AimPoint Green Reading

[Woodstocks]

No, I have not taken a refresher course.

[ralphs007]

Thanks, I'll keep checking back with him.

[b101]

Having taken a bit more time to work on my stroke, I put AimPoint back into practice with a vengeance today, finally being confident that I'd hit the line and pace I saw. The result was two 15 foot putts buried, a couple of similar distances that lipped out (one hitting the back of the cup but bouncing up!) and generally never being too far away. I still need to work on the pace aspect and I'll keep up with the work on line, but the read is one aspect that just isn't wrong at the moment. Still probably the best £100 I've spent on my golf.

[Woodstocks]

Did trying looking on aimpoint.com under clinics and scrolling down to see if mike scheduled anymore clinics?

[ralphs007]

Yes,I've been checking every couple of days. Doesn't seem to be many players interested. I know the day I attended my clinic, there was only two of us in the class.

[saevel25]

No, I have not taken a refresher course.

I have, but I basically make sure the class isn't getting full.

[taxgolf]

Played yesterday, used aimpoint to my full advantage. Did have a discussion that it took a lot of time and slowed play. Which I find nonsens. I stand behind the ball, close my eyes for one second, not even 2. Walk along, feel, just a sec and walk one. Ik do not even go behind the cup to feel if it is a downhiller. I do that whilst measuring. Pick my point and go. My argument is that by looking at the cup, walk around it, takes far more time than the aimpoint system. People are hard to convince.

[Gunther]

Interesting, albeit brief, discussion on Fox Saturday. David Fay mentioned that rules prohibit walking on your line with the purpose of trying to figure break. His take is that Aim point comes very close to breaking this rule and because of that, he's not a fan. Buck mentioned that Norman evidently does not like Aimpoint at all and Greg sort of confirmed but did not elaborate. Curious if others heard this and if so, what their reaction to it was/is.

[saevel25]

Interesting, albeit brief, discussion on Fox Saturday. David Fay mentioned that rules prohibit walking on your line with the purpose of trying to figure break. His take is that Aim point comes very close to breaking this rule and because of that, he's not a fan.

https://aimpointgolf.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/wheres-my-path/

USGA says Aimpoint is legal. ;)

If the putt breaks a lot then you should really ever come close to the line. If the putt breaks very little then you have to be very careful. Especially since it is harder to determine the break of the putt to being with.

Part of the class should be how to approach the spot you want to use to determine the break such that you do not break the rules.

[Mr. Desmond]

Interesting, albeit brief, discussion on Fox Saturday. David Fay mentioned that rules prohibit walking on your line with the purpose of trying to figure break. His take is that Aim point comes very close to breaking this rule and because of that, he's not a fan.

Buck mentioned that Norman evidently does not like Aimpoint at all and Greg sort of confirmed but did not elaborate.

Curious if others heard this and if so, what their reaction to it was/is.

No, I guess they would rather have us determine break by the mountains in the background or nearby water...

My thoughts are certain people do not welcome new ideas or thoughts ... do not embrace change ... for example, I bet Norman or Fey do not even want to learn about the AimPoint system or take a class before deciding ... so they comment about a technique about which they have little knowledge.

[Missouri Swede]

Part of the class should be how to approach the spot you want to use to determine the break such that you do not break the rules.

There's a video in the Facebook student group that goes over this in some detail.  (In the class I took, the rules about this were discussed.)

[billchao]

Played yesterday, used aimpoint to my full advantage. Did have a discussion that it took a lot of time and slowed play. Which I find nonsens. I stand behind the ball, close my eyes for one second, not even 2. Walk along, feel, just a sec and walk one. Ik do not even go behind the cup to feel if it is a downhiller. I do that whilst measuring. Pick my point and go. My argument is that by looking at the cup, walk around it, takes far more time than the aimpoint system. People are hard to convince.

I agree that's a pretty weak argument. I have my read by the time somebody walks around the other side of the cup, even before they have started looking. After that it's just a matter of remembering my number and I'm good to go by the time it's my turn to putt. [quote name="saevel25" url="/t/45791/aimpoint-green-reading/720#post_1168110"]If the putt breaks a lot then you should really ever come close to the line. If the putt breaks very little then you have to be very careful. Especially since it is harder to determine the break of the putt to being with.  Part of the class should be how to approach the spot you want to use to determine the break such that you do not break the rules.  [/quote]I like to take a quick read at the ball, just to determine direction. From there, I just go along the low side of the putt. If it's not going to break a lot, I'll stand with my feet wider and straddle the line of putt. If I still can't determine the break from that, it's probably flat :-)

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther

Interesting, albeit brief, discussion on Fox Saturday. David Fay mentioned that rules prohibit walking on your line with the purpose of trying to figure break. His take is that Aim point comes very close to breaking this rule and because of that, he's not a fan.

Buck mentioned that Norman evidently does not like Aimpoint at all and Greg sort of confirmed but did not elaborate.

Curious if others heard this and if so, what their reaction to it was/is.

I heard that part as well.

The rules do not say that you cannot walk on your line for the purpose of trying to determine break (or slope). They simply say that you cannot touch the line of putt.

Quote:

16-1  General
a . Touching Line of Putt

The line of putt must not be touched except:

(i) the player may remove loose impediments , provided he does not press anything down;

(ii) the player may place the club in front of the ball when addressing it, provided he does not press anything down;

(iii) in measuring - Rule 18-6 ;

(iv) in lifting or replacing the ball - Rule 16-1b ;

(v) in pressing down a ball-marker;

(vi) in repairing old hole plugs or ball marks on the putting green - Rule 16-1c ; and

(vii) in removing movable obstructions - Rule 24-1 .

(Indicating line for putting on putting green - see Rule 8-2b )

In other words, don't touch the line of the putt unless you have a specific and allowable reason to do so. Even 16-1a/12 doesn't cover someone touching the line with their feet because it's clearly intentional:

Quote:

16-1a/12

Player Walks on Line of Putt

Q. A player walked on his line of putt. Did he incur a penalty for a breach of Rule 16-1a ?

A. Yes, if he did so intentionally. No, if he did so accidentally and the act did not improve the line.

Now, then, the "Line of Putt" is not a straight line from the ball to the hole:

So, two things:

• The player is the sole determinant of their line of putt. If they know (or feel, or believe) a putt is going to break four feet, they can easily stand on the straight line from the ball to the hole and be confidently away from their Line of Putt.
• The Line of Putt is small, and we advise a general safety margin be maintained (after all, you may adjust your Line of Putt).

What advantage would anyone gain by putting dents or scuff marks or anything like that in their Line of Putt? There's no advantage. So people don't stand in their Line of Putt, generally speaking.

David Fay can say what he wants but at the end of the day people doing it properly are NOT touching their Line of Putt. Pros are generally considered to have a bit more leeway to approach the line, but even they will stay back six or eight inches.

[Gunther]

I heard that part as well. The rules do not say that you cannot walk on your line for the purpose of trying to determine break (or slope). They simply say that you cannot touch the line of putt. In other words, don't touch the line of the putt unless you have a specific and allowable reason to do so. Even 16-1a/12 doesn't cover someone touching the line with their feet because it's clearly intentional:

[COLOR=474B55]

[/COLOR] Now, then, the "Line of Putt" is not a straight line from the ball to the hole: [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/127771/] [/URL] So, two things: [LIST] [*] The player is the sole determinant of their line of putt. If they know (or feel, or believe) a putt is going to break four feet, they can easily stand on the straight line from the ball to the hole and be confidently away from their Line of Putt. [*] The Line of Putt is small, and we advise a general safety margin be maintained (after all, you may adjust your Line of Putt). [/LIST] What advantage would anyone gain by putting dents or scuff marks or anything like that in their Line of Putt? There's no advantage. So people don't stand in their Line of Putt, generally speaking. David Fay can say what he wants but at the end of the day people doing it properly are NOT touching their Line of Putt. Pros are generally considered to have a bit more leeway to approach the line, but even they will stay back six or eight inches.

Makes perfect sense. I don't believe "coming close to breaking a rule" is reason enough to dislike a new methodology. Probably as others have indicated, has some to do with resistance to change. But, not knowing much about Aimpoint, it did catch my ear and gave me a negative perception of it. I had the benefit of this forum to learn more about it; many others did/do not so I would guess just by that brief discussion, they dissuaded lots of people from trying it.

[rkim291968]

Thanks for the above discussions.   I need to bear in mind b/c I think I was guilty of touching, walking the line of putting to do Aimpoint thingy.   My "scramble" partner reminded me of that the other day and I didn't connect it to the Aimpoint thingy I did.

[iacas]

Makes perfect sense. I don't believe "coming close to breaking a rule" is reason enough to dislike a new methodology. Probably as others have indicated, has some to do with resistance to change. But, not knowing much about Aimpoint, it did catch my ear and gave me a negative perception of it. I had the benefit of this forum to learn more about it; many others did/do not so I would guess just by that brief discussion, they dissuaded lots of people from trying it.

Other people might hear that it's like cheating (it's not, I mean, in the "Rules of Golf" sense of the word) and want that advantage.

You never know.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther

Makes perfect sense. I don't believe "coming close to breaking a rule" is reason enough to dislike a new methodology. Probably as others have indicated, has some to do with resistance to change. But, not knowing much about Aimpoint, it did catch my ear and gave me a negative perception of it. I had the benefit of this forum to learn more about it; many others did/do not so I would guess just by that brief discussion, they dissuaded lots of people from trying it.

Other people might hear that it's like cheating (it's not, I mean, in the "Rules of Golf" sense of the word) and want that advantage.

You never know.

I've heard the same argument about rangefinders and GPS. And yet the old school people have no problem with caddies completely mapping out the course then taking five minutes to figure out the distance during Pro golf events.

[Mr. Desmond]

One might think of it this way. Aimpoint is just using your feet instead of your eyes. The eyes don't tell the truth when it comes to reading greens. Sure, you can look for drainage and slope, but they change  or are non-factors during the path of your putt, and breaks are so subtle that the eyes do not pick them up or communicates break that does not exist.

But the feet , they communicate what is actually happening on the ground, and that's where your ball rolls ... on the ground.

Aimpoint just gets you more in touch with "be the ball."