Is There Any Non-Anecdotal AimPoint Data?

[iacas]

7 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.

That doesn't mean he doesn't have a ton of data.

I think you've misrepresented yourself in this conversation. You're set in your mindset and completely unwilling to accept new information or to be open to changing your mind.

Neither Mark Sweeney nor I will make a dime if you took an AimPoint lesson from some instructor not named Mark Sweeney or Erik J. Barzeski.

Do it, don't do it, it really doesn't matter to me, but this type of thing is literally a fact: AimPoint green readers, on average (nobody has said it's a "panacea for everyone" Mr. Straw Man) read greens better than people who haven't done AimPoint. This includes major champions and 10 handicaps.

[klineka]

10 hours ago, Alfonso said:

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.

How would learning a new skill that would help most people become better at green reading be considered a momentary thing or a crutch? 

10 hours ago, Alfonso said:

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. 

Again, you're not understanding how this works. Someone could be the best Aimpoint green reader in the world and get 90% of their reads with .1 of the actual slope % or something and still not be a very good putter. There's much more to putting than just the read. Just because you become a better green reader doesn't automatically mean you'll make more putts. 

I don't know this for a fact, but I'd say good chances are the players and caddies who use Aimpoint on the PGA and LPGA probably are not getting sponsored to use it, so if it didn't work/didn't help them, why would they continue to use it/even try using it during an actual tournament in the first place? Speaking of PGA and LPGA players using Aimpoint, funny how you conveniently chose to ignore/not respond to the multiple people who shot down your claim of "if they had winners, it would be all over the place" 

10 hours 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...

Please provide facts that back up this claim. The majority of stats/facts I've seen contradict your claim. Since it is off topic in this thread, feel free to start another thread and explain with facts why you think putting is king. I'd love to engage in a conversation on that topic as well.

10 hours ago, Alfonso said:

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

It wouldn't be a putt though, it'd be a read. Did you read anything that multiple of us wrote about how having the player perform the actual putt is a poor way to judge the effectiveness of green reading?

 

 

8 hours 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. And honestly, that's the line of demarcation that has been sought after from the beginning.

Have you reached out to Aimpoint directly and asked if they've done a study comparing Aimpoint with traditional green reading? If you haven't reached out, why not? Surely that'd be a logical place to start when looking for factual evidence, right?

Outside of Aimpoint themselves performing the study, I'm not sure why you'd think that other people would perform a study like that, it takes time, effort, money, a putting green, etc with basically 0 reward or compensation for the person conducting the study. 

Also I find it a bit ironic that you are hyper-focused on factual evidence for Aimpoint but you've repeatedly made claims that are not based on factual evidence and have yet to provide facts that back up your claims despite being asked to do so, not to mention ignoring/not responding to direct rebuttals of claims you have made.

[Alfonso]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

but this type of thing is literally a fact: AimPoint green readers, on average (nobody has said it's a "panacea for everyone" Mr. Straw Man) read greens better than people who haven't done AimPoint. This includes major champions and 10 handicaps.

 I'm not sure how one could assess that as "fact". I would concede that a bad green reader could improve through Aimpoint, but on average better than people who haven't done Aimpoint? Again, how would one measure this?

From Aimpoint instructorTyson Deskins:  "The biggest reason to use Aimpoint Express is because it helps you feel confident about your read and commit to it more often. "

Confidence.  I totally get that.  But that is in the head, not on the green.  I found this juxtaposition interesting as well.  Deskins also referenced Rory Mcilroy, who struggles with putting, and the putting coach he hired, Phil Kenyon, who teaches Aimpoint.  But wait, what did Rory just say at the 2023 Masters about young kids using Aimpoint: 

"I saw some of them AimPointing, like, oh my goodness". (Laughter).

It should be noted that during this answer, McIlroy did a literal, exasperated face palm.

What gives?  Why, after hiring an Aimpoint putting coach, did Rory not embrace the "science" of Aimpoint?

And then there's this.  Yikes:

 

[billchao]

4 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

I'm not sure how one could assess that as "fact". I would concede that a bad green reader could improve through Aimpoint, but on average better than people who haven't done Aimpoint? Again, how would one measure this?

 

It’s a fact. It’s also been measured, as @iacas pointed out in a previous post. You can test green reading. I’ve seen it first hand in numerous AimPoint clinics I’ve been a part of.

Just because you don’t have access to the data doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

8 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

And then there's this.  Yikes:

 

And? People miss putts. He hit the putt too hard. Line looked fine. It took about 12 seconds to make that read. There are plenty of videos out there of pros missing shorter putts and taking longer to make reads by eye.

At this point it’s clear you’re not actually looking for evidence to support AimPoint, you’re looking for excuses to dismiss it.

[StuM]

12 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Of course a hot putter trumps all.

If all other things are equal (as if that ever happens in reality) then, Yes, a hot putter will help.  Unfortunately you cannot count on having the "Hot Putter" when you need it.  Those occasional days where it seems you can't miss are not predictable nor frequent enough.  Yes, we all have our great days putting, but we also have the bad days and many average days.  The question is, how many strokes can you gain on your opponent because of 

Also, you cannot count on your opponent NOT being better than you in other areas of the game that may negate any advantage of the "Hot Putter". 

[Alfonso]

2 hours ago, billchao said:

It’s a fact. It’s also been measured, as @iacas pointed out in a previous post. You can test green reading. I’ve seen it first hand in numerous AimPoint clinics I’ve been a part of.

Just because you don’t have access to the data doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

And? People miss putts. He hit the putt too hard. Line looked fine. It took about 12 seconds to make that read. There are plenty of videos out there of pros missing shorter putts and taking longer to make reads by eye.

At this point it’s clear you’re not actually looking for evidence to support AimPoint, you’re looking for excuses to dismiss it.

Actually, I was encouraged to do some research and that's exactly what I did.  You and others are making a giant assumption that I am looking to dismiss it. 

As for Rory, what's the answer?  Did it just not work for him.  As in, it's a fact it may also not work for others who might actually putt better not using Aimpoint? 

And I'm baffled as to where you got 12 seconds to make that read.  At least not on Keegan's part.  The clock is running right on the screen.  Now I understand no one is making every four foot putt, but that entire shtick was painful to watch and I'm not really sure how I feel about Aimpoint.

[klineka]

2 hours ago, Alfonso said:

 I'm not sure how one could assess that as "fact". I would concede that a bad green reader could improve through Aimpoint, but on average better than people who haven't done Aimpoint? Again, how would one measure this?

From Aimpoint instructorTyson Deskins:  "The biggest reason to use Aimpoint Express is because it helps you feel confident about your read and commit to it more often. "

Confidence.  I totally get that.  But that is in the head, not on the green.  I found this juxtaposition interesting as well.  Deskins also referenced Rory Mcilroy, who struggles with putting, and the putting coach he hired, Phil Kenyon, who teaches Aimpoint.  But wait, what did Rory just say at the 2023 Masters about young kids using Aimpoint: 

"I saw some of them AimPointing, like, oh my goodness". (Laughter).

It should be noted that during this answer, McIlroy did a literal, exasperated face palm.

What gives?  Why, after hiring an Aimpoint putting coach, did Rory not embrace the "science" of Aimpoint?

And then there's this.  Yikes:

 

So you referenced one golfer who chooses not to use Aimpoint but you continually ignore the facts that have been presented to you about the numerous PGA and LPGA tour players who utilize Aimpoint. Got it. 

 

Can you answer the questions I asked of you earlier this morning and engage in a discussion using facts rather than just searching for one off ways to discredit Aimpoint?

 

1 minute ago, Alfonso said:

Actually, I was encouraged to do some research and that's exactly what I did.  You and others are making a giant assumption that I am looking to dismiss it. 

Well when you continually ignore questions that are being asked directly to you, making claims without facts, and finding one specific example of one golfer choosing not to use Aimpoint as justification that it may not work for others (even though nobody on here has stated Aimpoint will work for everybody) surely you can see how that sequence of events comes across as you are looking to dismiss it, right?

 

3 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

As for Rory, what's the answer?  Did it just not work for him.  As in, it's a fact it may also not work for others who might actually putt better not using Aimpoint? 

How do you expect anyone on here to know why Rory chooses not to use Aimpoint? 

Again, nobody has stated that Aimpoint is the best for EVERYONE, but rather that for MOST people they are better at reading the greens with their feet rather than their eyes.

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by klineka

[DaveP043]

22 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Now I understand no one is making every four foot putt, but that entire shtick was painful to watch and I'm not really sure how I feel about Aimpoint.

Slow players will be slow, Aimpoint or not.  Compare this with the guy who walks 10 feet behind his ball and crouches to look at the break.  Then he walks 20 feet past the flag to look back at the break.  Then he walks back behind his ball and plumb-bobs it.  Then he takes 3 practice strokes, gets behind the ball again to plumb bob, and finally sets up and hits the putt.  Slow players will be slow, and some Aimpoint users are indeed slow players.

[Missouri Swede]

25 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Now I understand no one is making every four foot putt, but that entire shtick was painful to watch and I'm not really sure how I feel about Aimpoint.

Yeah, I agree that it's not pleasant.  I can't change how you "feel" about AimPoint, but just a couple points:

1. Maybe the instruction for AimPoint Express has changed since I took the course, but what Keegan did is not what I was instructed to do for a short putt. For a short putt, reading twice along the line between the ball and the hole and then repeating it with two additional readings on the reverse line was not in the curriculum.

2. A slow golfer can make anything slow.

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, Alfonso said:

From Aimpoint instructor Tyson Deskins:  "The biggest reason to use Aimpoint Express is because it helps you feel confident about your read and commit to it more often. "

Confidence.  I totally get that.  But that is in the head, not on the green.  I found this juxtaposition interesting as well.  Deskins also referenced Rory Mcilroy, who struggles with putting, and the putting coach he hired, Phil Kenyon, who teaches Aimpoint.  But wait, what did Rory just say at the 2023 Masters about young kids using Aimpoint: 

"I saw some of them AimPointing, like, oh my goodness". (Laughter).

It should be noted that during this answer, McIlroy did a literal, exasperated face palm.

What gives?  Why, after hiring an Aimpoint putting coach, did Rory not embrace the "science" of Aimpoint?

No, the biggest reason to use Aimpoint is because you will read greens better. 

Well Rory has his opinions, and clearly how bad he has putted the past 5+ years, he doesn't have much to talk about or laugh at kids using Aimpoint. I bet some of those kids would out read Rory on the greens. 

No one can answer for Rory why he doesn't want to use Aimpoint. Maybe he is self-conscious and thinks it looks strange. Which, I wonder how many more majors he would have with better putting. 

2 hours ago, Alfonso said:

 

And then there's this.  Yikes:

 

Above, lets say he went to the middle of the putt to make the read and took the first read. Time mark 00:00, he moves again at 3 seconds. So, that is how fast Aimpoint is, 3-5 seconds to read a putt. 

Lets get Math-y

Let's take a 30-ft putt. A person walks about 4.5 ft/second. So, it takes them 3.33 seconds to get to the middle of the putt. So, 6.66 seconds to get back to the ball after the read. It takes about 3-5 seconds to read a putt once you get to the spot you want to read it. Adding in a few seconds to find the aimpoint spot, using your fingers. So, we are at 12-15 seconds, and you are going into your putting routine. 

 

 

 

[billchao]

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

Actually, I was encouraged to do some research and that's exactly what I did.  You and others are making a giant assumption that I am looking to dismiss it. 

That’s simply because you’re not really acknowledging any of our points while continuing to provide more “AimPoint bashing” rebuttals.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

As for Rory, what's the answer?  Did it just not work for him.  As in, it's a fact it may also not work for others who might actually putt better not using Aimpoint?

Ask him yourself. I don’t have his number.

Maybe he thinks it just looks goofy and doesn’t want to do it.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

And I'm baffled as to where you got 12 seconds to make that read.  At least not on Keegan's part.  The clock is running right on the screen.  Now I understand no one is making every four foot putt, but that entire shtick was painful to watch and I'm not really sure how I feel about Aimpoint.

It was a bit of an exaggeration on my part, I didn’t actually look close enough at the time stamp.

It took 27 seconds, which is under the PGA Tour’s allowed time for pace of play violations. 27 seconds and then he backs away to line up the putt, which you would do using any other method.

How is that slower than reading traditionally like this?

 

[mdl]

9 hours ago, boogielicious said:

The reality is All Putts Break Downhill.

Well... That's not actually true! Go play the Plantation course and tell me putts never break uphill (Really, any course with heavy grain on the greens, living on the west coast the Plantation is the just the course I've played with by far the most intense grain effects on the green, and putts literally break uphill sometimes there)

[boogielicious]

Just now, mdl said:

Well... That's not actually true! Go play the Plantation course and tell me putts never break uphill (Really, any course with heavy grain on the greens, living on the west coast the Plantation is the just the course I've played with by far the most intense grain effects on the green, and putts literally break uphill sometimes there)

I would place a large bet that if we measured the slope with a level, it would show it was down hill. Mark Sweeney talks about grain affecting speed and not break. 

[mdl]

On 4/11/2023 at 4:40 PM, iacas said:

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).

Yes! This is the final, correct answer 😉 Perfect Putter to eliminate the effects of putting skill and narrow in only on green reading is genius. The analysis of results from folks with similar SG:P on the course would be super interesting. It seems like it could go either way.

4 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I would place a large bet that if we measured the slope with a level, it would show it was down hill. Mark Sweeney talks about grain affecting speed and not break. 

I've done the Villegas spiderman move on those greens. I'm 100% certain that I've hit putts that had (granted, slight) side to side slope that either stayed straight or broke slightly uphill.

[billchao]

19 minutes ago, mdl said:

Yes! This is the final, correct answer 😉 Perfect Putter to eliminate the effects of putting skill and narrow in only on green reading is genius.

It’s been done. I’ve seen it first hand many times. I’ve even done it, myself.

Perfect Putter is the way to eliminate the putting stroke as a variable when testing things.

[Golfingdad]

5 hours ago, Alfonso said:

And then there's this.  Yikes:

 

It certainly looks goofy but it is only because it's a new-ish thing we're still getting used to seeing.  Think about an alternative that I'm sure you've seen on TV countless times before a crucial putt:

... reading from crouched behind the ball; walking around and reading it from the side, then going and reading it from behind the hole, then for good measure read it from the other side, coming back and plumb bobbing, then asking caddy cuz you still can't see it, and possibly him then going through the same routine for you.

People don't say "yikes" to that as much simply because it's what we're used to.  I guarantee it takes way longer than what Bradley did here.  Not to mention his goofiness isn't exclusive to greens.  He has an awkward twitchy routine for every shot.

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Slow players will be slow, Aimpoint or not.  Compare this with the guy who walks 10 feet behind his ball and crouches to look at the break.  Then he walks 20 feet past the flag to look back at the break.  Then he walks back behind his ball and plumb-bobs it.  Then he takes 3 practice strokes, gets behind the ball again to plumb bob, and finally sets up and hits the putt.  Slow players will be slow, and some Aimpoint users are indeed slow players.

Shit.  I shoulda read the whole thread before commenting.  Sorry for being redundant guys!

[iacas]

6 hours ago, Alfonso said:

 I'm not sure how one could assess that as "fact".

The specific fact that I'm talking about right now is this one:

On 9/6/2019 at 8:46 AM, iacas said:

I could show you the data from hundreds of students.

Here's a small sampling: we ask virtually every student to give us between 1 and 3 reads, which we've pre-tested and know to be accurate with the Perfect Putter, and then ask them to give us between 3 and 6 different reads afterward.

On average, before AimPoint Express, golfers read just over 1/3 of the putt's actual break. They're off by 65% - a putt that breaks 30 inches they'll say breaks about ten. Afterward, they're off by single digit percentages.

Hell, man, we've had people misread the break on a putt that broke four feet to the right as breaking to the left. (The putt we used in MA last summer, which @boogielicious will recall.)

Mark has his own set of data in having tested PGA Tour winners, major champions, up-and-coming juniors, mini tour players, beginners, collegiate golfers, etc. It's quite similar to my own data.

People are really, really bad at green reading, which is all AimPoint is.

6 hours ago, Alfonso said:

I would concede that a bad green reader could improve through Aimpoint, but on average better than people who haven't done Aimpoint? Again, how would one measure this?

People who take an AimPoint class can read greens better, on average, than a PGA Tour winner that hasn't taken AimPoint. I'm not at liberty to share that info specifically, but I've seen it. Tour players also under-read break a ton. Not quite 65%… but they're not great either.

Also, "how would one measure this?" We've discussed this a fair amount already. You come off as pretty disingenuous. I'm not a fan of this intellectually dishonest way of "discussion."

6 hours ago, Alfonso said:

From Aimpoint instructorTyson Deskins:  "The biggest reason to use Aimpoint Express is because it helps you feel confident about your read and commit to it more often. "

I mean, that's his take. I think that's a side benefit, but the biggest reason to learn and use AimPoint Express is because it helps you get more accurate reads. Pure and simple.

6 hours ago, billchao said:

It’s a fact. It’s also been measured, as @iacas pointed out in a previous post. You can test green reading. I’ve seen it first hand in numerous AimPoint clinics I’ve been a part of.

Indeed. You can measure it. You can see how accurate a read is.

6 hours ago, billchao said:

At this point it’s clear you’re not actually looking for evidence to support AimPoint, you’re looking for excuses to dismiss it.

Indeed.

3 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Actually, I was encouraged to do some research and that's exactly what I did.  You and others are making a giant assumption that I am looking to dismiss it.

There's a pretty big pile of evidence, my man.

3 hours ago, Alfonso said:

As for Rory, what's the answer?

Ask him. For all we know he asks his caddie to do it. Some guys do that — Dustin Johnson for example often has Austin do the read.

3 hours ago, Alfonso said:

And I'm baffled as to where you got 12 seconds to make that read.

This has nothing to do with the reason to do AimPoint. Slow players are slow. He takes like five reads; on a putt that length you take one.

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Slow players will be slow, Aimpoint or not. Compare this with the guy who walks 10 feet behind his ball and crouches to look at the break. Then he walks 20 feet past the flag to look back at the break.  Then he walks back behind his ball and plumb-bobs it. Then he takes 3 practice strokes, gets behind the ball again to plumb bob, and finally sets up and hits the putt.  Slow players will be slow, and some Aimpoint users are indeed slow players.

Yup.

2 hours ago, billchao said:

That’s simply because you’re not really acknowledging any of our points while continuing to provide more “AimPoint bashing” rebuttals.

Yep. To that, I eagerly await @Alfonso's ignoring of the Bryson video. /s

1 hour ago, mdl said:

Well... That's not actually true! Go play the Plantation course and tell me putts never break uphill (Really, any course with heavy grain on the greens, living on the west coast the Plantation is the just the course I've played with by far the most intense grain effects on the green, and putts literally break uphill sometimes there)

Putting 90° across the grainiest greens will affect a putt about 20' putt about 1" @mdl. So… they don't, really. But let's not get off topic.

[Alfonso]

On 4/13/2023 at 12:23 PM, klineka said:

So you referenced one golfer who chooses not to use Aimpoint but you continually ignore the facts that have been presented to you about the numerous PGA and LPGA tour players who utilize Aimpoint. Got it. 

Can you answer the questions I asked of you earlier this morning and engage in a discussion using facts rather than just searching for one off ways to discredit Aimpoint?

Well when you continually ignore questions that are being asked directly to you, making claims without facts, and finding one specific example of one golfer choosing not to use Aimpoint as justification that it may not work for others (even though nobody on here has stated Aimpoint will work for everybody) surely you can see how that sequence of events comes across as you are looking to dismiss it, right?

How do you expect anyone on here to know why Rory chooses not to use Aimpoint? 

Again, nobody has stated that Aimpoint is the best for EVERYONE, but rather that for MOST people they are better at reading the greens with their feet rather than their eyes.

 That is certainly a lot of accusations.  As for answering your questions, this quote, which I posted earlier, answered them all as far as I'm concerned:  From Aimpoint instructorTyson Deskins: 

"The biggest reason to use Aimpoint Express is because it helps you feel confident about your read and commit to it more often. "

I've already conceded that I understand that component.  People do a lot of things because it gives them confidence. 

As for Rory, just wondered if anyone who was an aimpoint disciple knew why he didn't embrace the technique.  And yes, even though you may not like it, it is evidence for a professional who tried it and chooses not to use it.  So either he wasn't able to understand and apply the physics or it just didn't give him enough confidence. 

As for my quote that putting is king, I will stand by that as long as I play golf.  Now, I play almost exclusively non-handicapped match play, so my perspective may be slanted in that regard.  Hot putter in match play makes up for a lot of mistakes and is trouble.  Period.

15 caps don't lower their handicap because they can hit every third 2 iron flush.  They lower it by getting to the green in three at worst on par fours and by eliminating penalty strokes, chunks/blades and three putts.  Good putting makes up for the first two mistakes.

I do have to chuckle a bit at the idea that we are discussing, some quite passionately, a technique for better green reading all the while putting is being dismissed as not so important.