Is There Any Non-Anecdotal AimPoint Data?

[jshots]

I'm trying to decide if I should take an aimpoint lesson, or buy superspeed golf sticks. One or the other at the moment.

Is there any data that shows Aimpoint is actually that much better than visually reading a break? It seems to me that the extra time spent learning how greens break could easily be the reason people see success with aimpoint. I am just a bit skeptical of it I suppose. You still have to gauge the slope, and either visually estimate inches or "arm bend" where there is a ton of room for error.

[Patch]

I have talked to people about Aim Point. The best I can come up with is that it is a 50/50 type of adventure. The one common complaint I have heard is that it is too time consuming. 

After reading about it, I honestly don't know if it works or not. It does sound good enough though, to have some credibility.

I do know I read greens pretty well the old fashion way by eyeballing it. I usually start reading the green while walking up to it. 

I can also honestly say that I know, or see very few people actually using Aim Point when I play. Then again, most of the golfers I see are older, so perhaps it's a generational type thing.  .

I think it's for the individual golfer to decide for themselves. 

[dennyjones]

4 minutes ago, Patch said:

I have talked to people about Aim Point. The best I can come up with is that it is a 50/50 type of adventure. The one common complaint I have heard is that it is too time consuming. 

From somebody that has taken an Aimpoint class, it will be the best money you can spend toward golf.  Run, don't walk to the closest Aimpoint class and you will be glad you did.   It is not time consuming, you don't have to walk to the ball and back, you don't have to plumb bobb, you can take the reading while waiting for others to putt.     Aimpoint Express is fast, efficient and accurate.   

Search the forum.   The many, many posts about Aimpoint will convince you to take the class.

[boogielicious]

22 minutes ago, Patch said:

I have talked to people about Aim Point. The best I can come up with is that it is a 50/50 type of adventure. The one common complaint I have heard is that it is too time consuming. 

After reading about it, I honestly don't know if it works or not. It does sound good enough though, to have some credibility.

I do know I read greens pretty well the old fashion way by eyeballing it. I usually start reading the green while walking up to it. 

I can also honestly say that I know, or see very few people actually using Aim Point when I play. Then again, most of the golfers I see are older, so perhaps it's a generational type thing.  .

I think it's for the individual golfer to decide for themselves. 

Most people I play with don’t even know I use it because it is so fast. I make my read at the midpoint often while they are walking to their ball. 10 seconds tops. I played with an instructor in Florida with a buddy of mine. He complimented me on my putting and reads and even he didn’t know.

People who read the traditional way, from behind the ball, then behind the pin and maybe even plum bob take way longer.

[saevel25]

56 minutes ago, jshots said:

Is there any data that shows Aimpoint is actually that much better than visually reading a break? It seems to me that the extra time spent learning how greens break could easily be the reason people see success with aimpoint. I am just a bit skeptical of it I suppose.

If you mean published data, I do not know. I've been to a couple Aimpoint lessons and most people routinely under read the break on putts. That a lone tells me they should at least get the line more right than wrong after an Aimpoint lesson, If they properly use the method. It does take minimal practice to upkeep. 

58 minutes ago, jshots said:

You still have to gauge the slope, and either visually estimate inches or "arm bend" where there is a ton of room for error.

It's more accurate than just gauging with your eyes. Your eyes can actually lie to you. Then people complain the ball broke up hill. It didn't, the slope past the hole made them read it wrong. The feat don't lie. 

30 minutes ago, Patch said:

I have talked to people about Aim Point. The best I can come up with is that it is a 50/50 type of adventure. The one common complaint I have heard is that it is too time consuming. 

Depending on the length of the putt, it takes me 5-15 seconds to read a putt.

I can do that when someone else is reading their putt. 

I've seen golfers spend that amount of time standing behind the ball reading a putt. If they decide to do the round trip walk, they are taking 2-3x as long as I do. 

No, it's not slower. 

[billchao]

1 hour ago, jshots said:

I'm trying to decide if I should take an aimpoint lesson, or buy superspeed golf sticks. One or the other at the moment.

If you're looking to make a decision between the two, the AimPoint lesson is likely going to save you more strokes than SuperSpeed Golf.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

Is there any data that shows Aimpoint is actually that much better than visually reading a break? It seems to me that the extra time spent learning how greens break could easily be the reason people see success with aimpoint. I am just a bit skeptical of it I suppose. You still have to gauge the slope, and either visually estimate inches or "arm bend" where there is a ton of room for error.

It's a system for reading the green rather than just estimating by reading with your eyes. The human element is always involved, but having the system to go on is better than not, IMO.

46 minutes ago, Patch said:

The one common complaint I have heard is that it is too time consuming.

It takes me < 30 seconds to do a read. I'll often have my putt read before everyone finishes marking their balls. Most people I play with don't even know I'm doing it.

[lastings]

I've taken aimpoint.   I liked it.  I think it made me a better putter.    Makes you think about reading breaks differently.   

however, unless you are a horrible putter, your game will be much more improved by adding 10mph of swing speed.    just a lot more value from an extra 20yds off the tee vs. making 10% more 8-foot putts.   It's not terribly hard to become a decent putter, just go practice.    However, it's impossible to hit the ball 20 yds further, unless you have some measurable and effective practice method to teach you to swing 10% faster.

go with Superspeed, my guy. I'm yet to read a review from anyone on this site that suggests it didn't work for them. 

 

Edit::  

I didn't read the responses before I posted.   Looks like I'm in the minority.   

I guess, you'll have to reflect on your own game to make this decision.   where do you need the help?   

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by lastings

[jshots]

9 minutes ago, lastings said:

I've taken aimpoint.   I liked it.  I think it made me a better putter.    Makes you think about reading breaks differently.   

however, unless you are a horrible putter, your game will be much more improved by adding 10mph of swing speed.    just a lot more value from an extra 20yds off the tee vs. making 10% more 8-foot putts.   It's not terribly hard to become a decent putter, just go practice.    However, it's impossible to hit the ball 20 yds further, unless you have some measurable and effective practice method to teach you to swing 10% faster.

go with Superspeed, my guy. I'm yet to read a review from anyone on this site that suggests it didn't work for them. 

That is kind of what I was thinking too. Practice ratios should apply to practice purchases not just practice time!

That said I'm looking into having a friend machine me some weights for cheap DIY Superspeed sticks so I may end up getting to do both!

[iacas]

1 minute ago, jshots said:

That is kind of what I was thinking too. Practice ratios should apply to practice purchases not just practice time!

Green Reading is an SV3 skill.

Take AimPoint once and you can read every green forever. Or at least until physics changes.

[Zippo]

I think Aimpoint has been helpful for me and agree the method is quick once you learn it. One caveat - I haven't attended a class but did buy the DVD. I'm quite certain the class would give more.

[Buckeyebowman]

I've never taken an Aimpoint class, but everything I've read about it makes me believe it's a valid method. I know there's more to it, but I've been using my feet to sense slope for quite a while. Your eyes can be fooled, especially with greens built into hillsides. It might look like the green tilts opposite the general slope, but many times that's an illusion. 

Another instance is when the breaks are very subtle and don't want to reveal themselves to your eyes. Your feet will feel them. Like saevel said, the feet don't lie!

[grubby98]

I use an aim point chart and love it.  Helps me consistently read greens.  Just have to get a better stroke to go with it

[Missouri Swede]

31 minutes ago, grubby98 said:

I use an aim point chart and love it.  Helps me consistently read greens.  Just have to get a better stroke to go with it

Are those still allowed?

[grubby98]

10 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Are those still allowed?

I think they are, a buddy of mine showed me how to use it, and he uses all the time in national mid am events including usga events.  If they ever ban it, it wouldn’t be hard to write down the numbers on a sheet of paper on yardage book for a course

Edited April 11, 2019 by grubby98

[dennyjones]

1 hour ago, grubby98 said:

I think they are, a buddy of mine showed me how to use it, and he uses all the time in national mid am events including usga events.  If they ever ban it, it wouldn’t be hard to write down the numbers on a sheet of paper on yardage book for a course

Using Aimpoint Express, you wouldn't need a book.

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, Missouri Swede said:

Are those still allowed?

Yes. They are not a map of the green.

[grubby98]

Express depends on your distance of fingers from your eyes.  I like the book, because to me it’s more an exact science, plus I love numbers

 

[saevel25]

22 minutes ago, grubby98 said:

Express depends on your distance of fingers from your eyes.  I like the book, because to me it’s more an exact science, plus I love numbers

It’s also hard to measure out lateral distances at longer putting distances. A reference helps 😉