the clue is in iacas's forum signature. He's an AimPoint Instructor so feet are far more important than eyes for him. As an example:

 

 

Looks like magic but in reality is simple, effective and far easier than "seriously reading guessing greens"

 

How did he come up with the 30° angle so quickly? Does it involve practicing putt angles with some sort of giant protractor?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday 

How did he come up with the 30° angle so quickly? Does it involve practicing putt angles with some sort of giant protractor?

 

Nope. Simply a case of knowing how many paces you can take at a certain distance from the hole. In the video he says the ball is 10 ft from the hole and then he takes two paces from the "straight putt" to his ball. As an approximate:

5 feet from the hole = one pace per 30 degrees

10 feet from the hole = 2 paces per 30 degrees

15 feet from the hole = 3 paces per 30 degrees

20 feet from the hole = 4 paces per 30 degrees

I do like the giant protractor idea though! Maybe it could be disguised as half an umbrella. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White 

Parabolas are theoretical lines that only exist in flat surfaces (planes). This excludes crowns and saddles.

Putts on planar surfaces don't travel in parabolas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White 

Friction makes it impossible for any object to follow a perfect parabola. But, understanding parabolas and how to work with them is the key when the hole is in the middle of an almost flat sloping zone which, unlike crowns and saddles, is a very common situation. We don’t need perfect shapes to use some theory. Golf ball is not a sphere but we treat it as if it was. And if we have a green that is flat and level we consider that the ball will follow a straight line but we know it won’t be a perfect straight line.

The golf ball is basically a sphere. What do you mean we "treat it as if it was?" I'm pretty sure the dimples don't really affect putting... Aerodynamics, sure, but that's not what we're talking about here.

The golf ball, on a perfectly flat surface, will not break even close to a parabola. If the way you read greens is based on that assumption - that it's at least somewhat close - then you're likely way off base.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White 

1. I started the thread with no idea of selling anything.
2. I didn’t invent the tip of the "shooting sports instructor", just discovered it.
3. I tested it and invited others to do the same because if it works I’d be glad to share.
4. I don’t feel humiliated if I have to squat down and look from both sides to read my putts because I see all the time, on TV, Tour Pros doing the same.

1. If you say so.
2. Okay.
3. I don't think it "works," if it assumes that putts break anything like a parabola.
4. What does that have to do with anything?