or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › The relevance of the dominant eye in green reading
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The relevance of the dominant eye in green reading - Page 2

post #19 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

Thanks for your contributions.


4th 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.

 

MW


Actually, the ball rolls on more of a ballistic trajectory, with most of the curve occurring as the ball slows down.  The break is also affected by the change in up/down hill movement during the length of the putt.  Add in a double break and there is nothing even resembling a parabola.  And I'm not an Aim Point player either, just an observer. 

 

I played last week on a course in Idaho near the west side of the Tetons where my brother and I were the second group on the course, with just a single ahead of us.  We could clearly see how his putts broke by the tracks in the dew for the first 6 or 7 holes, and we could also see how we had misread some putts by our own tracks.  None of them looked anything looked anything like a parabola. 

 

The only way you really get something like a parabola is if you are putting almost straight up a steep slope with the intent of having the ball come back down about the same distance, and even then it isn't a true parabola, as the ball will tend to follow straight down the fall line as gravity accelerates it down the hill.

 

post #20 of 38
Thread Starter 


 

 

Quote:
 I'm pretty sure the dimples don't really affect putting...  

 

Dave Pelz says they do (pages 209-211 of my edition). Now I have a problem: Shall I trust him or shall I trust you? 

 

 

Quote:

If the way you read greens is based on that assumption ......... ...

 

The way I read greens isn’t based in any assumption. I read to find two things:

  1. If that putt goes up or down and how much.
  2. What is the direction of the fall line for that putt.

Then, using the background that is in my head and without any external assistance, I try to anticipate the shape of the ball track for that putt. This gives me an aim point because I use the concept of tangent at start. I know that the line is not a perfect parabola segment but I know also that parabolas provide a fair estimate. There are adjustments that can be made based on green speed and how aggressive the player is. 

 

Quote:

3. I don't think it "works," if it assumes that putts break anything like a parabola 

 

I still don’t know why you joined this thread. I started it inviting people to test a tip I found in an article, written by someone else, about the role of the dominant eye in green reading. If the eyes are not the main tools you use to read greens why did you step in? Why did you suggest the use of the feet for that purpose? It was not a contest to find the best way to read putts. I was just trying to discover if other golfers find it effective or not. Your answer nr 3 shows you were a bit absent-minded when you read my first post.  

 

MW

 

 

 

post #21 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post




Actually, the ball rolls on more of a ballistic trajectory, with most of the curve occurring as the ball slows down.  The break is also affected by the change in up/down hill movement during the length of the putt.  Add in a double break and there is nothing even resembling a parabola.  And I'm not an Aim Point player either, just an observer. 

 

I played last week on a course in Idaho near the west side of the Tetons where my brother and I were the second group on the course, with just a single ahead of us.  We could clearly see how his putts broke by the tracks in the dew for the first 6 or 7 holes, and we could also see how we had misread some putts by our own tracks.  None of them looked anything looked anything like a parabola. 

 

The only way you really get something like a parabola is if you are putting almost straight up a steep slope with the intent of having the ball come back down about the same distance, and even then it isn't a true parabola, as the ball will tend to follow straight down the fall line as gravity accelerates it down the hill.

 



Hi Fourputt,

 

I basically agree with you in several points. Let me just add a few details:

 

   most of the curve occurring as the ball slows down

 

Yes, as forward momentum decreases the relative importance of gravity increases. I have an animated video showing that but it would be considered promotional.

 

   We could clearly see how his putts broke by the tracks in the dew for the first 6 or 7 holes

 

Dew increases friction and the bigger friction is the farther away we are of perfect parabola segments.

 

   Add in a double break and there is nothing even resembling a parabola

 

If there is double break we have 2 different planes and the transition between them. Parabolas are curves that exist in planar surfaces not in this situation you mention.

 

   The only way you really get something like a parabola is if you are putting almost straight up a steep slope with the intent of having the ball come back down about the same distance, and even then it isn't a true parabola, as the ball will tend to follow straight down the fall line as gravity accelerates it down the hill.

 

Parabolas, like straight lines, for example, are geometric concepts without a beginning and an end. When we talk about parabolas in golf putting we mean "parabola segments" that, depending on slope and the fact that the putts are uphill or downhill, are in different positions relative to the parabola’s apex. That’s the knowledge about this that is important to anticipate the shape of the ball track.  

 

   (I’m) just an observer

 

I would say an acute observer with insightful thoughts.  a1_smile.gif

 

MW

 

post #22 of 38

I am sorry, you can try to call it a Parabolas all you want, but its not. The reason, Parabolas are conic sections, meaning you take a cone and take a slice of it, at any angle. Parabolas also have an axis of symmetry, meaning that a parabolas will look identical on the other side. With a putt, that hardly ever happens. Given there might be a few cases were a putt might come close to a parabula, but on most cases a putt does not resemple a parabola at all, and will not travel on one, and to aim at the apex of a parabolas is foolish.

 

Now if you take a green, and look at in 3D, you can cut a slope, of lets say a bunker, it will have a parabolic shape, but that does not mean the ball travels that shape at all. The ball will travel along a gradient.  Depending on the initial speed, depends on when the gradient will take effect. Some putts have such a gradient that the ball will start to move right off the clubface, other putts wont start to break towards later. Then you throw in grain of the green, speed of the green, are the greens kept in shape, are they smooth..

 

Really to assume an consistant geometric shape as a way to line up a putt is to simplistic of a view if that shape could even hold up againts the complexity of the green.

post #23 of 38

 

Mmmm AimPoint... c3_clap.gif

post #24 of 38

The above video:  it took him 57 seconds from the time he started on the second putt until he stroked it.  In my book, that's too long.  If I took that long on every putt, the guys I play with would expel me from the group.  I wanted to deck him by the time he finally got around to hitting the ball. 

 

Then too he is obviously a good player.  The guys I know have enough trouble just starting the ball on the chosen line, no matter if the line is right or wrong.  Finding the line is just a small part of being a good putter.

post #25 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

I am sorry, you can try to call it a Parabolas all you want, but its not. The reason, Parabolas are conic sections, meaning you take a cone and take a slice of it, at any angle. Parabolas also have an axis of symmetry, meaning that a parabolas will look identical on the other side. With a putt, that hardly ever happens. Given there might be a few cases were a putt might come close to a parabula, but on most cases a putt does not resemple a parabola at all, and will not travel on one, and to aim at the apex of a parabolas is foolish.

 

 

Hi,

 

With all due respect I have to say that I don’t agree with you in some points.

 

   you take a cone and take a slice of it, at any angle

 

First, the slice must be cut with a plane. Second, if the plane is perpendicular to the axis of the cone you get a circumference, if it is oblique you get an ellipse and only if it is parallel to just one generatrix you get a parabola.

 

   Parabolas also have an axis of symmetry, meaning that a parabolas will look identical on the other side

 

Yes, but the same way you say "a straight line" meaning a segment of a straight line you can also say "parabola" meaning a segment of a parabola. And if you take that segment very far from the apex you have almost a piece of a straight line, if you take it close to the apex it breaks a lot and if you take a piece that crosses the apex you have a segment that starts ascending and finishes descending.

 

   and to aim at the apex of a parabolas is foolish.

 

Yes, but I’m afraid there are no fools here because no one mentioned that before you did. I said that "This gives me an aim point because I use the concept of tangent at start." This means that my aim point is such that, with the ball, it defines a straight line that is tangent to the anticipated trajectory at the point where it starts.  I could give some examples and show some pictures but references to my ebook are forbidden here.

 

MW

post #26 of 38

Yes you are right, any angle would not work, its if you cut the cone so the base is included, others would be an ellipse or a circle. 

But it still not a parabola, its a curve. its mostly likely a polynomial, not a parabola

 

I don't think he took that long, i have seen worse, with worse outcomes ;b

 

 

post #27 of 38

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

Dave Pelz says they do (pages 209-211 of my edition). Now I have a problem: Shall I trust him or shall I trust you?

 

Dave Pelz has been wrong before. 17" past? Debunked. Just sayin'... If you want to worry about the dimples of your ball affecting your putt, go for it. I'll continue not to.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

Then, using the background that is in my head and without any external assistance, I try to anticipate the shape of the ball track for that putt. This gives me an aim point because I use the concept of tangent at start. I know that the line is not a perfect parabola segment but I know also that parabolas provide a fair estimate. There are adjustments that can be made based on green speed and how aggressive the player is.

 

 

In other words, you "read the green" based on your experience. You see parabolas, even though no real putts even come close to having a parabolic shape. But you're just "reading the green" based on your experience. How are you going to teach a new player who doesn't have the experience?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

I still don’t know why you joined this thread. I started it inviting people to test a tip I found in an article, written by someone else, about the role of the dominant eye in green reading. If the eyes are not the main tools you use to read greens why did you step in? Why did you suggest the use of the feet for that purpose? It was not a contest to find the best way to read putts. I was just trying to discover if other golfers find it effective or not. Your answer nr 3 shows you were a bit absent-minded when you read my first post.

 

 

Pardon me. It's my forum, and I'm a good putter, and I teach green reading, and I'm interested in and care about golf. That's why I "joined" this thread. And I don't think I've been at all absent minded, thank you very much.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

   We could clearly see how his putts broke by the tracks in the dew for the first 6 or 7 holes

 

Dew increases friction and the bigger friction is the farther away we are of perfect parabola segments.

 

Yes, with no friction at all, a golf ball would form a parabola. It would also never come to a stop. In the real world, where most of us live a2_wink.gif, golf balls don't travel in anything at all resembling a parabola.

 

That's the biggest problem I have with what you seem to be telling us. The golf ball doesn't roll in any way like a parabola.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

 

If there is double break we have 2 different planes and the transition between them. Parabolas are curves that exist in planar surfaces not in this situation you mention.

 

 

Parabolas don't exist in planar surfaces on the golf course. The closest you can get to a parabola is a pitch shot, and even that's not a parabola.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

Parabolas, like straight lines, for example, are geometric concepts without a beginning and an end. When we talk about parabolas in golf putting we mean "parabola segments" that, depending on slope and the fact that the putts are uphill or downhill, are in different positions relative to the parabola’s apex. That’s the knowledge about this that is important to anticipate the shape of the ball track.

 

 

The golf ball will not roll in a parabola shape on 99.999% of greens. You'd need to have a putt with a ton of break that gradually decreased as the ball slowed down.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

The above video:  it took him 57 seconds from the time he started on the second putt until he stroked it.  In my book, that's too long.  If I took that long on every putt, the guys I play with would expel me from the group. I wanted to deck him by the time he finally got around to hitting the ball. 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was doing there. 57 seconds is too long. It did include his pre-shot routine AND his read. If someone else had putted in between, you wouldn't have seen about 47 of those 57 seconds. In other words, 80-90% of what he did for the second putt could be done while others are looking at or hitting their putts. When it's his turn to hit, he should be ready to hit almost right away. He also stares at his book for too long - that part should literally a second or two.

 

I've had people ask me how I putt so well since "you don't even read your putts!" As I've said, I've "read putts" from the tees of par threes. "Looks like 20 feet, 2% slope, 90 degrees to straight. Give it 22 inches right to left." You get to the green, confirm those numbers, and the read is correct.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

Then too he is obviously a good player.  The guys I know have enough trouble just starting the ball on the chosen line, no matter if the line is right or wrong.  Finding the line is just a small part of being a good putter.

 

Yep, one of three parts, I'd say: getting the right read (the topic here), hitting the ball the right distance, and hitting the ball on the line.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

Yes, but I’m afraid there are no fools here because no one mentioned that before you did. I said that "This gives me an aim point because I use the concept of tangent at start." This means that my aim point is such that, with the ball, it defines a straight line that is tangent to the anticipated trajectory at the point where it starts. I could give some examples and show some pictures but references to my ebook are forbidden here.

 

They are, and you'd do well to stop mentioning it as if it was some sort of policy we made up just to prevent you from sharing something you sell.

 

I've mentioned the "apex of the putt" (two threads started on it...) before. Perhaps nobody else mentioned it here because it's common knowledge around here, just as it's common knowledge that a ball rolling on a green will not trace a shape resembling a parabola.

post #28 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

Dave Pelz has been wrong before. 17" past? Debunked. Just sayin'... If you want to worry about the dimples of your ball affecting your putt, go for it. I'll continue not to.

 

 

 

 

In other words, you "read the green" based on your experience. You see parabolas, even though no real putts even come close to having a parabolic shape. But you're just "reading the green" based on your experience. How are you going to teach a new player who doesn't have the experience?

 

 

 

 

Pardon me. It's my forum, and I'm a good putter, and I teach green reading, and I'm interested in and care about golf. That's why I "joined" this thread. And I don't think I've been at all absent minded, thank you very much.

 

 

Yes, with no friction at all, a golf ball would form a parabola. It would also never come to a stop. In the real world, where most of us live a2_wink.gif, golf balls don't travel in anything at all resembling a parabola.

 

That's the biggest problem I have with what you seem to be telling us. The golf ball doesn't roll in any way like a parabola.

 

 

 

 

 

Parabolas don't exist in planar surfaces on the golf course. The closest you can get to a parabola is a pitch shot, and even that's not a parabola.

 

 

 

 

 

The golf ball will not roll in a parabola shape on 99.999% of greens. You'd need to have a putt with a ton of break that gradually decreased as the ball slowed down.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was doing there. 57 seconds is too long. It did include his pre-shot routine AND his read. If someone else had putted in between, you wouldn't have seen about 47 of those 57 seconds. In other words, 80-90% of what he did for the second putt could be done while others are looking at or hitting their putts. When it's his turn to hit, he should be ready to hit almost right away. He also stares at his book for too long - that part should literally a second or two.

 

I've had people ask me how I putt so well since "you don't even read your putts!" As I've said, I've "read putts" from the tees of par threes. "Looks like 20 feet, 2% slope, 90 degrees to straight. Give it 22 inches right to left." You get to the green, confirm those numbers, and the read is correct.

 

 

 

Yep, one of three parts, I'd say: getting the right read (the topic here), hitting the ball the right distance, and hitting the ball on the line.

 

 

 

They are, and you'd do well to stop mentioning it as if it was some sort of policy we made up just to prevent you from sharing something you sell.

 

I've mentioned the "apex of the putt" (two threads started on it...) before. Perhaps nobody else mentioned it here because it's common knowledge around here, just as it's common knowledge that a ball rolling on a green will not trace a shape resembling a parabola.



 

I WAS WRONG! I AM SORRY IF I DISTURBED YOU! IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!

But, before explaining why I have to say that, let me post a few answers to Mr. Iacas.

 

If you want to worry about the dimples of your ball affecting your putt, go for it.

 

No, I don’t worry at all. I just said "Golf ball is not a sphere but we treat it as if it was." This was related to the fact that, as I said before "I know that the line is not a perfect parabola segment but I know also that parabolas provide a fair estimate". My motto is: it’s better to have a fair estimate than having no estimate at all.

 

In other words, you "read the green" based on your experience. You see parabolas, even though no real putts even come close to having a parabolic shape. But you're just "reading the green" based on your experience.

 

Don’t say "in other words" because you have shown no talent at all to translate my thoughts in other words. While I’m walking to the green I read it to get a big picture. When I get to the green I read the putt and try to discover 3 things: a) If it goes up or down, b) What is the fall line, to have an idea of the angle between it and the ball-hole line and c) How severe the slope is in that area of the green. This is all we need to know how wide the parabola is and where in the entire curve is the segment that is similar to the putt we are about to make. That is my fair estimate without getting advice on the green from anyone else but me.

 

 "Looks like 20 feet, 2% slope, 90 degrees to straight. Give it 22 inches right to left."

 

Wait a moment! 2% slope? Was this a product of your experience or did you use a putting aid? Are you allowed to use your experience and I am not? Let me tell you this: the inputs you get are the inputs I get, so your method is also based in parabolas with small adjustments due to the existence of friction. You keep fighting parabolas because you just don’t know how the tables you use were built. The big difference is that to make a decision on the green I use the knowledge I have and you get advice from others. Watch my video golf putting lines in youtube and you’ll see how it works.

 

Pardon me. It's my forum, …

 

When I was a child I used to play football in the park with others like me and there was always a kid, that was the ball owner, who decided who will play and those who had to stay out. Thanks for reminding me those good old days.

 

The golf ball will not roll in a parabola shape on 99.999% of greens.

 

It’s not 99.999%, it’s 100.0%. Don’t try to say "in other words" what I already said. And I maintain that "Parabolas provide a fair estimate when we are in almost flat sloping areas of the green." .

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was doing there. 57 seconds is too long. It did include his pre-shot routine AND his read. If someone else had putted in between, you wouldn't have seen about 47 of those 57 seconds. In other words, 80-90% of what he did for the second putt could be done while others are looking at or hitting their putts. When it's his turn to hit, he should be ready to hit almost right away. He also stares at his book for too long - that part should literally a second or two.

I've had people ask me how I putt so well since "you don't even read your putts!" As I've said, I've "read putts" from the tees of par threes. "Looks like 20 feet, 2% slope, 90 degrees to straight. Give it 22 inches right to left." You get to the green, confirm those numbers, and the read is correct.

 

How wonderful the final scene is. Sooner or later things like this will make me believe in miracles. How often it happens that we think we are close to the hole and when we get to the green we discover we have a 10 or 15 feet putt to make?

 

They are, and you'd do well to stop mentioning it as if it was some sort of policy we made up just to prevent you from sharing something you sell.

I've mentioned the "apex of the putt" (two threads started on it...) before. Perhaps nobody else mentioned it here because it's common knowledge around here, just as it's common knowledge that a ball rolling on a green will not trace a shape resembling a parabola.

 

I believe it’s also common knowledge here that this site only welcomes "something you sell"

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

   

Having said all that I must recognise I was wrong. Yes, I thought this was a forum to discuss ideas and it proved to be a site to promote someone’s solution for breaking putts where different opinions are not allowed. Even the name of the site where you could find the original tip that provoked this thread was removed. Not a link, not my site, just a name of a well-respected directory. However, several videos promoting a kind of tap dance on the green, in which the forum owner has a clear interest are peacefully online in this thread. I am sorry if I disturbed the quiet way things were running before. I know that discussing with those that agree with you or have to submit to your opinions is the preferred way to some people. It’s not my case. So, I quit. Of course you are the owner, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to behave as a troublemaker in charge. Keep going, be happy. I will also discard plans for my next thread:  "Reading someone else’s notes on the green shouldn’t be considered getting advice?"

 

Marcel White

 

 

 

 

 

post #29 of 38

Doesn't matter, i was taught to start reading greens from the fairway as well. You can gain alot of information from the fairway, like if the green slops from right to left, or front to back, were the bunkers are at, because the sand typically builds up the green over time causing mounds. 

 

I will say this again, its not a parabola. A parabola has a axis of symmetry, were one half of the curve is identical to the other half. There is probably one putt that has that type of break, all others don't. Because all others start on a straight line then curve out, more in the shape of a polynomial. The only parabola shaped putt i can think of is if you have such a severe slope that you have to putt back up into the slope because going at the hole would cause the ball to go way to far past. Basically you would have to have your back to the hole to make that putt. Even a putt that starts to slide off the clubface will not be symmetrical to create a parabola. 

 

Like you said, you putt to the fall line, that to me is not seeing a parabola, its seeing a polynomial. Your basically seeing a generic curve, to name all putts after one type of geometric shape is ignorant at best. 

post #30 of 38

You're welcome to your opinion but you're a bit off base.  You came here to sell a book to us and created a thread about putting as the method to do so.  The site is sponsor friendly, but to be fair to the paying sponsors you have to sign up as an "Insider" and pay to advertise your book.  You chose to violate the policy to gain free advertising and now you're upset that Erik removed  the link and site name that you sell your book on. 

 

It's a tough world, not everyone will agree with your viewpoints but if you believe in them you will have the ability to defend yourself as long as you do so within the terms and conditions listed on the site. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

I believe it’s also common knowledge here that this site only welcomes "something you sell"

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

   

Having said all that I must recognise I was wrong. Yes, I thought this was a forum to discuss ideas and it proved to be a site to promote someone’s solution for breaking putts where different opinions are not allowed. Even the name of the site where you could find the original tip that provoked this thread was removed. Not a link, not my site, just a name of a well-respected directory. However, several videos promoting a kind of tap dance on the green, in which the forum owner has a clear interest are peacefully online in this thread. I am sorry if I disturbed the quiet way things were running before. I know that discussing with those that agree with you or have to submit to your opinions is the preferred way to some people. It’s not my case. So, I quit. Of course you are the owner, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to behave as a troublemaker in charge. Keep going, be happy. I will also discard plans for my next thread:  "Reading someone else’s notes on the green shouldn’t be considered getting advice?"

 

Marcel White



 

post #31 of 38

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

No, I don’t worry at all. I just said "Golf ball is not a sphere but we treat it as if it was." This was related to the fact that, as I said before "I know that the line is not a perfect parabola segment but I know also that parabolas provide a fair estimate". My motto is: it’s better to have a fair estimate than having no estimate at all.

 

A parabola is not a "fair" estimate. Never mind "perfect" parabolas - putts don't break anything like a parabola.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

This is all we need to know how wide the parabola is and where in the entire curve is the segment that is similar to the putt we are about to make. That is my fair estimate without getting advice on the green from anyone else but me.

 

Great. Except there are no parabolas. And since you're apparently going to carry on with this "advice" thing, look up the rules, because otherwise you're just going to make a fool of yourself. AimPoint charts aren't "advice." I'm happy to talk about your non-existent parabolas, but if you want to keep bringing up AimPoint I'm happy to do that as well.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

 

Let me tell you this: the inputs you get are the inputs I get, so your method is also based in parabolas with small adjustments due to the existence of friction. You keep fighting parabolas because you just don’t know how the tables you use were built. The big difference is that to make a decision on the green I use the knowledge I have and you get advice from others.

 

 

Actually, I know how the charts I use were built. They weren't built with parabolas. A breaking putt doesn't trace anything even close to a parabola. And you're provably wrong on "advice." Look up the rules.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post
 

When I was a child I used to play football in the park with others like me and there was always a kid, that was the ball owner, who decided who will play and those who had to stay out. Thanks for reminding me those good old days.

 

Yeah, this isn't like that. The site has rules which are in place to protect people from those who wish to abuse the privilege of posting, as you've chosen to do, simply to sell things. You're taking, you're not giving. You're attempting to use the thousands of hours of work, the millions of monthly page views, and the several hundred thousand unique visitors to market your site, on which you sell things for a profit.

 

In other words, this is as much like the kid with the ball as a breaking putt's trajectory is to a parabola. Bazinga! a1_smile.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel White View Post

It’s not 99.999%, it’s 100.0%. Don’t try to say "in other words" what I already said. And I maintain that "Parabolas provide a fair estimate when we are in almost flat sloping areas of the green." .

 

 

Yeah... the thing is, they don't. The ball's speed isn't constant. Acceleration is constant but the velocity vector in the direction of gravity is not constant.

 

And if it is (it's not, but I'm humoring you here): show us how. Show us a putt breaking in any way in a parabola. Simply saying "it is a fair approximation" or whatever isn't proof. Instead, you've chosen to cry "woe is me, the guy who does things that are borderline spammy and not at all close to the reality of how a putt breaks, and is being called out on it." It's you who is choosing to take your ball and go home. Rather than defend your bizarre ideas, you're whining about things and "quitting." Okay by me.

 

This statement of fact remains unchallenged by you: "Putts don't break in shapes that are even close to parabolas."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

Like you said, you putt to the fall line, that to me is not seeing a parabola, its seeing a polynomial. Your basically seeing a generic curve, to name all putts after one type of geometric shape is ignorant at best. 


I agree. I think if Marcel was actually interested in discussing and not selling then he might tell us how, duh, putts don't break in the shape of a parabola, but if we somehow picture a parabola, we can determine how much putt will break. That might be fine, but he's chosen not to do that, unfortunately.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

You're welcome to your opinion but you're a bit off base.  You came here to sell a book to us and created a thread about putting as the method to do so. The site is sponsor friendly, but to be fair to the paying sponsors you have to sign up as an "Insider" and pay to advertise your book. You chose to violate the policy to gain free advertising and now you're upset that Erik removed  the link and site name that you sell your book on.

 

It's a tough world, not everyone will agree with your viewpoints but if you believe in them you will have the ability to defend yourself as long as you do so within the terms and conditions listed on the site.

 

Bingo. +1 to you, ntg.

post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

The above video:  it took him 57 seconds from the time he started on the second putt until he stroked it.  In my book, that's too long.  If I took that long on every putt, the guys I play with would expel me from the group.  I wanted to deck him by the time he finally got around to hitting the ball. 

 

Then too he is obviously a good player.  The guys I know have enough trouble just starting the ball on the chosen line, no matter if the line is right or wrong.  Finding the line is just a small part of being a good putter.


I agree...that was painful to watch.

 

 

post #33 of 38
Pretty classic exchange, I hope Marcel never comes back. I read his ebook. I have also spent time with aimpoint, I have the digital level, the charts and I putt on my intended line. Marcel's system is better, faster and creates a more true and deeper knowledge of the subject. I am not as good a golfer as you iacas, but I took the time to read and understand his system, you bang on about parabolas being irrelevant but you fail to understand that it is sections on a parabola not the entire parabola that describe a balls behavior. To you other readers out there, you can learn a lot from both systems, they are pretty similar actually, but aimpoint is very dependent on advance knowledge of stimp, percentages of slope and the charts information. Marcel's is more creative.
Iacas... You never know what will make you a better player, I am sure that at some point you did not use aim point, but you are a better player now that you use them. Currently you do not understand how certain sections of a parabola can illustrate perfectly the putt you are facing. If you had the knowledge you would be an even better player. Forums can expose you to new ideas if you let them or as in this particular case they can be like a high school clique.
post #34 of 38

Are there any pros on tour that use AimPoint? 

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unkynd View Post

Are there any pros on tour that use AimPoint? 

 

Plenty, most famously the player of the year on the LPGA Tour, Stacy Lewis.

post #36 of 38

Thanks for the reply Iacas.  They need to get an AimPoint instructor in Oklahoma.  EJ Pfister has been listed as "Coming Soon" for a long time.....

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › The relevance of the dominant eye in green reading