AimPoint vs Tour Read – Green Reading Systems

[iacas]

1 hour ago, JackTheRipper said:

What you're saying is that Full Aimpoint used both up/down slope and left/right slope, and I am saying that Aimpoint Express uses only left/right slope.

 

No, you keep getting that part incorrect. You adjust for slope, if you want, by moving your fingers away or closer.

 

1 hour ago, JackTheRipper said:

It doesn't matter if you hold up fingers or not; it doesn't work because it always gives the same answer for the same left/right slope, regardless of the up/down slope.

 

Not if you adjust the distance from your eyeballs.

 

Here's the nut of it: AimPoint Express is based off AimPoint because Mark found that the 95% and much faster solution was better for golfers. They have to read the slope (there's really just one slope, but for your purposes, "both" slopes) with their feet, which is better than using their eyes, and make a determination as to where to put their fingers and how many to hold up.

 

Mark also teaches a speed class where they get into the details of how much an uphill 2% slope affects the speed, etc.

 

Tour Read measures the slope in one portion of the green. It's also a 95% solution, because again, you're not measuring to the mm every cm along the route the putt takes (like full AimPoint).

 

You keep repeating yourself, but I don't know that you're really grasping the forest here… instead inspecting the bark of one specific tree or something, to really stretch the saying…

[JackTheRipper]

re: You keep repeating yourself, but I don't know that you're really grasping the forest here… instead inspecting the bark of one specific tree or something, to really stretch the saying…

I have an Aimpoint Express protractor gizmo where you dial in the side slope that you feel with your feet, you use the appropriate dial for the green speed, and it gives you your aim.  No up/down slope, just side slope. That's how it works, and I'm following the instructions that came with it.  Every Aimpoint (Express) video that I have ever seen, and I've seen a few, uses only side slope.  Clearly you need more than side slope, and obviously Mark Sweeny is well aware of that, and some advanced Aimpoint users such as you are also aware of that, but can you please post the YouTube videos that support what you are claiming, that the intended and usual practice of Aimpoint Express uses up/down slope in addition to left/right slope, and while you're at it share with us how you are supposed to use that information to adjust your arm distance to account for both the break adjustment and green speed?

And once you do that, can you please provide the answer for the break in the simple example case I gave you, which is the simplest case that uses a constant slope over the entire green?  Aimpoint (Express) only gives you a qualitative answer, but you can convert your qualitative answer into a quantitative answer if you know how and where to sight your own fingers and how much to trombone your arm, which is what you claim to be able to do.  So what are the breaks in the test examples?

p.s.  I have no doubt that Full Aimpoint can provide an exact answer for the simple test cases, so regardless of our little quibble here about the limitations of Aimpoint Express, I'm still curious to know what Full Aimpoint says about the answers to the test cases.

Edited May 23 by JackTheRipper

[iacas]

You’re still not reading, my man

 

At this point it sounds like you should take a class. I’m not giving everything away, i’m just telling you how it actually works in practice on the golf course.

 

AimPoint does give you a quantitative answer, it is Express that doesn’t, and it turns out it’s not all that necessary. Just as with Tour Read, it’s a close approximation.

[596]

I've not read the entire thread, so please bear with the dumb question.  For the average golfer, not the tour pro or scratch golfer, are thereany studies that using these methods lowered the number of putts per round?  Even on regular greens we all play 3x week.  Not the tour manicured pool tables the pros putt on.  According to stats I've read the average putts per hole is 2.2 for average golfers.  I just can't see where getting this technical can help the average golfer.  We can't line up putts accurately, we don't read breaks accurately, we don't stroke the same every time, we don't read grain enough,  we putt on greens running 7 downhill, etc.  I just cant imagine reading a break with my fingers will change my putts per round. I may be all wrong and that's fine. 

 

 

[GoGoErky]

3 minutes ago, 596 said:

I've not read the entire thread, so please bear with the dumb question.  For the average golfer, not the tour pro or scratch golfer, are thereany studies that using these methods lowered the number of putts per round?  Even on regular greens we all play 3x week.  Not the tour manicured pool tables the pros putt on.  According to stats I've read the average putts per hole is 2.2 for average golfers.  I just can't see where getting this technical can help the average golfer.  We can't line up putts accurately, we don't read breaks accurately, we don't stroke the same every time, we don't read grain enough,  we putt on greens running 7 downhill, etc.  I just cant imagine reading a break with my fingers will change my putts per round. I may be all wrong and that's fine. 

 

 

It works for the average golfer even on muni greens.

 

tour greens have their imperfections as the rounds go on. Yes we do stroke pretty close to the same every time unless someone does something to manipulate their stroke on a particular putt.

 

My deviation on stroke was less than 1° over the course of 15 putts taking over tens course of about 20 mins.

 

golfers think their swing or strokes are inconsistent based on the result but they are quite consistent in execution of the stroke

[ChaosTheory]

1 hour ago, SNIPERBBB said:

If you don't have the level that reads percent of slope, you can't do AE. 

 

A .5 slope is a very slight lean .

I started my learning by using a digital level.  Now I use a clineometer app on my iPhone.

 

I can feel the slight lean of 0.5.  1% is an obvious lean/feel, so there is plenty of room inside of that to still be able to feel a lean. It comes with usage.

[ChaosTheory]

26 minutes ago, 596 said:

  I just can't see where getting this technical can help the average golfer.

The technical part is behind the scenes.

Walk to the middle of the putt, read the slope with your body.  

Get behind the ball, hold up the number of fingers and see your point of aim.

Putt.

You have know the up or down slope for distance control, same as any approach.

 

It definitely has helped me.  I used to average about 35 putts.  Now, 32. It’s not all due to Aimpoint, but some of it is.  Maybe half Aimpoint, and half from my LAB putter.

[ChaosTheory]

Any of you can try it with a clinometer app on your phone.

 

The one I use is called Clinometer, by plaincode.  Set it to read percentage.

 

Go to a green, find a basic 10-15 foot side hill putt.  Read the side slope in the middle of the putt with your phone.  Let’s say it’s about 2%.

Stand behind the ball, hand above the ball, hold up two fingers (for 2%). Slower greens, hold them farther from your eyes.  Fast greens, hold them a bit closer.

 

Place the low side read of your fingers against the pin.  Find an aim point along the high side of your fingers.  Hit the putt at that aim point.  Try it on various putts and report back.

 

You’ll quickly get an idea about Aimpoint.

This assumes the golfer can hit their intended line.

 

 

 

[Ty_Guy]

On 4/13/2025 at 10:42 PM, UrethaneMane said:

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!

After trying both, I prefer Tour Read. Both are incredibly similar with the exact same slope reading learning curve.

 

I am more analytical and the quick formula is very appealing to me. Both systems require the initial steps of getting a digital level and quizzing yourself to identify 2 vs. 4 degrees of slope with the in-between 1 and 3 coming after. Both feel like they give you more break than needed on <1% slope putts. Trust the system. It's usually correct.

 

The interesting part of Tour Read is teaching yourself one yard paces. That looked goofy to learn but has paid off. Also, identifying an exact measurement to the left or right of the cup will take some training. Plays best with those who use a line on the ball.

 

AimPoint (Express) plays better with "feel" putting, and is arguably more natural. If you can hone in on the awkward fingers-to-face distance in relation to the speed of the greens you are playing, it feels easy to integrate.

 

Neither have sure fire solutions for double breaking putts and uphill/downhill makes calculations less fluid than the classic look, line up, and putt green reading method. Though, both, once learned, are nearly as fast as the classic method. You surely won't hold anyone up with either choice.

Edited May 23 by Ty_Guy

[Ty_Guy]

On 4/14/2025 at 9:33 AM, TonyRo said:

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. 

 

 

This is a great point, and was an initial hurdle. Tour Read has imperfection in knowing a distance up or down from the hole to pick a spot. AimPoint has imperfection knowing how far to hold your fingers in front of your face. This is a great way to choose between the two.

 

Are you more consistent identifying measurements in the distance or in your fingers vs. face depth? Whichever you're naturally stronger at would be the path to follow.

 

I'm friends with a contractor who can tell me exactly how long some part of a construction is from a driveway length away. He'd be a Tour Read guy. Great hand eye coordination, Aimpoint! 

 

Either way, using one of these systems helped tremendously in the 8-50 foot put range. Outside of 15 paces, it gets harder to control variables. I'll use a system to read then fall back on years of seeing balls roll on greens to ultimately choose the line.

Edited May 23 by Ty_Guy

[SNIPERBBB]

47 minutes ago, ChaosTheory said:

I started my learning by using a digital level.  Now I use a clineometer app on my iPhone.

 

I can feel the slight lean of 0.5.  1% is an obvious lean/feel, so there is plenty of room inside of that to still be able to feel a lean. It comes with usage.

Not quite a fan on the thing on the phone because of the irregularities of the phone especially if you have case.

[ChaosTheory]

11 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Not quite a fan on the thing on the phone because of the irregularities of the phone especially if you have case.

 

I believe the apps can be calibrated to account for the protruding lenses.  You find a level surface such as a counter top, and calibrate.

 

In my case, the clinometer app works very well.  Even when I had the Husky level, the readings are going to vary due to surface irregularities.  This whole method is about getting close enough, not perfect.  

[596]

If I tried Aimpoint would all my putts break left to right? My right leg is an inch shorter then my left!! 😂  It's one of the reasons it's hard to get my weight to the left in the swing. It's uphill!

 

 

[TonyRo]

48 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Not quite a fan on the thing on the phone because of the irregularities of the phone especially if you have case.

FWIW, some clinometer apps have a calibration option (as does Tour Read), so you can zero out the measurements even with a case on. A bigger problem might be that the length of your phone is probably not ideal on occasion to take an overall side slope measurement on a bumpy green.

Edited May 23 by TonyRo

[TonyRo]

10 minutes ago, 596 said:

If I tried Aimpoint would all my putts break left to right? My right leg is an inch shorter then my left!! 😂  It's one of the reasons it's hard to get my weight to the left in the swing. It's uphill!

FWIW, I find I read left to right breakers better with my feet, so I do occasionally turn around to read right to lefters. 😁

[TonyRo]

1 hour ago, Ty_Guy said:

This is a great point, and was an initial hurdle. Tour Read has imperfection in knowing a distance up or down from the hole to pick a spot. AimPoint has imperfection knowing how far to hold your fingers in front of your face. This is a great way to choose between the two.

 

Are you more consistent identifying measurements in the distance or in your fingers vs. face depth? Whichever you're naturally stronger at would be the path to follow.

I haven't tested this yet, but I've always thought it would be easier to calibrate and use AimPoint if you knew both. It's quite easy to use TourRead on shorter putts because a cup is just over 4" and a ball is around 1.7", and those are easy metrics to visualize when you're 10 feet away. So find a short putt and get a good read (test it to confirm), then use that read to calibrate how far your fingers need to be from your face to match it. 

[Ty_Guy]

27 minutes ago, TonyRo said:

I haven't tested this yet, but I've always thought it would be easier to calibrate and use AimPoint if you knew both. It's quite easy to use TourRead on shorter putts because a cup is just over 4" and a ball is around 1.7", and those are easy metrics to visualize when you're 10 feet away. So find a short putt and get a good read (test it to confirm), then use that read to calibrate how far your fingers need to be from your face to match it. 

 Calibrating on a known 10 foot putt is the way to go when learning both methods and discovering speed of a new green. Your method is the best I can think of to get in the zone at a new course too.

 

I still boil the two methods down to what is more repeatable: Guessing distance left/right of a cup in inches OR maintaining constant finger depth and height distance. Both methods give equally good results. I gravitated much quicker to guessing inches outside of the cup vs. hand and fingers consistency. It is also much easier to find where you made an error in calculations when determining slope is the only "human" element.

 

Though I will concede AimPoint is a much better system when it comes to keeping up conversations with your group while lining up a putt. I've lost track of how many times I've forgotten my pace count because of a conversation I was having while walking off a putt for Tour Read. If the group is more rowdy or just more talkative, I find my self switching to AimPoint.

Edited May 23 by Ty_Guy

[JackTheRipper]

re: You’re still not reading, my man  At this point it sounds like you should take a class. I’m not giving everything away, i’m just telling you how it actually works in practice on the golf course

Ok, you feel like you have a secret that you don't want to divulge. That's fine.  Spare me the attitude that you can only learn the truth by going to the guru on the Aimpoint mountain, though, because finite element analysis is a well understood technology, and the physics has been worked out and documented.  It's not a secret.

[GoGoErky]

1 minute ago, JackTheRipper said:

 

re: You’re still not reading, my man  At this point it sounds like you should take a class. I’m not giving everything away, i’m just telling you how it actually works in practice on the golf course

Ok, you feel like you have a secret that you don't want to divulge. That's fine.  Spare me the attitude that you can only learn the truth by going to the guru on the Aimpoint mountain, though, because finite element analysis is a well understood technology, and the physics has been worked out and documented.  It's not a secret.

He’s probably as close to a SME on the subject as you’ll get on this site.

 

 

[JackTheRipper]

That may be true, and I don't doubt that he is a knowledgeable person; however, he is wrong about Aimpoint Express.  It uses only side-slope, contrary to what he said, and though that makes it intrinsically easier to use than Full Aimpoint, it also makes it inaccurate.  I think this error might be dismissed if it was shown to be small in comparison to the error in distance control, but he hasn't made that argument.

 

I don't accept the "just learn the unwritten rules about tromboning your arm" position.  I find unwritten rules that can only be evaluated after you've hit your putt very lame.  "oh, I should have tromboned my arm less/more, I guess I need to take a lesson from the guru on the mountain".  No.  If tromboning is a part of the system, then it needs to prescribe how much to trombone before you hit your putt, not after the fact.
 

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, JackTheRipper said:

That may be true, and I don't doubt that he is a knowledgeable person; however, he is wrong about Aimpoint Express.  It uses only side-slope, contrary to what he said, and though that makes it intrinsically easier to use than Full Aimpoint, it also makes it inaccurate.  I think this error might be dismissed if it was shown to be small in comparison to the error in distance control, but he hasn't made that argument.

 

I don't accept the "just learn the unwritten rules about tromboning your arm" position.  I find unwritten rules that can only be evaluated after you've hit your putt very lame.  "oh, I should have tromboned my arm less/more, I guess I need to take a lesson from the guru on the mountain".  No.  If tromboning is a part of the system, then it needs to prescribe how much to trombone before you hit your putt, not after the fact.
 

I highly doubt he’s wrong.

 

Weird that the pros use AE because it’s easier and faster. 

[iacas]

9 hours ago, TonyRo said:

FWIW, I find I read left to right breakers better with my feet, so I do occasionally turn around to read right to lefters. 😁

 

When I taught it we'd have people like you always make one foot the low foot. So for some putts you'd face the hole, for others you'd face the ball.

 

@JackTheRipper, this will be my last reply to you as I've said things a few times that you seem to ignore or just not read.

 

6 hours ago, JackTheRipper said:

Ok, you feel like you have a secret that you don't want to divulge. That's fine. 

 

No, it's not that at all. It's more a combination of two things:

• It's not my info to give/share.
• It's not a secret at all — you can take a class, talk to Mark Sweeney, or even just read what I've written.

6 hours ago, JackTheRipper said:

Spare me the attitude

 

 

6 hours ago, JackTheRipper said:

It's not a secret.

 

I never claimed it was.

 

5 hours ago, JackTheRipper said:

however, he is wrong about Aimpoint Express.  It uses only side-slope, contrary to what he said

 

No, as I've said, you can adjust the read by moving your fingers closer to or farther from your eyes. I'm not sure what you're not grasping about that, but I'm done trying after this post.

 

5 hours ago, JackTheRipper said:

it also makes it inaccurate.

 

It wasn't designed to be 100% accurate. But neither is Tour Read, or any other method that's practical to use on the golf course during a round.

 

5 hours ago, JackTheRipper said:

I think this error might be dismissed if it was shown to be small in comparison to the error in distance control, but he hasn't made that argument.

 

I haven't had to.

 

5 hours ago, JackTheRipper said:

I don't accept the "just learn the unwritten rules about tromboning your arm" position.

 

They're not unwritten.

 

5 hours ago, JackTheRipper said:

I find unwritten rules that can only be evaluated after you've hit your putt very lame.  "oh, I should have tromboned my arm less/more, I guess I need to take a lesson from the guru on the mountain".  No.  If tromboning is a part of the system, then it needs to prescribe how much to trombone before you hit your putt, not after the fact.

 

You do realize that all of this is operating within the margins of human error, right? And that it evolved from AimPoint, and the most accurate putting model developed. There's a reason for it.

 

Let's say you assume it's 2% on a 45° slope. What if it's 2.2% on a 36° slope? Or it changes over the whole length of the putt (which they almost all do). It's all an estimate, but what it is also is relatively fast and relatively easy while also greatly improving the green reading ability of everyone from Tour players to 18 handicappers.

 

Good luck, man.

[TheDeanAbides]

Oh look, another thread where hackers complain because they don't want to believe and learn from the experts. No wonder handicaps haven't dropped. Dunning-Kruger is strong in this thread. 

[JackTheRipper]

re: Let's say you assume it's 2% on a 45° slope. What if it's 2.2% on a 36° slope? Or it changes over the whole length of the putt (which they almost all do). It's all an estimate, but what it is also is relatively fast and relatively easy while also greatly improving the green reading ability of everyone from Tour players to 18 handicappers.

Agreed.  By my calculations your example would change the aim point by a little more than 8", and that assumes that your knowledge of the stimp was exact and that the slope was constant, etc.. All the variables are known only approximately.  For a 30' putt you're primarily trying to get down in 2 putts, so what you need, and all you can hope for, is an unbiased estimate.

With the help of a precomputed table and a very good estimate of where the fall line is and the angle the ball-hole line makes with respect to the fall line, you could adjust the sideslope-only aim to be as accurate as it would be if you had both the left/right slope and the up/down slope.  No mental math would be required other than the ability to visually scale the read by a given factor, e.g. about 24% more than the nominal read to account for the angles.

p.s.  but conversely, not taking the angle to the fall line into account on the downhill putt at 45 degrees, even if all the other estimates are perfect, affects the putt by about 16" for the same side-slope, almost twice as much error as in your example.  That's something that the golfer can easily recognize and correct for.

Edited May 24 by JackTheRipper

[JackTheRipper]

Full Aimpoint has some nice cards that show the expected break to the edge of the hole for a given green speed, slope%, and angle to the fall line, at multiples of 30 degrees around the hole, at distances of 5', 10', 15', and 20'.  The accuracy question can be put to rest for any app that produces aim estimates that closely approximate these published values.



 

Edited May 25 by JackTheRipper

[Brokensticks]

I took an aimpoint express clinic, nice to do it even if most parts can be found wayching multiple videos. 
 

Sank my first eagle this year the next round, about 7y putt downhill at 2% ish right to left. 
 

Obviously no system is perfect because if we nitpicking its down to the grain, newly cut or end of afternoon, how many have walked in my line, old repair marks and so on. So many variables even the perfect line can miss and most of us are not playing on a very high level course. 

Edited May 25 by Brokensticks

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, JackTheRipper said:

Full Aimpoint has some nice cards that show the expected break to the edge of the hole for a given green speed, slope%, and angle to the fall line, at multiples of 30 degrees around the hole, at distances of 5', 10', 15', and 20'.  The accuracy question can be put to rest for any app that produces aim estimates that closely approximate these published values.



 

You do know that @iacas is/was an aimpoint instructor and I’m guessing has tons of data and stats as a result 

[ChaosTheory]

20 hours ago, JackTheRipper said:

 

 

Edited May 25 by ChaosTheory

[YevKasim]

Isn't a 0.5% slope a drop of 0.12" across 2 ft?

[jds_mlb]

Is this math correct?
 

1% slope is a 1 foot change in elevation in 100 feet. 
 

So to get to 2 feet we divide the length by 50. 
12 inches divided by 50 is .24 inch. 
 

call it 1/4” drop over 2 feet for 1%. 
 

so yes, .125 or 1/8” over 2 feet. 
 

that just seems like such a small slope to try to feel.