putters

[sweaty sock]

All very true, but others think that designing and engineering to the nth degree and studying your putting stroke to optimise everything is sucking the fun out of the game.
We're not playing for our livelihoods, pick something you like the look of.

All very true. My personal view is that putting is a massively intuative process where too much technical change is a bad thing. So many good putters, so many different techniques.

Equipment wise there will be a 'best for you', that suits your taste, your stroke, your eye domanance, your strike pattern etc etc. And its more likely the modern technologies will help get the ball in the hole, if applied correctly.

If you want to play with traditional or aesthetically pleasing equipment instead, then thats 100% the choice of the player - which I support totally!

 

[Ethan]

I think putters have moved on the most!! But its the category where technology is least appreciated at point of sale. If I said I had a driver that was demonstably better at maintaining ball speeds for off centre hits, demonstrably better at launch angle and demonstrably better at start direction for off centre hits, demonstrably better at spin control, they would fly off the shelfs.

But for putters, as many of the previous posts have demonstrated, most people just shun the ideas as they believe that they are great with their current club. After all, who could miss the sweetspot on a putter? I could, every round. I'd also bet very few understand their putting? 100% will be able to tell you their shot pattern with driver, how they manage it with technology and strategy. But how many can tell you with a straight face what their putting miss is, or how the manage it?

To summarise, I think technology has moved on massively in the last ten years, people can and will see improvement, but nobody gets fit, nobody researches the tech, nobody cares because nobody understands what a bad putt is, nobody keeps putting stats and we're all to stubborn.

There are very few good players using woods that are more than 10 years old, but loads of good players using putters which are, sometimes much older. Lots of putters have come out with technological features, but how many of these have really made players putt better since heel-toe putters came in?

 

[sweaty sock]

There are very few good players using woods that are more than 10 years old, but loads of good players using putters which are, sometimes much older. Lots of putters have come out with technological features, but how many of these have really made players putt better since heel-toe putters came in?

You prove my point.

In putters measurable improvements have been made, and can be applied to nearly everyones stroke, but very few measure or understand them. We just wave them round AGs floor and declare them no better than 1975...

 

[Ethan]

You prove my point.

In putters measurable improvements have been made, and can be applied to nearly everyones stroke, but very few measure or understand them. We just wave them round AGs floor and declare them no better than 1975...

So why do those players who go to Scotty Cameron's studio and get measured by laser mostly still end up with putters similar to the 1966 Ping Anser? Does Scotty C not understand the improvements?

 

[sweaty sock]

Because the laser only measures face angle? Doesnt measure over a season of mishits and bad strokes, and because scotty c makes a collosal margin selling skim milled ansers from dirt cheap material?

Hes openly admitted his dissapointment at the lack of the success of the original futura, because it meant he had to fall back to anser styles rather than improve performance for the sake of yhe company bottom line. Chris Voshal at Mizuno has similar comments about the mizuno draino...

 

[garyinderry]

I still have my 50 year old Anser in the bag. I find sight lines disturb my feel for the stroke (as do lines on the ball), and very few modern putters have no marks at all.

Hard to beat a clean putter. Big fan.

 

[Ethan]

Because the laser only measures face angle? Doesnt measure over a season of mishits and bad strokes, and because scotty c makes a collosal margin selling skim milled ansers from dirt cheap material?

Hes openly admitted his dissapointment at the lack of the success of the original futura, because it meant he had to fall back to anser styles rather than improve performance for the sake of yhe company bottom line. Chris Voshal at Mizuno has similar comments about the mizuno draino...

OK, I have never been to a Scotty fitting, so that was just shorthand for a tech fitting. I don't know how many, if any, lasers they use, and they may just give over some dirt cheap materials and laugh at the fools who pay money for it.

But the same applies to other brands, Odyssey, Ping, Bettinardi, Mizuno, Evnroll, Piretti, you name it all basically sell similar versions of each others putters. TM has tried hard to get their players to use the Spiders, but quite a few still don't. Look at the number of Anser style putters on Tour, and you will see plenty of oldish tech. That's just the way it is. The technical aspects of engineering a device to roll a ball on a green are simply less extensive and enable to science than hitting a ball with a driver.

 

[jim8flog]

. TM has tried hard to get their players to use the Spiders, but quite a few still don't.

There are quite a few non TM players with spiders.

I tried one but found it too light then nearly fell over backwards when I found out how much the weight kit is to go with one. The weight kit came as part of the standard package with my Never Compromise.

 

[Ethan]

There are quite a few non TM players with spiders.

I tried one but found it too light then nearly fell over backwards when I found out how much the weight kit is to go with one. The weight kit came as part of the standard package with my Never Compromise.

I hate them myself, but that might just be me.

 

[jim8flog]

I hate them myself, but that might just be me.

I have been using mallet style for about 20 years now. It took a lot of getting used to after 20 years of heel/toe style. It was more about wanting to switch to true centre shafted putter for me.

 

[Tashyboy]

The Odyssey 2-Ball from 20 years ago was so good, they are remaking it. It's about feel.

I wonder how many folk on here's putters are their oldest club in the bag?? (not you Crow! )


My Scotty is... by about 10 years

The only 2 clubs in my bag that I have had from day one, a 48 degree vokey and an odyssey 2 ball. I bought a truss putter during the Covid used It 3 or 4 times. I just could not buy into the “”truss” makes it more stable. It was horrendous. I had some serious grovelling to do to put the two ball back in the bag. Love it. I will keep an eye out for the new two ball. The concept of it for me is so simple.

 

[Oddsocks]

There are very few good players using woods that are more than 10 years old, but loads of good players using putters which are, sometimes much older. Lots of putters have come out with technological features, but how many of these have really made players putt better since heel-toe putters came in?

I like the stability of the mallet but the conversions heel toe is so much prettier. I’ve tried the 1w from odyssey and square back from SC, but I just didn’t like the neck. The new flow double wide looks nice.... but will it be any better then the Ardmore

 

[USER1999]

I have an Anser style Scotty, a Ping BeCu B60 from the early 80s, a NeverCompromise in the Odyssey No.9 shape, and two Odyssey No.9s, an o works, and a stroke lab.

I love the Scotty, but it is unreliable. I pull it left quite easily. The B60 is almost never used, but would not ever be for sale (sentimental reasons). The NC has a 39" shaft, for when I have a bad back. The stroke lab is a recent covid addition, yet to see action. The tech in this seems to be better than the o works, and I never thought that would happen.

 

[Foxholer]

All very true, but others think that designing and engineering to the nth degree and studying your putting stroke to optimise everything is sucking the fun out of the game.
We're not playing for our livelihoods, pick something you like the look of.

More importantly, pick something you like the feel of! There are quite a few fugly putters (Spider, 2-Ball for example) that are in wide use for the simple reason that they work - for those they suit! My Betti Xcelerator isn't pretty either, but it works - for me - as it suits my putting style!

 

[Ethan]

All very true, but others think that designing and engineering to the nth degree and studying your putting stroke to optimise everything is sucking the fun out of the game.
We're not playing for our livelihoods, pick something you like the look of.

Something you like the look of is important. I think something that suits your stroke - straight back, straight through, slight arc, major arc, is also important otherwise you will have to correct the tendency for the putter toe to hang back or flow through if it doesn't match your stroke.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Something you like the look of is important. I think something that suits your stroke - straight back, straight through, slight arc, major arc, is also important otherwise you will have to correct the tendency for the putter toe to hang back or flow through if it doesn't match your stroke.

And something that matches your eye dominance; no offset if your dominant eye is your lead eye, offset if your dominant eye is your trail eye.

 

[Ethan]

And something that matches your eye dominance; no offset if your dominant eye is your lead eye, offset if your dominant eye is your trail eye.

And you are in trouble if you are a cyclops.

 

[Jigger]

If you like your putter then keep it. Otherwise get properly fitted. My scotty is about 10years old now and I still love it. Pearls find the grip slippy but I’m happy with it and a bit afraid of replacing it in case the new one is slightly off.

 

[Crow]

Something you like the look of is important. I think something that suits your stroke - straight back, straight through, slight arc, major arc, is also important otherwise you will have to correct the tendency for the putter toe to hang back or flow through if it doesn't match your stroke.

I'm not convinced by the toe-hang, face balanced argument to be honest.
You line your putter up with the sweet spot behind the ball and so the putter axis is drawn from the hands to the sweet spot.
When we look at face balance and toe hang we're using the shaft as the axis, which is irrelevant in my eyes.

I'm not a great putter but I use the whole gamut of styles, face balanced, toe hang, blade, mallet and everything in between.
I don't find any one style superior to another, but I do have my favourite lookers.

 

[Ethan]

Good to see someone else raise that, I'll take your "not convinced" and I'll throw in "have never heard a logical explanation" and "I believe it's another unchallenged myth from years gone by"...

--------------------------------

The idea of the putting stroke is to be as on-line and as consistent as possible either side of the impact, hence the massive rise on our screens in the popularity of these eyesore branding irons (I use one too ?), so why anyone would promote more arc than normal is beyond me.

They don't promote arc, they provide kit that suits players that have more arc. Some of the best putters of all time had a lot of arc, Ben Crenshaw being a great example, and the swinging door stroke suited him. The older style heel shafted blades, like Crenshaw's or the flow neck putters like the Del Mar or Odyssey Number 9s tend to have a lot of toe hang. I tried out one of Darren Clarke's old Del Mars and it had an incredible amount of toe hang because he tended to use too much hand action and shut the blade through impact. I think it is mostly a feel thing but there is some data showing getting the right fit makes a difference.

It is a bit like the long game. Some players see the ball moving left to right (or the other way) and hate the opposite shape. Others hit it straight.