Does anyone know the way Adam Scott Reads greens?

[Shilgy]

Gotta love guys who haven't been taught something or tried it and believe it's ridiculous. "I don't know anything about it but I'm certainly able to criticize its validity!" Lol

 

Is Aimpoint the be all, end all putting solution? No, but it truly does help.

 

Your eyes don't always see the break but your feet don't lie.

 

Those who are skeptical should take the course. It's another tool in the box to use at your disposal.

 

Oh, dear. That first part isn't very insightful.

 

All a person need do to see validity is look at how many of the most accomplished golfer/putters actually use the approach, and as yet there is not much prevalence among those who statistically appear at the top in the putting stats. You may see more buy-in from folks here once someone uses it to run the tables, but right now AimPoint (from what I see) can only be characterized as being a stop-gap measure to bring mediocre putters who can't see the line into the range of "average."

With you Mad. As to the "feet don't lie" comment on the previous post. Where do you stand? If a player has a 30 footer with varying degrees of break your feet will lie. Or at least tell you the amount of tilt only on the exact section of green where you are standing. The same as plumb bobbing. If an AE user can dispute that or explain that I am all ears.

[MadGolfer76]

Gotta love guys who haven't been taught something or tried it and believe it's ridiculous. "I don't know anything about it but I'm certainly able to criticize its validity!" Lol

 

Is Aimpoint the be all, end all putting solution? No, but it truly does help.

 

Your eyes don't always see the break but your feet don't lie.

 

Those who are skeptical should take the course. It's another tool in the box to use at your disposal.

 

Oh, dear. That first part isn't very insightful.

 

All a person need do to see validity is look at how many of the most accomplished golfer/putters actually use the approach, and as yet there is not much prevalence among those who statistically appear at the top in the putting stats. You may see more buy-in from folks here once someone uses it to run the tables, but right now AimPoint (from what I see) can only be characterized as being a stop-gap measure to bring mediocre putters who can't see the line into the range of "average."

With you Mad. As to the "feet don't lie" comment on the previous post. Where do you stand? If a player has a 30 footer with varying degrees of break your feet will lie. Or at least tell you the amount of tilt only on the exact section of green where you are standing. The same as plumb bobbing. If an AE user can dispute that or explain that I am all ears.

 

I've heard a criticism from Aimpoint users about the need to walk behind the hole to see the break. But (traditionally speaking) part of the reason people are walking behind the cup is to..."feel the break with the feet," which is something Aimpoint appears to tout as being a unique feature of the approach. As to your example, while I know that Aimpoint addresses the speed of greens, I think the approach implies an undue emphasis on line at the expense of speed, and I could see users having to get a different read for each piece of a multiple break putt. If that works for them, so be it, but I don't need to spend that amount of time analyzing things to get my putt into proximity of the cup.

 

Really, I think this approach is fine for people who lack imagination (can't "see" the line) and have to be hand-led on the greens, but I'm not one of those folks. I really think it is interesting that the approach comes at a time when the collective educational realm is shifting to a "tell me because I can't figure it out for myself" kind of instructional model. It's really rather disheartening, when you think about it.