Is There Any Non-Anecdotal AimPoint Data?

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, scvbrent said:

Can anyone share what the DVD gives you that the basic information found on YouTube or internet doesn't? Not opposed to paying for it, but just curious what it covers that isn't publicly available.

Trying to learn from the Internet isn't really going to cut it. You're going to have some questions, and it's worth your time to find an instructor nearby.

Even people who have the DVD recommend seeing an instructor, not because the DVD is bad, but because there's a lot more subtle stuff than you'd think, and having someone to ask questions of is important.

[MattM]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Trying to learn from the Internet isn't really going to cut it. You're going to have some questions, and it's worth your time to find an instructor nearby.

Even people who have the DVD recommend seeing an instructor, not because the DVD is bad, but because there's a lot more subtle stuff than you'd think, and having someone to ask questions of is important.

True!  I took a class for midreads then wanted to learn the express,  so I got the DVD which gives you the framework, but I can't get a read using my hip perpendicular to the line (I can't feel when my hip is adjusting to slope) so I just point my feet into the slope to get a kind of misread but still use the express figures (works pretty well).  

My point is...if I ever take the express class I'm sure they could teach me to better feel the slope through my hip.

Also, someone said green maps aren't allowed (I think on the first or second page).  Just wanted to point out that they are allowed in tournament play as well..

 

[Alfonso]

Ok, brand new member, going to most likely start off abrasive based on the love for Aimpoint.  For the record, never had a class, only have limited exposure to what has been posted on youtube, etc. and watching professional golfers.  I'm not saying it doesn't work for some, but no way it is the panacea for all golfers.

Here would be the model:  Ten putts, randomly picked in a 360 circle around the hole, starting at 5 feet and ending at 15 feet.

The Golfers:

1.  Aimpoint's best

2. Any other golfer(s) best from another marketed method.

3. The best of any random method.

At the pro level, they are all making putts and getting hot at different times.  Aimpoint clearly does not dominate.

This is obviously at the professional level and wouldn't mean much statistically to the amateur golfer, so let's bring in more diversity to assess at the amateur level.

Aimpoint golfers vs. Non-aimpoint golfer(s). 

Now this is where it becomes interesting. I don't think we should just select the best aimpoint golfer vs. non-aimpoint golfer.  Indeed, let's select the scratch aimpoint vs, non-aimpoint golfer, the 5 cap aimpoint vs. non-aimpoint golfer and the 10 cap aimpoint vs. non-aimpoint golfer. 

Where's the data?  Does Aimpoint have it?  Doubt it.  Never seen it published.  A 10 might putt as well as a 5 on any given day, no matter the method.  Go ahead, google it, if they had winners, it would be all over the place.

*Note:  Scott McCarron on the Champions Tour is the first google hit.  Ouch!

[iacas]

We moved your post here @Alfonso. You can read back through it.

In my last AimPoint class, on a 25-foot putt that broke 86 inches, I had four reads of 10, 12, 16, and the “crazy” read was 28”.

You could barely get the ball to touch any part of the cup at 28”… and that required rolling the ball over 15’ past the hole (we have a wall 8’ behind so that’s an estimate — it hit the wall while still traveling at a decent speed).

That class was not super atypical. The golfers were all better than bogey golfers.

[dennyjones]

Welcome to TST @Alfonso.  We're glad you've joined.   

I can only speak for myself as a before and after Aimpoint.   I'm a bogie golfer.    I had significant trouble reading greens before Aimpoint and decided to buy the DVD.   The DVD was enlightening but not enough for me to really get a feel that I could put into practice.   My problems  with reading greens was always missing on the low side by a significant amount.    I took a class at MSU and it was the best $$ I've spent on golf.   I'm not a professional golfer but my putting stats have significantly improved.   I've kept strokes gained putting since August '21.   I used a scratch golfer as a comparison.   I've been as poor as -4.8 and played to a 5.4.   Does this prove anything?  Probably not to somebody else but I'm averaging +0.2 strokes per game over almost 2 years and to me, that is significant improvement.  Could I have improved another way?  Possibly, but this was learned one afternoon and easy to understand.

[billchao]

5 hours ago, Alfonso said:

no way it is the panacea for all golfers

Of course not. Green reading is only one piece of putting. Still have to hit the putt.

AimPoint makes one a better green reader but that alone doesn’t necessarily mean a better putter. Plenty of people under-read breaks and subconsciously compensate for it. If you have them the correct line they’d likely miss. There can be a bit of an adjustment period when one first learns it.

5 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Here would be the model:  Ten putts, randomly picked in a 360 circle around the hole, starting at 5 feet and ending at 15 feet.

The flaw I can see in your experiment is that it just doesn’t isolate AimPoint as a single variable. Again, green reading is only one part of making successful putts. Someone who uses AimPoint could simply be a worse putter than someone else who doesn’t. It wouldn’t be a useful experiment for drawing conclusions.

 

5 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Go ahead, google it, if they had winners, it would be all over the place.

It’s right on the front page of their website? 

aimpointgolf.com

Quote

Five world number one players have worked with Mark Sweeney and use AimPoint. They have won numerous titles while using AimPoint and have credited AimPoint for much of their putting success.

 

Quote

Over 65 Professional Tour Wins. Used by the US Amateur Champion and over 200 tour pros worldwide. Winners of countless college and junior titles also used AimPoint Express.

Just off the top of my head, Dustin Johnson and his brother Austin use AimPoint, and he won two majors with Austin as his caddy.

[klineka]

5 hours ago, Alfonso said:

I'm not saying it doesn't work for some, but no way it is the panacea for all golfers.

Has anyone said that on here? I've seen people say it has worked for them or helped them or given examples for how it has helped a lot of students they've coached, but I can't remember anyone stating that it is the end all be all solution for green reading for every golfer.

5 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Here would be the model:  Ten putts, randomly picked in a 360 circle around the hole, starting at 5 feet and ending at 15 feet.

I have a couple rebuttals here.

First, I have numerous issues with how you presented your hypothetical study. I'd argue that 10 putts per golfer might not be a statistically significant sample size. I also think doing the putts in a perfect 360 circle isn't ideal either because after one or two of those and figuring out where the straight putt is it become fairly easy to read the entire way around that hole no matter what green reading method you use. Random putts to random holes from random distances would be better IMO. Making sure of course that there are an equal or similar number of left to right, right to left, uphill, downhill, etc direction of breaks. 

Second, why did you limit your hypothetical study to just 5-15 feet? Green reading is important on longer putts too. Sure you could argue that as the putts get longer that speed becomes "more" important than the read, but the read is still quite important on putts outside 15 feet too.

Third, you stated 10 putts, IMO it should be "reads", not "putts" if you're truly going to gauge the success of a green reading method. What if one player (pro or am) reads it perfect for their intended speed but leaves a couple short, pushes a couple, and has 2 lip outs? But then another player under reads the putt for the intended speed but hits it firmer, pulls a couple, and has 2 lip ins? You'd be more likely to say that the second player was the better putter, but what if the second player was the one who used Aimpoint and the first player read the green with his eyes? And the higher the handicap, the more variability you'll see if you relied on the make/miss rate to be your gauge, because on average a 90s golfer only makes 11% of their 15 footers and 20% of their 10 footers. Even pros miss over half of their 10 footers so there is simply too much variability in putting to base a green reading study on whether or not the putt goes in.

IMO a better way to do it would be to ask each player (both Aimpoint and non Aimpoint) to read the putt and then use one of the devices where you release the ball onto the ramp and it rolls the same start line and same speed each time. You'd even have to be careful with that because after just a couple rolls on the same line the green can start to develop channels in the grass. Or utilize something that uses a computer to show the "perfect" line but have each player read the putt with their preferred method and then chart how far their intended start line was from the ideal start line. (Like PuttView P7 is what I am referring to here)

5 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Go ahead, google it, if they had winners, it would be all over the place.

Come on man, if you're going to make claims, at least make sure they're accurate.

I did google it and the first two articles that came up talk about how Jordan Spieth's caddie, Dustin Johnson's caddie, and Brooks Koepka have all used Aimpoint. Literally the first two articles. Did you google it?

If you watch any PGA tour event you'll see plenty of players using it. Max Homa, Adam Scott, Keegan Bradley, Will Zalatoris, Justin Rose, plus Lydia Ko and Michelle Wie West on the LPGA side are all players I know just off the top of my head who use AimPoint.

Plus this is on the homepage of their website

[ChiTown]

@jshots I think this is more about what part of your game needs more help? I just finished reading “Every Shot Counts” and there is a ton of data and comparison that puts to rest the old “drive for show putt for dough” adage. 
 

Anyway, if it were me I’d be comparing how another 10-15 yards (conservative?) off the tee would benefit my game vs my average number of putts / round. 

[saevel25]

6 hours ago, Alfonso said:

At the pro level, they are all making putts and getting hot at different times.  Aimpoint clearly does not dominate.

No, but at the Pro level, a slight advantage on the average over time will win out. Let's say it lets you make 20 extra putts over the course of a season. For a Pro, that could mean making more cuts (getting paid), or being in contention more often. At Augusta, what if one putt gets you into the final group on Sunday. That is HUGE. The winner most of the time comes from the final group. 

6 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Where's the data?  Does Aimpoint have it?  Doubt it.  Never seen it published.  A 10 might putt as well as a 5 on any given day, no matter the method.  Go ahead, google it, if they had winners, it would be all over the place.

Go to a group class then. You will see like 99% of golfers under read putts. Now, they might make an adjustment in the stroke to compensate, like push the putt way right and end up on the correct line. They still misread the putt. 

Here is where I see advantages for Aimpoint over Traditional methods. 

1. Longer putts - Aimpoint just crushes it. You can take multiple reads along the path and have a very good sense about the total break. This plus speed control will just nearly eliminate 3-putting. 
2. Any putt outside of 5-FT. You will just not misread a putt by that much. Golf course architects can absolutely design greens that mess with your eyes. They cannot mess with your feat. Any putt outside of 5-FT, you will start seeing break that isn't there. I have heard people say, "That broke up hill!!!" I am like, no it didn't. The edges of the green are tricking your eyes. 

In the end, putting is three things. Getting a correct start line, hitting that start line, and having correct speed. Green reading effects how you perceive the amount of speed you need to hit a putt. This will allow Aimpoint to have an advantage on traditional green reading because you will end up with more tap ins. Your speed control will improve. 

Aimpoint has added so much confidence to my putting. I feel like I never have to worry about misreading a green ever again. Even crazy greens, I can work out something that is pretty close. 

To me, Aimpoint is the most simple green reading method ever created that actually gets you on the starting line using a process backed by data. It isn't a hunch, or some old adage like, "Everything breaks towards the creek". 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, ChiTown said:

@jshots I think this is more about what part of your game needs more help? I just finished reading “Every Shot Counts” and there is a ton of data and comparison that puts to rest the old “drive for show putt for dough” adage.

There’s another book out there that talks about this stuff too. Name escapes me at the moment… 😉

[StuM]

I can't speak for all golfers nor can I offer firm statistics but my personal experience is that before I took an AimPoint class I would, on occasion, completely mis-read a putt expecting it to break right only to have it break left.  That is the extreme in mis-reading a green and for them that has become so rare I do not recall the last time I was that wrong on a read, easily it was before I began using AimPoint.

Also, AimPoint makes no claim that you are going to sink every putt, and I am proof of that.  But if I can get my first putt closer for an easy two-putt that will help my score by reducing 3-Putts and in my personal experience it has taken strokes off my rounds.

I suggest people to actually take a lesson and then apply it consistently for a full season then offer critique.  One lesson, one day on the practice green will be meaningless.  But over the course of a season you may see if it helps you or not.

[mdl]

3 hours ago, billchao said:

The flaw I can see in your experiment is that it just doesn’t isolate AimPoint as a single variable. Again, green reading is only one part of making successful putts. Someone who uses AimPoint could simply be a worse putter than someone else who doesn’t. It wouldn’t be a useful experiment for drawing conclusions.

I've never done AimPoint but generally buy into how it would make you a better reader of greens. I've just never invested the time to learn it. Point being, I'm not anti-AimPoint partisan...

...just a statistician who can't let this point go You're right that if you take, as Alfonso pointed to, a bunch of 5 cappers, half who use AimPoint and half who don't, and test them on a bunch of angles and distances to a hole on a slope that AimPoint won't be the only factor that affects performance. It's even true that there could be confounding in that even if you only take folks who use fancy trackers like Arccos and have the ~same strokes gained putting, things like components of a person's skill and mindset might affect both their performance on the test and how likely they are to take up AimPoint. In which case you could attribute to AimPoint an effect really caused by some unmeasured factor.

But if you assume no meaningful confounding factors, the proposed test is absolutely a legit test of AimPoint, at least for the putting context covered by the test. The other relevant factors will vary similarly among the AimPoint and non groups. More other factors will just increase the variance of performance and increase the sample size (number of different players) needed.

[Vinsk]

15 hours ago, Alfonso said:

This is obviously at the professional level and wouldn't mean much statistically to the amateur golfer, so let's bring in more diversity to assess at the amateur level.

So obviously the point that green reading is only part of putting rather dismantles your experiment. However, it also means that using pros is actually better for your experiment nonetheless as they are all good essential putters. So, you’re much more likely to have less variance in ‘putting stroke quality’ so that green reading skill could actually be the differentiator. Too much variance would exist among amateur golfers beyond just green reading .

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, mdl said:

I've never done AimPoint but generally buy into how it would make you a better reader of greens. I've just never invested the time to learn it. Point being, I'm not anti-AimPoint partisan...

...just a statistician who can't let this point go You're right that if you take, as Alfonso pointed to, a bunch of 5 cappers, half who use AimPoint and half who don't, and test them on a bunch of angles and distances to a hole on a slope that AimPoint won't be the only factor that affects performance. It's even true that there could be confounding in that even if you only take folks who use fancy trackers like Arccos and have the ~same strokes gained putting, things like components of a person's skill and mindset might affect both their performance on the test and how likely they are to take up AimPoint. In which case you could attribute to AimPoint an effect really caused by some unmeasured factor.

But if you assume no meaningful confounding factors, the proposed test is absolutely a legit test of AimPoint, at least for the putting context covered by the test. The other relevant factors will vary similarly among the AimPoint and non groups. More other factors will just increase the variance of performance and increase the sample size (number of different players) needed.

Thing is… if they had the same SG:P… then the 5s might actually be 7s without AimPoint, but maybe their speed control or ability to hit start-lines is worse, and offsets their better green reading. 😄

[mdl]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Thing is… if they had the same SG:P… then the 5s might actually be 7s without AimPoint, but maybe their speed control or ability to hit start-lines is worse, and offsets their better green reading. 😄

Yeah fair enough. The more I think about it the harder it seems it would be to confidently test AimPoint's effectiveness without a prospective test. And even there it would be tricky.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, mdl said:

Yeah fair enough. The more I think about it the harder it seems it would be to confidently test AimPoint's effectiveness without a prospective test. And even there it would be tricky.

I think the best test would simply be green reading period, not anything to do with actually hitting putts (you'd roll putts down a Perfect Putter or something to determine the "correct" read).

[billchao]

2 hours ago, mdl said:

But if you assume no meaningful confounding factors, the proposed test is absolutely a legit test of AimPoint, at least for the putting context covered by the test. The other relevant factors will vary similarly among the AimPoint and non groups. More other factors will just increase the variance of performance and increase the sample size (number of different players) needed.

No, it’s really not. As @klineka pointed out, it’s just not a good setup to test the effect of green reading on putting.

We could do an experiment, let’s say with @iacas putting without using AimPoint and myself putting with AimPoint. I can tell you who’s going to make more putts, and it will have nothing to do with AimPoint.

[Vinsk]

How about this: I read the green and @iacas makes the putt using my read. I then take Aimpoint and we repeat the session for comparison. 😃