skip nav

# Forums

#### Re: *Putting by the Numbers - UPDATE*

Mon, Feb 18 2019 2:32 PM by goldeena. 88 replies.
•  ArthurSD 64 Posts Fri, Feb 9 2018 6:22 AM

11bc2 , thanks for youre time, now i understand the metod 4 sec is 140% the numbers is on the post, i dont see it...

1- my question now, when it counts is always half the grid or depending on the angle of the camera and the grid from the line of the ball, since there are puts that are as crooked

2- if you have 10fts 3 up hill, and 4sec is 10-3*1.4 ?

and down hill 10fts 3down and 4 sec is 10+3*1.4? is correct that?

thanks

Digg
Delicious
•  el3n1 2,609 Posts Fri, Feb 9 2018 7:52 AM

really? Arthur...you are a champion tier member not paying close enough attention to what was shared in the video... all of this is explained better than any other example I have come across in the video...

btw, thanks for taking the time to offer the video.  I will start by trying to find a good green to identify whether the same time/flow rate is appropriate for my graphics and possibly try to make adjustments if necessary.  am grateful you have taken the time to present the info.  Thanks again.

try rewatching the video Arthur your answer is pretty clear in there...as well as possibly the previous 7 pages of posted comments...including the comments that have been removed but still available in the link provided above....

Digg
Delicious
•  ArthurSD 64 Posts Fri, Feb 9 2018 8:33 AM

yes is clear but i dont understood the % ... now yes.. think if you are waching these video in other lenguage... is not easy... my question now is...

help me with these...

1if you have 10 fts 3in up hill 3 seconds dots speed is 10-3*1.4¿?

if down hill 10+3*1.4?

2 always the speed of dots i need to count on the middle od the grid, or some puts is before or after depending the line of the ball with the hole

i allways play by feel but still missing puts , i want to try another way to play and get better putts,

my regards and thanks for the help and patience

Digg
Delicious
•  el3n1 2,609 Posts Fri, Feb 9 2018 9:49 AM

you are not going to find an exact answer to your question.  what he points out is that you have to find these numbers for yourself.  each computer or graphics card may have a "different" speed, each person may count the speed differently...

he provides an overview of how to learn this information for yourself...it is also dependent on the green speed, how hard you are hitting your putts.  as a result the line and offset may end up being different for each person.  because of this unless you set up exactly the same way as he does, have the exact same count, identify the same flow rate, if you don't hit your putt with the same degree of firmness, you may still be asking yourself why it isn't working...

it may not help, but consider this golf trick shot by a Pinehurst Golf Professional Kelly Mitchem... 3 putts, 3 speeds, 3 slightly different lines and they all go in!

you need to start by finding out what flow rate at what count amounts to a aim point of 10, I believe.  your count, your flow rate, may be similar or close to what he describes and it may not...but if you get that down and hit some practice shots with a free ball...it may start to come together.  otherwise you are trying to do something before you have figured out the basis of the whole theory...

This is just my take and my understanding, but first go out and find your count and your flow rate for 100% at an aim point of 10 as he describes in the video -- your numbers may not be the same as his.....

Digg
Delicious
•  ArthurSD 64 Posts Fri, Feb 9 2018 10:03 AM

thats correct , is all ok, but when is 3 in up hill the calculation ... is 10-3 x speed dot? or dont need to + - up and down hill... on the calc

im studding my owne % but i need to nkow that... to continue practice

Digg
Delicious
•  kavvz 1,922 Posts Mon, Feb 26 2018 4:16 PM

...

Digg
Delicious
•  11BC2 555 Posts Mon, Feb 26 2018 4:52 PM

@ Kavvz,

I'd suggest deleting your post and then create a new thread.  Imo this thread should be dedicated to those attempting to learn or reconcile the JC Method.

cheers.  sean.

Digg
Delicious
•  kavvz 1,922 Posts Mon, Feb 26 2018 5:33 PM

That makes good sense actually.  Done.

Digg
Delicious
•  goldeena 1,803 Posts Mon, Feb 18 2019 2:32 PM

Hmmmmm....I wonder why he left?? I wonder!!

Anyway 'putting' WGT aside for one moment - do you know I have been missing something quite important all this time, the seminal work of G0LD didn't include it, but after watching a few Young43 videos (or whatever he's called), and cross-checking it with the archived JC Snead piece - which is excellent, but G0LD got there first so you REALLY shouldn't be calling it the JC Snead method - it belongs to G0LD and forevermore shall be correctly referred to as ''G0LDs method''), but Snead includes a description of the lateral offset as it applies to squares on the putting grid, particularly the first square, even more particularly the first half square!!! I have always treated it as linear, i.e. for a 15 inch reference grid I have always taken the half way point to be 7.5....NOT SO says Snead - it's 10 isn't it, then everything after that becomes linear, but for the first half grid the points double-up, and that makes great sense when you look at the perspective of a square.

When I do eventually re-stoke my interest in this game (which right now is on a 'par' with JC Snead - i.e. ZERO), I shall be re-adjusting my measurement techniques to account for this subtle difference, i.e. this slightly none linear spacing over the first square.

I expect this should take a couple of shots off my scores - the couple of shots I have been looking for all this time!!!!

deena.

(better still - you cross reference with one of Tekomas methods for something quite invincible!!! If only these 2 had seen that straight away instead of bickering!!).

I consider this to be in the category of 'seminal work' and it is posted up with the other 2 seminal works on my profile for your convenience.

Digg
Delicious