|
|
Post by pavaveda on Dec 28, 2011 9:59:54 GMT -5
Ugh. I used to have some respect for John Graham until this morning when I read his review of Vector Putting. I'll get right to the point and explain that he eventually trashes the green reading methods inside it for two reasons: 1) One sentence regarding the method of calculation that Templeton chose and 2) A Dr. Grober paper. What makes me say "ugh" is that it's a not so subtle pimp for Aimpoint and a not so subtle attack against Geoff Mangum.
JG doesn't stop to think about the other side of the equation: The book was published in 1984. Surely computing power and methods have improved since then? Surely, video capture has improved since then? Is it not enough to praise Mr. Templeton for having the gumption to do all of this research and print a book about it 30 years ago with what are now archaic methods? We have to throw him under the bus because we're so much more advanced than he was then? Doesn't the guy deserve at least a little bit of credit? Does Mark Sweeney poo-poo Mr. Templeton as well? As far as I can tell Aimpoint exists because of small tweaks to Templeton's Vector Putting (not to mention the added advantage of 30 years of research time and technological advancement.) (Flame away.)
Back to JG: I thought John Graham was "above" all of this in-fighting, but this article shows he can't help wrestling with the pigs. Why not say, "Read this book, then read Dr. Grober's paper if you want to understand more about putting." And leave it at that? Even then he could throw in a plug for Aimpoint: "I think, after you read this material, you'll have a better understanding of why Aimpoint is such an excellent and easier-to-use system that helps you Make Everything.(TM)"
Golf instructors: Where's the class?
|
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Dec 28, 2011 10:57:05 GMT -5
I just read the blog post by John. johngrahamgolf.com/blog/vector-putting-review/My feeling is that John was writing the post to his audience, which I believe mostly consists of AimPoint students or people interested in AimPoint...when it comes to green reading and putting topics. I think most of the readers understand his bias towards AimPoint and the fact that he has AimPoint clearly advertisied on his Web site and blog and that he's an AimPoint instructor. To me, this is better than somebody who doesn't make it clear and then goes under the guise of giving a completely unbiased review, only to pimp something they have a relationship with. I've seen some instructors do that and it annoys me, but I then start to look at them as less credible. In the 'legit' sports media, I often see this with reporters/writers who go out of their way to protect a player because...that player is their inside source. Peter King of CNN/SI did this for years with Brett Favre. Had he been a little more forthcoming, his credibility with me would be greater. With that, I think John's readers were expecting his thoughts and how it relates to AimPoint. I do understand your point about the limitations that Templeton had. I've never read the book, but from reading John's blog post...it appears that there are some glaring flaws that even Templeton noticed and he probably should have stuck to overall concepts rather than trying to develop an aiming system that is likely obsolete. Even if the author doesn't have the technology, it's probably much better to enlighten the reader to the general concept than to try and come up with something that even the author cops to being very flawed with the 'mulligan putts' for the computer to calculate the break. Even still, John does state that he thinks it is worthy of a read if you can get a copy. I'm not so sure where the shots at Mangum are either. 3JACK |
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 28, 2011 11:42:08 GMT -5
Is John a direct employee of Aimpoint?
I only ask because half his Twitter posts seem to be some kind of Aimpoint related.
|
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Dec 28, 2011 11:44:25 GMT -5
My feeling is that John was writing the post to his audience, which I believe mostly consists of AimPoint students or people interested in AimPoint...when it comes to green reading and putting topics. Exactly. I also know that the Vector Putting people - a group started by a guy who was an early AimPoint instructor - has done some shady things that have some AimPoint people a bit miffed. John is well qualified to talk about putting topics specifically BECAUSE he's an AimPoint instructor. If you know that, read what he says and look for bias, then remove it. You won't be able to remove ALL of the information. The point about computers doesn't apply in my opinion. John doesn't say the charts are bad because the computers are slow, and it's not like the accuracy of computers has improved. Math is math - if you feed a bad formula into a machine, it'll give you bad results whether it takes 1 microsecond or ten minutes to give that answer. I've never read the book, but from reading John's blog post...it appears that there are some glaring flaws that even Templeton noticed and he probably should have stuck to overall concepts rather than trying to develop an aiming system that is likely obsolete. I agree with that. I'm not so sure where the shots at Mangum are either. Yeah, that is a weird one. If anything, Geoff is constantly trying to say that Mark Sweeney copied Templeton's charts when he did no such thing. I'm an AimPoint certified instructor. I've also got a good background in science. I think there's too much of this "ow, my feelings are hurt" crap in golf. In science, there's peer review. Experts are the ones you WANT to comment on related topics. John is, by all counts, an expert at teaching green reading. Who BETTER to comment on a book about green reading? Is John biased? Of course. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything he says is wrong OR that he allows his bias to come through. I have some biases, and I have to watch that I am not TOO forgiving in an attempt to COUNTER the bias. And at the end of the day, he's biased for a reason: he's done his research and chosen the best system available to him. He's not the type of guy who wouldn't immediately switch if a better system was available to him. "Bias" is just an opinion, but the connotative meaning to the word implies that the opinion exists without a solid foundation. I'm not a big fan of the word "biased" for that reason. John has an educated opinion. Again, who better to comment on green reading techniques? There are a few, but surely, he's in the top 20. |
|
|
|
Post by kevcarter on Dec 28, 2011 12:36:06 GMT -5
John Graham is a first class professional.
This was a defensive article in response to some posts on another forum. It was not a first strike. Lets not turn this into another war. I thought John did an excellent job of not slinging mud, just explaining the facts as he knows them.
I have no horse in this race, I HATE putting. :-). I am however, a fan of John and his work in general.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 28, 2011 14:42:33 GMT -5
John Graham is a first class professional. This was a defensive article in response to some posts on another forum. It was not a first strike. Lets not turn this into another war. I thought John did an excellent job of not slinging mud, just explaining the facts as he knows them. I have no horse in this race, I HATE putting. :-). I am however, a fan of John and his work in general. Kevin I think though this gets into the larger question about reading reviews on different subjects, and in no way is this confined to golf but you know the history and 99% of people reading that won't. I just always take reviews of everything with a grain of salt, especially the golf business as it seems to be less objective than most and is more camp driven. That being said John has always been more impartial than most (see his SnT article). |
|
johngrahamgolf
'88 Apex Redlines
3Jack Top 20 Short Game/Putting Instructor
Posts: 229
|
Post by johngrahamgolf on Dec 29, 2011 14:09:32 GMT -5
This post was certainly not geared toward Geoff Mangum. You can even see a couple responses from Geoff where he talks about moving away from the charts in the Templeton book. I believe he agrees with the fact that the charts are inaccurate. I've written things in response to Geoff Mangum in the past and always as a reply.
This post was about providing a background about the book. The right's of the book have been recently purchased by some former AimPoint Instructors. They are claiming that the information they are now teaching about green reading came from this book and not from what they learned while with AimPoint. I could certainly be wrong and will say so if that is the case. This post was designed to shed light on the information provided in the book only and while it was written by an AimPoint Instructor, it is accurate as I continue to make that my first priority. There are times when behavior of an individual or individuals demands a response and I'll leave it at that.
Like others have mentioned, this post was a reply as most of my posts are.
I will however, add my bias to the end of the post just to make sure people understand where I am coming from. That being said, my 'bias' does not change the facts as presented.
I am not an AimPoint employee but conduct a great deal of business using AimPoint.
Pavaveda, Sorry if I have disappointed you. I respect your opinion and hopefully my post will make more sense in the future.
|
|
