Is There Any Non-Anecdotal AimPoint Data?

[Alfonso]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

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."

I had to go back to my original post to check this.  Claiming my curiosity is disingenuous seems a bit unfair but we also don't know each other so there's that.   Perhaps the worst thing I said about Aimpoint:  "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. "

So I ask for the data, and I get the above.  Geez man.  You literally said you're not at liberty to "share that info specifically".  I don't know why Aimpoint wouldn't be blaring that information at the top of the mountain, but whatever.

Don't know where to go from here.  Not against aimpoint at all, can see the merit for some, others maybe not.  I will continue to seek the hard data.

 

[boogielicious]

39 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

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.

No one here said putting is not important. What has been said is putting is not as important as getting on the green in regulation as the best way to lower your scores. Not sure where you’ve seen that other than as a response to your “drive for show, putt for dough” comment. That myth has been disproven quite a while ago.

[boogielicious]

16 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

So I ask for the data, and I get the above.  Geez man.  You literally said you're not at liberty to "share that info specifically".  I don't know why Aimpoint wouldn't be blaring that information at the top of the mountain, but whatever.

Don't know where to go from here.  Not against aimpoint at all, can see the merit for some, others maybe not.  I will continue to seek the hard data.

Erik is literally an expert on the subject. You seem to dismiss that. He wrote an excellent book on the subject.

You have been a bit disingenuous in the instead of going to the source, Mark Sweeney, and looking at the information on the AimPoint site, you come here and as us to pony up the data to prove to you the benefits of AimPoint. 

We could switch it around and say, “show us the data that plumb-bobbing, doing walk-abouts around the hole and listening to myths about Ray’s Creek is statistically better than AimPoint at green reading”. But there is no data on that because people who read greens like that think it’s an art that only a special few have. That’s hooey!

Green reading is a skill that can be developed by anyone and doesn’t require the ability to be able to drive the ball 300 yards. Anyone at any skill level can be taught to read greens as well as the best professional. That is what AimPoint has shown. It’s a fact.

[klineka]

33 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

 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. "

Dude. What??? One of the questions I asked you was if you've reached out to Aimpoint directly to see if they can provide you any facts. How does what you put in bold above answer that question?

I've also asked you to address the fact that in your initial post you stated that if Aimpoint had winners they would be all over the place, and when myself and multiple others have repeatedly provided FACTS of multiple time major winners who actively use Aimpoint, you ignore that fact and instead focus on one player who doesn't use Aimpoint. 

 

38 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

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. 

And even though you may not like it, I've listed numerous PGA and LPGA tour players as evidence of professionals who tried it and choose to use it. 

And AGAIN, nobody on here has said Aimpoint is the best option for EVERYONE, but rather for MOST people they will read greens better when using it than without using it.

 

40 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

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.

Please present FACTS that support your claim. (in a different topic) 

The facts that discredit your claim apply across all levels of golfers from pro down to 30 handicappers, so the fact that you play in non-handicapped match play doesn't really matter.

 

42 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

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.

No it doesn't. So you're telling me that if someone hits 2 balls OB on a hole but then one putts, that their one putt makes up for the 2+ strokes they lost before they got to the green?

Your own claim of "they lower it by getting to the green in three at worst on par fours and by eliminating penalty strokes" is 100% accurate but has absolutely nothing to do with putting, so how can you sit there and claim that putting is king?

Again, please (in a different topic) present facts to support your claim. 

 

45 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

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.

Please stop stating things that are not true. Nobody has said in this topic that putting is not important, but rather that putting is not the MOST important determinant of your score in golf which is what you are claiming.

Stating things that are not true and making things up is why people are stating that you are being disingenuous.

 

21 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

I had to go back to my original post to check this.  Claiming my curiosity is disingenuous seems a bit unfair but we also don't know each other so there's that.  

 It's disingenuous because you continue to ignore and discredit facts that are presented to you while also making false statements about what other people have stated in this topic. 

 

21 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Don't know where to go from here.  Not against aimpoint at all, can see the merit for some, others maybe not.  I will continue to seek the hard data.

THEN REACH OUT TO AIMPOINT AND ASK THEM. FFS MAN.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

That is certainly a lot of accusations.

They're observations based on how you're behaving, including ignoring things that are inconvenient to you.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

From Aimpoint instructorTyson Deskins: 

That doesn't answer anything, and I don't know who that guy is, but he hasn't been an AimPoint instructor as long as I have, and he sure as heck didn't invent AimPoint. Relying on a statement you found on a website when AimPoint students and longer-term instructors are telling you otherwise is a good example of your intellectual dishonesty here in this discussion.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

As for Rory

Who cares?

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

And yes, even though you may not like it, it is evidence for a professional who tried it and chooses not to use it.

Yes, ONE guy. Cool. And even if you get to three, four, ten… there are thousands who use it. Furthermore, you don't know if Rory was ever taught AimPoint and thus "chose" not to embrace it. Phil Kenyon does more than teach AimPoint.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

As for my quote that putting is king, I will stand by that as long as I play golf.

You are wrong. As in factually wrong.

And again, I'll point out that this is off-topic for this discussion thread.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

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.

OT, so brief: You said it right there: they lower it by doing the things that don't involve putting: hitting more greens or getting more nGIR.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

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.

It's not as important as driving or approach shots (or short game). Since there are only those four areas of golf, it's still important. It's the least important.

Here's some "data" for you to ignore.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

Claiming my curiosity is disingenuous seems a bit unfair

Your actions have led a bunch of smart people to the same conclusion.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

So I ask for the data, and I get the above.

No, you've gotten (and largely ignored) data. You ignore the stuff that's inconvenient to your agenda.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

You literally said you're not at liberty to "share that info specifically".

I've shared data. You've ignored it.

It's not my data to share, and AimPoint is doing just fine. People who take AimPoint classes understand, and see the change/improvement with their own eyes.

Google how poorly amateurs read greens (and even professionals). That info is out there. That data is "out there." Dave Pelz has been shouting about it for decades. It's not a shocker.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

Don't know where to go from here.  Not against aimpoint at all

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

We could switch it around and say, “show us the data that plumb-bobbing, doing walk-abouts around the hole and listening to myths about Ray’s Creek is statistically better than AimPoint at green reading”. But there is no data on that because people who read greens like that think it’s an art that only a special few have. That’s hooey!

Yeah, @Alfonso, show us the data. Then we can ignore it (except you won't have any to show us) as you've done.

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

Green reading is a skill that can be developed by anyone and doesn’t require the ability to be able to drive the ball 300 yards. Anyone at any skill level can be taught to read greens as well as the best professional. That is what AimPoint has shown. It’s a fact.

Indeed.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

Dude. What??? One of the questions I asked you was if you've reached out to Aimpoint directly to see if they can provide you any facts. How does what you put in bold above answer that question?

It does not. But buddy man @Alfonso just ignores things that are inconvenient to him.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

I've also asked you to address the fact that in your initial post you stated that if Aimpoint had winners they would be all over the place, and when myself and multiple others have repeatedly provided FACTS of multiple time major winners who actively use Aimpoint, you ignore that fact and instead focus on one player who doesn't use Aimpoint.

A point he's repeated a few times, ignoring that AimPoint has winners nearly every week.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

Your own claim of "they lower it by getting to the green in three at worst on par fours and by eliminating penalty strokes" is 100% accurate but has absolutely nothing to do with putting, so how can you sit there and claim that putting is king?

Seems to have escaped him that he argued against himself there.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

 It's disingenuous because you continue to ignore and discredit facts that are presented to you while also making false statements about what other people have stated in this topic.

Yep.

---

@Alfonso, the above was your last warning about the off-topic stuff. You'll receive an actual warning if you continue in this topic.

[dennyjones]

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

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.

I will agree the discussion is "aggressive" but the idea that putting is being dismissed as not so important is a misdirect on your part.   Putting is very important but the data shows that when it comes to strokes gained it isn't as important as driving the ball and approach shots into the green.   Broadie's book "using data" clearly defines the significance of putting but the book "using data" shows that it isn't the end all to scoring.    

Aimpoint green reading is a tool to help improve green reading.  Just like any other task, golf related or not, there are certain tools that make the job easier.   Aimpoint makes putting easier.

 

[DaveP043]

3 hours ago, Alfonso said:

Hot putter in match play makes up for a lot of mistakes and is trouble.  Period.

I can't agree, a 20-foot putt made can't atone for a drive hit OB.  Generally speaking, I'd rather hit a whole bunch of greens and putt average, compared to missing most of the fairways greens and making a bunch of bogey putts.

[Alfonso]

11 hours ago, boogielicious said:

No one here said putting is not important. What has been said is putting is not as important as getting on the green in regulation as the best way to lower your scores. Not sure where you’ve seen that other than as a response to your “drive for show, putt for dough” comment. That myth has been disproven quite a while ago.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  I just spent more time than I ever should have and I could not find any reference ever made as to "drive for show, putt for dough".  Wtf?

[StuM]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:53 PM, Alfonso said:

 

18 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  I just spent more time than I ever should have and I could not find any reference ever made as to "drive for show, putt for dough".  Wtf?

You may not have used the exact phrase “drive for show, putt for dough” but you prior comment “Putting is still and always will be king” is basically saying that with different words.

Edited April 15, 2023 by StuM
Corrected typo

[Alfonso]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

They're observations based on how you're behaving, including ignoring things that are inconvenient to you.

That doesn't answer anything, and I don't know who that guy is, but he hasn't been an AimPoint instructor as long as I have, and he sure as heck didn't invent AimPoint. Relying on a statement you found on a website when AimPoint students and longer-term instructors are telling you otherwise is a good example of your intellectual dishonesty here in this discussion.

Who cares?

Yes, ONE guy. Cool. And even if you get to three, four, ten… there are thousands who use it. Furthermore, you don't know if Rory was ever taught AimPoint and thus "chose" not to embrace it. Phil Kenyon does more than teach AimPoint.

You are wrong. As in factually wrong.

And again, I'll point out that this is off-topic for this discussion thread.

OT, so brief: You said it right there: they lower it by doing the things that don't involve putting: hitting more greens or getting more nGIR.

It's not as important as driving or approach shots (or short game). Since there are only those four areas of golf, it's still important. It's the least important.

Here's some "data" for you to ignore.

Your actions have led a bunch of smart people to the same conclusion.

No, you've gotten (and largely ignored) data. You ignore the stuff that's inconvenient to your agenda.

I've shared data. You've ignored it.

It's not my data to share, and AimPoint is doing just fine. People who take AimPoint classes understand, and see the change/improvement with their own eyes.

Google how poorly amateurs read greens (and even professionals). That info is out there. That data is "out there." Dave Pelz has been shouting about it for decades. It's not a shocker.

Yeah, @Alfonso, show us the data. Then we can ignore it (except you won't have any to show us) as you've done.

Indeed.

It does not. But buddy man @Alfonso just ignores things that are inconvenient to him.

A point he's repeated a few times, ignoring that AimPoint has winners nearly every week.

Seems to have escaped him that he argued against himself there.

Yep.

---

@Alfonso, the above was your last warning about the off-topic stuff. You'll receive an actual warning if you continue in this topic.

You are freaking me out.  You just said putting is the least important skill.  What?

And please don't give me shit about being off topic.  I'm not driving that bus.

[klineka]

3 hours ago, Alfonso said:

And please don't give me shit about being off topic.  I'm not driving that bus.

You're the one who started that damn bus by claiming that putting is king which, for one, is factually incorrect and two, isn't the topic of this post.

You've made it perfectly clear you have no intentions of having a fact-based conversation here since you have repeatedly ignored mine and other's requests for you to provide facts that support your claims. 

👍

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Alfonso said:

You are freaking me out.  You just said putting is the least important skill.  What?

And please don't give me shit about being off topic.  I'm not driving that bus.

I see you've now received a warning for being off-topic.

Because, in ignoring inconvenient posts, you seemingly ignored the times I told you to stick to the topic and even linked to this other topic explaining it:

This sums it up pretty well:

33 minutes ago, klineka said:

You're the one who started that damn bus by claiming that putting is king which, for one, is factually incorrect and two, isn't the topic of this post.

You've made it perfectly clear you have no intentions of having a fact-based conversation here since you have repeatedly ignored mine and other's requests for you to provide facts that support your claims. 

[Alfonso]

Hilarious that I get a warning and posts removed, as if I'm the only one discussing "off topic"  Weird place.

I also see I have been given an avatar not of my choosing.  Wow.  It's like junior high around here.

[jsgolfer]

51 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Hilarious that I get a warning and posts removed, as if I'm the only one discussing "off topic"  Weird place.

I also see I have been given an avatar not of my choosing.  Wow.  It's like junior high around here.

I’ve avoided this topic, but dude, when you’re in a hole stop digging. 

[iacas]

54 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

Hilarious that I get a warning and posts removed, as if I'm the only one discussing "off topic."

Others replied to the posts, but you started the off-topic line of discussion (with factually incorrect bull).

55 minutes ago, Alfonso said:

I also see I have been given an avatar not of my choosing.

Then pick one of your own. Duh.

Also, your post here didn't advance the conversation one bit, and was itself off topic. No more chances, buddy. You've been tagged in another topic that discusses the stuff that's OT here. Post there, or elsewhere that's appropriate.