Putter geeks only - angry man or does he have a point?

[tsped83]

I’m a big fan of putters and big fan of the mygolfspy website. Consequently I watched this video last night (the whole 16mins) and was conflicted about what I saw and heard. I admire the guys at MGS and their approach but was a little taken aback by the vociferous opinion on show here... have a watch, see what you think. (It’s about putters by the way)

https://youtu.be/1cE-xqiQnIc

 

[inc0gnito]

Roid rage

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Can you tell us the short version? Can't be bothered to go through 16 minutes of video. Sorry.

 

[Crow]

He talks total sense to me, if you want to give yourself the best possible chance of hitting your putt on line with maximum forgiveness to give yourself the very best chance of making that putt then the putters he's raving about are the ones for you.

For me though the look of the putter does come into my choice, I don't feel comfortable swinging something that looks as though it would be more at home attacking the Millennium Falcon. Okay I might miss one or two putts a round that I perhaps would have made using a more "Tech" putter but would I enjoy the experience so much?

I think not, looks play a big part in putter choice for me, one of my favourites is a dog to use but I still take it out on the course occasionally because it's drop dead gorgeous.

 

[tsped83]

Can you tell us the short version? Can't be bothered to go through 16 minutes of video. Sorry.

No.

 

[Imurg]

Why do Americans have to waste 16 1/2 minutes saying something that could have been said very succinctly in about 3....

He has a point. To a point.
Some people, maybe quite a few, buy on looks.
Looks don't matter to some people but do to many others.
Looks matter to me. But it's how it looks to me, not anyone else.
Take the G20 hybrid....I don't care if it was capable of getting 95% of shots from 180 yards to within a foot of the hole because every time I would look down on it is throw up...
Now, some people love the look of it - that's fine...
And while technology is making golf "easier", it still has to look good.
A putter, for example the Ping Sydney, might be jam full of tech and arrow putts towards the hole but I'd be embarrassed pulling the headcover off. And if I feel like that then I'm not going to putt well with it and all the tech in China ain't gonna get the ball in the hole.

Tech helps but it's got to look good and if it doesn't I won't use it...

 

[Deleted member 18588]

The guy's absolutely right and it highlights one of the anomalies of the golf market.

Many will pay over £300 for a driver incorporating all the latest tech but still purchase putters on looks.

The driver will only be used for a maximum of 14 shots per round whereas the putter will see far more use.

Fine as long as players accept that they may be placing themselves at a disadvantage but still strange when so many espouse the benefits of being fitted for clubs.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

No.

Ha ha, fair enough.

 

[davemc1]

Ha ha, fair enough.

Basically saying the only putters worth their salt are the ping ketch, evnroll and mla. All others you're just buying for looks

 

[3565]

I couldn’t agree more with him. I was a Scotty player, until i was educated. They are just jewellery in essence, sell by looks only and that’s the first thing a player will say when picking up a putter, that looks nice.

 

[USER1999]

If its ugly, its not in the bag. Simples. I dont do ugly stuff. Its a hobby, not a job.

 

[Tashyboy]

Basically saying the only putters worth their salt are the ping ketch, evnroll and mla. All others you're just buying for looks

If that is his point I think it is 15 mins of me life I have not wasted watching the video.

 

[MadAdey]

The man does have a very valid point. When I got my current putter I was looking for a nice traditional looking Scotty and that is what I wanted. What I ended up with was the Notchback, which personally I do not think is the prettiest putter ever made. But, even though I was totally against it in the shop due to it's looks, I kept hitting putt after putt with it from different distances and I could not believe how consistent the roll was with it.

It did take a few rounds and some time on the putting green to get use to the looks, but I can't believe I ever doubted buying it. The slightly bigger head helps with alignment and the roll is so consistent. So I think anyone looking for a new putter should try and get past the looks and find the one that helps them the most. This putter certainly saves me a couple of shots a round.

 

[DCB]

If its ugly, its not in the bag. Simples. I dont do ugly stuff. Its a hobby, not a job.

But, once you're old and need to use Pings, what will you say

 

[USER1999]

But, once you're old and need to use Pings, what will you say

I will take up dominos, or tiddlywinks.

 

[turkish]

Anybody else a bit cynical on MGS impartiality? I know they say they don’t get advertising revenues but they do really promote some items vigorously.

Ps I don’t doubt evnroll putters being good

 

[jusme]

Largely in agreement. I couldn't care what any of my clubs look like if they perform for me. I would happily play with the most horrendous looking clubs you could find if they worked better. To some, based on the above posts, looks do matter - fair enough and its why manufacturers work hard on the looks of clubs. Like most things in life you are going to get some who care and others who don't. Thank god we are not all the same

 

[pendodave]

I have a ketch. I think it would be a stretch to call it ugly.

Agree with the earlier post about golfers' obsessing over shafts, CG, spin etc right through the bag and then selecting a putter on looks. It is absurd. Keeps a lot of people in gainful employment though, so every cloud and all that.

 

[HughJars]

Anybody else a bit cynical on MGS impartiality? I know they say they don’t get advertising revenues but they do really promote some items vigorously.

Ps I don’t doubt evnroll putters being good

No not at all, can't be faulted.

For back up, Golf Digest (I think it was) did a survey of putters a couple years back with testers from duffers to pros, the results they got showed everyone, even the pros, were better using mallet headed putters and the benefits they bring, than even the most expensive flashiest blade from Scotty.

I find it strange that some would put looks ahead of lower scores. I don't enjoy missing puts and scoring higher, so I always buy the stuff that works best.

When it comes to the look of things, save that for your clothes, golf bag, peripherals, that's when you can massage your aesthetic sensibilities.

 

[chrisd]

So, it appears that a better tech putter will shave about 1.5 putts around off your score and, ok, that's worth saving, but is it then better to buy a cheaper putter and invest the cash on putting lessons? I do realise that the answer is to do both, simply because a tech putter will still knock shots off your score even when you're a better putter, but there must eventually be a law of diminishing returns where you really can't save any shots on your average round.