Is There Any Non-Anecdotal AimPoint Data?

[boogielicious]

The best way to test the ‘read’ would be to use the demonstration method from the AimPoint classes. It removes the putter with a ball ramp that is easy to control speed. So in the proposed test, golfer A and B would do the read and use the ramp to aim so the speed could be set exactly the same if wanted. You could have a separate neutral person release the ball.

This is exactly how AimPoint shows that visual green reading can be way off.

[StuM]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

The best way to test the ‘read’ would be to use the demonstration method from the AimPoint classes. It removes the putter with a ball ramp that is easy to control speed. So in the proposed test, golfer A and B would do the read and use the ramp to aim so the speed could be set exactly the same if wanted. You could have a separate neutral person release the ball.

This is exactly how AimPoint shows that visual green reading can be way off.

The above is probably the best test but even it is flawed. Golfer A may read a line thinking of hitting the ball hard & firm taking some break out of the putt while Golfer B is thinking to hit it soft and allow for more break.  Maybe you could have the same golfer do two reads before rolling the ball.  The first simply by "Eye" and the 2nd read using AimPoint.  At least then you would be assuming similar firmness when executing the putt.

I still think the only real & valid test is to use it personally for a season and look at average putts per round before and after AimPoint.  The hypothosis would be that a successful green reading method would reduce 3-putts and increase 1 putts resulting in a lower average putts per round.  Using a full season takes out the "Good/Bad Day" by having a larger sample size.  Unfortunately even this is flawed because if you also improve your Approach to Green it may lead to better proximity to hole which in itself would lower average putts per round.  It is simply very hard to isolate a single factor.

Bottom line, give it an "Honest try" and make your choice.

[colin007]

I've never taken an AP class (cept for high school lol) and the only thing I know from it is using your feet to read the break, but ever since I learned that my putting has gotten better and unlike my playing partners, I'm practically never fooled on at least the direction of the break

[iacas]

1 hour ago, StuM said:

The above is probably the best test but even it is flawed. Golfer A may read a line thinking of hitting the ball hard & firm taking some break out of the putt while Golfer B is thinking to hit it soft and allow for more break.  Maybe you could have the same golfer do two reads before rolling the ball.  The first simply by "Eye" and the 2nd read using AimPoint.  At least then you would be assuming similar firmness when executing the putt.

How much do you think the read varies on a 20-foot putt when one player plans to hit the ball 21 feet and the other 23 feet? Cuz it's not much.

1 hour ago, StuM said:

I still think the only real & valid test is to use it personally for a season and look at average putts per round before and after AimPoint.

That'd be a terrible way to test. Putts per round is a known bad statistic, and you're basically assuming literally everything else stays constant: how many greens a player hits, what their proximity is, whether they work on their putting stroke to improve start line or distance control (or get worse at it), etc.

1 hour ago, StuM said:

Unfortunately even this is flawed because if you also improve your Approach to Green it may lead to better proximity to hole which in itself would lower average putts per round.

It'd probably lead to a farther average proximity, actually, if you're only counting putts. You'd have fewer chips after missing the greens (short distances) and more 35-footers after hitting the green with an 8I that you'd have missed before.

[StuM]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

How much do you think the read varies on a 20-foot putt when one player plans to hit the ball 21 feet and the other 23 feet? Cuz it's not much.

Just my uninformed opinion, but I think speed would have more impact on shorter putts than longer putts.  I agree with your other points as I even said the following about my "Season long test".

 

2 hours ago, StuM said:

Unfortunately even this is flawed.....

The problem with any test is isolating a single variable and I stand by my final statement:

 

2 hours ago, StuM said:

Bottom line, give it an "Honest try" and make your choice.

 

[Alfonso]

I love the thoughtfulness from all posts.  I really need to go back and absorb everyone's thoughts, and I may comment further.  Putting is so internal, intense, specific to each and everyone that I have a great appreciation for all input.  Seriously, I think I'm a halfway decent putter, but I always want to consume more info.  Always.  Thank you.

[Alfonso]

On 4/11/2023 at 7:38 AM, billchao said:

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.

Excellent insight.  Is it a momentary thing, maybe even a crutch.  That's what I'm trying to figure out.  Is this the medicine, or pathway, to being a better putter or is it just a quick feel good fix.
 

On 4/11/2023 at 7:40 AM, klineka said:

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.

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)

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

So, I picked 5-15 feet as that is the wheelhouse for the majority of make/miss putts.  So, if aimpoint is the real deal, we should see an increase in putts within this range of those who use it, regardless of skill level.  If not, than it's just kind of another thing. You know, just another golf thing for sale. 

On 4/11/2023 at 8:17 AM, 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. 
 

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. 

No, no, no, no no.  Putting is still and always will be king.  There's just no question.  A hot putter trumps all...

[Alfonso]

15 hours ago, boogielicious said:

The best way to test the ‘read’ would be to use the demonstration method from the AimPoint classes. It removes the putter with a ball ramp that is easy to control speed. So in the proposed test, golfer A and B would do the read and use the ramp to aim so the speed could be set exactly the same if wanted. You could have a separate neutral person release the ball.

This is exactly how AimPoint shows that visual green reading can be way off.

This is spot on.  The challenge is, you only get one shot at your putt.  Period.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

No, no, no, no no.  Putting is still and always will be king.  There's just no question.  A hot putter trumps all...

No.

And you can't practice being a "hot" putter.

Even when Patrick Cantlay set the all-time record for SG:P he lost something like 4 strokes putting in one of the four rounds.

And… putting still only contributes about 35% to the winner each week on average. The rest… is often largely comprised of OTT and App.

[Vinsk]

12 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

No, no, no, no no.  Putting is still and always will be king.  There's just no question.  A hot putter trumps all...

You’re kidding right?

[Alfonso]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No.

And you can't practice being a "hot" putter.

Even when Patrick Cantlay set the all-time record for SG:P he lost something like 4 strokes putting in one of the four rounds.

And… putting still only contributes about 35% to the winner each week on average. The rest… is often largely comprised of OTT and App.

I never said you can practice being a hot putter.

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

You’re kidding right?

No. 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

I never said you can practice being a hot putter.

A hot putter does not "trump all." Nor can you rely on "being" a "hot putter." Putting is highly variable.

And no, you're provably wrong on this stuff. Putting is the least important of the four main skills in golf (OTT, App, SG, P). It generally contributes the least to what separates any two groups of players.

Off topic for this thread, though.

[Alfonso]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

A hot putter does not "trump all." Nor can you rely on "being" a "hot putter." Putting is highly variable.

And no, you're provably wrong on this stuff. Putting is the least important of the four main skills in golf (OTT, App, SG, P). It generally contributes the least to what separates any two groups of players.

Off topic for this thread, though.

Whoa and wow!  Are you kidding me?  And everyone else?

Here's a test.  One player gets to drop a ball in the middle of the green, in regulation, no matter where the pin is.  The other player has to hit their approach shot.  Who do yo think, over 18 holes, is going to have a better chance at scoring?

Of course a hot putter trumps all.

(apologies for language.  I'm working on it)

Edited April 13, 2023 by Alfonso

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Whoa and wow! Are you kidding me? And everyone else?

No. Literally wrote a book on this stuff.

9 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Here's a test.  One player gets to drop a ball in the middle of the green, in regulation, no matter where the pin is.  The other player has to hit their approach shot.  Who do yo think, over 18 holes, is going to have a better chance at scoring?

The guy who managed to hit the middle of 18 greens… which is clearly not at all about putting, but is about hitting the greens (i.e. approach shots).

I said it before and I'll say it again: this is off topic here. There are other topics where you can discuss this stuff.

[Alfonso]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

No. Literally wrote a book on this stuff.

The guy who managed to hit the middle of 18 greens… which is clearly not at all about putting, but is about hitting the greens (i.e. approach shots).

I said it before and I'll say it again: this is off topic here. There are other topics where you can discuss this stuff.

Ok, if this should be discussed elsewhere, I understand.  It just seems there has been a significant discussion so far that why wouldn't we just continue here?

So fair enough. After all of this, there has been no real distinction, or factual evidence, that Aimpoint actually works beyond self analysis. And honestly, that's the line of demarcation that has been sought after from the beginning.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Alfonso said:

So fair enough. After all of this, there has been no real distinction, or factual evidence, that Aimpoint actually works beyond self analysis.

Yes, there has.

Mark Sweeney has a ton of data.

And I have collected data on hundreds of golfers and their reads.

[Alfonso]

Upon further review... Mark Sweeney obviously has a vested interest.  I certainly hope your website doesn't have similar interest's.

[boogielicious]

6 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Upon further review... Mark Sweeney obviously has a vested interest.  I certainly hope your website doesn't have similar interest's.

It doesn’t. But we’ve all searched for ways to improve putting. The basic keys to good putting are Read, Bead and Speed. This topic is about the Read part.

We’ve all been on greens that have been designed with optical illusions. Designers put shapes and slopes to trick your eye. Then there’s the mythology part of green reading, “All putts break toward the ocean” or “away from the mountains” or my favorite, “All putts break towards Ray’s Creek!”

The reality is All Putts Break Downhill. That’s is what AimPoint is about. Your feet know which way downhill is better than your eyes. The AimPoint classes show you this and then teach you how to calculate the break by training your body to feel the slope accurately. The Read part then becomes the easy part and it’s fast. I go to the middle, straddle the line and know my slope. No need to walk behind the hole and crouch down for 30 seconds like some pros. When it’s my turn, I use my fingers to tell me my start line, Bead, and I’m ready to go. The whole thing takes 15 seconds.

There are other good putting threads that discuss the bead and speed parts. They’re in this section. Speed is a big key too obviously. There are threads and drills/games in the Instruction section.