putters

[Ethan]

My point is, that whilst the old-school "knowledge" is that some players feel they have more of an arc, I'm not convinced that modern technological analysis would back this up.

I had a worm's-eye-view video I took of Mickelson putting face-on with one of his heel-shafted optimum toe-hang putters, barely zero rotation from start to end of the forward swing, I tried to find it earlier to post some screen shots but appear to have lost it during phone transfers unfortunately. ?

Tiger is often quoted as preferring the feeling of the toe rotating through impact, and Ben Crenshaw is also obviously one of the best ever, so nobody can argue with what they feel they are doing. Clearly if that's what they feel, that's what they feel.

The whole point of accurately putting a ball on line is to get the face moving through impact with no rotation, or as little as possible. From a playing perspective I see zero benefit of having more arc, and therefore rotation, through the impact, and until the explanation is worded better it just seems like a bit of a groundless cliché to me.

Unfortunately golf manufacturers and their marketing spiel don't like their old clichés challenged ?

But it isn't a cliche. The player stands on one side of the ball and the laws of physics tell you that they can't bring the club on a SBST near-horizontal plane without some twisting or pushing of the hand out a bit. Arc is the natural no-adjustment swing. Not sure you would see a light arc with the naked eye, can be a few degrees of rotation only, and you need to measure that relative to the swing plane.

 

[Orikoru]

I think aesthetics seem to play a bigger role in putter choice than anything else. I wouldn't mind using ugly irons if they work, because at address they all look pretty similar anyway so it wouldn't put me off. But I've never felt like I wanted to get a huge mallet, because even if they're helpful in some way, I just don't really like looking down at one. I use a wide blade as that suits me eye nicely and doesn't distract me in any way - plus it has a weight behind it as a mallet would do anyway.

When I did my putter fitting, I think four years ago now - I was surprised by how much importance he placed on looks. I sort of expected to go there and him say 'use one of these as they're better'. But having established what kind of stroke I have, he basically pointed at a whole wall of putters and said "these ones are all suited to you - pick one you look the look of and we'll start there".

 

[PJ87]

I think aesthetics seem to play a bigger role in putter choice than anything else. I wouldn't mind using ugly irons if they work, because at address they all look pretty similar anyway so it wouldn't put me off. But I've never felt like I wanted to get a huge mallet, because even if they're helpful in some way, I just don't really like looking down at one. I use a wide blade as that suits me eye nicely and doesn't distract me in any way - plus it has a weight behind it as a mallet would do anyway.

When I did my putter fitting, I think four years ago now - I was surprised by how much importance he placed on looks. I sort of expected to go there and him say 'use one of these as they're better'. But having established what kind of stroke I have, he basically pointed at a whole wall of putters and said "these ones are all suited to you - pick one you look the look of and we'll start there".

True of a lot of clubs tho

If two drivers hit identically I've heard people been told to pick on which one suits the eye .. or sounds best to them

 

[Orikoru]

True of a lot of clubs tho

If two drivers hit identically I've heard people been told to pick on which one suits the eye .. or sounds best to them

Yeah that's true if it's like the Taylor Made ones with the big white patch on the top, or matte vs shiny. The sound probably more so. I had a second hand Yonex years ago and couldn't wait to get shot of it because it sounded like it was made of tin. I sold it to my dad, he still uses it but then he's half deaf so probably doesn't bother him.

 

[PJ87]

Yeah that's true if it's like the Taylor Made ones with the big white patch on the top, or matte vs shiny. The sound probably more so. I had a second hand Yonex years ago and couldn't wait to get shot of it because it sounded like it was made of tin. I sold it to my dad, he still uses it but then he's half deaf so probably doesn't bother him.

Yeah my mate settled on ping as it was ping g400 Vs whatever TM was at the time but to him the TM made this noise that was "deafening" now I've played TM M2 and I didn't notice personally but to him the noise was unbearable so he liked the ping , got that

I picked my latest driver and it litterally came down to looks Matte Vs gloss like you say.. gone matte mm fancy a change

 

[Orikoru]

Yeah my mate settled on ping as it was ping g400 Vs whatever TM was at the time but to him the TM made this noise that was "deafening" now I've played TM M2 and I didn't notice personally but to him the noise was unbearable so he liked the ping , got that

I picked my latest driver and it litterally came down to looks Matte Vs gloss like you say.. gone matte mm fancy a change

I usually go for matte drivers - shiny and reflective is more off-putting I should think. Anyway this topic is meant to be about putters.

 

[NedPizza]

Tried out my new to me Odyssey White Hot XG putter yesterday. Prefer my old Ping Zing isopur both for the weight and the feel off the face.

 

[Boomy]

New putters are over-rated ? Not one of them is under 10 years old and my favourite is the oldest of the lot - the Wilson TPAXVIII

 

[Robster59]

I don't think technology has changed dramatically over the last few years. But I do think the manufacturers have done the following:

• The variation in claimed technology for their latest putters
• The claims they make about that technology and what it can do
• And most importantly, the tremendous increase in putter prices over the past few years. Based on the more expensive it is the better it must be.

Or maybe I'm being cynical ?

 

[sweaty sock]

I disagree, I use a spider tour x, and have used for many years a TPA 18, as pictured above. When i mishit a putt with the spider, its a wholly better experience and result than if I mishit one with the Wilson

 

[Boomy]

I disagree, I use a spider tour x, and have used for many years a TPA 18, as pictured above. When i mishit a putt with the spider, its a wholly better experience and result than if I mishit one with the Wilson

I find the inserts in the newer putters are numb and reduce the feel. I prefer the Wilson and Scotty over the Odyssey for feel.

 

[sweaty sock]

Totally get that, Id probably agree, and its often cited by tour players that changing insert is the biggest obstacle to changing putters.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I find the inserts in the newer putters are numb and reduce the feel. I prefer the Wilson and Scotty over the Odyssey for feel.

Isn't that exactly how new putters work? I'm probably wrong, usually am.... but I would have thought what they do is reduce the difference between centre and off-centre hits by making the sweet spot bigger and probably dialling it down a bit so that there isn't as much difference.

Like old blades v modern GI clubs. What you describe as feel is probably knowing whether or not you've hit the sweetspot, whereas the more "numb" insert putter doesn't give that feedback but also probably delivers more consistent results.

 

[Boomy]

Isn't that exactly how new putters work? I'm probably wrong, usually am.... but I would have thought what they do is reduce the difference between centre and off-centre hits by making the sweet spot bigger and probably dialling it down a bit so that there isn't as much difference.

Like old blades v modern GI clubs. What you describe as feel is probably knowing whether or not you've hit the sweetspot, whereas the more "numb" insert putter doesn't give that feedback but also probably delivers more consistent results.

You are most likely correct, that all certainly makes sense.
I think the inserts are designed to get the ball rolling better as well.

 

[Boomy]

People talk about "feel" at impact as if it affects anything...

You swing the club, it hits the ball, the ball is gone and on it's merry way in a few milliseconds. There's no time for any "feel" at impact to make any difference to the putt or outcome, it's already decided as soon as we make contact and is skill.

Some prefer the clickier sound of the hard face, some prefer the duller sound of the soft insert. Each to their own.

Of course it affects something... your next putt(s) The feedback/feel you get ultimately helps with the following putt(s) How you set up, the weight of it etc etc

 

[r0wly86]

I have a Wilson 8802 a complete toe hang putter. But I have a very straight back and through motion. Convention dictates that it is all wrong for me, but I putt better with it than my old fact centred putter.

It is very much a putter with a sweet spot, you can really feel the difference if you don't get it right. Cons of this are mishits don't go as far as you want, so a modern style may be better for this, pros it's very easy to tell what's is wrong with your stroke. Not just off centre but I can tell whether it is towards the toe or heel which means I don't often mishit twice.

 

[Traminator]

But I have a very straight back and through motion. Convention dictates that it is all wrong for me, but I putt better with it than my old fact centred putter.

This popped up the other day.

It's an old cliché that I've heard too, probably since I started playing in the 80s. What I've never heard though, is a differently worded explanation that makes sense. To me it's just an old thing that is trotted out and never challenged.

As with yourself, the putter head needs to be travelling as straight as possible either side of the impact to be consistent, and that doesn't change whatever is behind the putter face. The natural angles of where we stand and the lie angle of the putter will create the natural arc, and for me the suggestion that one style suits more or less arc just doesn't add up in reality.

 

[Ethan]

This popped up the other day.

It's an old cliché that I've heard too, probably since I started playing in the 80s. What I've never heard though, is a differently worded explanation that makes sense. To me it's just an old thing that is trotted out and never challenged.

As with yourself, the putter head needs to be travelling as straight as possible either side of the impact to be consistent, and that doesn't change whatever is behind the putter face. The natural angles of where we stand and the lie angle of the putter will create the natural arc, and for me the suggestion that one style suits more or less arc just doesn't add up in reality.

You like the word cliché, but it really isn't.

You agree that we stand inside the plane of the putter stroke, so create an arc. It is not a large leap of faith from there to acknowledge that putters which have different weighting, due in part to the shaft insertion point, will behave differently, whether face balanced or with a lot of toe hang, and that different strokes might be better suited to either to deal with the amount of lever effect that goes with them, face-balanced - not a lot, toe hang - more. It isn't swinging like a stable door, but by a few degrees, but that is enough to miss or make putts.

 

[Ethan]

OK. Where's the data to back this up? The statement is "xxx style suits a particular stroke better than zzz style".

At the moment, the justification seems to be balancing the shaft on a finger and marketing spiel for the masses.

And the laws of physics. I suppose those were just marketing too. I have explained it before, but you don't want to hear.

 

[Ethan]

You haven't explained anything, all you're doing is rewording the old cliché.

Everything we knew/thought we knew about golf equipment, ball flight, distance etc etc back in the 80s has either been confirmed or myth-busted by science.

If I "didn't want to hear" I would continue to trot out the old clichés like I'm "in the know". It's because I do want to hear that I'm challenging it as groundless until seeing hard data.[/QUOTE]

OK. What is the scientific question for which you require data?

Please try to be specific.