I gotta ask, are Zero torque putters just a flavor of the month ?

[SwingBlade]

47 minutes ago, jda said:

Pen and Confidence tried the same type of thing in the 1960s.  Amby-dex, and the like, were offered by Wilson before WW2.  Ping has talked before about how they analyzed this stuff in their roots and see no evidence that it helps - wether they are right, or not, they looked into it and decided not to release it.

 

Some of this is why people have issues with companies like LAB who insist that they are the only ones who are smart and could ever figure something out.

 

None of this is new.  I guess it might be a match made in heaven if you think that this stuff is novel - confidence and belief is probably worth more than any "tech."

I believe the requests were for proof of your statements.  This a photo of a 1925 Wilson  Amby-Dex dual directional wooden head putter with a hickory center mounted shaft.  I'm still a little curious as to how you've seemingly concluded that this 99 year old simple wooden putter remotely has anything whatsoever to do with zero torque technology?   
 

[iteachgolf]

22 minutes ago, SwingBlade said:

I believe the requests were for proof of your statements.  This a photo of a 1925 Wilson  Amby-Dex dual directional wooden head putter with a hickory center mounted shaft.  I'm still a little curious as to how you've seemingly concluded that this 99 year old simple wooden putter remotely has anything whatsoever to do with zero torque technology?   
 

I can show you multiple putters that are 20-30 years old that work in a revealer that predate lab.  I also think they are very easy to design and make.  Also a ton of misconceptions about forgiveness in blade vs mallet in this thread.   I think the technology is interesting and will help some but will also always be a minority when it comes to putters in use. 

[svlido]

I've been experimenting with one and the problem I've found is you really have to commit to it. If you don't dive into the deep end you're really not going to like it. 

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, iteachgolf said:

I can show you multiple putters that are 20-30 years old that work in a revealer that predate lab.  I also think they are very easy to design and make.  Also a ton of misconceptions about forgiveness in blade vs mallet in this thread.   I think the technology is interesting and will help some but will also always be a minority when it comes to putters in use. 

Show em to us…

[BombsIntoTheWoods]

19 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Show em to us…

If this was so easily achievable, we would have seen numerous videos posted discrediting lab and the whole revealer concept to start. 

[iteachgolf]

Just now, BombsIntoTheWoods said:

If this was so easily achievable, we would have seen numerous videos posted discrediting lab and the whole revealer concept to start. 

What do you mean discrediting?  I’ve posted several videos showing they can be made with different designs and hosel configurations.  
 

Including the one below that also has an MOI over 5k.  Just because something is easy to design doesn’t mean it’s discrediting anything. 

[iteachgolf]

26 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Show em to us…

I’ve posted them several times.  This is an example of a putter that’s 25 years old. 
 

Link to video

 

I have plenty of center shafted, forward CG putters that work just fine in a revealer including one that’s 35 years old.  I’m sure I can find some older that work if I actually cared but I’m guessing that won’t satisfy you either

[stratgolf]

I think probably yes and no. There's no doubt they provide a really good fix for those that struggle with face alignment - I'm just not sure for how many people that's the biggest issue with their putting - e.g. feel, pace control, green reading and lag putts.

 

I think in reality more people would benefit from something like aimpoint (yuck, but works) or going to a broom if their putting stroke is just busted than are going to see massive gains on the greens with a L.A.B. That being said, if you just cannot square the face, then it's the obvious solution.

 

Good putters will always be good putters. Bad putters need all the help they can get to be average, IMO. I've used a L.A.B and enjoyed it, but I love the feel of a blade and toe hang. 

[Red4282]

42 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

What do you mean discrediting?  I’ve posted several videos showing they can be made with different designs and hosel configurations.  
 

Including the one below that also has an MOI over 5k.  Just because something is easy to design doesn’t mean it’s discrediting anything. 

Eh not the same thing regardless of how it does in revealer

Edited December 9, 2024 by Red4282

[Red4282]

41 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

I’ve posted them several times.  This is an example of a putter that’s 25 years old. 
 

Link to video

 

I have plenty of center shafted, forward CG putters that work just fine in a revealer including one that’s 35 years old.  I’m sure I can find some older that work if I actually cared but I’m guessing that won’t satisfy you either

No offense but something seems off with your video. Any more videos?

Edited December 9, 2024 by Red4282

[iteachgolf]

Just now, Red4282 said:

Um, wheres the part where it “passes” the revealer? 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DC1wSuvRgAi/?igsh=MTJoNHhnaGZuOGVudA==
 

but feel free to ask @labgolf   Sam is well aware of the putters I’ve made.  Again I’ve said nothing negative about Lab at all.  I said the technology is interesting and has a place for sure.  All I said is it’s not as complicated as many of you try to make it. 

 

 

This one also passed the revealer
 

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCPFS8tOpam/?igsh=MWZkOWt0dWVwaXU2ZQ==

[iteachgolf]

Just now, Red4282 said:

No offense but something seems off with your video. Any more videos?

Nothings wrong with the video and that’s not my video.  It was also tested on gears vs. lab.  But I’m guessing you’ll say that Gears isn’t good enough a test

[iteachgolf]

6 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Eh not the same thing regardless of how it does in revealer

How is it not the same thing?  Sam from Lab would tell you that it does the same thing. It’s math

[Red4282]

Just now, iteachgolf said:

Nothings wrong with the video and that’s not my video.  It was also tested on gears vs. lab.  But I’m guessing you’ll say that Gears isn’t good enough a test

Im not saying that, Im saying burden of proof needs to be a little more than one swing in a 3 second clip. The other clips are better and the center shafted mallet is definitely close to Labs designs. 

[Red4282]

1 minute ago, iteachgolf said:

How is it not the same thing?  Sam from Lab would tell you that it does the same thing. It’s math

Well for one,  the connecting point is in the heel vs center shafted, similar to axis1… which is close but not the same thing.

[iteachgolf]

Just now, Red4282 said:

Well for one,  the connecting point is in the heel vs center shafted, similar to axis1… which is close but not the same thing.

The connection point doesn’t matter.  It’s where the shaft is pointed. And nothing like the axis.  The COG is more forward on the blade head than the mallet which is why I can have a different way of making it balanced. That blade head is also significantly more forgiving than the mallet.  You obviously don’t understand how this stuff works, which is fine, but you shouldn’t be calling people out when you have a very incomplete understanding of what’s going on

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

The connection point doesn’t matter.  It’s where the shaft is pointed. And nothing like the axis.  The COG is more forward on the blade head than the mallet which is why I can have a different way of making it balanced. That blade head is also significantly more forgiving than the mallet.  You obviously don’t understand how this stuff works, which is fine, but you shouldn’t be calling people out when you have a very incomplete understanding of what’s going on

You are basically saying that having the shaft axis aligned such that it points at the CG of the head will result in a torque free design about the shaft axis. That shouldn't be sufficient, but I can't easily confirm it.

[iteachgolf]

2 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You are basically saying that having the shaft axis aligned such that it points at the CG of the head will result in a torque free design about the shaft axis. That shouldn't be sufficient, but I can't easily confirm it.

Feel free to look up their patent. The math isn’t tough with modern cad/cam software

[Red4282]

11 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

The connection point doesn’t matter.  It’s where the shaft is pointed. And nothing like the axis.  The COG is more forward on the blade head than the mallet which is why I can have a different way of making it balanced. That blade head is also significantly more forgiving than the mallet.  You obviously don’t understand how this stuff works, which is fine, but you shouldn’t be calling people out when you have a very incomplete understanding of what’s going on

Im not versed on the math, nor I need to be to know a heel shafted putter is not the same as a center shafted putter. Yes the shaft axis intersects the COG which is a big premise but it isnt the only premise.

[jda]

How does this work?  If some of you did not know, then it is not real or fake news.

 

None of this is new.  Prove that it is.

[Red4282]

2 minutes ago, jda said:

How does this work?  If some of you did not know, then it is not real or fake news.

 

None of this is new.  Prove that it is.

I will say I have no Idea if its new or not. I honestly dont care. What is new is our understanding of things thanks to tech like quintic, gears, etc. So while some of those “old” ideas never stuck, LAB went with it, and along with the tech we are seeing a bit of a revolution… dont ask me, several independent entities have said as such. The fact that almost every oem and garage maker seems to be doing some sort of this type even further validates it. 

[iteachgolf]

16 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Im not versed on the math, nor I need to be to know a heel shafted putter is not the same as a center shafted putter. Yes the shaft axis intersects the COG which is a big premise but it isnt the only premise.

Who said it had to be center shafted?  You do know that Lab have been working on the reverse plumbers neck for a while right?  Again if the shaft is pointed at the exact same location it doesn’t matter where the actual attachment is on the head.  The “premise” has literally zero to do with being center shafted.

[Red4282]

7 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

Who said it had to be center shafted?  You do know that Lab have been working on the reverse plumbers neck for a while right?  Again if the shaft is pointed at the exact same location it doesn’t matter where the actual attachment is on the head.  The “premise” has literally zero to do with being center shafted.

As of now LABs only designs have been shafted center. So doesnt really matter what they experiment with.
 

But you saying having different connection points doesnt matter is just not true. Im positive you know how MOI works, in that when a toe strike occurs,  the rotation point would be the COG correct? If the connection of the head is in the heel, the rotation from a toe mishit will thrust the heel forward…

 

The same happens when the connection point right is at the cog (center) but it will feel quite different. There might be a slight twist sensation but nothing like the jarring thrust of a heel connected putter. 
 

So yes they are different.

[iteachgolf]

8 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

As of now LABs only designs have been shafted center. So doesnt really matter what they experiment with.
 

But you saying having different connection points doesnt matter is just not true. Im positive you know how MOI works, in that when a toe strike occurs,  the rotation point would be the COG correct? If the connection of the head is in the heel, the rotation from a toe mishit will thrust the heel forward…

 

The same happens when the connection point right is at the cog (center) but it will feel quite different. There might be a slight twist sensation but nothing like the jarring thrust of a heel connected putter. 
 

So yes they are different.

 

No it wouldn’t.  Again you don’t understand what you’re talking about.  I can hit that putter so far off the toe that part of the ball is past the toe of the putter, and it won’t rotate in a revealer.   

[Red4282]

5 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

 

No it wouldn’t.  Again you don’t understand what you’re talking about.  I can hit that putter so far off the toe that part of the ball is past the toe of the putter, and it won’t rotate in a revealer.   

To your eye maybe but its rotating. and a revealer doesnt tell you how something FEELS. Which is what i said. 

Edited December 9, 2024 by Red4282

[Red4282]

7 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

 

No it wouldn’t.  Again you don’t understand what you’re talking about.  I can hit that putter so far off the toe that part of the ball is past the toe of the putter, and it won’t rotate in a revealer.   

You keep trying to insult me but in your videos I can see rotation with my own eyes. It may not be flopping all over there place like a traditional putter but there is movement. Even LABS will move slightly.

[iteachgolf]

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

To your eye maybe but its rotating. and a revealer doesnt tell you how something FEELS. Which is what i said. 

You won’t feel it. If it won’t rotate when being suspended from a ceramic bearing with extremely low friction, what makes you think there’s enough force that you’d feel it through a rubber grip being held with both hands?

[Red4282]

Just now, iteachgolf said:

You won’t feel it. If it won’t rotate when being suspended from a ceramic bearing with extremely low friction, what makes you think there’s enough force that you’d feel it through a rubber grip being held with both hands?

Again, it does rotate. Otherwise you are saying moi is basically a non factor. 

[iteachgolf]

2 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

You keep trying to insult me but in your videos I can see rotation with my own eyes. It may not be flopping all over there place like a traditional putter but there is movement. Even LABS will move slightly.

The axis of rotation is exactly the same if it is done through a goose neck or center shafted, design would just have to change to make COG in the same place as the gooseneck is visually asymmetrical to get weighting neutral

[iteachgolf]

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

Again, it does rotate. Otherwise you are saying moi is basically a non factor. 

Hate to break it to you, but it is a non factor. Even with a bullseye you have to miss the sweetspot by 17mm in order to miss a 10’ putt.   And again I’m fairly certain that goose neck blade has a higher MOI than any of the putters Lab has released.