The science suggesting that face-balance, which reduces torque, offers a benefit is the same as that for zero torque.
Putts per round is a very woolly statistic. Just because you had less putts per round doesn't automatically mean your putting is better. Your approach play may be better and you got closer to the hole each time. Your approach play may be worse but your scrambling was good and you got close to the hole. You may have chipped in once or twice and not needed to putt.
I just meant can you grab one of your LABs, balance it on one finger and see if the head falls pointing in a particular direction please??I hate being centre of attention
Correct lie angle, which could be adjusted in any putter has helped my stroke, but even that can be thwarted if my stance is not spot on every putt.
A L.A.B. fitting is like a lesson in itself and helps people like me to understand the dynamics. I am only interested in what works for me and genuinely don't care how it gets there.
All I can say, is currently set up for me, the stroke is uniform and only pace seems to affect if the ball drops in the hole or not. I have the odd pull through user error, but it has made me a better putter. Maybe that could have happened with a fitting for absolutely any putter - who knows?
It's not useless you just need to caveat it with other stats. 32 putts with every green hit is pretty decent putting, 32 putts with every green missed and chipping on, not so great. But if you take two rounds where you hit the same number of greens with similar proximity to the hole, and went from 34 putts to 29, then you obviously holed more putts / putted better.
It just requires context.I haven't got one but have tried the balance thing with my pal's LAB.
Just look at how long it took Sheffler to switch to a mallet….and only then on the recommendation of Rory….give it another year or so then have a laugh….Its just a centre shafted putter then ? And they're so good only 1 person in the top 20 uses them
Thanks! I was right then.
Ok if that what you think but I will not argue the toss but you’re wrong!Thanks! I was right then.
.
Eh? Rich just said exactly what I said was correct. Are you calling him a liar?Ok if that what you think but I will not argue the toss but you’re wrong!
Watch from 3:00 to 3:20.Eh? Rich just said exactly what I said was correct. Are you calling him a liar?
According to Arcoss - 1.8 putts per hole - 2.1 GIR on an average of 50 rounds. I have used mallets and blades milled and not in those numbers but I am only gaining 0.1 strokes off a 9 handicap for my putting so whatever weapon I use it tells me work to be done. Losig 0.6 strokes gained in the 0-6 foot range so doesn't need working out
no, it's a pretty naff stat.I just meant can you grab one of your LABs, balance it on one finger and see if the head falls pointing in a particular direction please??
It's not useless you just need to caveat it with other stats. 32 putts with every green hit is pretty decent putting, 32 putts with every green missed and chipping on, not so great. But if you take two rounds where you hit the same number of greens with similar proximity to the hole, and went from 34 putts to 29, then you obviously holed more putts / putted better.
The putter itself isnt being suggested as snake oil, just the contention that zero torque is a factor whatsoever in the performance of a given putter.
It can still make the 'zero torque helps' angle snake oil though. Just because people use them, like them, maybe even putt better with them, does not validate the scientific claim (if one is being made at all. Not sure that one is) that there is a 'technology' to zt and that it benefits anybody's putting at all.
