Forums

Another way to Putt

• Woodoworkery 3,498 Posts

  Wed, Nov 4 2020 12:16 PM

  The grid size constantly changes. If your formula you use is correct, just measure the grid at the hole and * the grid size by the % of the move your formula gives you. 

  That is the most accurate way to move.

  Once again if your formula is good, and your dot count is correct.

• Dex000 109 Posts

  Wed, Nov 4 2020 1:16 PM

  Yiannis1970:

  I am not quite sure that i understood your method. A video would have helped more. I repeat: The width of the grid is always 2 ft in square shape. As for the cup (larger - smaller)...haven't witnessed yet what you are saying.

  Here are a couple examples where the sizes are off. 

  Here's a standard hole where the grid is 12 half-circles from the center of the hole to the grid line. I measure them by clicking the edge of the circle, each being one. So a putt requiring a 25% break would be 3 half-circles from the center of the hole. 6 half-circles would put the opposite grid line in the middle of the hole, or 50%, etc...

  Standard:

  https://streamable.com/vvysbi

  And here's a hole where the grid is smaller. 6 half-circles does not equal 50% of the grid like it did with the standard hole, and 12 half-circles is goes beyond the edge of the grid. 

  Small:

  https://streamable.com/n3f3yu

  There are also times where the hole is about 1/8th larger than the circle, so when I measure out 50% or 6 half-circles from the center of the hole, the opposite grid line doesn't reach the edge of the hole, and at 100% or 12 half-circles, I'm still short of the edge of the grid. 

   

• Dex000 109 Posts

  Wed, Nov 4 2020 1:24 PM

  Woodoworkery:

   just measure the grid at the hole and * the grid size by the % of the move your formula gives you. 

  That makes sense. TY, I'll try it and report back. 

• Yiannis1970 3,305 Posts

  Wed, Nov 4 2020 1:29 PM

  Uploading pics, put photos in photoshop to measure pixels, calculating and giving exact numbers....for what? I leave you to your world. I am out of here...

• Yiannis1970 3,305 Posts

  Wed, Nov 4 2020 2:22 PM

  I 'll give it a last try...who knows.

   

  Well....the grid width changes only because of the angle. If this happens, hole width will change accordingly and will follow. The constant and the factor will remain the same.

   

  7 cups in the grid, which is in every case ~2,5 ft.

   

  wSVZbqq

   

  LNGxbwp

   

  In this case, our hole width is 27 pixels (previously 35 pixels) and our grid width 163,3 pixels (previously 207 pixels).

   

  27 x 7 - 13,5 - 13,5 = 162

   

  Tadaaaaaaaa...again 7 cups. There will be always 7 cups either if the grid size is 200 or 250 pixels. It's gonna be the same if the cup is 25 or 35 pixels.

• Dex000 109 Posts

  Wed, Nov 4 2020 3:58 PM

  Yiannis1970:

  Tadaaaaaaaa...again 7 cups. There will be always 7 cups either if the grid size is 200 or 250 pixels. It's gonna be the same if the cup is 25 or 35 pixels.

  That's strange since there are clearly only 6.5 cups in this grid.

  n3f3yu

  While there are 7 in this one:

  vvysbi

• Yiannis1970 3,305 Posts

  Wed, Nov 4 2020 6:16 PM

  On both occasions there are 7 holes...

   

   

  sK5fGCT

   

  ydRsNsy

• Dex000 109 Posts

  Wed, Nov 4 2020 8:12 PM

  Weird. Why then on one of those videos did it take 11 half circles to go from the middle of the hole to the edge of the grid, and on the other, it took 12.5? Shouldn't they both be the same?

  I get that the pixels are the same and the 7 holes and everything you're saying, but when you use the half circles to figure out where to aim, and it's a different distance from the hole to the grid line between different holes, it's hard to be consistent. There has to be a reason for this discrepancy and a way to compensate, right? Is it better to figure out the percentage and do it that way? That seems even more inaccurate. 

• Yiannis1970 3,305 Posts

  Thu, Nov 5 2020 8:59 AM

  The movement of the cursor (in half circles as you say) is not accurate, that's why you have this discrepancy. There's no way to compensate that. You only have to remember that the factor between grid and cup (in size terms) always remain constant. An analogy of what you are experience is the back spin. Try on the launcher to use the arrows in order to set your back spin...(everytime you get different percentages, check afterwards the stroke.). Same thing was happening on the flash when you were playing on different window sizes (you were getting completely different results...a pixel in fullscreen mode was 7%, a pixel in half sized window was 3%).

• Dex000 109 Posts

  Thu, Nov 5 2020 11:13 AM

  Yiannis1970:

  You only have to remember that the factor between grid and cup (in size terms) always remain constant.

   

  Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and I can see what you're saying, so thank you. I'm just trying to figure out how to use it to help aim, and I'll admit that I'm not the best at math, so let me go over how I'm seeing what you're saying...

  The different size grids (207, or 163) also = a different size hole, but no matter what size (or camera angle) we get, the constant is that there are always 7 cups. Correct?

  One question... for aiming simplicity, wouldn't it be easier to use 6 since technically there are 6 full cups from one end of the grid to the other. Before your head explodes, let me explain... You say 7, but then you subtract a full cup (17.5 - 17.5) to make your math work, since the two cups on the edge of the grid in your example are split in half. Why not, from an aiming standpoint, just count from the center of the cup to the grid line and make it six and remove the step of having to subtract the two halves that go over the grid lines?

  Hole = 35 pixels. Grid = 207 pixels. 35 * 6 = 210 pixels. Six cups. I don't see the reason for counting it as seven holes when you subtract one of them at the end. 

  But whatever... I'm more interested in what you said about aiming by using half circles not being accurate. How do you aim? If we remove all formulas that get us to our aim point and assume our final aim number is correct, it seems like anything other than counting the exact pixels isn't going to be accurate. 

  I'm not expecting to find a perfect technique and never two putt again. There are always mistakes, maybe a wrong dot count, etc, but I'd like to find a solid way to aim so that if the putts don't go in, it would be my mistake and not the wrong math or aiming method. 

  Any pointers, or is this a lost cause?

  Right now, I primarily use JC sneed, but I have a couple different techniques that I use at the same time, mostly to confirm what I think a putt is going to do.