The AceLign: From Concept To Course

Challenge: Poor Tee-Off Accuracy in Golf

Golf is a sport dependent on precision, where the fewer the shots, the better the performance. Nearly 80% of golfers struggle with their tee shots, resulting in more shots. Current solutions include paid lessons or extensive practice. These can be expensive, inaccessible, and waste time.

Motivation:

I started golfing back in the summer of 2024 and quickly realized I struggled with my tee shot accuracy. I’d set up to shoot, thinking I was properly aligned with the hole, only to discover I was off by a few degrees, which meant I needed more shots. I was frustrated with the poor selection of tools, and driven by my passion for engineering, I set out to solve it.

Goal:

My goal was to design an affordable tool that could help golfers with their alignment and accuracy at tee-off, while developing a unique product with real potential to impact the golf tool market.

Approach:

My initial prototype was a sharp, almost ninja-star-looking tool that was inconvenient to use and was made from a too-brittle material. Learning much from this failure, and after over 50 prototypes. I created my minimum viable product (MVP) that would not shatter while helping golfers with their alignment, accuracy, and more.

Application:

The AceLign helps develop proper motor skills and a clear understanding of alignment at tee-off, improving the golfer's game and leading to a happier golfer who is more confident in their shots, encouraging more to play golf.

Research:

I researched topics such as golf alignment techniques and existing training aids using articles and product pages. I evaluated each source for credibility by applying the techniques in real life and checking product reviews.

Testing:

This project required two separate testing techniques.

Test #1: Prototyping

Nearly every prototype was 3d printed. I tested each prototype's material based on five criteria.

Impact Resistance

Flexibility

Weather Resistance

Portability & Feel

Ease of Reproduction

With all these steps, I was able to determine my MVP out of 6 different materials and build my tool from it.

Test #2: Field Testing

I field-tested the project to determine its true effectiveness on the course. Field testing was designed to be simple to conduct and easy to replicate, maximizing the number of shots and the amount of data collected while keeping the variables to a minimum.

The field testing consisted of:

Groups of two. One person shoots towards a specified target, looking down at their feet. Five shots without the tool, and five with the tool. (Without first avoiding the tool to improve their aim)

The other person not shooting would determine the shot type and write it down (e.g., Good, Bad, Perfect).

After the ten shots are taken, they switch, and the cycle repeats.

Each type of shot is assigned a point value.

Golfers' skill level is determined, and all shots from their category are counted together.

In the end, around 150 balls were shot and collected as data.

In a project like this, variables are hard to keep constant. A slightly windy day can or how the golfer felt that day could affect the trajectory of the shots. This is why I focused on gathering as much data as possible and using standard deviation, median and average to determine the tool's true effectiveness.

Prototyping Results:

Last year, I determined the sufficient material needed for a tool would have to be hit with clubs, with a lack of breakage, had to be flexible yet stiff to keep the creditcard shape, needed to withstand the elements of the course, needed to be comfortable to use, be fast and easy to produce.

These six materials were tested.

PLA (Polylactic Acid)

PETG (Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol)

TPU 95A (Thermoplastic Polyurethane, lower shore hardness)

TPU 68D (Thermoplastic Polyurethane, higher shore hardness)

Aluminum

Wood

Using the criteria of

Impact Resistance

Flexibility

Weather Resistance

Portability & Feel

Ease of Reproduction

The TPU 95A was the surprising MVP of the materials, having a score of 4.5/5. Incredible impact resistance, extremely flexible, completely weather-resistant, portable, and easy to carry, but it took far longer to print. Not the fastest at around 20 minutes per tool, but nothing is ever perfect.

Field Testing Results:

This year, I determined the tools' true effectiveness in the course by helping golfers with their alignment. The MVP prototype's goal was to help golfers with their alignment and accuracy at tee-off. It does this with a perpendicular back to the card and can be turned to aim at a target, eliminating the need to estimate where it should go. To prove this, I had to field-test it under real-world conditions.

I grouped my friends into four groups

Brand new

Slightly new

Average

Experienced

Procedure used

Groups of two. One person shoots five balls without the tool towards a specified target, looking straight down at their feet. Five shots without the tool, and five with the tool. (Without first avoiding the tool to improve their aim)

The other person not shooting would determine the shot type using a guide and write it down on the table.

After the ten shots are taken, they switch, and the cycle repeats.

Using this procedure, I was able to gather shots for each skill level group. I plotted all the data of the shots taken with and without the tool in a spreadsheet, and there I determined the average points and standard deviation.

Improved accuracy with the tool compared to without it.

Skill Level Improvement

Brand New - +30.1%

Beginner - +57.1%

Average - +25.0%

Experienced - -5.4%

The tool was most effective for golfers from brand new to average, while experienced golfers had limited benefit.

Players' median of points with and without the tool.

Skill Level With Tool Without Tool

Brand New 4 2

Beginner 4 1

Average 3 2

Experienced 4 4.5

Shot Consistency using standard deviation

Skill Level With Tool Without Tool

Brand New 1.46 1.27

Beginner 1.49 1.29

Average 1.41 1.22

Experienced 1.36 1.42

First Year Results

The material TPU95A was proven to be the MVP material, with its amazing impact absorption, withstand harsh weather, flex, and comfortable, but it struggled with the production part. While it takes around 20 minutes, this is not ideal for large-scale production. Based on these results, I determined that the tool scored 4.5/5, the highest score among the six materials.

Second Year Results

This year, with the extensive testing at golf courses, I was surprised to see how my tool improved golfers' tee shots.

Using the mean, I determined that golfers starting out or playing casually showed a significant improvement in their shots, up to 57% with the tool compared to without. This is likely due to the learning curve of golf; it's the sweet spot where golfers know how to shoot but struggle with the fundamentals of an aligned shot.

Unsurprisingly, experienced golfers played relatively the same with the tool as without. This could be due to the golfer's experience, as some can struggle with their tee shots while others succeed. It's really a lottery when testing with experienced golfers.

The standard deviation was much higher with the tool than without, but that isn't a bad thing. This larger number means that the golfer's ability to achieve a higher performance peaked further with the tool.

In conclusion, the mean, median, and standard deviation increased with the tool compared to not using it, indicating a real increase in points and, therefore, an improvement in shot accuracy.

For testing a tool like this, it can be very difficult to control every variable and gather the most reliable results. I should've used more golfers to test my tool to eliminate further inaccuracies that occurred with the experienced golfers. I could also have tested it in a more controlled environment, and if I decide to redo the tests for my business in the future, I plan to do so on a larger scale. Incorporating ball tracking technology, staying in a controlled area with a lack of changing variables, and keeping the golfers shooting the same each time.

For this project, I would like to thank Pat from Coastal Golf and Kim from Gym365 for allowing me to use their virtual golf facilities to test my tool.

I'd also like to thank the people over at Spark for helping me fund the patenting and incorporation of my business to help grow and protect the product.

References

Jonah, H. (2018) [Picture of a frustrated golfer][Photograph] iStock images. https://www.istockphoto.com/fr/photo/golfeur-frustr%C3%A9-gm932061732-255467003

Panorama Resort. (2023) Greywolf Golf Course. Retrieved from https://www.panoramaresort.com/explore/greywolf-golf-course

Glenn, G. (2025)‘Happy Gilmore 2’ Had “Massive Part” For Carl Weathers Before His Death, Adam Sandler Recalls “Painful Change.” Deadline. https://deadline.com/2025/07/happy-gilmore-2-massive-part-carl-weathers-before-death-1236461921/

FoundGolfBalls. (n.d.). Golf glossary: Top shot.

https://www.foundgolfballs.com/pages/golf-glossary

Fuster, D. (2015). The physics of golf. Stanford University. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/fuster2/

Golfwell. (2015). Golf Science Lab: Quick Start Guide. https://golfwell.co/wp-content/uploads/edd/2015/10/GolfScienceLab_QuickStartGuide_revised.pdf

Golf Monthly. (2023). How many golfers are there in the world? https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/how-many-golfers-are-there-in-the-world?%20National%20Golf%20Foundation.

National Golf Foundation. (2022). Golf's state of the industry in 3 minutes. https://www.ngf.org/short-game/golfs-state-of-industry-in-3-minutes/