Zero Torque Putters? Is it hype or a thing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oddsocks said:
I always find this stat a bit skewed unless you hit every green in regulation, but that’s a topic for a different thread.
Click to expand...
I agree. If I wanted to take as few putts as possible I'd hit my approach shots to purposely just miss the green. Then my chip "should" be pretty close to the cup......thus reducing the number of putts I take. Hitting the green in regulation (considered a better thing) usually results in being further from the hole...thus more putts.
 
hambugerpete said:
Its just a centre shafted putter then ? And they're so good only 1 person in the top 20 uses them 🤣
Click to expand...
Callaway Elyte is currently the top rated driver for amateurs. None of the top 20 pro golfers use it so it must be 💩💩. It's just a heel shafted driver.
 
Burnsey said:
Top players are sponsored.

Maybe something to do with what they putt with.

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
If the top players felt they could gain a meaningful advantage playing a zero torque putter they would in a heartbeat.
Im a fan of a face balanced putter but this sounds a bit like snake oil to me.
 
hambugerpete said:
If the top players felt they could gain a meaningful advantage playing a zero torque putter they would in a heartbeat.
Im a fan of a face balanced putter but this sounds a bit like snake oil to me.
Click to expand...

The heartbeat would be curtailed by the sponsor, that is an absolute non debatable fact. Yes, it can and has happened, but certainly not in a heartbeat.

It is only snake oil to those it makes no difference to, but we get you don't agree with it :rolleyes:
 
hambugerpete said:
Its just a centre shafted putter then ? And they're so good only 1 person in the top 20 uses them 🤣
Click to expand...
There is definitely a difference. When you rest a regular centre-shafted putter on one finger, it always falls with the face pointing upwards doesn't it? So it's face-balanced in terms of toe & heel, but in fact there is more weight at the back than the front of it. Correct? But from what I gather in their 'revealer' test, the LABs won't don't that, they won't fall a particular way, they'll just stay with the face pointing in the same direction you leave it pointing.
 
Burnsey said:
The heartbeat would be curtailed by the sponsor, that is an absolute non debatable fact. Yes, it can and has happened, but certainly not in a heartbeat.

It is only snake oil to those it makes no difference to, but we get you don't agree with it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm sure some will love it and putt well with it. Will it make a huge difference to their game overall.? Probably not.
 
Burnsey said:
Do you play golf?

A huge difference overall could be two putts less per round, could be ten.

Anyway, no reasoning to your posts than the fact you don't like them, so let's move along.
Click to expand...
🤣
the defining stat to how many putts you make is proximity to the hole. No amount of zero torque will change that.
If there was a putter offering a 1 shot save let alone 10 we'd all have one.
I don't dislike them per se , just seems a bit over hyped.
 
hambugerpete said:
🤣
the defining stat to how many putts you make is proximity to the hole. No amount of zero torque will change that.
If there was a putter offering a 1 shot save let alone 10 we'd all have one.
I don't dislike them per se , just seems a bit over hyped.
Click to expand...

So putts per round is not a statistic accepted then?

Someone goes from an average of x, to an average x10 lees (for example) per round is not putting better?

Could be lessons, a new putter, or an act of god, but your statement was 'probably no huge difference to their game overall' is factually incorrect then?
 
Burnsey said:
Do you play golf?

A huge difference overall could be two putts less per round, could be ten.

Anyway, no reasoning to your posts than the fact you don't like them, so let's move along.
Click to expand...
Its not about not liking. Its that no case is made for them being better, hence they are snake oil, is more the objection. The reason, is coming from those questioning whether zt is a myth, and on the evidence in this thread, that reason is beating anything presented on the pro zt argument.
Do LAB have any technical people in their design team does anyone know. I think a smattering of basic physics and mechanics would be sufficient to follow that there probably isnt a case to be made for zt. If they have it, it would be interesting to read. If they dont, and they are just letting loose language and demos lead people to a mistaken belief, then, then it i in the snake oil territory.
 
Dunesman said:
Its not about not liking. Its that no case is made for them being better, hence they are snake oil, is more the objection. The reason, is coming from those questioning whether zt is a myth, and on the evidence in this thread, that reason is beating anything presented on the pro zt argument.
Do LAB have any technical people in their design team does anyone know. I think a smattering of basic physics and mechanics would be sufficient to follow that there probably isnt a case to be made for zt. If they have it, it would be interesting to read. If they dont, and they are just letting loose language and demos lead people to a mistaken belief, then, then it i in the snake oil territory.
Click to expand...

Ah, here we go - the science argument.

Do they work for some - yes

Do they work for all - no

Are they selling loads - yes

Does it matter - no

To answer the opening post - is it a hype - yes, I'd say so currently - is it a thing - yes, absolutely, zero torque is a thing - is it proven - nope.
 
Orikoru said:
There is definitely a difference. When you rest a regular centre-shafted putter on one finger, it always falls with the face pointing upwards doesn't it? So it's face-balanced in terms of toe & heel, but in fact there is more weight at the back than the front of it. Correct? But from what I gather in their 'revealer' test, the LABs won't don't that, they won't fall a particular way, they'll just stay with the face pointing in the same direction you leave it pointing.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I understood you correctly so apologies if I didn’t but with zero torque putter when balanced on your fingers I believe the toe points up….

The zero torque design revolves around placing the center of gravity (CG) of the putter directly under the shaft axis, thus keeping the putter square throughout the stroke. This results in a putter that balances with the toe pointed up, rather than down (toe-hang), or parallel
 
There is probably never going to be a putter technology that is objectively better for 100% of golfers. If you ran the numbers on people who tried LABs, you might find they're better for 30% of players, no change for 50% of players, and actively worse for 20% of players who don't get on with them. Does that make them snake oil? No, I don't think so. It's just another option to try and find out what group you fit into.

Are LAB claiming their putters are objectively better for everybody? Because some posters in here are acting like they are. I think they're just trying to market their technology, and get it into the hands of golfers - which is all they can really do. If they work for more people than they don't work for, then they will catch on. And they currently are catching on.
 
seochris said:
Not sure if I understood you correctly so apologies if I didn’t but with zero torque putter when balanced on your fingers I believe the toe points up….

The zero torque design revolves around placing the center of gravity (CG) of the putter directly under the shaft axis, thus keeping the putter square throughout the stroke. This results in a putter that balances with the toe pointed up, rather than down (toe-hang), or parallel
Click to expand...
Does it? I thought if there was weight in any particular direction, then it would pivot slightly in their 'revealer'. You're talking about heel-hang which has existed for a long time before LABs. Odyssey toe-up for example came out like a decade ago.

Can someone who has one prove or deny this for us please? (@Burnsey I'm looking at you)
 
Burnsey said:
Ah, here we go - the science argument.

Do they work for some - yes

Do they work for all - no

Are they selling loads - yes

Does it matter - no

To answer the opening post - is it a hype - yes, I'd say so currently - is it a thing - yes, absolutely, zero torque is a thing - is it proven - nope.
Click to expand...
Like a lots of things.

Remember when "loft up" on drivers was a thing
Mini drivers

Thats two of the top of my head but must be others too
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Like a lots of things.

Remember when "loft up" on drivers was a thing
Mini drivers

Thats two of the top of my head but must be others too
Click to expand...

Science is good and with these putters, we now have a new name out of the blue in 'zero torque', but if you slice every tee shot, change driver and don't slice, without any swing change, the club has worked for you. The marketing waffle matters not to me.
 
Burnsey said:
So putts per round is not a statistic accepted then?

Someone goes from an average of x, to an average x10 lees (for example) per round is not putting better?

Could be lessons, a new putter, or an act of god, but your statement was 'probably no huge difference to their game overall' is factually incorrect then?
Click to expand...
No putts per round is a useless stat.
The rest is just waffle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
3 clubs and a putter comp
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Orikoru
Orikoru
Orikoru
Toe Hang, or Not Toe Hang..
5 6 7
Replies
129
Views
11K
Orikoru
Orikoru
Lord Tyrion
Putter toe is raised, does it matter?
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Orikoru
Orikoru
Orikoru
Is it a common fault to swing your putter 'outside the line'??
Replies
7
Views
2K
clubchamp98
clubchamp98
J
Review: Edel Putters
Replies
14
Views
2K
tsped83
tsped83
Top