Adam Scott aiming putts with his fingers

[SavvySwede]

26 minutes ago, Dan42nepa said:

If you played golf for any extended period of time (10 20 50) years doesnt your brain already know the break? I mean alot depends on pace also correct? I like to die my putts into the hole as oposed to others who prefer to put 17 inches beyond the cup. You must have seen so many combinations of breaks that subconsciously you already can read the putt. The only difference is, and I use this myself is on unfamiliar greens where you are not sure of the break, i will use my feet. 

A green's slopes will change over time.

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, Dan42nepa said:

If you played golf for any extended period of time (10 20 50) years doesnt your brain already know the break?

No.

Plus, even if that was true, why should you have to play 50 years (or 20) before you can read greens?

31 minutes ago, Dan42nepa said:

I mean alot depends on pace also correct?

There's still a very very very small window at which you can make a putt.

[billchao]

9 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I can now remind myself that anytime I'm a little unsure like that, I should always go with the higher read.  So in my example, I should aim 5, and even if I was right about it being 3, I might STILL make it, whereas, if I go low, there is no chance.

They teach this in Express. When in doubt, go with the higher read. Never had it demonstrated like that video though, that was pretty cool to see.

[natureboy]

12 hours ago, rogolf said:

Two things to note about it:

1.  it's slow

2.  you are not permitted to stand on your line of putt, which includes a reasonable distance on each side of the precise line you wish the ball to take.  "Reasonable" is not defined so one could expect some discussion.

Slower than walk up and hit it, sure. How many serious golfers do that? Any method of studying the break is slower than that. I've seen people do the express read on the PGA faster than some guys who plumb bob or stalk their line a couple of times. Any method can be slow if you take more than your alloted time to hit the shot. Personally, I applaud the Aim Point folks for innovating some genuinely useful / helpful golf instruction (or at least smartly building off Vector Golf).

Edited March 1, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Slower than walk up and hit it, sure. How many serious golfers do that? Any method of studying the break is slower than that. I've seen people do the express read on the PGA faster than some guys who plumb bob or stalk their line a couple of times. Any method can be slow if you take more than your alloted time to hit the shot. Personally, I applaud the Aim Point folks for innovating some genuinely useful / helpful golf instruction (or at least smartly building off Vector Golf).

Agree with most everything there, except to point out that AimPoint was not built off Vector Golf. And the new "Vector Golf" lost massively after being sued by Mark Sweeney.

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, billchao said:

They teach this in Express. When in doubt, go with the higher read. Never had it demonstrated like that video though, that was pretty cool to see.

Yeah it was.  Very enlightening.

[gatsby47]

I'm pretty sure that the number of years playing golf will not assist you in becoming a better reader.  Some guys I play with have been functionally illiterate their whole golfing careers.  But if you learn a method and it gets you close to the hole, you will be a better player than most.  I still think getting it to the hole, never shorting oneself is the most effective way. Dave Stockton method.

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, gatsby47 said:

I'm pretty sure that the number of years playing golf will not assist you in becoming a better reader.  Some guys I play with have been functionally illiterate their whole golfing careers.  But if you learn a method and it gets you close to the hole, you will be a better player than most.  I still think getting it to the hole, never shorting oneself is the most effective way. Dave Stockton method.

Dave Stockton method and AimPoint are very compatible. AimPoint only does the read part. I use both. What makes the DS fast is no practice stroke at setup. What makes AimPoint fast is you only really have to read the putt in one spot. You don't have to walk around the other side, plumb bob, check to where Ray's creek is or the mountains, examine the grain, find where west is etc., you know, all the voodoo methods. I usually do my read when I get to the green before anyone is ready to putt.

I rarely ever squat down behind the ball. Partly because my knees hurt, but also because I can see my line from further behind the ball. As long as I don't get in the way of others putting, I can stare at my line while others putt. Then I walk up, aim my putter, find a spot an inch or two in front of the ball and roll the putt over that. DS method with AimPoint.

[Gunther]

How does Aimpoint handle those putts that seemingly break uphill, like maybe there's water in that direction or the grain takes it that way or there's a mountain in the other direction?  Does Aimpoint takes the overall landscape into consideration or is it strictly relegated to the putting surface?  

[jamo]

4 minutes ago, Gunther said:

How does Aimpoint handle those putts that seemingly break uphill, like maybe there's water in that direction or the grain takes it that way or there's a mountain in the other direction?  Does Aimpoint takes the overall landscape into consideration or is it strictly relegated to the putting surface?  

Aimpoint only considers break that's actually real. Putts do not break uphill, no matter the landscape. And because you're reading with your feet, you don't have to worry that your eyes are deceiving you.

[nevets88]

It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of reads by a player who knows nothing of Aimpoint versus someone who does. Because I'm betting there will be more consistency w/the Aimpoint putter in terms of getting the same read. The same putt that an Aimpointer comes back to 6 weeks later will result in the same read because there's more structure to the reading process whereas someone who is depending on experience, memory, is more likely to come up with different reads. If your reads are inconsistent for the same putt, doesn't that make you a less inconsistent reader of greens? As we get older, our memory degrades, I don't remember how that putt broke from there last time I was in that golf course in that state during that month.

[Gunther]

6 minutes ago, jamo said:

Aimpoint only considers break that's actually real. Putts do not break uphill, no matter the landscape. And because you're reading with your feet, you don't have to worry that your eyes are deceiving you.

Mmm, guess I'd need to look into it more because external factors like those I mention absolutely affect break.  I get that if there is a mountain a mile away to the left which will move the putt right, that could be evident using Aimpoint even if it isn't obvious.  But I'm not sure I could pick up grain using my feet and playing munis in DFW as I do, reading grain is a huge component in effective putting.  Thanks for the response.

[boogielicious]

37 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Mmm, guess I'd need to look into it more because external factors like those I mention absolutely affect break.  I get that if there is a mountain a mile away to the left which will move the putt right, that could be evident using Aimpoint even if it isn't obvious.  But I'm not sure I could pick up grain using my feet and playing munis in DFW as I do, reading grain is a huge component in effective putting.  Thanks for the response.

Grain doesn't affect break in putts as much as you think. Mark Sweeney proved this as have others. The link below is only one of many to discuss this.

http://www.mygolfspy.com/top-10-green-reading-myths-exposed/

Quote

5. Grain
Grain refers to the direction of the growing grass. The “grain read” takes into account the direction the ball will go as it interacts with the turf. The assumption is that grain always grows in the direction of the setting sun.
Those who rely heavily on grain for reads are thinking that the direction of the grass impacts putt direction more than gravity. Top agronomists agree that for the most part grass grows with direction of slope, not with the setting sun. So when putting on surfaces, yes grain will affect speed, but not direction. If you putt at the wrong speed, that can impact the break the ball takes, but the reality is you got the pace wrong.

Up grain, or down grain really is another way to say up hill or down hill. It’s gravity, not grass.

And putts only break downhill. They don't care about the mountain or the creek. The slope on that green for that putt is all that matters.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

Mmm, guess I'd need to look into it more because external factors like those I mention absolutely affect break.

They do not. Grain barely affects break at all (and 99% of the grain grows downhill). What grain can affect is speed - an uphill putt will feel like it's on a stimp 9 green while a downhill putt may feel like it's stimp 11 on an overall stimp 10 green - but it barely affects break at all. Mark Sweeney's computer simulations work incredibly well even on the grainiest greens the PGA Tour plays.

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

I get that if there is a mountain a mile away to the left which will move the putt right, that could be evident using Aimpoint even if it isn't obvious.  But I'm not sure I could pick up grain using my feet and playing munis in DFW as I do, reading grain is a huge component in effective putting.  Thanks for the response.

Grain is not an important thing to consider.

And a mountain a mile away or ten feet away is irrelevant.

We play a mountain course that's on a ski resort in a pro-am every year. The greens there generally slope the OPPOSITE direction of the mountain because the course saves money draining all of the water into the little valleys between the side of the mountain and the way the greens slope. Plus, it's deceiving to people who don't know any better and just look at the mountain as if it has some mysterious magical effect.

[Zeph]

Let's not forget the impact Lake Merced has on the greens. I always have to compensate for that damn lake when I putt.

[No Mulligans]

I've heard so many times at Torrey Pines that "Putts break towards the ocean" as though you have to compensate your read accordingly.  Seems like voodoo hogwash to me.

[iacas]

50 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I've heard so many times at Torrey Pines that "Putts break towards the ocean" as though you have to compensate your read accordingly.  Seems like voodoo hogwash to me.

Pretty much.

Consider #11 at Augusta National. Not even THAT green breaks towards Rae's Creek. It mostly breaks toward the pond to the left, not Rae's Creek behind.

[Arthurd561]

First I would like to say that the "Play putts higher" video is completely eye opening and a must watch for any golfer so thank you @iacas for posting that. I have been doing alot of research on the Aimpoint method and I am very intrigued by its methodology. I like the process behind the original Aimpoint method that seems to take into account more variables and has the opportunity to be more accurate. (in my opinion)  I had a few questions that maybe someone could shed some light on. 

Is there a place to get the charts without taking the course?

How is green speed accounted for? In Aimpoint Express is the distance you stand behind the ball when aiming with your fingers determined by the speed of the green?  

I would love to take a class or even just the dvd but unfortunately do not have the funds necessary to do either. This method however seems to be the best out there in terms of quantifying exactly what a putt will do. Thanks for all of the info.