AimPoint and Jim Nantz

[MtlJeff]

41 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

I never brag.  I suck compared to professionals. I  simply stated that putting is a good means to finding consistency.  

 

All golfers want more consistency. 

 

Re: using data 

Are you kidding?  The average golfer doesn't understand the handicap system.  

 

I would be willing to bet fewer than 4 in 100 amateur golfers use any sort of comprehensive data for game improvement.   

 

The typical golfer buys a bigger driver, drinks more beer, or cheats.

 

 

 

 

I do 2 of these 3 things and i am not telling you which 2

[Jim53]

1 hour ago, SummerlinGlfr said:

 

But Keegan is clearly one oar short in a two oar boat.

[jimecherry]

2 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

Irrelevant. There’s still data that can be gathered from one’s swing/game to be used regardless of skill level

i disagree how can data show you how to strike the ball better?

[GoGoErky]

3 hours ago, jimecherry said:

i disagree how can data show you how to strike the ball better?

They still hit the ball and have distances they hit it. Theres data about short game and what’s working not working for them. Theres data about how accurate they are.

 

Everyone has data about their game whether its good contact or not. 
 

If they struggle with mid long irons they can replace it with a hybrid or get better off the tee and don’t have to use the mid/long iron.

 

[jimecherry]

2 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

They still hit the ball and have distances they hit it. Theres data about short game and what’s working not working for them. Theres data about how accurate they are.

 

Everyone has data about their game whether its good contact or not. 
 

If they struggle with mid long irons they can replace it with a hybrid or get better off the tee and don’t have to use the mid/long iron.

 

If your struggling hitting the ball first your distance data is inconsistent. And if you're struggling hitting the ball towards your target it doesn't matter what your avg carry distance is. 

[GoGoErky]

5 hours ago, jimecherry said:

If you’re struggling hitting the ball first your distance data is inconsistent. And if you're struggling hitting the ball towards your target it doesn't matter what your avg carry distance is. 

Sure it does. It goes to club selection. There’s also dispersion patterns which all golfers have no matter how much you want it at the against far for a high handicap. They can use the same data as everyone else in their decision making.

 

Anyways back to the topic is a non story and Jim nance is still a clown.

#lowqualitythread

Edited October 15, 2024 by GoGoErky

[woodriff]

Plumb Bob the darn thing.  It’s old and it works. 

[Duct Tape]

6 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

 

 

Anyways back to the topic is a non story…..

#lowqualitythread

Maybe in your esteemed opinion, but not necessarily shared by others here. It’s a discussion dude, not a mandate. 
 

 

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, Duct Tape said:

Maybe in your esteemed opinion, but not necessarily shared by others here. It’s a discussion dude, not a mandate. 
 

 

Yep and my opinion was stated about both. There was no mandate just my opinion and it still stands dude

[RainShadow]

On 10/14/2024 at 5:57 AM, TonyRo said:

I haven't seen a lot of people that make compelling cases AGAINST why AimPoint sucks, only slightly more verbose versions of "I don't like it, therefore, it should be illegal." If everything some portion of the golf population didn't like was banned, we'd be left with zero golf courses and only Tony Finau. 

The one that always comes up is pace of play, but AimPoint should be a relatively quick process, and for every slow AimPointer, you can find another pro that's not using it that insists on looking at putts from all 4 angles and also takes forever. I am constantly shocked when I watch old Masters tournaments how long everyone lets Tiger walk around the green and visualize putts. But I digress - as far as I'm concerned, the solution there is to just start calling pros on pace of play period, AimPoint or not. 

Pros don't care if you like it or not, they're out there to win, and if it helps their putting, they're going to do it. FWIW, I am AimPoint trained, but during casual rounds don't really care enough to use it. I prefer the TourRead method a bit more anyway.

 Because it takes too damn long, and the mostly miss the putts anyway. You can feel the slope with your feet with out straddling the line.

 Most am's that use it are wasting time, contibuting to slow play.

 I play wit a guy who's a 4 cap, went to Aimpoint academy or whatever the 2 day class is called. He ain't making more putts, and he's probably bought more putters in the past 3 years than I have in the past 10, and that's saying something.

 

Edited October 15, 2024 by RainShadow

[RealNickG]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:58 AM, Ferguson said:

I oppose it for multiple reasons.  However, there has to someone here who supports this process.  

 

Please show yourself and tell us why it works, how you have improved and why we all should do it.

 

 

 

I'll bite. Took my putting average from 31-32 to 28-29/round. For me, this is the difference between struggling to make cuts and being on the 1st page. It works, period. Your eyes will deceive you, but the slope reveals itself in your feet. It takes me less time to use AP than to read a putt from multiple angle and I'm making more putts which also saves time.

 

I'd argue that not keeping the ball in play and having to look for balls in precarious places takes up more overall time during a round for the average golfer 4-some than the amount of time a player would spend using AP verses traditional green-reading.

 

I'm nearly certain that those arguing against have never tried AP before so this will be a very one sided attack. You simply don't like the way it looks? OK, that's fine, but don't yuck my yum. 

[Archimedes65]

3 hours ago, RealNickG said:

I'll bite. Took my putting average from 31-32 to 28-29/round. For me, this is the difference between struggling to make cuts and being on the 1st page. It works, period. Your eyes will deceive you, but the slope reveals itself in your feet. It takes me less time to use AP than to read a putt from multiple angle and I'm making more putts which also saves time.

 

 

100%.  I don’t use the aim point line selection, but I use my feet and they’re way more reliable than my eyes alone. And I’m the fastest player at my club.  The process isn’t slow.  Slow people are slow, and would be regardless of what green reading technique they use.

 

I do play fairly often with one guy who is full aim point, takes his time with the feet, eyes the line with his fingers, the entire process, etc., and he’s no slower than anyone else that I play with.

 

The reason this is being picked on is simply because it’s different and the old guard doesn’t like change.  You’ll notice most of the pundits complaining are old dudes.  They see a slow player doing it, admittedly it looks a little goofy, and they criticize, while glossing over all the other glacial pros using other techniques.  Much ado about nothing.

 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Archimedes65

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, RealNickG said:

I'll bite. Took my putting average from 31-32 to 28-29/round. For me, this is the difference between struggling to make cuts and being on the 1st page. It works, period. Your eyes will deceive you, but the slope reveals itself in your feet. It takes me less time to use AP than to read a putt from multiple angle and I'm making more putts which also saves time.

 

I'd argue that not keeping the ball in play and having to look for balls in precarious places takes up more overall time during a round for the average golfer 4-some than the amount of time a player would spend using AP verses traditional green-reading.

 

I'm nearly certain that those arguing against have never tried AP before so this will be a very one sided attack. You simply don't like the way it looks? OK, that's fine, but don't yuck my yum. 

Keeping balls in play and getting them closer to the hole improves proximity winch helps putting which means lower scores from being longer. 
 

[caniac6]

As long as a player can use AP in a timely manner, I don’t care. I don’t know how to do it. I’m not sure if I’m smart enough to figure it out. Sometimes too much information confuses me. I just read putts from the ball side, and feel the slope in my feet at address.

[TonyRo]

4 hours ago, RainShadow said:

Because it takes too damn long, and the mostly miss the putts anyway.

Everyone knows the stats - all the pros miss more than you think. There are some pretty remarkable stories about those that switched to AimPoint. And let's be honest, those people using it probably wouldn't if they felt like they didn't have to. 

 

Try it yourself - walk along a line, feel the slope twice, walk back to the ball, and hold your fingers up. That's all there is to it. I just tested it on a 20 feet span in my living room, and it took me roughly 20 seconds. Anyone who takes longer than that will take a long time putting regardless, sorry to break it to you. AimPoint isn't slow - slow putters are slow.

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

On 10/14/2024 at 1:54 PM, johnseg said:

I kind of have to disagree. I play with a guy that is a 27 from time to time. He three and four putts multiple times per round. If he could lag putt he could easily shave 10-15 strokes. does his full swing need work and consistency, absolutely. He can be on most greens in three shots so eliminating his 6's and 7's could get him to 90 fairly quickly.

There's a minimum level of competency in the short game to avoid what you describe.  Thankfully, it's a pretty low bar to get over.  Vs approaching under 50/50 2-putt range from >200 yards.  

 

But most anybody, once they learn the basics, can get to that level.  We're not going to be @Obeewith the flatstick, but we don't need to be to reach average.

 

Edit, for those Aimpointing:  doesn't it involve a lot of walking around on the green?  I guess I'm unsure of the etiquette towards the course---I think I can stay off my foursome's lines---and overcompensating about not unduly walking around the green.  If it doesn't, then great!

Edited October 16, 2024 by Jayjay_theweim_guy

[Ferguson]

14 hours ago, RealNickG said:

I'll bite. Took my putting average from 31-32 to 28-29/round. For me, this is the difference between struggling to make cuts and being on the 1st page. It works, period. Your eyes will deceive you, but the slope reveals itself in your feet. It takes me less time to use AP than to read a putt from multiple angle and I'm making more putts which also saves time.

 

I'd argue that not keeping the ball in play and having to look for balls in precarious places takes up more overall time during a round for the average golfer 4-some than the amount of time a player would spend using AP verses traditional green-reading.

 

I'm nearly certain that those arguing against have never tried AP before so this will be a very one sided attack. You simply don't like the way it looks? OK, that's fine, but don't yuck my yum. 

 

Fair enough. 

 

 

[iBanesto]

USGA and the R&A has approved the usage of Aimpoint?

 

Probably the only way to stop Scheffler.

 

Edited October 18, 2024 by iBanesto

[Socrates]

I really don't see anything different in aimpoint as far as judging the slope you feel or see (for what ever method you use).  What I do see is a more precise aiming scheme.  By using 1, 2 or 3 fingers, you are likely more clearly defining an aiming point rather than randomly picking a point outside the hole.  It's still a guess, but more refined.  The better the guess, the better the results.  I might guess outside the hole by this much, but if I used 1 finger I might be more precise at 2" and that might be the difference between a make or a miss.

[Duct Tape]

Received a warning for my post here. I apologize for my language to most here. 

[vandyfan]

No disrespect to Mr. Nantz but isn't he like an 11 hdcp? 

[Ferguson]

Perhaps AP gives a player extra time to read the green using a repeatable process.  

 

You hear it all the time to use a process, use a process, use a process.    

 

For that reason and that reason only, Ferg sees why a player would use it. 

[Socrates]

57 minutes ago, vandyfan said:

No disrespect to Mr. Nantz but isn't he like an 11 hdcp? 

Didn't used to be.  Collegiate golf team when young (roomed with Freddie Couples, I think).  He knows his stuff.

 

[vandyfan]

6 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Didn't used to be.  Collegiate golf team when young (roomed with Freddie Couples, I think).  He knows his stuff.

 

That's why I figured he would be better. Seems to have all the golf access you could possibly dream of and has played his entire life? Major injury we don't know about? Maybe aimpoint would help him?

[Duct Tape]

20 minutes ago, vandyfan said:

 

That's why I figured he would be better. Seems to have all the golf access you could possibly dream of and has played his entire life? Major injury we don't know about? Maybe aimpoint would help him?

Just a side note to say congrats on win over Bama.  I was there in med school when they won in Tuscaloosa in 84. 

[Archimedes65]

1 hour ago, vandyfan said:

No disrespect to Mr. Nantz but isn't he like an 11 hdcp? 

 

More relevant statistic is that he’s 65.  I love Jim Nantz, but I think there is a point that old commentators really just need to shut up when it comes to commenting on new developments in the game.  The modern game and player is so far removed from the game those guys played, it might as well be a different sport.  And most of them seem to have anywhere from a tinge to a tidal wave of bitter axe to grind in everything they say about change.  This is just another reason why I think golf coverage needs to phase out all of the old guard and bring in younger commentators.  And I’m an old guy. 

[Roejye]

I'm not aimpoint certified or anything but I'll often use it, minus the finger part. It's probably not much different than walking and feeling the slope. I feel like doing it while straddling the line gives me a better read of the putt/verification of what my eyes tell me.

 

It's a fairly quick process for me. I usually have an idea of a line as I'm approaching the green/putt, I go ⅓ of the way, check, ⅔ check, turn around check again at ⅓ of the way then setup, and that's for longish putts. Medium putts I'll do one check, and short ones I probably won't do it at all. Now it helps that I play at least 95% of my golf at my home course with small greens that I know pretty well, and I rarely use the line on the ball. 

[PedronNiall]

Aimpoint is the same as NBA & Soccer/Futbol players taking flops. Yep, it surely improves the outcome for those employing it and is legal, but it's obvious to anyone looking on from the outside that it takes away from the spirit of the game.

 

On top of that, humans are gonna human and certain things are going to look silly to our eyes. Aimpoint will forever be one of those things. I'm sure that even its most ardent adherents thought "WTF?" the first time they saw it. 

 

[Archimedes65]

2 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

Aimpoint is the same as NBA & Soccer/Futbol players taking flops. Yep, it surely improves the outcome for those employing it and is legal, but it's obvious to anyone looking on from the outside that it takes away from the spirit of the game.

 

 

 

Not in the ‘spirit of the game’?  What?! 😂

 

What about it is not in the ‘spirit of the game’ and how is plumb bobbing and/or using a line on the golf ball any different?  Are aim lines on balls in the ‘spirit of the game’ even though they’ve only been around since 2007?  Or was Old Tom marking his featherie with a pen back in 1850?

[Archimedes65]

On 10/14/2024 at 1:16 PM, Ferguson said:

 

The typical golfer buys a bigger driver, drinks more beer, and cheats.

 

 

FTFY.