Adam Scott aiming putts with his fingers

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Arthurd561 said:

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?

It is more accurate, yes.

To get the charts… take the class. To try to teach it to yourself is kinda foolish.

3 minutes ago, Arthurd561 said:

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?

Take the class. On the charts, you use a different chart. I won't tell you how you calibrate for Express. That's up to you to learn from an instructor.

3 minutes ago, Arthurd561 said:

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.

It's worth saving up for, yes.

[mvmac]

3 hours 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.

Whenever you run into someone that says that putts always break towards the water ask them which way does this putt breaks 

[natureboy]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

Wasn't saying directly, and used the wrong name, but Vector Putting by H.A. Templeton (1984) was well ahead of Aimpoint on the basic approach / concept. I doubt Aimpoint was developed completely independent of that trail blazing - like any good technical advancement.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Wasn't saying directly, and used the wrong name, but Vector Putting by H.A. Templeton (1984) was well ahead of Aimpoint on the basic approach / concept. I doubt Aimpoint was developed completely independent of that trail blazing - like any good technical advancement.

Templeton was off base on several important parts, and Mark Sweeney ended up devising his physics models, etc. from scratch.

Vector (the company sued by AimPoint) later tried to claim that they were using Templeton's work, but their numbers matched up with AimPoint's, not Templeton's, and they were soundly defeated at trial.

Templeton may have been ahead of his time, but he didn't get a lot right, and AimPoint didn't use it.

[JetFan1983]

My two cents... I took several Aimpoint lessons in Feb. of 2012, and then cleaned up some stuff with it over the years with various lessons in between with Erik, James Hirshfield, etc. So it's been four full years of Aimpoint for me. 

It's really fun! I dig it! You get better at it as the years go by, and I'm sure I'm faster and more efficient with it now than I used to be. I recommend trying it out, I think it can really help people out. There are so many optical illusions on a putting surface with crap looking like there's no way it can break a certain way, and then of course it does (grrr...). Aimpoint rescues you from those situations by if nothing else telling you which way a putt will break, every time. I know that sounds kind of like a given, but so many people miss the wrong way I've noticed.

 

Anyway, I recently read this wikipedia article on Gravity Hills that really justified Aimpoint's existence for me. Plus, I already read that blind golfers naturally learn to read putts with their feet too, so there are whole lot of interesting reasons why it's worth learning. 

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Templeton was off base on several important parts, and Mark Sweeney ended up devising his physics models, etc. from scratch.

Vector (the company sued by AimPoint) later tried to claim that they were using Templeton's work, but their numbers matched up with AimPoint's, not Templeton's, and they were soundly defeated at trial.

Templeton may have been ahead of his time, but he didn't get a lot right, and AimPoint didn't use it.

Does the 2nd putter owe a 'conceptual debt' to the 1st putter even if the specs aren't the same and the patent is expired? That's all I'm saying.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

Does the 2nd putter owe a 'conceptual debt' to the 1st putter even if the specs aren't the same and the patent is expired? That's all I'm saying.

You said it built off Templeton's work. It didn't.

That's all I'm saying.

[Arthurd561]

@iacas I respect that you need to protect the intellectual property of the system and would like to thank you for all of the info you do share. This site has been a great help to my game. 

[rusty35]

On 2/29/2016 at 9:06 AM, nevets88 said:

People, make your own decision on how long it takes to make an AE read:

 

I can miss straight 12 footers for triple without any help, thank you very much.

Edited March 3, 2016 by rusty35

[isukgolf]

From the "late to the discussion" ... I find using AP to be very fast ... 99% of the time I have my "aim point" before the first guy putts ...