Can someone please explain the Aimpoint putting technique? - Page 2

It is the most amazing system- you just have to TRUST it. I have taken the fundamentals and the advanced classes. The beauty of the classes is that you can sit in the fundamentals over and over again-observe is a better description. You have to practice, too. And it helps to be aimed where you think you are aimed! I have drunk the KoolAid and got an Edel putter and committed to AimPoint. I love it. Makes lags so much easier. I find that it is a faster way to read greens too. I need lots more work on the Advanced stuff. I am not fast enough to break down the putts and do the math. I say give it a try. You will love it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by logman 

No don't get me wrong I'll (virtually) do anything to save a shot, Hell I went to side saddle putting because I thought it was a better system. And I've checked out everything that I can about Aimpoint , the vids, the tutorials, the charts etc. But.......Aimpoint is an educated guess, because the inputs are good guesses. I mean the stimp is 8,but is it on the green you're putting on? or is the slope 2 or 2.5 initially but then becomes a 1.  The grain is against me. Blah blah.

 

I use the green walking technique, but the rest is just good guessing......there's not much science to it really apart from a deduction based on a good guess.

 

And the stuff you see on telly with the ball following that line is awesone and spooky but its hardly the basis for aimpoint green reading. One's been mapped the green reading stuff hasn't.

Mind you It's very seductive, I mean the idea that you can use science to be a gun putter is very alluring. It fits very nicely with the mindset that alot of golfers have, ykow, the analytical folks. 

You are not far off here at all.  (Except there is nothing in the Aimpoint class - the beginner's one at least - where you have to worry about grain :))  But there is one key word you through in there that says everything about it.  "Educated" guess.  Without the word 'educated' then you're left with just a guess.  That is the difference.  The other big difference from the way most people read greens - and this is the hardest part that takes the most practice - is using your feet instead of your eyes.

So that's why Sam Snead went barefoot on the practice days! Feel up the greens with his bare tootsies. I do wish he had won the US Open.

I have heard many great things about Aimpoint. Too bad I live in New Mexico which is an Aimpoint black hole. No instructors or clinics within 500 miles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by logman 

And the stuff you see on telly with the ball following that line is awesone and spooky but its hardly the basis for aimpoint green reading. One's been mapped the green reading stuff hasn't.

Incorrect. Yes, AimPoint when it was on television (the line this year is NOT AimPoint, which is why it's wrong so often) had greens mapped to the millimeter, but you can easily map the greens of your own course. It IS the "basis" for AimPoint. You're wrong there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by logman 

Mind you It's very seductive, I mean the idea that you can use science to be a gun putter is very alluring. It fits very nicely with the mindset that alot of golfers have, ykow, the analytical folks. 

More drivel. The people who like AimPoint the most are, in my experience, the people who are least analytical. It's very heavily based in "feel" as is all of golf instruction and all of golf, period. Everything's a feel - it just has to line up with reality to work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwlee7 

If you have an Outback Steakhouse, chances are good Erik will fly out there. :)

He's right... Danny - let's talk. I'll make it worth your while. I can come out for a few days, do a few clinics, and you and I can map out your course(s) as well. PM me or something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by logman 

 But Erik, wasn't AimpointTV the start of the Aimpoint green reading phenomenon, and as I saw it Aimpoint green reading hitched a ride on the credibility of Aimpoint TV.

They're one in the same, Logman.

Also, the fella you linked there is a tad biased against Aimpoint. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

 

Also, the fella you linked there is a tad biased against Aimpoint. ;)

But you could never say that Mr. Mangum doesn't know about putting. He has his opinions, as do the Aimpoint fans. It's up to every individual to decide which method(s) would be helpful in trying to sink putts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by logman 

But Erik, wasn't AimpointTV the start of the Aimpoint green reading phenomenon

No. Green reading came first, and when Mark realized that the models worked as well as they did he simply found a way to "publish" the computerized data to TV. AimPoint has been green reading since before it was on TV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by logman 

Even though, as you said the greens used in Aimpoint TV were "mapped to the millimeter".....whereas the Aimpoint green reading system is just an estimation on all inputs of putting. AimpointTV seems to be scientific whereas Aimpoint green reading is less so.

 

Your point is what, exactly? It's already been addressed above: AimPoint is far more educated green reading than just saying "this here putt looks like it's gonna go that-a-way about this-a-much because of that little bump there, and those mountains that way, and the creek three holes away."

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonious 

But you could never say that Mr. Mangum doesn't know about putting. He has his opinions, as do the Aimpoint fans. It's up to every individual to decide which method(s) would be helpful in trying to sink putts.

His opinions so severely bias him, however, that it renders his opinions non-credible when it comes to AimPoint. I've talked with him about it many times - as has John Graham, Mark Sweeney, etc. Never mind that he has his own "green reading system" complete with this massive wheel you've gotta spin around to get your reads (to avoid the AimPoint patents) - hypocritical? Nahhhhhhhhhhh. :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by logman 

I think thats my point, They're not one and the same. One of them was based on 3D digitally mapped  greens the other is based on the non scientific "educated" guesses of the operator of the putting stick. There two different things.

And again: educated approximations (very different than "guessing") with an accurate (physics, science) chart is going to improve someone's ability to read a green better than the old way of doing it. So no, they're not "two different things." They're exactly the same thing - one is simplified so that golfers can use it during play to improve their green reading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by logman 

Also Mangum is a formidable critic. His expertise is well respected.......yeah?

Not really. He lets his bias cloud his statements far too frequently. He's a hypocrite, and he teaches ONE model of putting. Furthermore, a guy I can beat putting left-handed with an old Callaway Tuttle putter in putting matches regularly beats Geoff Mangum - he's not even a good putter himself. Which doesn't mean that he's not a good instructor per se, but it's putting we're talking about - it's not like he's asked to hit a 2-iron off a hanging lie to an island green.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

... an old Callaway Tuttle putter ...

Oh my god!!!  This is way off-topic but I had totally forgotten about that putter!  My friend had one of those and I always thought it was the most ridiculous thing ever!  I picture a board meeting where they were introducing the Big Bertha Driver, complete with a clay model, then somebody dropped it on the ground and it got stepped on, and that's where they got the idea for the Tuttle.  (Of course, its probably just because it looked different AND he was a horrible putter) :)

I did Aimpoint with with Erik and Dave and it was well worth it.

Spend the dough....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith 

I did Aimpoint with with Erik and Dave and it was well worth it.

 

Spend the dough....

Deryck, I don't doubt your word, but can you quantify how it was worth it?  Did you see a reduction in strokes and was it easy to learn and use?  I am considering the 8 hour drive out to Erie at some point this year if I can come up with the money for the trip, this being one of the big reasons for it.

Cipher, 

I was there with Deryck and took the same clinic.  Yes, it is worth it and I was extremely skeptical.   I didn't buy totally in at first and had to come back home a play around with everything.  I was already "decent" at putting but I save a good 2 shots at least on mid range putts,  Every putt looks like it has a chance to go in.  It is all about speed now. 

The basics are not that difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwlee7 

Cipher, 

 

I was there with Deryck and took the same clinic.  Yes, it is worth it and I was extremely skeptical.   I didn't buy totally in at first and had to come back home a play around with everything.  I was already "decent" at putting but I save a good 2 shots at least on mid range putts,  Every putt looks like it has a chance to go in.  It is all about speed now. 

 

The basics are not that difficult.

Thanks, I do believe what everyone is saying who has tried it.  I just like to hear that someone has calculated the actual results and not just is content with hey this is cool.  I think it would really help someone like me who misses a lot of putts that I should be making every now and then.