Pure hokum I say. To me this is an example of the scientific method gone awry. Understanding the motion of a ball is all experience and intuition. Animals can do it. A dog, in a sense, can understand basic geometric principles. He knows well that a straight line is the shortest distance tween two points. Speaking of a dog, I've been observing my own animal as he is becoming quite good at catching balls and discs. One of his discs is sort of warped and always veers to the left, but he seems to know this and anticipates it every time. Now you could describe this flight science, but is that really necessary? My point is the dog seems to understand it, and perfectly. When I see him launch himself in the air, timing it just right to snatch the disc out of the air at the apex of his jump, there is a certain perfection about it, it reminds me that we all have a thorough understanding of the physics of gravity on earth. Which is to say, I think that if a dog could somehow understand putting, he could read the breaks of a green pretty good. We are not talking about launching intercontinental missiles here. IMO this kind of scientific approach has no place on a putting green. Also the way its presented is pretty ridiculous.
"Look at these hopeless PGA pro's missing putts on the practice green. Look at this hopeless idiot (Villegas) bending down trying to read a putt, he has no idea about gravity, about how the world works. Now look at this toddler trying to putt, he has no conception of break, he's going to keep aiming right at the hole, eventually he'll get close enough so that the break's so small that it goes in, but the point is people are not born with the ability to aim outside the hole etc etc"