Zero Torque Putters? Is it hype or a thing?

[Dunesman]

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

Any stats versus your current putter?

Trying one would only provide anecdote, and so contribute nothing to a technical discussion.

In a way, those who have bought one, could be argued to be in the weakest position to give a view, as they are vulnerable, from their invested interest in having the bias that convinced them to purchase in the first place, to seeking that bias confirmed.

 

[Dunesman]

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.

Claims are to be backed up by those making the claim. Not by those questioning the claim.
If the backup is presented for the claim, then yes, those questioning the backup must state their grounds for questioning it.

 

[RichA]

Trying one would only provide anecdote, and so contribute nothing to a technical discussion.

In a way, those who have bought one, could be argued to be in the weakest position to give a view, as they are vulnerable, from their invested interest in having the bias that convinced them to purchase in the first place, to seeking that bias confirmed.

As far as I understand it the science is pretty simple. Toe hang putters will always require some hand control to prevent the face opening or closing during the stroke. Face-balanced will always want to predictably open the face. Gravity innit.
Zero torque is completely neutral, so you just have to hold it very lightly to stop it falling out off your hands. Gravity won't be acting to twist it during the stroke so it's easier to keep your hands neutral.
I've tried one. One of my best pals has a L.A.B. putter. It's nice and you can really feel the difference between zero torque and my toe-hang Anser style blade.
Face control obviously doesn't bother me, hence why I like a blade but it's clearly an issue for some that zero torque aims to neutralise.
Can't see the problem with it. Suggesting that it's any more snake oil than the dozens of other developments that provide marginal gains is daft.

 

[Dunesman]

Suggesting that it's any more snake oil than the dozens of other developments that provide marginal gains is daft.

I am agreeing with you that it is snake oil, but not suggesting it is more so than any other. But once its snake oil at all, it isnt a question of how much - science itself is already gone once that boundary is broken.

 

[RichA]

I am agreeing with you that it is snake oil, but not suggesting it is more so than any other. But once its snake oil at all, it isnt a question of how much - science itself is already gone once that boundary is broken.

I didn't say I think it's snake oil.
I think it's a marginal gain for some people. Modern sport is all about marginal gains. Good luck to those for whom it works.

 

[Oddsocks]

As far as I understand it the science is pretty simple. Toe hang putters will always require some hand control to prevent the face opening or closing during the stroke. Face-balanced will always want to predictably open the face. Gravity innit.
Zero torque is completely neutral, so you just have to hold it very lightly to stop it falling out off your hands. Gravity won't be acting to twist it during the stroke so it's easier to keep your hands neutral.
I've tried one. One of my best pals has a L.A.B. putter. It's nice and you can really feel the difference between zero torque and my toe-hang Anser style blade.
Face control obviously doesn't bother me, hence why I like a blade but it's clearly an issue for some that zero torque aims to neutralise.
Can't see the problem with it. Suggesting that it's any more snake oil than the dozens of other developments that provide marginal gains is daft.

With all zero torques being centre shafted, what makes zero torque new tech?

 

[WirralC]

I've been using a LAB putter for a few months and in my opinion it's a genuine benefit. This might sound stupid but my putts go where I hit them now, if I miss a putt I've misread it or got the pace wrong. I'd miss putts in the past and world think 'thats not where I was aiming'.

On the points raised about you should be strong enough to control the putter, if that was true we'd all be using a blade putter with no assistance, and try adding a 10 gram weight to the toe any of your clubs and see how that works out. It's a game of ridiculously fine margins and in my experience these putters work

 

[RichA]

With all zero torques being centre shafted, what makes zero torque new tech?

But not all centre shafted putters are zero torque.

 

[Neilds]

But not all centre shafted putters are zero torque.

But they are all ugly - in my opinion

 

[HomerJSimpson]

But they are all ugly - in my opinion

I agree but if it makes people putt well then absolutely crack on. I don't know why but I just don't like to look down on a centre shaft and it doesn't give me confidence. If I don't have that looking down I am never going to make a committed stroke

 

[RichA]

But they are all ugly - in my opinion

I think so too. When I've had a go with it I line up and hit the ball out of the toe. It actually works pretty well but that's probably down to the massive MOI more than anything else.

 

[Orikoru]

I think so too. When I've had a go with it I line up and hit the ball out of the toe. It actually works pretty well but that's probably down to the massive MOI more than anything else.

Exactly why I don't like centre-shafted putters! I did the same. Maybe you would get used to it and strike it more in the middle over time though, I don't know. I only used one for about 4 weeks. (A normal centre-shafted, not a zero torque.)

 

[The Fader]

Every single professional golfer uses an iteration of a large headed modern driver because they provide advantages over their smaller header persimmon predecessors.

A very small % of professional golfers use zero torque putters!

If it was a game changer or even offered a marginal gain - surely every pro would be using one?

Not scientific analysis - but a real world view.

 

[Burnsey]

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.

I'm not needed to disprove anything. I bought one, sorry two and my putting is better. The why does not bother me in the slightest

Your debate is perhaps very loosely valid, but as you come across as a bit of an opinionated twonk, I won't be debating any further with you.

 

[Burnsey]

Claims are to be backed up by those making the claim. Not by those questioning the claim.
If the backup is presented for the claim, then yes, those questioning the backup must state their grounds for questioning it.

Sorry Chief Super, I didn't realise how serious this issue was.

I will leave the discussion to the obviously well informed, scientifically and personality experts.

 

[Bobthesock]

I'm sure a £500 lab putter would improve my strokes gained putting by 0.005 a round. I refuse to even try one though for the same reason I won't wear loudmouth trousers.

 

[The Fader]

I'm not needed to disprove anything. I bought one, sorry two and my putting is better. The why does not bother me in the slightest

Your debate is perhaps very loosely valid, but as you come across as a bit of an opinionated twonk, I won't be debating any further with you.

Oh the irony.

Name calling is usually the last act of a lost argument! (And against forum rules of I'm not mistaken?)

He's not questioning that you putt better - he's questioning the science!

That you as an individual putt better is not a scientific proving answer.

 

[WirralC]

Every single professional golfer uses an iteration of a large headed modern driver because they provide advantages over their smaller header persimmon predecessors.

A very small % of professional golfers use zero torque putters!

If it was a game changer or even offered a marginal gain - surely every pro would be using one?

Not scientific analysis - but a real world view.

They’re relatively new to be fair and the main putter manufacturers are developing their own versions. Is that because they work or to cash in on the bandwagon? Who knows. Personally the science seemed to make sense to be and when I tried one I putt better.

 

[Burnsey]

Oh the irony.

Name calling is usually the last act of a lost argument! (And against forum rules of I'm not mistaken?)

He's not questioning that you putt better - he's questioning the science!

That you as an individual putt better is not a scientific proving answer.

Ooer, a rule breaker lol lol lol. Won't miss much when the ban hammer comes.

I'd note the condescending manner of responses before grassing me up please.

Science created at the end of a stick is ALL to do with the individual holding that stick at the other end. Does the science make sense. I say yes, the proof is in the apparatus they have displayed - the face returns square. But, does that transfer when hands are added - not for anyone/everyone, so it will work for some. The science has been adopted by some big brands and it's not all marketing.

 

[Teebs]

It's really not worth having equipment discussions on this forum.

There's other sites that have a more open view to equipment and technology where the members have a more balanced view of the benefits some of the more modern equipment can have (note I said 'can').