AimPoint vs Tour Read – Green Reading Systems

[UrethaneMane]

Hey everyone,

 

I'm currently exploring different systems for reading greens and was wondering if anyone here has experience with both AimPoint and/or the Tour Read app.

 

I recently downloaded the Tour Read app and started the 14-day free trial. I’ve gone through all of their videos (about 34 in total—most are pretty short), and I tested it out on my course today. Pretty fun and I have a general of idea of how to use it. Only messed with it about and hour on the practice green so not proficient by any stretch of the word.

 

Here's my understanding so far:

 

Both systems rely on identifying slope in terms of percentage (1%, 2%, 3%, or 4%), but they diverge after that.

 

• AimPoint uses feel through your feet to determine slope. Once you’ve identified the slope, you translate it into a number of fingers to determine your aim point. I haven’t actually tried it yet—this is just from reading and watching videos.

• Tour Read, on the other hand, seems more visual and analytical. While it doesn’t discourage using your feet, the focus is on using your eyes and a formula to calculate a very specific aiming point—like 9.25 inches from the center of the hole. The formula also accounts for variables like green speed, uphill or downhill slope, and other factors that can affect the break. Some math is involved, pretty basic but still.

 

My early impressions:

 

• Tour Read feels more precise on paper since it gives you an exact number.

• AimPoint might have more room for user error since it relies on feel and finger placement.

• That said, greens are far from perfect (especially outside of PGA-level conditions), so neither system is going to be flawless.

 

My questions for anyone who’s used both:

 

1. Which system do you find faster to use during a round?

2. Which one feels more accurate over time?

3. Which one is more intuitive or robust, especially in different green conditions?

4. Any pros or cons that stood out to you after real-world use?

 

I know AimPoint has a ton of certified instructors and widespread usage, but I’m really impressed by what the Tour Read app is offering too.

 

Just trying to improve my putting and looking for a great system to do that!

 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts—thanks!

[5pike]

I haven't used either so can't really answer your query, but am interested in both and which one to try out. 

 

As you have gone through the tour read stuff can you advise once you have calculated where the aimpoint is, like in your example 9.25 inches left or right of the cup do you then have to estimate where that point is or is there a method provided for identifying the spot, like with aimpoint where you hold up the fingers which gives you a point to aim at.

[iacas]

You may not know this (it appears you don't), but the original AimPoint… was very precise and gave you a number of inches to aim relative to the hole, too. Tour Read is, IMO, a straight copy of AimPoint.

[golferdude54]

42 minutes ago, iacas said:

You may not know this (it appears you don't), but the original AimPoint… was very precise and gave you a number of inches to aim relative to the hole, too. Tour Read is, IMO, a straight copy of AimPoint.

 

Is it not possible to convert the original charts from inches to fingers and make an AimPoint Express chart?

[TonyRo]

I have used both, and would encourage you to train both and see what works better for you. There are a few details you're bungling here (totally understandable, no offense! 😁😞

 

1. Both give you an exact aim point. With AimPoint Express, it's a physical spot on the ground next to the hole in the direction opposite the break, and with TourRead, it's a distance away from the edge of the cup in inches. This is actually an important nuance - would you rather know the spot immediately or have to figure out where 15.5" off the left edge is (about 4 cups, a smidge longer or shorter than your putting grip, etc)? 

 

2. One thing that you're missing here is that regardless of method, both will give you an exact aim point and both need to be calibrated on the day. Since break depends on the speed at which the greens are rolling, you will need to roll some putts on the practice green before your round in either case to figure it out. With the tour read system, there's a 10% break modifier for speed with the default being stimp 10, and with AimPoint you will have to figure out how close or far away from your face your fingers need to be to achieve the correct aim point. 

 

With regards to your 4 questions, my opinions are below:

 

1. Speedwise, they're going to be very close if the reading of the slope is close. With AimPoint you only have to walk 2/3s of the putt, chuck up your fingers and your done. If you use the same reading method with Tour Read, you're going to be done in about the same amount of time. Tour Read is less specific about the method of reading, and he has published a variety of things - look at the break midway from the low side, using the putter as a make-shift level by standing rigid and letting it droop between your feet, etc. You can even use green books and break charts and just come up with a rough estimate that way - depends on how long that takes you. 

 

2. I am not an expert here, but I believe both are about as accurate as the other in theory, because they both operate on the same mathematical coincidence that the amount of break is (roughly, see below) linearly proportion to the percent slope. In other words, they assume a 3% slope will break exactly 3 times as much as a 1% slope. With Tour Read you literally just multiply, and in AimPoint Express...well your fingers are generally the same diameter. You will occasionally see players stack their first 3 fingers and a the other index finger to get 4% for this reason, presumably to avoid using a thinner pinky. I have never consulted the actual AimPoint charts because they're a smidge before my time (I'd like to, but don't have copies), but I have a vague recollection (after being corrected by @iacas in another thread) that this linear proportionality assumption is less true on downhill or extremely sloped putts. Both systems are just trying to get you close - I'm sure more savvy practitioners can make more advanced adjustments to get closer. I think I remember an interview where Sweeney said the AimPoint code is well over 100,000 lines. The original charts were the output of that, and the Express read is a simplification of that for speed and convenience to players. Tour Read is basically just a formulaic version of the Express read. It's all just about getting closer than you could with your eyes, on average.

 

3. They're really so close as far as systems go that I don't think I could really make a comment either way here. Again, they mostly do the same thing, and your success with both will probably be determined with how accurately you measure percent slope, and how accurately you adjust to uphill/downhill slopes and green speeds throughout the round. To me, getting the actual aimpoint with these systems is the easy part, practicing the estimation of the slope is critical. 

 

4. I slightly mentioned this before, but I think a con of the Tour Read method is that you will need a good system for converting a read that's in inches into an actual aimpoint. When putts get long, no one is out there telling you what 35" looks like. Then, you're stuck out there trying to imagine how long your 35" putter would look if you laid it down next to the hole. Now, it doesn't matter as much because you're basically never making the 60 footer or whatever, but it's an annoyance. AimPoint is a smidge irritating in my opinion in that the finger method does not work accurately when you're close to the hole. It's not a huge deal, but at least at the time of my training, there was basically a sub-routine where you just need to know where to aim on short putts based on the slope. 

 

 

 

 

[larrybud]

11 hours ago, UrethaneMane said:

Both systems rely on identifying slope in terms of percentage (1%, 2%, 3%, or 4%), but they diverge after that.

 

• AimPoint uses feel through your feet to determine slope. Once you’ve identified the slope, you translate it into a number of fingers to determine your aim point. I haven’t actually tried it yet—this is just from reading and watching videos.

 

This description is AimPoint Express. The original aimpoint had a booklet of values which give exact number of inches for a given putt. They essentially took that information and came up with a more generic way to get those values with your fingers (which is why you have to "calibrate" your fingers, for lack of a better term).

 

Unfortunately for AimPoint (the company), too many pros are doing their own version of AimPoint Express, and give it a bad name (cough HOMA, cough) thinking it's slow.

Edited April 14 by larrybud

[Wooley12]

I use the plumb bob method to locate my aiming point relative to the hole . I'd be curious if the would point to the same spot. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? 

[TonyRo]

16 minutes ago, Wooley12 said:

I use the plumb bob method to locate my aiming point relative to the hole . I'd be curious if the would point to the same spot. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? 

I can't totally tell if you're serious, but there are numerous problems with it. I don't want to derail the thread, but a huge problem is that plumb bobbing requires you to stand behind your ball, and so even if you are the best plumb bobber of all time, you're just doing a really good job of measuring the slope you're standing on, which may or may not have anything to do with the slope your ball rolls over. It doesn't account for uphill/downhill, different speeds, any environment factors like grain or wind, etc.

Edited April 14 by TonyRo

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, TonyRo said:

I can't totally tell if you're serious, but there are numerous problems with it. I don't want to derail the thread, but a huge problem is that plumb bobbing requires you to stand behind your ball, and so even if you are the best plumb bobber of all time, you're just doing a really good job of measuring the slope you're standing on, which may or may not have anything to do with the slope your ball rolls over. It doesn't account for uphill/downhill, different speeds, any environment factors like grain or wind, etc.

That’s not even true. If you stand directly behind your ball the ball and the hole will be behind your putter shaft.

[TonyRo]

26 minutes ago, iacas said:

That’s not even true. If you stand directly behind your ball the ball and the hole will be behind your putter shaft.

I didn't say directly behind the ball, I just said behind your ball, which is quite expansive! 😁 My understanding of plumb bobbing is that you're probably NOT directly behind your ball, you are going to have to be a bit further back in order to get both your ball and the hole within the length of your putter shaft. 

Edited April 14 by TonyRo

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, TonyRo said:

I didn't say directly behind the ball, I just behind your ball, which is quite expansive! 😁 My understanding of plumb bobbing is that you're probably NOT directly behind your ball, you are going to have to be a bit further back in order to get both your ball and the hole within the length of your putter shaft. 

Regardless, we agree plumb bobbing is nonsense. And OT.

[Wooley12]

It was a serious question. Been using the PB method for 40 years and a thousands of practice putts with success.  I have a great stroke and use the "Quiet Eye" method to putt.

1 hour ago, TonyRo said:

That’s not even true. If you stand directly behind your ball the ball and the hole will be behind your putter shaft.

If the shaft hides the hole it's a straight putt. IME

 

Plumb bob said 2 balls right. Better unmuted with the sound on.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CpT1_jYAh7C/

[TonyRo]

2 minutes ago, Wooley12 said:

If the shaft hides the hole it's a straight putt. IME

If that works for you that's lovely. On short putts it MAY be closer to true than not because there's less likely to be variance in slope between where you measure and what the ball travels over. But to me, plumb bobbing is like checking the climate inside your house and then walking outside and hoping it's a 70 degree day. Sometimes you're going to be right, and the other times you'll likely forget.

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, Wooley12 said:

It was a serious question. Been using the PB method for 40 years and a thousands of practice putts with success.  I have a great stroke and use the "Quiet Eye" method to putt.

If the shaft hides the hole it's a straight putt. IME

 

Plumb bob said 2 balls right. Better unmuted with the sound on.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CpT1_jYAh7C/

It’s off topic so I will be brief but plumb bobbing absolutely does not work to do anything.

 

It relies on you standing in what happens to be the right place off the straight line to get the amount of break correct.

 

It’s very simple geometry.

 

I’m glad you feel it works for you but you’ve basically just been reading the green and then standing in the right place to confirm that read.

[Wooley12]

I flunked HS Geometry so that could be it. But met my wife in the class and she "tutored" me that summer. 😁  

Carry on. I learned something here. 

[Scottbox]

I'm a big Aimpoint fan. I use this little training aid with my putter: https://slopevisiongolf.com/

 

Interestingly, the 3 alignment lines on my LAB putter correspond pretty perfectly to the "marks" you'd make on your putter. 

[Laaandry]

42 minutes ago, Scottbox said:

I'm a big Aimpoint fan. I use this little training aid with my putter: https://slopevisiongolf.com/

 

Interestingly, the 3 alignment lines on my LAB putter correspond pretty perfectly to the "marks" you'd make on your putter. 

 

This is interesting. I'm curious what the math is to figure out the distance between markings. Otherwise seems expensive for a small ruler of sorts.

[TonyRo]

1% slope literally means for every 100" you drop 1" in elevation. That means the marking width d for 1% slope is d=.01*L, where L is the length of your putter. So for a 34" length putter, the 1% mark should be .34" away from your zero mark. And surprise, 2% is just 2*d, 3% is 3*d, etc. It's likely that L should actually be shorter than your putter, since you're going to hold the grip an inch or so from the end. 

 

I actually did the trig (tangent function and such) and then realized I was making things more complex than they needed to be. 😁

[Scottbox]

34 minutes ago, Laaandry said:

 

This is interesting. I'm curious what the math is to figure out the distance between markings. Otherwise seems expensive for a small ruler of sorts.

Wasn't expensive for me 😉

[iacas]

5 hours ago, TonyRo said:

1% slope literally means for every 100" you drop 1" in elevation. That means the marking width d for 1% slope is d=.01*L, where L is the length of your putter. So for a 34" length putter, the 1% mark should be .34" away from your zero mark. And surprise, 2% is just 2*d, 3% is 3*d, etc. It's likely that L should actually be shorter than your putter, since you're going to hold the grip an inch or so from the end.

Edit: Never mind. I thought you were talking about the read itself out at the hole.

 

Edited April 15 by iacas
Misunderstood

[ChaosTheory]

17 hours ago, Scottbox said:

I'm a big Aimpoint fan. I use this little training aid with my putter: https://slopevisiongolf.com/

 

Interestingly, the 3 alignment lines on my LAB putter correspond pretty perfectly to the "marks" you'd make on your putter. 

Many putters naturally hang off plumb.  Do they tell you how to work around that?  

[otto6457]

7 hours ago, ChaosTheory said:

Many putters naturally hang off plumb.  Do they tell you how to work around that?  

I've been using Aimpoint Express since 2021 or so.  I took an original Aimpoint lesson back somewhere around 2006.  The charts were too difficult for me to use and I didn't try it for long.  

 

I was taught how to plumb bob back in the 80's by a fellow competitor.

 

I was taught to "calibrate" my putter to a pure vertical line like this.

 

1.  Find a straight corner of a plumb wall.  We used the corner of the club house. 

2. Stand 10 feet or so from the corner, exactly inline with the wall running away from you

3. Hold the putter lightly by the butt end of the grip with your thumb and forefinger, using the arm that is on the same side as your dominant eye.

4. Hold the putter up in front of your dominate eye aligning the center of the grip with the line of the corner.

5.  If the putter shaft does not hang down and perfectly trace the line of the corner wall, rotate the putter slowly until the shaft perfectly shadows the line of the corner.  (of course the shaft tapers so it's not a perfect guess anyway)

6.  Take a sharpie and make a short vertical line on the center of the shaft that is centered on your eye line.

 

Then on the course, hold the putter up with the same thumb and forefinger, making sure the line on the shaft is directly in front of your dominant eye line.  Split the hole and read the slope you see on your path to the hole.  Make as good of a guess as you can.

Presto, you're plumb bobbing.

 

It's pretty worthless geometrically, but those that believe in in will swear by it.  If it gives a player confidence, that's probably as important as picking the perfect line since it's all speed based anyway on any breaking putt.

 

For me, chanting spells at the ball while reading the putt was just as useful.  

 

 

 

Edited April 15 by otto6457
not enough wordy instructions

[TonyRo]

Again, beating an off-topic, very dead horse here, but: http://sashomackenzie.com/publications/plumbbob-paper.pdf

I suspect anyone that likes to plumb bob will not read it or believe it anyway. 😁

[Wooley12]

I kinda like your style.  I read everything about golf. Your author doesn't know how to plumb bob properly as I do it nor does he know the method I use to adjust the speed for up and down slopes.  So there's  that. 

 

Now I gotta finish to my annual ritual of putting a Form 4868 into the mail. Bye.

[UrethaneMane]

On 4/14/2025 at 6:33 AM, TonyRo said:

I have used both, and would encourage you to train both and see what works better for you. There are a few details you're bungling here (totally understandable, no offense! 😁😞

 

1. Both give you an exact aim point. With AimPoint Express, it's a physical spot on the ground next to the hole in the direction opposite the break, and with TourRead, it's a distance away from the edge of the cup in inches. This is actually an important nuance - would you rather know the spot immediately or have to figure out where 15.5" off the left edge is (about 4 cups, a smidge longer or shorter than your putting grip, etc)? 

 

2. One thing that you're missing here is that regardless of method, both will give you an exact aim point and both need to be calibrated on the day. Since break depends on the speed at which the greens are rolling, you will need to roll some putts on the practice green before your round in either case to figure it out. With the tour read system, there's a 10% break modifier for speed with the default being stimp 10, and with AimPoint you will have to figure out how close or far away from your face your fingers need to be to achieve the correct aim point. 

 

With regards to your 4 questions, my opinions are below:

 

1. Speedwise, they're going to be very close if the reading of the slope is close. With AimPoint you only have to walk 2/3s of the putt, chuck up your fingers and your done. If you use the same reading method with Tour Read, you're going to be done in about the same amount of time. Tour Read is less specific about the method of reading, and he has published a variety of things - look at the break midway from the low side, using the putter as a make-shift level by standing rigid and letting it droop between your feet, etc. You can even use green books and break charts and just come up with a rough estimate that way - depends on how long that takes you. 

 

2. I am not an expert here, but I believe both are about as accurate as the other in theory, because they both operate on the same mathematical coincidence that the amount of break is (roughly, see below) linearly proportion to the percent slope. In other words, they assume a 3% slope will break exactly 3 times as much as a 1% slope. With Tour Read you literally just multiply, and in AimPoint Express...well your fingers are generally the same diameter. You will occasionally see players stack their first 3 fingers and a the other index finger to get 4% for this reason, presumably to avoid using a thinner pinky. I have never consulted the actual AimPoint charts because they're a smidge before my time (I'd like to, but don't have copies), but I have a vague recollection (after being corrected by @iacas in another thread) that this linear proportionality assumption is less true on downhill or extremely sloped putts. Both systems are just trying to get you close - I'm sure more savvy practitioners can make more advanced adjustments to get closer. I think I remember an interview where Sweeney said the AimPoint code is well over 100,000 lines. The original charts were the output of that, and the Express read is a simplification of that for speed and convenience to players. Tour Read is basically just a formulaic version of the Express read. It's all just about getting closer than you could with your eyes, on average.

 

3. They're really so close as far as systems go that I don't think I could really make a comment either way here. Again, they mostly do the same thing, and your success with both will probably be determined with how accurately you measure percent slope, and how accurately you adjust to uphill/downhill slopes and green speeds throughout the round. To me, getting the actual aimpoint with these systems is the easy part, practicing the estimation of the slope is critical. 

 

4. I slightly mentioned this before, but I think a con of the Tour Read method is that you will need a good system for converting a read that's in inches into an actual aimpoint. When putts get long, no one is out there telling you what 35" looks like. Then, you're stuck out there trying to imagine how long your 35" putter would look if you laid it down next to the hole. Now, it doesn't matter as much because you're basically never making the 60 footer or whatever, but it's an annoyance. AimPoint is a smidge irritating in my opinion in that the finger method does not work accurately when you're close to the hole. It's not a huge deal, but at least at the time of my training, there was basically a sub-routine where you just need to know where to aim on short putts based on the slope. 

 

 

 

 

 

Good response, ya that makes sense. It's very easy for me to visualize, for example 7 inches from the center of the cup on a 9 foot put. But the further you get away like you said, a 60 foot putt, what does 8 inches even really look like. So I get for that reason it is hard to vizualize.

 

I honestly think a combo of aimpoint express / tour read would be great. tour read for shorter putts, and then aim point express for putts mid to long. Once you have the slope it doesn't seem hard to do either. 

[UrethaneMane]

Let's take the plum bobbing stuff to another thread. This isn't really relevant to what we are discussing. As TonyRo said it derailed this thread.

[jumboross]

I've tried both.  And I cannot get any 'flow' on the golf course while doing them.  It ruins my rhythm.  And then I thought, why am I doing this?  I putt well.  So now I just don't.  

[fwilliam]

I use Aimpoint Express and have compared a  modified plumb bob by hanging the putter straight down then using 1/2 finger for 1/2 cup, 1 finger for 1 cup break etc. The plumb method depends a lot on upright stance and I plumb 2-3 times given the inherent vagaries..Green speed matters a lot, ie faster greens break more, grain affects it etc etc. Given my age and astigmatism, despite trying numerous "green-reading" sunglasses , my visual reading is inaccurate, thus I need the above methods. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, fwilliam said:

The plumb method depends a lot on upright stance and I plumb 2-3 times given the inherent vagaries.

 

If you are saying that you plumb bob to find the amount of break (or even the direction of break), please, let's put an end to this and point out that plumb bobbing does neither of those things unless you happen to stand in the exact right spot NOT on the ball-hole line (unless you have a straight putt). And, as has been demonstrated with basic geometry, even if you do manage to stand perpendicular to the slope, and put the shaft in the right spot, etc. it does not account for the fact that you're only measuring the slope 10' or whatever behind the ball, not over the turf where the ball actually rolls. Plumb bobbing is a superstition.

[fwilliam]

I respectfully disagree and have my own system that works about as well as Aimpoint . I average 31-32 putts a round, green speed at my home course is 10-11, and I am happy with my results with the current system. No superstition involved, but trial and error and practice over a few years involved.