Putting miss on the high side!?

[iacas]

Almost all of my misses inside of 10 feet are from miss-reads. Pretty sure I could knock 5 or 6 strokes a round off of my scores if I knew every read exactly.

Take an AimPoint Express class.

Doesn't matter for me, they are both 4 feet from the hole.

The uphill one is easier. Far less speed- and line-sensitive putt.

(Note: this assumes they're the same distance.)

If I really thought Aimpoint would make me never miss-read a putt I would certainly go for it.

You'll still miss putts. You'll miss fewer, though, and your long putts will give you easier second putts.

I don't know why anyone here who cares as much about golf as you and some other people do haven't done it.

Even if it would make me come close to that (which it very well might?) it would improve my game quite a bit because I'm not a good green reader by anybody's standards. I'm holding out until I know a guy that can't read a green any better than I can that suddenly starts kicking my butt after taking a class.

Then take the class.

And buy LSW if you haven't already.

[jamo]

I agree with that. My goal is to make every putt, so why would I want it to miss high.

Right. This still is a thread about missing putts, after all.

[dchoye]

:bugout: :bugout:  :bugout: Damn!!!! Must be nice to never miss-read a putt. Almost all of my misses inside of 10 feet are from miss-reads. Pretty sure I could knock 5 or 6 strokes a round off of my scores if I knew every read exactly.

Short putts are easy to read. I am sure all short putts are read perfectly correctly and one rolls the ball on line that the player intended 100% of the time. But short putts are still missed because the eyes are misaligned which I believe is separate issue from read or rolling on the line I subscribe to J Nicklaus rule of having the eyeballs right on top of the ball or behind the ball and along the ball target for short putts

[iacas]

Short putts are easy to read. I am sure all short putts are read perfectly correctly and one rolls the ball on line that the player intended 100% of the time.

But short putts are still missed because the eyes are misaligned which I believe is separate issue from read or rolling on the line

I subscribe to J Nicklaus rule of having the eyeballs right on top of the ball or behind the ball and along the ball target for short putts

That has very little to do with this thread…

Also, I'd wager that you couldn't read a bunch of short putts I could give you.

[mvmac]

Short putts are easy to read. I am sure all short putts are read perfectly correctly and one rolls the ball on line that the player intended 100% of the time.

Putting is relatively easy but no way golfers are getting the read correct or hitting their line 100% of the time. Some short putts can break A LOT.

[Abu3baid]

Sorry Bobby ... there is no need for this anymore because there is never a time when "the line of putt cannot be determined."  If you're a crappy putter and you're just guessing, then sure, knock yourself out and aim high.  (AIM HIGH!!!!!**)  But I will continue to find my aimpoint that allows me to actually MAKE the putt.  Thus, it stands to reason that when I miss, I'll miss some high and I'll miss some low.  If I'm cheating one way or the other, and missing more to one side than the other, then I'm not making as many as I could, and that makes no sense.

**40 Year Old Virgin reference for anybody who's interested.

And this is the kind of stuff that bugs me.  Because Bobby Jones said it, and we worship people like Bobby Jones, it must be taken seriously.  But this is utter, ***king nonsense.  Why??  Why is it "certain" that it will stop "not far away" if you aim the ball above the hole?  I would wager that my above the hole misses, on average, end up further from the hole than my below the hole misses.  I'm always aiming to make the putt, so slightly more often than not, when I miss high, it's because I hit it too hard, so it rolls a bit past.  Conversely, when I miss low, slightly more often than not I didn't hit it hard enough so it's just slowly rolling to a stop near the hole.

In this diagram, ideally, my putt is rolling over "1" and is going right into the hole.  But if it misses, somebody please explain to me how "2" is a better result than "3?"

First, I want to say that I loved the diagram

Second, Bobby could be wrong and maybe he is.. I was just looking up some things on putting and came across the quote and thought it was relevant to the this thread so I added it for discussion..

Third, I can see that this sort of stuff really ticks you off, and I think you are just over reacting

Finally I want to say that the information I learned during my aimpoint class is worth every dollar spent, and I am just so happy that when I get on a green I know what the hell I am feeling with my feet, and how the green is reacting in terms of speed and where to aim that damn ball.. I hit putts today that I would have never hit before!

So, to anyone reading this thread about missing putts high (or low) just take aimpoint and #makeeverything already

[CJ Decker]

Let's see if I can help.  On short putts your mind has too much time during a normal backswing which gives you too much time for indecision.  Your mind will be decisive about your indecision, causing you to push or pull your short putts.  So ...

First, make ALL of your short putts ... short putts are five feet and less.

HERE'S HOW:

Center your ball between your feet and then move toward the hole so your ball is just behind your belt buckle.  Next, set your putter behind the ball like a T-square to the hole.  Give your putter a little room, because next, you lean the grip on your putter in front of your belt buckle.  This is where people get bent out of shape because the old philosophy is you NEVER de-loft your putter.  It's ok here.  Think about it, we're only talking about putts five feet and less.  NOW, you grip the putter ... not before or this won't work.  The grip will twist a little, so the top of your grip is now off-set.  Do not reach around and grip the putter so your hands are off-set, too.  That counters the effect.  So, move the ball back, your putter grip forward and then you grip the putter.  One more thing, put most of your weight on your left side (right handed).

ELIMINATE TIME & YOU'LL SHORTEN THE TIME YOUR MIND HAS TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR PUTT.

Here's the cause and effect.

FIRST - You have just eliminated half of your backswing.  Most players have trouble with short putts because they have too much time in their backswing which allows your mind to interfere with your putting stroke.

SECOND - Your backswing will feel like a full swing in half the stroke.  You can try this at home just to see if it feels the way I say.  This is the fun part.  Your mind won't have time to interfere with your putting stroke anymore because now it will be too busy telling your body to start your putting stroke.  Works, too.  Don't break your wrists in this motion and those short putts will create confidence.

DO NOT use this technique outside of five feet.  Then the speed you need to generate WILL cause your ball to bounce into the air and send your ball off-line.  There's another strategy for that, but start with the short putts and go from there.

[Phil McGleno]

CJ, thanks, but Im not sure what that has to do with this topic. I dont think the ball being back of center is a great way to make putts either-Of any length really.

[CJ Decker]

45 putts ... seems on topic with the original post.  Improving your short putts is the starting point to confidence.

Time is the adversary here, not mechanics.  Five feet is a relative boundary line.  A full backswing represents mechanics, thus creating enough time for the mind to influence a player's indecision and ultimately his mechanics.  To solve that problem, the mechanics have to change.  A shorter backswing is the only way to eliminate time.  My technique creates that same trigger mechanism to start forward.

Certainly, you're entitled to your opinion.  That said, your post represents fifty years of the same philosophy.  Innovation requires thinking out side the box, i.e. the new putting strategies that we've made available today do not represent the philosophy of the last fifty years ... and those strategies are drawing golfers.

You might give this a try and then follow-up.

[Phil McGleno]

THe topic is missing putts on the high side.-Guy says his distance control is bad in the first post too.[quote name="CJ Decker" url="/t/77292/putting-miss-on-the-high-side/72#post_1083089"] 45 putts ... seems on topic with the original post.  Improving your short putts is the starting point to confidence. [/quote] Probably bullpuckey.-You have one solution. For all you know the guy aims badly, or rolls the putter or whatever. You have no idea.-You are just tossing something out there with no justification or rationale except sounding mystical or something. [quote name="CJ Decker" url="/t/77292/putting-miss-on-the-high-side/72#post_1083089"] Time is the adversary here, not mechanics. Five feet is a relative boundary line. A full backswing represents mechanics, thus creating enough time for the mind to influence a player's indecision and ultimately his mechanics. To solve that problem, the mechanics have to change. A shorter backswing is the only way to eliminate time. My technique creates that same trigger mechanism to start forward. [/quote] I am and its a good one- I Know what Im talking about. Do you? My post represents fifty years of people putting? People have putted well too-Whats in need of innovation here? Moving the ball back in your stance and making a short backswing is not innovation. [quote name="CJ Decker" url="/t/77292/putting-miss-on-the-high-side/72#post_1083089"] Certainly, you're entitled to your opinion. That said, your post represents fifty years of the same philosophy. Innovation requires thinking out side the box, i.e. the new putting strategies that we've made available today do not represent the philosophy of the last fifty years ... and those strategies are drawing golfers.[/quote] Ive seen your videos, CJ. Quack quack man. Drain and slope?-Same thing

[CJ Decker]

You have my apologizes for all my shortcomings.

Oh, and as for drain and slope -

Drain - Always downhill.

Slope - Uphill & Downhill

(To say Mount Everest is only downhill is a gross misunderstanding of Slope.)

[Phil McGleno]

Probably off topic but since grain grows downhill the three things are the same.-Slope can go uphill too? So you reverse the grain orr reverse the drain and you have uphill. I'm not Aimpoint but some guys here are and I think that system surpassed you a bunch.[quote name="CJ Decker" url="/t/77292/putting-miss-on-the-high-side/72#post_1083110"]:-)  You have my apologizes for all my shortcomings. :-) Oh, and as for drain and slope - Drain - Always downhill. Slope - Uphill & Downhill                  (To say Mount Everest is only downhill is a gross misunderstanding of Slope.) [/quote]

[CJ Decker]

I don't want to be baited into spam ... but since I've requested to have my membership to The Sand Trap discontinued, I will say this.

I never claimed to be better.  Just simpler.  Cheaper.  Easier to learn.  And, more exact in determining my starting point.  All of which fits the expectations of the average player.  The testimonials are verification of that.  There are thirty million golfers in the United States.  Less than ten percent have a single digit handicap and they are not my on my bucket list.

I don't use my feet to feel for the fall line and math doesn't lie.  This is the geometry of missing fall line -

M/R - Margin of Error

π = pie

5 ft = 60 inches
radius = 180 degrees

M/R = π (60) / 180 = 1.04 inches off-line ... for every degree you are off in choosing your fall line.  That one degree off virtually represents 1/4 of a golf hole for every five feet of fall line.  Two degrees off-line isn't a huge miscalculation, either, and that puts you all the way out to the edge of the hole.

Shoes = 4.5 inches, Feet = 2, together they = 9 inches

Golf hole = 4.5 inches

Circle = 360 degrees

These are the factors associated with feeling for the fall line, to which AimPoint employs.

It's difficult to exact the fall line using objects that are twice as wide as the circle you are trying to split ... and according to geometry, that's exactly what the fall line does.   It's very easy to be off by one degree using this approach.

As mathematically specific as AimPoint is, using your feet to identify a starting point literally accepts a surprisingly large margin of error.  To AimPoint's credit, the rest of their strategy is indeed mathematically specific, which is why it is so well received.

The elite players (professional and amateur), they want the most detail specific strategy when it comes to reading greens.  For the most part, that's what AimPoint offers, however, those same players can't ignore my strategy because they understand the difference between using their feet to find the fall line vs. using geometry.

Now, a feel player, elite or average, will prefer my approach because they have the flexibility in choosing their own speed.  That is the singular difference between the two strategies.

All the average player ever wanted was to learn how to read greens ... and that's all I ever claimed to offer.  My thirty years of studying the fall line and it's characteristics and tendencies represent a unique alternative to what's being offered today.

As for the experts of The Sand Trap, they have every right to choose one strategy over another, but pay attention next spring because those same critics will be found using my strategy to locate the fall line.

Reply if you will, but this is my last post to The Sand Trap.

[boogielicious]

I don't want to be baited into spam ... but since I've requested to have my membership to The Sand Trap discontinued, I will say this.

I never claimed to be better.  Just simpler.  Cheaper.  Easier to learn.  And, more exact in determining my starting point.  All of which fits the expectations of the average player.  The testimonials are verification of that.  There are thirty million golfers in the United States.  Less than ten percent have a single digit handicap and they are not my on my bucket list.

I don't use my feet to feel for the fall line and math doesn't lie.  This is the geometry of missing fall line -

M/R - Margin of Error

π = pie

5 ft = 60 inches

radius = 180 degrees

M/R = π (60) / 180 = 1.01 inches off-line ... for every degree you are off in choosing your fall line.  That one degree off virtually represents 1/4 of a golf hole for every five feet of fall line.  Two degrees off-line isn't a huge miscalculation, either, and that puts you all the way out to the edge of the hole.

Shoes = 4.5 inches, Feet = 2, together they = 9 inches

Golf hole = 4.5 inches

Circle = 360 degrees

These are the factors associated with feeling for the fall line, to which AimPoint employs.

It's difficult to exact the fall line using objects that are twice as wide as the circle you are trying to split ... and according to geometry, that's exactly what the fall line does.   It's very easy to be off by one degree using this approach.

As mathematically specific as AimPoint is, using your feet to identify a starting point literally accepts a surprisingly large margin of error.  To AimPoint's credit, the rest of their strategy is indeed mathematically specific, which is why it is so well received.

The elite players (professional and amateur), they want the most detail specific strategy when it comes to reading greens.  For the most part, that's what AimPoint offers, however, those same players can't ignore my strategy because they understand the difference between using their feet to find the fall line vs. using geometry.

Now, a feel player, elite or average, will prefer my approach because they have the flexibility in choosing their own speed.  That is the singular difference between the two strategies.

All the average player ever wanted was to learn how to read greens ... and that's all I ever claimed to offer.  My thirty years of studying the fall line and it's characteristics and tendencies represent a unique alternative to what's being offered today.

As for the experts of The Sand Trap, they have every right to choose one strategy over another, but pay attention next spring because those same critics will be found using my strategy to locate the fall line.

Reply if you will, but this is my last post to The Sand Trap.

Since your leaving, I won't say much other than you are incorrect and your posts are vague.  I can estimate the slope with my feet to ~0.1 - 0.2% with my feet.  Elite players, like Adam Scott, Justin Rose, Stacy Lewis, use Aimpoint.  The description of "your" method is also very confusing.  Please don't bore us with your math as many of us have advanced engineering and science degrees and certainly understand slope, margin of error, etc.

[Ernest Jones]

I don't want to be baited into spam ... but since I've requested to have my membership to The Sand Trap discontinued, I will say this.

I never claimed to be better.  Just simpler.  Cheaper.  Easier to learn.  And, more exact in determining my starting point.  All of which fits the expectations of the average player.  The testimonials are verification of that.  There are thirty million golfers in the United States.  Less than ten percent have a single digit handicap and they are not my on my bucket list.

I don't use my feet to feel for the fall line and math doesn't lie.  This is the geometry of missing fall line -

M/R - Margin of Error

π = pie

5 ft = 60 inches

radius = 180 degrees

M/R = π (60) / 180 = 1.04 inches off-line ... for every degree you are off in choosing your fall line.  That one degree off virtually represents 1/4 of a golf hole for every five feet of fall line.  Two degrees off-line isn't a huge miscalculation, either, and that puts you all the way out to the edge of the hole.

Shoes = 4.5 inches, Feet = 2, together they = 9 inches

Golf hole = 4.5 inches

Circle = 360 degrees

These are the factors associated with feeling for the fall line, to which AimPoint employs.

It's difficult to exact the fall line using objects that are twice as wide as the circle you are trying to split ... and according to geometry, that's exactly what the fall line does.   It's very easy to be off by one degree using this approach.

As mathematically specific as AimPoint is, using your feet to identify a starting point literally accepts a surprisingly large margin of error.  To AimPoint's credit, the rest of their strategy is indeed mathematically specific, which is why it is so well received.

The elite players (professional and amateur), they want the most detail specific strategy when it comes to reading greens.  For the most part, that's what AimPoint offers, however, those same players can't ignore my strategy because they understand the difference between using their feet to find the fall line vs. using geometry.

Now, a feel player, elite or average, will prefer my approach because they have the flexibility in choosing their own speed.  That is the singular difference between the two strategies.

All the average player ever wanted was to learn how to read greens ... and that's all I ever claimed to offer.  My thirty years of studying the fall line and it's characteristics and tendencies represent a unique alternative to what's being offered today.

As for the experts of The Sand Trap, they have every right to choose one strategy over another, but pay attention next spring because those same critics will be found using my strategy to locate the fall line.

Reply if you will, but this is my last post to The Sand Trap.

Hi. I'm an AimPointer.

I don't use my big fat feet to detect a "line", I use my big fat feet to detect a slope. I, like @boogielicious , am rarely off by more than .25% which is plenty accurate for the math to give me the aimpoint.

[billchao]

As for the experts of The Sand Trap, they have every right to choose one strategy over another, but pay attention next spring because those same critics will be found using my strategy to locate the fall line. Reply if you will, but this is my last post to The Sand Trap.

I'm not going to pretend I actually read the part about the math, but I did read your method and it was unclear what you meant. Not sure your method is something I'd actually want to learn more about, since you apparently can't take any criticism. In my experience, there isn't much scientific value in any claim that doesn't stand up to criticism, and it doesn't say much about your method if you're not even going to try to defend it.

[Ernest Jones]

I'd rather not be thinking about pie on the green, unless of course the cart girl is around :w00t:

[saevel25]

I'd rather not be thinking about pie on the green, unless of course the cart girl is around

Cart girls should be selling more pie!