Zero Torque Putters? Is it hype or a thing?

[Golf is fun]

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.

You don't need to do anything, but it's not much of a discussion or debate if you don't engage in good faith.

If someone can explain why keeping the face square to the arc improves putting, I am genuinely interested to understand. Especially as at my last putter fitting I was purposely fit for a putter that had toe hang as this suited my stroke.

As said previously, I'm sure zero torque putters are a quality bit of kit and suit some people, but beyond that based on the evidence (or lack of) presented so far they're not some huge breakthrough that will improve putting for everyone.

 

[RichA]

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.

Golf as we know it as amateurs has as much to do with confidence as science.
A human swinging a stick erratically and inconsistently isn't exactly conducive to producing reliable scientific proof either way.

 

[Slab]

Ribbing aside

If you’re successful with a putter with torque i.e a top tour pro, and picked up a zero-torque putter, would that pro have to change his usual stroke in any way in order to hole the putt?

I saw a GM article from last month that said only one of the top 20 owgr use zero torque but is that because if you’re in the top 20 you’re currently a very very successful putter and it got me wondering if zero torque would require any stroke change just to replicate the results they already get

 

[Orikoru]

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').

You say it's not worth discussing because we don't all agree? Surely that's exactly what makes it worth discussing. Topics where everyone agrees don't tend to last very long.

 

[Orikoru]

You don't need to do anything, but it's not much of a discussion or debate if you don't engage in good faith.

If someone can explain why keeping the face square to the arc improves putting, I am genuinely interested to understand. Especially as at my last putter fitting I was purposely fit for a putter that had toe hang as this suited my stroke.

As said previously, I'm sure zero torque putters are a quality bit of kit and suit some people, but beyond that based on the evidence (or lack of) presented so far they're not some huge breakthrough that will improve putting for everyone.

Ironic that you accept this bit of 'science' but not the science that supposedly supersedes it now. Toe-hang is something that was widely accepted for years, and like you I was fitted to one ages ago, but having switched to a face-balanced mallet and seen vast improvement, I now think the toe-hang benefits are a total myth. Why on earth do I want more weight in the toe opening and closing itself??

 

[HomerJSimpson]

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').

And an awful lot more that are far more toxic than this. Have a debate about shafts and kick points on some especially the US led ones and see how that goes

 

[Golf is fun]

Ironic that you accept this bit of 'science' but not the science that supposedly supersedes it now. Toe-hang is something that was widely accepted for years, and like you I was fitted to one ages ago, but having switched to a face-balanced mallet and seen vast improvement, I now think the toe-hang benefits are a total myth. Why on earth do I want more weight in the toe opening and closing itself??

I'm not sure which bit of science you are saying I accept?

I was fitted for a putter and toe hang produced the best results for me. I didn't then go out and say toe hang is the future of putting and everyone should get one, or something similar. Toe hang will suit some people and face balanced will suit others, neither one is a scientific breakthrough that will turn everyone into an elite level putter.

 

[Orikoru]

Ribbing aside

If you’re successful with a putter with torque i.e a top tour pro, and picked up a zero-torque putter, would that pro have to change his usual stroke in any way in order to hole the putt?

I saw a GM article from last month that said only one of the top 20 owgr use zero torque but is that because if you’re in the top 20 you’re currently a very very successful putter and it got me wondering if zero torque would require any stroke change just to replicate the results they already get

I'm not sure that's true - arguably the best two players in the world (Scottie and Rory) have both struggled at times with putting. Both are sponsored by TM though, so limited at the moment to using Spiders, which they both do. I wonder if TM has any plans to follow the zero-torque route, and if they do, will we see them in Scottie and Rory's bags in the future?

Sometimes pros are an odd breed anyway. I think they'll go a lot more by what suits their eye than what's scientifically proven.

 

[Orikoru]

I'm not sure which bit of science you are saying I accept?

I was fitted for a putter and toe hang produced the best results for me. I didn't then go out and say toe hang is the future of putting and everyone should get one, or something similar. Toe hang will suit some people and face balanced will suit others, neither one is a scientific breakthrough that will turn everyone into an elite level putter.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood, as I read it as you bestowing the virtues of toe-hang before dismissing zero-torque. Apologies. Yes, I think ultimately each golfer will go with what feels right and what holes putts. If that could be boiled down to toe-hang vs face-balanced in the past, but now we have a third option to try as well, then all the better.

 

[WirralC]

I suppose it opens a wider debate about putting. Ive been fitted for a toe hang in the past too, but imagine we know nothing about golf and were asked what's the best way for a putt to go straight / where you are aiming. For me it makes sense to say to keep the club face on that path. Toe hang imho is almost compensating for what is not the ideal way to putt, the club face is probably facing the wrong way 99% of the stroke?

 

[3 jabber]

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.

True but I guess the tech is designed to help us less skilled players that need all the assistance we can get. Pros are more capable of hitting the centre of the face and controlling the path better than we are.

 

[Golf is fun]

Ok, maybe I misunderstood, as I read it as you bestowing the virtues of toe-hang before dismissing zero-torque. Apologies. Yes, I think ultimately each golfer will go with what feels right and what holes putts. If that could be boiled down to toe-hang vs face-balanced in the past, but now we have a third option to try as well, then all the better.

I agree that options are good, and that for all the science involved, there can still be a bit of art in fitting a club just because of the human element.

The part I disagree with is the claim from L.A.B that scientifically zero torque putters are better. They're nice putters, well made I'm sure, but the CEOs claim that they suit everyone seems a bit far fetched to me:

Our technology sort of blows up the entire narrative about face-balanced and toe hang and one of those options being better for a particular kind of stroke.
Since we’re not trying to find you the right torque profile, because we already know that a putter that stays square by itself is better than one that doesn’t, our only goal is to get you comfortable.

My disagreement is that if the face stays square to the arc, there is only 1 exact point on the arc you can hit the ball, and have it travel on the line you intend. A lot of people don't do this, or even align perfectly, but they can putt well because being human they adjust during the stroke using hand eye coordination. Even in his peak Tiger used to do this.

 

[Golf is fun]

I suppose it opens a wider debate about putting. Ive been fitted for a toe hang in the past too, but imagine we know nothing about golf and were asked what's the best way for a putt to go straight / where you are aiming. For me it makes sense to say to keep the club face on that path. Toe hang imho is almost compensating for what is not the ideal way to putt, the club face is probably facing the wrong way 99% of the stroke?

In theory the best way would be for the putter to travel in a straight line with the face always square to the target. Unfortunately biology means we can't do this, because of how our limbs attach, they move in arcs rather than straight lines.

 

[Oddsocks]

But not all centre shafted putters are zero torque.

I’m asking what the difference is as from the naked eye centre shafted putters are old tech.

Again I’m asking a genuine question, not trying to argue

 

[garyinderry]

I'm not sure that's true - arguably the best two players in the world (Scottie and Rory) have both struggled at times with putting. Both are sponsored by TM though, so limited at the moment to using Spiders, which they both do. I wonder if TM has any plans to follow the zero-torque route, and if they do, will we see them in Scottie and Rory's bags in the future?

Sometimes pros are an odd breed anyway. I think they'll go a lot more by what suits their eye than what's scientifically proven.

TM zero-t.

Ask and you shall receive

 

[RichA]

In theory the best way would be for the putter to travel in a straight line with the face always square to the target. Unfortunately biology means we can't do this, because of how our limbs attach, they move in arcs rather than straight lines.

Yep. The idea of a straight back and through stroke being effective is a bit nuts when you figure out how many joints, tendons and muscles have to coordinate to come close to achieving it.

 

[WirralC]

In theory the best way would be for the putter to travel in a straight line with the face always square to the target. Unfortunately biology means we can't do this, because of how our limbs attach, they move in arcs rather than straight linesAre

In theory the best way would be for the putter to travel in a straight line with the face always square to the target. Unfortunately biology means we can't do this, because of how our limbs attach, they move in arcs rather than straight lines.

I don't accept it's impossible for a human being to move a putter back in a straight line, I've literally just done it.

 

[RichA]

I’m asking what the difference is as from the naked eye centre shafted putters are old tech.

Again I’m asking a genuine question, not trying to argue

I don't assume anyone is being argumentative in a chat about putters. That would be silly, wouldn't it?!
My answer is I don't know. I think they were usually face-balanced, but I know that the L.A.B. one I used had lots of weights screwed into various ports. I would guess that those weights are balanced and the shaft goes into the putter head such that it's completely neutrally weighted around the centre pivot. But that's probably just waffle.

 

[WirralC]

Yep. The idea of a straight back and through stroke being effective is a bit nuts when you figure out how many joints, tendons and muscles have to coordinate to come close to achieving it.

How does that compare with having to co-ordinate those body parts to deliver a square face at the precise 1% of the stroke its needed compared to 99% of the stroke when its not?

 

[RichA]

I don't accept it's impossible for a human being to move a putter back in a straight line, I've literally just done it.

It's possible. It just uses loads more fine motor control of more joints than pivoting in arc.