Zero Torque Putters? Is it hype or a thing?

[Dunesman]

But with putting, any gain at all is directly correlatable with score.

True, but it doesnt follow that the correlation will translate to score in a practical way.
Assume there is indeed a again (in itself disputable, but lets asume in this case that there is). But say that gain is of 0.00001 shots per million putts. How many years would a person have to live to have one round show a one shot benefit ? Can we really say that there is a real world gain ?

 

[Neilds]

Excuse the stupid post, but what is zero torque?

They are putters that the manufacturers claim will not twist in your hand - either in the swinging of the club or when striking the ball slightly off centre. In the advertising of the putters, they put a 'normal' putter in a frame so it is free to swing about and wave the frame/club around showing that it twists. With their own putter, the club doesn't twist in the frame which they claim means better results. The question here is whether the putter would ever twist anyway given that are controlling it with your hands.

 

[Golf is fun]

What were your thoughts when you tried one and came to this conclusion?

Any stats versus your current putter?

Not the person you asked, but my thoughts are that if the face is square to the arc the whole time, you have to hit the ball at the exact same point in the arc every time, otherwise your putter face will be pointing offline. With a traditional putter, you can hit it slightly earlier or later, and have the face closed or open respectively and still start the ball on or closer to the planned line.

With a robot the zero torque definitely makes sense, if you're a feel athlete it may not. Hence different people with different approaches may get different results.

I could probably find a stat that says I putt better wearing shorts, so is it ignoring science if you don't accept that wearing shorts makes you putt better, or could it be another factor like I wear shorts more in the summer when the greens are in better condition and the weather is nicer?

 

[3 jabber]

The Odyssey Max 1 could be just what I'm after. I liked the DF3 but not the price tag and I'm also a big fan of the white hot insert. My pro shop is getting them in soon and I'm looking forward to trying one out.

 

[Burnsey]

Not the person you asked, but my thoughts are that if the face is square to the arc the whole time, you have to hit the ball at the exact same point in the arc every time, otherwise your putter face will be pointing offline. With a traditional putter, you can hit it slightly earlier or later, and have the face closed or open respectively and still start the ball on or closer to the planned line.

With a robot the zero torque definitely makes sense, if you're a feel athlete it may not. Hence different people with different approaches may get different results.

I could probably find a stat that says I putt better wearing shorts, so is it ignoring science if you don't accept that wearing shorts makes you putt better, or could it be another factor like I wear shorts more in the summer when the greens are in better condition and the weather is nicer?

Are these thoughts based on your experience with a zero torque putter, or just waffle like the majority?

Oh and any particular brand of shorts work better for you - link would be appreciated.

 

[Mandofred]

I recently bought an Odyssey #7 square 2 square. At this point it has knocked my Evnroll ER2 out of the bag.
1. Is the tech better? Maybe
2. Is the tech a con job? Doubtful
3. Where is the proof that the new tech doesn't do any good? None.
4. What is the point of this whole thread? To start an argument......

 

[Teebs]

The game today is all about science and those disagreeing are living in LaLaLand.

Improved putting, longer drives, adjust the peak height of your irons by 3 feet - all can be dialled in with heads, shafts, grips, even balls.

Those not willing to embrace the science can stay where they are in terms of the game, which is fine, but I'll take all the help I can get to enjoy my hobby more.

100% agree.

 

[Orikoru]

You can definitely measure the correlation, but you can't prove the causation.

If I go from a 31" Scotty Cameron to a 35" L.A.B putter and get better, is the difference the zero torque, having a putter that is now the correct length for me, something else about the fit of the putter, placebo effect, or anything else?

I don't think most people would be that extreme when changing putters. Most of us have tried a few and know roughly what we like, before investing big money on something fancy. But even notwithstanding that, if you got fit for that new putter and that was the outcome, I'd still consider that part of the benefits of it.

 

[Backache]

But with putting, any gain at all is directly correlatable with score. So if someone buys a LAB, and their average putts per round goes from 34 to 33 - that may seem small but it also means their handicap should go down one, ergo it was potentially worthwhile? Putter is probably the easiest club to actually measure the benefit of.

Thing is there is so much noise around 'score' just look at anyone's WHS graph that attributing cause and effect is very difficult.

The same goes for putts per round.
Greens will vary from round to round but ignoring this there will be a large variation in where you take your putts from in different rounds .
A difference in putts per round of one stroke could just as easily be due to better chipping or worse approach play thus allowing one to putt from closer as from a change in putter.

 

[Golf is fun]

Are these thoughts based on your experience with a zero torque putter, or just waffle like the majority?

Oh and any particular brand of shorts work better for you - link would be appreciated.

These are my thoughts based on my knowledge of science and the claims made. I'm not sure anecdotal evidence would change that, I've said they may work for some, but I don't think they're inherently better.

Can you tell me why the science of why they are better? Why is keeping the face always square to the arc a good thing?

Leather shorts are the key, well technically chaps, but some clubs dress codes don't allow them, definitely get yourself a few pairs.

 

[Orikoru]

True, but it doesnt follow that the correlation will translate to score in a practical way.
Assume there is indeed a again (in itself disputable, but lets asume in this case that there is). But say that gain is of 0.00001 shots per million putts. How many years would a person have to live to have one round show a one shot benefit ? Can we really say that there is a real world gain ?

No, obviously in real world terms that would be considered no gain. I'm not sure what the point of that question is though. I was just saying that with a putter it's pretty clear if you've gained anything or not. In my example you would have, in your one, you have not.

 

[Golf is fun]

I don't think most people would be that extreme when changing putters. Most of us have tried a few and know roughly what we like, before investing big money on something fancy. But even notwithstanding that, if you got fit for that new putter and that was the outcome, I'd still consider that part of the benefits of it.

For sure, I was really just stating that unless the only change is the zero torque, it's impossible to measure the impact, unless you have a decently large enough sample size, and also a control group with some people just being assigned random new putters - within fitting tolerances of course.

 

[Burnsey]

These are my thoughts based on my knowledge of science and the claims made. I'm not sure anecdotal evidence would change that, I've said they may work for some, but I don't think they're inherently better.

Can you tell me why the science of why they are better? Why is keeping the face always square to the arc a good thing?

Leather shorts are the key, well technically chaps, but some clubs dress codes don't allow them, definitely get yourself a few pairs.

Try one. Works for me. I'm not bothered if it works for everyone else.

I bought for the hype, same with my shorts - JL all the way.

 

[Orikoru]

Thing is there is so much noise around 'score' just look at anyone's WHS graph that attributing cause and effect is very difficult.

The same goes for putts per round.
Greens will vary from round to round but ignoring this there will be a large variation in where you take your putts from in different rounds .
A difference in putts per round of one stroke could just as easily be due to better chipping or worse approach play thus allowing one to putt from closer as from a change in putter.

That's right of course, but surely over a long enough timeline you can compare the benefits, not just in putts per round but less three-putts etc. Yes you'd need to take into account number of greens hit and average length of first putt to properly compare them.

 

[Golf is fun]

Try one. Works for me. I'm not bothered if it works for everyone else.

I bought for the hype, same with my shorts - JL all the way.

Maybe I will, and maybe it will suit me, I never doubted that they might be better for some people.

My only statement is I don't believe they are inherently better for everyone, and I don't believe keeping the face square to the putting arc is essential to be a good putter or even improve putting. If there are studies that say otherwise, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Burnsey]

Maybe I will, and maybe it will suit me, I never doubted that they might be better for some people.

My only statement is I don't believe they are inherently better for everyone, and I don't believe keeping the face square to the putting arc is essential to be a good putter or even improve putting. If there are studies that say otherwise, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Is anything better for everyone?

You need to try one, or at least have some credible evidence to revoke their claims, or your comments are simply a waste of bandwidth.

That's the internet for you.

 

[Oddsocks]

They are putters that the manufacturers claim will not twist in your hand - either in the swinging of the club or when striking the ball slightly off centre. In the advertising of the putters, they put a 'normal' putter in a frame so it is free to swing about and wave the frame/club around showing that it twists. With their own putter, the club doesn't twist in the frame which they claim means better results. The question here is whether the putter would ever twist anyway given that are controlling it with your hands.

Cheers Neil.

Looking up the page someone quoted the square-square jailbird, I’m honestly struggling to see what’s different between that and a normal centre shafted traditional

 

[Oddsocks]

Thing is there is so much noise around 'score' just look at anyone's WHS graph that attributing cause and effect is very difficult.

The same goes for putts per round.
Greens will vary from round to round but ignoring this there will be a large variation in where you take your putts from in different rounds .
A difference in putts per round of one stroke could just as easily be due to better chipping or worse approach play thus allowing one to putt from closer as from a change in putter.

Or a combo of the above plus pins cut in some very tricky positions just for a change.

I’m convinced our head keeper has been on a wind up recently, everyone’s putter stats are shocking due to some recent experimental positions.

 

[Golf is fun]

Is anything better for everyone?

You need to try one, or at least have some credible evidence to revoke their claims, or your comments are simply a waste of bandwidth.

That's the internet for you.

Yes, a graphite shafted, 360cc titanium headed driver will outperform a hickory or steel shafted persimmon driver for everyone. The science behind that is solid.

That's not really how it works, if you make a claim you should prove why that claim is true. The claim here is that keeping the face square to arc will improve putting, but neither you, L.A.B nor anyone else can tell me why, beyond saying I should disprove this unfounded claim.

I am now claiming fairies exist, I don't need to tell you how I came to this conclusion, it's up to you to disprove it, but I definitely saw some at the end of my garden.

 

[Crow]

Which is a nice comforting feeling. But you know the fact isnt true. It isnt even half true. Putting is about feeling positive, and if that is fulfilled from the marketing story, the high price tag, or whatever, doesnt really matter. But its illusory rather than true science.

So you're saying that a blade putter (and I mean a proper blade, not an Anser) is just as stable in the stroke as a spider putter?

I can only assume that you actually compared the two.