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

[Roody]

4 hours ago, dodgyman said:

This argument is misleading to some extent. Aside from the obvious fact that it’s a single example, and you will find lots of counter examples, the question is not if zero balance is demonstrably better than traditional putting or by how much.

100%. It's definitely just the one sample, I know that. I just found it amusing that he was touting it like it was the Al Czervik putter from Caddyshack that putts itself, but apparently it malfunctioned on the actual course. 

[ScooterMcTavish]

I said in another one of these threads that there is so much more to putting than just zero torque.  If someone is a SBST putter who practices and holds the putter online, any face-balanced putter should deliver good results.

 

Additionally, if an SBST player is getting a little gate-y or twisty, any centre-shafted putter should work well for them.  Just pick the style of putter you like (mallet, blade, hybrid) then go sink some balls.

 

And in some cases, what we need one day changes the next.  My swing and eyesight has changed a surprising amount in my 50s.  So after a two hour putter fitting a couple of years ago, I didn't buy the putter I wanted - I bought the one that worked, a Spider X short slant with a small amount of toe hang.

 

After starting to miss many, many putts this year (mostly alignment, not stroke) I went back to the store, and curiously tried some centre shafted putters (last CS one I used was a Ping Lil'B cut down to 35" about 8 years ago).  And sure enough, alignment was now good as one of my eyes is weakening at a different rate than the other.  Take it out, and suddenly I'm sinking more putts than I had all year.

 

Then it snowed.

 

I believe L.A.B. has a very nice product - a highly bespoke, customizable putter that is torque resistant.  And even some of the designs are not hideous - the Mezz 1 Max is a pretty sexy beast.  But in reality, a centre-shafted low-torque putter will not suit everyone's physiology, just like a face balanced putter will not suit everyone's stroke.  If it did, we'd all still be gaming centre-shafted Ben Hogan Bettinardi Big Ben BHB-7 putters.

[jholz]

Hate to be the guy to say it, but I feel like I was out in front of this tip from the beginning. Check out my post history, if you dare. 🙂 

 

Got personally berated by the L.A.B. guys (gotta remember those periods) and WRX members. Pariah. 

 

Give it six months and everyone's on the bandwagon. Go figure.

[mmiicc]

28 minutes ago, jholz said:

Hate to be the guy to say it, but I feel like I was out in front of this tip from the beginning. Check out my post history, if you dare. 🙂 

 

Got personally berated by the L.A.B. guys (gotta remember those periods) and WRX members. Pariah. 

 

Give it six months and everyone's on the bandwagon. Go figure.

respect

[jholz]

8 minutes ago, mmiicc said:

respect

 

Appreciate you dude. 

[jda]

4 hours ago, dodgyman said:

As to why we don't see zero torque chippers, irons or woods, my guess (would love to hear from an engineer if there is any merit to this, generally curious) is that there would be huge benefit for all if you had zero torque woods, but I don't think you can make them, or no one has.

 

Talk to some good club designers and engineers.  These forces have been known for decades.  All of the ones that I talk to say that it does not matter at all and don't want to bother with it.

 

People have done this.  I remember seeing center shafted, low twist/torque drivers from the 1960s, but cannot remember the name.  Most recent that I can remember is Gravity Centered Golf about a decade ago.

 

Again, none of this is a new concept or idea.

 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravity-centered-golf-s-zero-torque-golf-clubs#/

[mmiicc]

12 minutes ago, jda said:

 

Talk to some good club designers and engineers.  These forces have been known for decades.  All of the ones that I talk to say that it does not matter at all and don't want to bother with it.

 

People have done this.  I remember seeing center shafted, low twist/torque drivers from the 1960s, but cannot remember the name.  Most recent that I can remember is Gravity Centered Golf about a decade ago.

 

Again, none of this is a new concept or idea.

 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravity-centered-golf-s-zero-torque-golf-clubs#/

this is amazing

[Red4282]

Yea that was great for a decent laugh…. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wxo6jiwvg

[ScooterMcTavish]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

Got personally berated by the L.A.B. guys (gotta remember those periods) and WRX members. Pariah. 

 

Wow, you sure got it in the junk a few times.  I have only really noticed traction on these since the Black Friday sale happened, and a mass-market Canadian retailer started carrying them in stock configurations.

 

But yah, feels like whenever I post in r/Golf on Reddit.  There is certainly a herd mentality about the online golf community, and as soon as one downvote shows up, many quickly follow.

And I certainly understand the value proposition for the L.A.B. putters.  I once had a playing partner who went to a Boccieri Heavy Putter, and literally held it in a deathgrip with opposing palm clawed hands his yips were so bad.  Anything that can convince a player they will putt better, and getting something "unique to you" for a reasonable price isn't bad either - especially when smaller run mass produced putters now clear $600+ off the rack.

So bully for them finding the next "niche" marketing term (like 10k drivers) but there are no shortcuts in golf.  Fix your swing, get the right equipment for you and your swing, and go practice/play. 

 

[jholz]

2 minutes ago, ScooterMcTavish said:

 

Wow, you sure got it in the junk a few times.  I have only really noticed traction on these since the Black Friday sale happened, and a mass-market Canadian retailer started carrying them in stock configurations.

 

But yah, feels like whenever I post in r/Golf on Reddit.  There is certainly a herd mentality about the online golf community, and as soon as one downvote shows up, many quickly follow.

And I certainly understand the value proposition for the L.A.B. putters.  I once had a playing partner who went to a Boccieri Heavy Putter, and literally held it in a deathgrip with opposing palm clawed hands his yips were so bad.  Anything that can convince a player they will putt better, and getting something "unique to you" for a reasonable price isn't bad either - especially when smaller run mass produced putters now clear $600+ off the rack.

So bully for them finding the next "niche" marketing term (like 10k drivers) but there are no shortcuts in golf.  Fix your swing, get the right equipment for you and your swing, and go practice/play. 

 

 

It's only taken more than 15 years on WRX and a virtual lifetime of playing golf to get this point.

[ThinkingPlus]

6 hours ago, Golfingfanatic said:

This is where I have the strongest pushback on the zero/low torque stuff. I am just not sure if torque is a massive reason as to why people are missing putts. In my view people are a lot better at managing torque than they are given credit for in these threads. I am not a scientist, but I would argue that most of the objects you handle, be it as an athlete or a human being, have some degree of torque. If we just look at golf alone, every other club in your bag has some degree of torque. If people were so awful at managing torque, why are there no zero torque chippers, irons or woods?

It's all about the level of precision expected for the shot being attempted. Would you accept a 2° lateral miss from 200 yards? Of course you would. That's roughly 0.035*200 = 7 yards. Same 2° miss from 100 yards would be half that so 3.5 yards. Once again, very acceptable.  How about a 2° miss from 6 feet? That would be 0.035*6 = 0.21 feet or 2.4" to 2.5" lateral error. Assuming a straight putt you probably missed. Maybe lipped in at best. That's why it doesn't matter for full clubs, but does for putter.

 

Also, since the torque is proportional to the applied force, it will be different by factors of 5, 10, or 20 as you go from 3 feet to 15 feet to 30 feet to 60 feet. Countering that torque over such a large range isn't physically hard, but does require very good touch. Or do nothing given a torque free design. It's that simple.

[ScooterMcTavish]

LOL, I've been on WRX for 16 years, and I'm also pretty much in the same place.  Though an unbelievable deal on some irons in the fall got me to splurge a bit more than I have in the past.

 

And the whole aging thing has been interesting.  It has changed how heavy an iron I like, how I line up putts, and even my driver loft.  What worked the year before simply stops working, and now I'm needing to plan my golf purchases around the next five years, not the past five.

 

Fortunately I have a hard time getting rid of putters, so the Spider X, Sabretooth, My Day, and heavy Bullseye will still be there if I need them.    

 

And at the end of the day, I have friends who are no longer with us, and am happy to still have my health and be golfing.   

[jholz]

10 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It's all about the level of precision expected for the shot being attempted. Would you accept a 2° lateral miss from 200 yards? Of course you would. That's roughly 0.035*200 = 7 yards. Same 2° miss from 100 yards would be half that so 3.5 yards. Once again, very acceptable.  How about a 2° miss from 6 feet? That would be 0.035*6 = 0.21 feet or 2.4" to 2.5" lateral error. Assuming a straight putt you probably missed. Maybe lipped in at best. That's why it doesn't matter for full clubs, but does for putter.

 

Also, since the torque is proportional to the applied force, it will be different by factors of 5, 10, or 20 as you go from 3 feet to 15 feet to 30 feet to 60 feet. Countering that torque over such a large range isn't physically hard, but does require very good touch. Or do nothing given a torque free design. It's that simple

 

 

You've received an official jholz seal of "Hard Core Approval." Well deserved.

 

Any chance you could list all of the assumptions that underlie these statements?

 

Seems like you are assuming truths that don't actually exist or matter.

 

Why not have golf be a competition between club designers and iron byrons?

 

Humans are weird. Technical folks can't deal.

Edited December 11, 2024 by jholz

[Golfingfanatic]

11 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It's all about the level of precision expected for the shot being attempted. Would you accept a 2° lateral miss from 200 yards? Of course you would. That's roughly 0.035*200 = 7 yards. Same 2° miss from 100 yards would be half that so 3.5 yards. Once again, very acceptable.  How about a 2° miss from 6 feet? That would be 0.035*6 = 0.21 feet or 2.4" to 2.5" lateral error. Assuming a straight putt you probably missed. Maybe lipped in at best. That's why it doesn't matter for full clubs, but does for putter.

 

Also, since the torque is proportional to the applied force, it will be different by factors of 5, 10, or 20 as you go from 3 feet to 15 feet to 30 feet to 60 feet. Countering that torque over such a large range isn't physically hard, but does require very good touch. Or do nothing given a torque free design. It's that simple.

It’s not “that simple” though, is it? Your argument is based on the premise that a torque-free object is somehow easier to use for a human compared to an object with torque. Whilst this premise could be true, I just have not seen any type of real evidence for this assumption.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

8 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

You've received an official jholz seal of "Hard Core Approval." Well deserved.

 

Any chance you could list all of the assumptions that underlie these statements?

 

Seems like you are assuming truths that don't actually exist or matter.

 

Why not have golf be a competition between club designers and iron byrons?

 

Humans are weird. Technical folks can't deal.

Assumption is that the only error in each respective shot was the 2° angular error of the face. Any other errors would generally be RSSed (in angle) with the face error. Also ignored all psychological problems and superstitions that seem inherent to most folks. Nothing can fix that.

[ThinkingPlus]

8 minutes ago, Golfingfanatic said:

It’s not “that simple” though, is it? Your argument is based on the premise that a torque-free object is somehow easier to use for a human compared to an object with torque. Whilst this premise could be true, I just have not seen any type of real evidence for this assumption.

 

 

I agree. I am making the assumption that doing nothing is easier than doing something with a high degree of precision.

[golferdude54]

7 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I agree. I am making the assumption that doing nothing is easier than doing something with a high degree of precision.

I agree on doing nothing.

 

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It's all about the level of precision expected for the shot being attempted. Would you accept a 2° lateral miss from 200 yards? Of course you would. That's roughly 0.035*200 = 7 yards. Same 2° miss from 100 yards would be half that so 3.5 yards. Once again, very acceptable.  How about a 2° miss from 6 feet? That would be 0.035*6 = 0.21 feet or 2.4" to 2.5" lateral error. Assuming a straight putt you probably missed. Maybe lipped in at best. That's why it doesn't matter for full clubs, but does for putter.

 

Also, since the torque is proportional to the applied force, it will be different by factors of 5, 10, or 20 as you go from 3 feet to 15 feet to 30 feet to 60 feet. Countering that torque over such a large range isn't physically hard, but does require very good touch. Or do nothing given a torque free design. It's that simple.

Also, its different for a full swing. The “shaft is a string” applies here in regards to mishits and twisting from those. Its also incredibly hard almost impossible to keep face square to swing arc for a full swing. 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Red4282

[jholz]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Assumption is that the only error in each respective shot was the 2° angular error of the face. Any other errors would generally be RSSed (in angle) with the face error. Also ignored all psychological problems and superstitions that seem inherent to most folks. Nothing can fix that.

 

Huh. I'm not a laser scientist. I do apologize. My Ph.D. was in English Lit.

 

Utilizing my extensive research experience, I casually googled "RSSed" and found a lot of info on the Rowan-Salisbury School System in NC.

 

If you weren't aware...they are doing an "exceptional" job "educating tomorrow's youth" and preparing them for "future careers" They have some tremendous photos on their website to provide proof. I've never seen such happy and engaged learners! Why isn't every school district doing the same thing?!?

 

Ironically, the Rowan-Salisbury School District website looks and sounds very similar to the L.A.B. website. 

 

I must admit, it would be cool if some random school district (in NC of all places) finally "cracked the code" of education.

 

But that fantasy sounds similar to L.A.B.'s promise.

 

If only we could eliminate human psychology, prejudices, and other frailties from the system. Everything would work great.

 

Are you suggesting the L.A.B. putters have the ability to do this?

 

Edited December 12, 2024 by jholz

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

Huh. I'm not a laser scientist. I do apologize. My Ph.D. was in English Lit.

 

Utilizing my extensive research experience, I casually googled "RSSed" and found a lot of info on the Rowan-Salisbury School System in NC.

 

If you weren't aware...they are doing an "exceptional" job "educating tomorrow's youth" and preparing them for "future careers" They have some tremendous photos on their website to provide proof. I've never seen such happy and engaged learners! Why isn't every school district doing the same thing?!?

 

Ironically, the Rowan-Salisbury School District website looks and sounds very similar to the L.A.B. website. 

 

I must admit, it would be cool if some random school district (in NC of all places) finally "cracked the code" of education.

 

But that fantasy sounds similar to L.A.B.'s promise.

 

If only we could eliminate human psychology, prejudices, and other frailties from the system. Everything would work great.

 

Are you suggesting the L.A.B. putters have the ability to do this?

 

Nope. In fact, I would not recommend a L.A.B. putter or other torque free design to anyone who has spent a lifetime using a blade style putter or one with significant toe hang. It's too big of an adjustment. I think the torque free designs are technically superior, but the real big adoption will not occur until the kids start using them.

 

BTW, RSS stands for Root Sum Squared (square root of the sum of squared terms). It is typically used to determine a total error from a collection of independent error terms.

[jholz]

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Nope. In fact, I would not recommend a L.A.B. putter or other torque free design to anyone who has spent a lifetime using a blade style putter or one with significant toe hang. It's too big of an adjustment. I think the torque free designs are technically superior, but the real big adoption will not occur until the kids start using them.

 

BTW, RSS stands for Root Sum Squared (square root of the sum of squared terms). It is typically used to determine a total error from a collection of independent error terms.

 

 

Totally respect the response. Well reasoned.

 

But, if we take your assertion - and project it out...

 

It seems that you are making a pretty strong prediction of the future.

 

In my experience, only fools, the delusional, or those that have rigged the conclusions speak with such certainty.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

 

Totally respect the response. Well reasoned.

 

But, if we take your assertion - and project it out...

 

It seems that you are making a pretty strong prediction of the future.

 

In my experience, only fools, the delusional, or those that have rigged the conclusions speak with such certainty.

It's just an opinion albeit with some decent science behind it. Given how traditional  and hidebound golfers tend to be, maybe too bold a prediction, but it costs nothing to make so...

[dodgyman]

To all those who say, no, this is just a fad, I'm honestly curious about the inverse question. What could a putter do to be a substantial technical advance? And would everybody be equally as good a putter with a bullseye design? What advancements were big enough to "not be a fad" in the past, and how would those arguing that an answer/mallet style putter is going to last, prove it?

Reason I'm asking is from what I can see this argument isn't just "un-winable" it's impossible to make any progress in the discussion.

Edited December 12, 2024 by dodgyman

[ElephantTusk]

On 12/8/2024 at 3:08 PM, jda said:

People have know the forces that affect a putter both during the stroke and at impact since at least the 1950s.  Zero torque putters have been made since at least then and they are not hard to build.  The market has not chosen these to be widely produced or used in 60ish years.  There is no new tech, design, knowledge, or whatever other word that you want to use on the new ones.

 

They are just another option.

 

They will get a rep of being over rated once enough desperate people use them for long enough.  It is not fair - never has been and never will be.  This has to do with the desperate people and not the design.  This happens with any new thing once enough people who want magic out of a tool find out that it has none.  Dude cannot putt... buys a ZT putter... still cannot putt... so it is the putters fault and he moves on to the next hot thing.  Remember when Yes! and their C grooves were going to change the world with all of that tech - they didn't, but the putters are still good tools even though people have moved on from them.

 

Any of the drills, changes to swings, etc. needed to use a putter need to be ignored.  Anybody with better technique and practice gets better.

Weird to call out Yes in particular as they literally did have a massive impact on subsequent putter designs (see Bettinardi, Taylor Made, Odyssey, Rife/Evnroll, etc).

 

Aside from Scottie users, a massive number of tour players have some sort of grooves in their putters.

[iteachgolf]

38 minutes ago, ElephantTusk said:

Weird to call out Yes in particular as they literally did have a massive impact on subsequent putter designs (see Bettinardi, Taylor Made, Odyssey, Rife/Evnroll, etc).

 

Aside from Scottie users, a massive number of tour players have some sort of grooves in their putters.

Yet it’s been proven that they don’t lead to more made putts.  They do reduced surface area which leads to reduced feedback and slower ball speeds.  Up to you if you think that’s a good thing but they don’t make more putts

[jsmcdon]

On 12/7/2024 at 11:40 AM, straightshot7 said:

which putters are actually "zero torque" (besides LAB)?

 

Or are the others just "reduced torque"?

From what I understand-

bettinardi antidote

callaway ai square to square jailbird

Pxg Allan

[ElephantTusk]

23 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

Yet it’s been proven that they don’t lead to more made putts.  They do reduced surface area which leads to reduced feedback and slower ball speeds.  Up to you if you think that’s a good thing but they don’t make more putts

 

I have no idea what you mean by "proven". Grooves certainly can have an impact on the roll of the ball, though. Do we agree on that?

 

Making putts obviously requires many factors to all work in sync (green reading, putter face angle, speed, etc). I don't think any sensible person has ever suggested that new tech magically eliminates the need to execute on all of those factors.

 

The thing that seems to get overlooked (or maybe just undervalued) is that small improvements in each of these factors can add up to a shot, or even just fractions of a shot per round for better players. Did Bobby Jones make clutch putts with Calamity Jane? Clearly. Does any top competitive player use a similar putter today? Of course not. It's all just stacking up small advantages where you can get them, and then still practicing your butt off to realize that advantage.

[purdyd]

First off LAB is not zero torque, it is a heel weighted putter.

 

that makes it a statically self balancing putter about the axis of the shaft

 

notice the title of their patent and you can go through the referenced patents to see prior art

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9233280B2/en

 

however the press grip makes the LAB putters a face balanced putter around the axis of the  grip.

 

which is why axis golf measured a torque about the axis of the grip when addressing the ball with LAB putters

so I think the jury is still out on current wave of zero torque offerings

 

 

[Red4282]

40 minutes ago, purdyd said:

First off LAB is not zero torque, it is a heel weighted putter.

 

that makes it a statically self balancing putter about the axis of the shaft

 

notice the title of their patent and you can go through the referenced patents to see prior art

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9233280B2/en

 

however the press grip makes the LAB putters a face balanced putter around the axis of the  grip.

 

which is why axis golf measured a torque about the axis of the grip when addressing the ball with LAB putters

so I think the jury is still out on current wave of zero torque offerings

 

 

I dont know anything about their patents, but perhaps this is something different? The illustrations clearly show the shaft inserting toeside of center geometrically speaking. This isnt the case with their putters we buy…?

[ScooterMcTavish]

10 hours ago, dodgyman said:

To all those who say, no, this is just a fad, I'm honestly curious about the inverse question. What could a putter do to be a substantial technical advance? And would everybody be equally as good a putter with a bullseye design? What advancements were big enough to "not be a fad" in the past, and how would those arguing that an answer/mallet style putter is going to last, prove it?

Reason I'm asking is from what I can see this argument isn't just "un-winable" it's impossible to make any progress in the discussion.

 

I like this approach you are taking, and I believe it has been stated that the bulk of the technological advances in putters have already been made, especially when we discuss torque resistant putters.

 

I will not rehash the history of Ping, but the Anser changed the design of putters forever.  This was a huge technical advance.

 

Slotline advanced this in the late 80s with their Intertial design, and used heavier weighting on the putter, made it face-balanced, and added a centre shaft.  This caused them to sell very, very well, as even some of the more centre shafted prior putters from Ping often had large amounts of toe hang.  This was the next huge advance.

 

A number of manufacturers continue to make a limited number of this type of putter, with SeeMore being the most dedicated.  But Ping has generally offered at least one centre-shafted model, as has Odyssey.  I currently game a Ping Sigma 2 Kushin C, and find it is close to the least torquiest putter I have ever played.  And this is true of any face balanced putter with a centre shaft - if the golfer has a clean SBST stroke using this type of putter, they don't need "Zero Torque" as they effectively have practiced a swing that has near zero levels of torque.

 

All L.A.B. has done is change the weighting to make this even easier for someone who does not invest this time in practice.  And for many of their fans, they may have never previously used a face-balanced centre-shafted putter, so the L.A.B. seems revolutionary.

 

What they do well is:

- Offer different shaft profiles (not just a straight drop in centre shaft), so they can fit to different stroke profiles, and different levels of eye dominance for lining up putts.  Note, many manufacturers offer a number of different shaft profiles already in off the shelf putters (see TM Spider X) but this is often trial and error figuring out the "right one"

- They place a high level of focus on fitting, something that the other manufacturers do not do, unless managed by a 3rd party that has the fancy putter room (i.e. 2nd Swing)

- They offer a lot of options to personalize your putter, something that many dedicated golfers place value in - plus they do it for a reasonable price

- They also provide a user manual.  Although practice is discussed as a solution to putting woes, their practice guidance makes practice more purposeful, and dedicated to maximizing the use of their putter

 

At the end of the day, putting is about line, speed, and execution.  I have misread my line, but sank the putt due to a poor stroke.  I have also gone through a challenging period of misreading my line from behind the ball, or making unconscious adjustments while putting as when over the ball, my eyes told me something different than my preshot alignment did. 

 

Zero torque solves none of these issues, and I honestly believe putter torque is only an issue for people who simply have not developed a repetitive putting stroke.  Or it is someone who needs the psychological benefit of having a variable removed as their putting has been poor, and they need anything they can get to raise confidence.  Or it is someone who has a putter that does not suit their putting stroke (seen lots of people with heavy toe hang Scotties in this category).  But the technology is not revolutionary - it's been there since the 80's, just marketed somewhat differently.

 

Heck, look at the Hogan Bettinardi BHB7 or the Ping Craz-E C or any of the Odyssey Backstryke putters, and tell me that the DF3 is revolutionary.  It is simply an evolution of known tech, and a repackaging of it with an easy to grasp buzz term (Zero Torque).

 

And to quote the legendary Ralph Maltby:

 

Indeed some of the older center-shafted designs are functionally identical to modern blade-like zero torque designs.  The physics has not changed.  “Zero torque” was in fact the first advancement via the center-shafted putter.  LAB has recently tried to take this evolution a bit further by blending the mallet back into the zero torque idea.

 

I sometimes need to remember that I'm getting old, and saw the huge technological advances that occurred in golf equipment between 1980 and 2000.  Nothing is really new anymore - its just a repacking and more precision manufactured version of advances already made.  

Edited December 12, 2024 by ScooterMcTavish