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

[Veebee3]

7 hours ago, ScooterMcTavish said:

 

But I honestly believe anyone who has a L.A.B. putter fix their game is likely using the wrong putter in the first place, or needs to get a repeatable and consistent putter stroke.

Ah so just putt better and it will improve your putting, quite the revelation. It seems this thread has evolved into two camps 1. Average or below average putters who found more success using LAB’s tech or know people who have, and 2. Good or great putters who say they putt well with anything or putt well with whatever they are used to playing and attribute other’s success with LAB to everything under the sun besides the actual tech. 
 

For great putters averaging 30-32 putts per round, yeah you probably arent going to benefit from tech. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work theres just not much room for improvement for you and you need to look at it from the perspective of someone who struggles with inconsistency in their stroke or squaring up the face at impact. Right now you all sound like Shaq proclaiming that a step stool is a useless invention. I dont play a LAB but have seen them undeniably work for others regardless of whether its new tech or a spinoff on old tech. Will it replace all toe hang and face balanced putters? Of course not, but it will have significant market share for a long time. 

[purdyd]

17 hours ago, Red4282 said:

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…?

 

well no, the press grip we buy is the same as in the patents. The axis of the grip is not in line with the shaft 

 

the putter is balanced about the shaft, not the grip

 

so with the press grip it is really a face balanced putter not a zero torque putter

 

put a a regular grip on it and it is

 

 

 

 

[vman]

I don't think they are 'flavour of the month'. The tech is all about helping golfers with face angle at impact, which is a good thing.

I do, however, always find someone showing the freely spinning, in the hands torque free putter amusing. A freely twirling putter doesn't sound good to me.

I like the Revealer demos, makes sense, although unfortunately we have to hold it in our hands......like a brain surgeon with a scalpel. Anybody know if scalpels are torque free?

[Red4282]

3 hours ago, purdyd said:

 

well no, the press grip we buy is the same as in the patents. The axis of the grip is not in line with the shaft 

 

the putter is balanced about the shaft, not the grip

 

so with the press grip it is really a face balanced putter not a zero torque putter

 

put a a regular grip on it and it is

 

 

 

 

But I wasnt even talking about that. The patent you shared and talked about was it being heel biased cg, which from the diagrams looked like it was accomplished by attaching the shaft toeside of center geometrically speaking, which we know isnt the case now. So perhaps that is a different patent for a different idea they had? 

 

In regards to the grip, and being aligned with cog, it’s irrelevant in my mind because LAB is trying to eliminate torsional torque on the shaft. Yes there well be some torque in the way you are speaking but not because if the grip. Just to get the head in MOTION requires torque, period. That is unavoidable. 

[ScooterMcTavish]

8 hours ago, Veebee3 said:

Ah so just putt better and it will improve your putting, quite the revelation. 

I do enjoy how you skipped over the first part of the sentence "is likely using the wrong putter in the first place".

 

Regardless of how much L.A.B. tech COULD help someone, if they do not practice and develop a consistent putting stroke, nothing will help them.  And regardless of the putter being "zero torque", there is no technology that will overcome bad mechanics or a lack of practice. 

 

And if someone has the wrong putter for their eye, for their alignment, for their stroke, then it will never perform as well as one that is suited to them.

 

Back to the topic of the thread, it was discussing "zero torque" as a flavor of the week.  And again, to quote 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.

 

...

 

The truth is that LAB’s putters should be no better than any other face-balanced design with the same characteristics.  If it were possible to align their Revealer device through the center of the grip instead of the shaft, then their putters would rotate open just like any other face-balanced mallet.  In fact the torque would be worse, because the weight of the shaft is now also off-center to the axis of the grip and the hands of the player.

 

In short, nothing new under the sun - just a different way to package physics issues that were already solved, and in a way that will work better for specific golfers.  

And I cannot make this point more clear, if a L.A.B. putter works for someone and it increases their enjoyment of the game, great!  And if someone wants a customized fitted putter for them in a fun, funky color, great!

I don't criticize the other OEMs for how they package the "latest" technology (like 10K MOI) as they are in the business of selling "solutions" to golfers.  But at this point in golf club design, with the rules in place for golf club design and performance, there are very few major issues left to solve.  Everything is now a repackaging of solutions already made. 

[ilikegolf26]

41 minutes ago, ScooterMcTavish said:

I do enjoy how you skipped over the first part of the sentence "is likely using the wrong putter in the first place".

 

Regardless of how much L.A.B. tech COULD help someone, if they do not practice and develop a consistent putting stroke, nothing will help them.  And regardless of the putter being "zero torque", there is no technology that will overcome bad mechanics or a lack of practice. 

 

And if someone has the wrong putter for their eye, for their alignment, for their stroke, then it will never perform as well as one that is suited to them.

 

Back to the topic of the thread, it was discussing "zero torque" as a flavor of the week.  And again, to quote 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.

 

...

 

The truth is that LAB’s putters should be no better than any other face-balanced design with the same characteristics.  If it were possible to align their Revealer device through the center of the grip instead of the shaft, then their putters would rotate open just like any other face-balanced mallet.  In fact the torque would be worse, because the weight of the shaft is now also off-center to the axis of the grip and the hands of the player.

 

In short, nothing new under the sun - just a different way to package physics issues that were already solved, and in a way that will work better for specific golfers.  

And I cannot make this point more clear, if a L.A.B. putter works for someone and it increases their enjoyment of the game, great!  And if someone wants a customized fitted putter for them in a fun, funky color, great!

I don't criticize the other OEMs for how they package the "latest" technology (like 10K MOI) as they are in the business of selling "solutions" to golfers.  But at this point in golf club design, with the rules in place for golf club design and performance, there are very few major issues left to solve.  Everything is now a repackaging of solutions already made. 

@labgolf have you ever put one of your putters in the revealer with a non press grip? Will it spin open and closed as this poster says?

Edited December 13, 2024 by ilikegolf26

[iteachgolf]

6 minutes ago, ilikegolf26 said:

@labgolf have you ever put one of your putters in the revealer with a non press grip? Will it spin open and closed as this poster says?

Because I’ve proven putters with a regular grip work perfectly in a revealer I believe LAB stuff would as well.  I think Maltby is misinformed in this regard

[mmiicc]

41 minutes ago, ScooterMcTavish said:

But at this point in golf club design, with the rules in place for golf club design and performance, there are very few major issues left to solve.  Everything is now a repackaging of solutions already made. 

this to me is one of the most compelling points to be made, and why i'm starting to lean this way.. and also why earlier comments suggesting that there actually have been revolutionary improvements to sports equipment just don't make sense. for instance, just because this is an area i'm more familiar with, I doubt any new developments in basketball shoes (sole tech, material tech) in the past few decades have actually offered anything that substantial in terms of enhancing basketball performance. a couple of years ago a company released basketball shoes that literally used a spring-like mechanism to enhance jumping ability, and big surprise- it was banned by the NBA. I get that "flavor of the month" can be subjectively interpreted to justify any point, but my instinct is that LAB tech may be significant - even impressive - in how much noise it has generated and it's funny how other OEMs have jumped on the opportunity, but there's just no way that any tech (that is conforming) can ultimately be more than "potentially very helpful for a select group of people", which... can pretty much be said of anything else, right?

[purdyd]

3 hours ago, Red4282 said:

But I wasnt even talking about that. The patent you shared and talked about was it being heel biased cg, which from the diagrams looked like it was accomplished by attaching the shaft toeside of center geometrically speaking, which we know isnt the case now. So perhaps that is a different patent for a different idea they had? 

Patents often exaggerate distances for clarity.

 

The shaft passes above the vertical center of mass which does mean the shaft is skewed toe side.

 

Which is how you make a heel weighted putter.  The actual distance is very small.

 

3 hours ago, Red4282 said:

In regards to the grip, and being aligned with cog, it’s irrelevant in my mind because LAB is trying to eliminate torsional torque on the shaft. Yes there well be some torque in the way you are speaking but not because if the grip. Just to get the head in MOTION requires torque, period. That is unavoidable. 

What zero torque is trying to do is reduce torque at your hands in the axis of your grip.

 

The angle of the shaft is irrelevant as bent hosel putters demonstrate 

 

 

[Veebee3]

1 hour ago, ScooterMcTavish said:

I do enjoy how you skipped over the first part of the sentence "is likely using the wrong putter in the first place".

 

Regardless of how much L.A.B. tech COULD help someone, if they do not practice and develop a consistent putting stroke, nothing will help them.  And regardless of the putter being "zero torque", there is no technology that will overcome bad mechanics or a lack of practice. 

 

And if someone has the wrong putter for their eye, for their alignment, for their stroke, then it will never perform as well as one that is suited to them.

 

Back to the topic of the thread, it was discussing "zero torque" as a flavor of the week.  And again, to quote 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.

 

...

 

The truth is that LAB’s putters should be no better than any other face-balanced design with the same characteristics.  If it were possible to align their Revealer device through the center of the grip instead of the shaft, then their putters would rotate open just like any other face-balanced mallet.  In fact the torque would be worse, because the weight of the shaft is now also off-center to the axis of the grip and the hands of the player.

 

In short, nothing new under the sun - just a different way to package physics issues that were already solved, and in a way that will work better for specific golfers.  

And I cannot make this point more clear, if a L.A.B. putter works for someone and it increases their enjoyment of the game, great!  And if someone wants a customized fitted putter for them in a fun, funky color, great!

I don't criticize the other OEMs for how they package the "latest" technology (like 10K MOI) as they are in the business of selling "solutions" to golfers.  But at this point in golf club design, with the rules in place for golf club design and performance, there are very few major issues left to solve.  Everything is now a repackaging of solutions already made. 

Your posts are so long I cant respond to every claim. It has already been established throughout this thread that 1. a LAB putter is not the same thing as a face balanced putter. 2. LAB and other “zero torque” putters are not actually zero torque.
 

Saying that unless you practice and perfect a consistent stroke “nothing will help you” is just patently false. The club matters and can help. Will it magically make you a great putter? No. Could it help you drain 5% more putts without additional practice? Of course, just like any other equipment upgrade. Obviously most new technology that comes out isn’t as impactful as the marketing claims, but to claim that every technology that could possibly be helpful has already been made is a ridiculous stance to me. 

[jda]

I think that it is fair to consider what Maltby is saying.  Revealer attaches to the shaft, which is not in line with the grip for LAB, so it is likely that a LAB has more torque with the shaft being off center and the weight back from the hands.  You either have to tilt the revealer to match the grip at square, or keep the revealer straight and then tilt the club from how it would be used.  Either way, it is not the same test as a club with the shaft in line with the grip.

 

Torque should be measured from the hands, right?  Hands drive the whole equation.

[ilikegolf26]

46 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

Because I’ve proven putters with a regular grip work perfectly in a revealer I believe LAB stuff would as well.  I think Maltby is misinformed in this regard

So putting on a super stroke non press grip won’t do anything to the putter if it’s same weight?

[Red4282]

58 minutes ago, purdyd said:

Patents often exaggerate distances for clarity.

 

The shaft passes above the vertical center of mass which does mean the shaft is skewed toe side.

 

Which is how you make a heel weighted putter.  The actual distance is very small.

 

What zero torque is trying to do is reduce torque at your hands in the axis of your grip.

 

The angle of the shaft is irrelevant as bent hosel putters demonstrate 

 

 

But this is just not true. If it was indeed heel cog, it would rest toe up when held horizontal (gravity).  It doesnt favor any side, which suggests the putters cog is directly at the shaft and its intersection point. 
 

And there are many different torques. Labs designs are meant to have zero (or near zero) TORSIONAL torque,  Or twisting. If the shaft isnt twisting then the grip attached to it wont either. There are other torques at play, like gravity pulling the head downwards, or the second you begin to move your hands to make a stroke, there is a resistance to the force because there is mass and gravity, therefore there is a torque involved there. LABS are not aimed to be zero torque on those aspects nor is it possible.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Red4282

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, ilikegolf26 said:

@labgolf have you ever put one of your putters in the revealer with a non press grip? Will it spin open and closed as this poster says?

Im not LAB but yes it would pass. It attaches to the end of the grip which is basically still intersecting the axis of the shaft. The fact the grip is not aligned with shaft does not matter because we are measuring torsional torque. I do think a balancing is needed though, like they balance it with grip on. If you were to change grips it could slightly throw off the balance because some weight one side of shaft is changing. But I think it would be extremely subtle.

[Golfingfanatic]

2 hours ago, ScooterMcTavish said:

But at this point in golf club design, with the rules in place for golf club design and performance, there are very few major issues left to solve.  Everything is now a repackaging of solutions already made. 

 

Also worth pointing out that not only are there few major issues left, the ruling bodies have also made it very clear that they don't want to see any notable improvement (especially in putting). Think about the anchoring ban or the ban on self-standing putters (whose impact on alignment is probably far more beneficial to the average golfer compared to torque-reduction). The USGA and the R&A have made it clear how they want the game of golf to be. It is simply not going to get much easier.

[golferdude54]

10 hours ago, purdyd said:

 

well no, the press grip we buy is the same as in the patents. The axis of the grip is not in line with the shaft 

 

the putter is balanced about the shaft, not the grip

 

so with the press grip it is really a face balanced putter not a zero torque putter

 

put a a regular grip on it and it is

 

 

 

 

Do you even know that LAB offers a model where the shaft has zero lean and it has a regular grip instead of a press grip?

 

It’s called the LAB Link putter and it passes the revealer 100%. 

[notsohard]

Apparently they are flavour of the year. I don't own one, but I do use and have used the ZAAP since it's inception, I believe around 1988. I have had all the models. As @labgolf once said it's the grandfather of low torque. 

[purdyd]

3 hours ago, Red4282 said:

But this is just not true. If it was indeed heel cog, it would rest toe up when held horizontal (gravity).  It doesnt favor any side, which suggests the putters cog is directly at the shaft and its intersection point. 
 

if you balance the shaft on your finger the toe rests straight up.  That is the balanced part of lie angled balance.

 

maybe you’ll believe the ceo of LAB.

 

 

Quote

The first thing to understand is what WE mean by zero torque which will clear up some of the original posters questions/assertions. And please read until the end of this paragraph at least! Among the many videos released by odyssey today, one of them had one of their engineers mention that neither their new release nor our putters are actually ZERO TORQUE…. He’s not lying! L.A.B. putters have torque. If they were truly zero torque, the shaft axis would go directly through the center of the center of mass and the putters would have no balancing bias of any kind. Or in other words, if you laid the shaft across the corner or the table, the toe of the putter would rest where ever you put it down. If you turned it slightly, it would stay there. So any putter that comes to rest in a toe up position technically has torque! This includes L.A.B. 

 

[purdyd]

39 minutes ago, golferdude54 said:

Do you even know that LAB offers a model where the shaft has zero lean and it has a regular grip instead of a press grip?

 

It’s called the LAB Link putter and it passes the revealer 100%. 

of course it does, all the LAB putters pas the revealer test with or without the press grip.

 

all of the LAB putters are lie angled balanced about the axis of the shaft.

 

if the revealer held the grip instead of the shaft,  none of the putters with a press grip would pass the revealer test.

 

putters with a regular straight grip would

 

This is also what Jim Harrington is saying here on the Maltby forum

 

https://ralphmaltby.com/questions/question/evolution-of-putter-designs-and-zero-torque/

 

and what axis putters showed here in that there is “torsion” about the axis of the grip on a LAB putters with a press grip

 

this is not to say LAB putters aren’t great putters. 

 

 

[5hort5tuff]

1 hour ago, purdyd said:

of course it does, all the LAB putters pas the revealer test with or without the press grip.

 

all of the LAB putters are lie angled balanced about the axis of the shaft.

 

if the revealer held the grip instead of the shaft,  none of the putters with a press grip would pass the revealer test.

 

putters with a regular straight grip would

 

This is also what Jim Harrington is saying here on the Maltby forum

 

https://ralphmaltby.com/questions/question/evolution-of-putter-designs-and-zero-torque/

 

and what axis putters showed here in that there is “torsion” about the axis of the grip on a LAB putters with a press grip

 

this is not to say LAB putters aren’t great putters. 

 

 

 

Who is Jim Harrington? Also, where can I see this study info from above? Thanks

 

Also, in regards to Axis 1. Jim up above has no issue with their putters it seems, and comments on pricing of LABs, but Axis 1s are not cheap at all, and they don't even make LH putters. 

Edited December 13, 2024 by 5hort5tuff

[iteachgolf]

7 hours ago, ilikegolf26 said:

So putting on a super stroke non press grip won’t do anything to the putter if it’s same weight?

In my experience that would be accurate 

[Phebus]

If I’d have spent as much time practicing my putting as I have reading this thread, I’d have probably dropped two strokes off my handicap regardless of what putter I used, lol. 

[ilikegolf26]

1 hour ago, iteachgolf said:

In my experience that would be accurate 

Ok thanks. I am thinking about trying a SS Pistol 2.0 over the stock Pistol on my DF3. If that doesn’t work it’s headed to BST  

[StoutKing]

I have about 35 putters.  To be honest I don't like the look of the DF3 and game my toe hang mallets quite a bit.  That being said I had my DF3 with TPT on the putter green today and this setup is a step forward.  Yes it is more technologically advanced than 99% of putters.  I have to give props to Presse, Sam and their engineers.  Also the TPT shaft is just incredible.  Wish I could afford an OZ because I like a firmer feel but not at this point.

[is1ander]

True, a good putter can putt with just about anything but zero torque putters are far beyond flavor of the month status. They have already surpassed traditional center-shafted putters and seem to have overtaken face-balanced putters. What if the Square 2 Square Jailbird and Seven become the bread and butter standard in 2025? If my best friend wanted to get into golf in 2025, these would be the first putters I hand him. Zero torque putters are just operationally simpler and more elegant. Most elegant. "Most" doesn't change month to month. "Most" sits on the throne until it is defeated. But "most" doesn't mean that other putters don't work better for an individual. If my best friend didn't like them, I would hand him a Spider or Two-ball. Not a problem. Golf is also a game of chemistry. 

[notsohard]

5 hours ago, Phebus said:

If I’d have spent as much time practicing my putting as I have reading this thread, I’d have probably dropped two strokes off my handicap regardless of what putter I used, lol. 

lol...true. I play with a lot of mid cappers, around the 12...they would be 6-8 cappers if they could putt. I would say that if the mid cappers could get their anaconda putts within 3 feet, they would drop 5 strokes easily. What i mean by anaconda putts is, you will find mid cappers will get the ball on the green for regulation, but be 20-30 feet from the hole. It's a big snake to kill 😉

[5hort5tuff]

10 hours ago, is1ander said:

True, a good putter can putt with just about anything but zero torque putters are far beyond flavor of the month status. They have already surpassed traditional center-shafted putters and seem to have overtaken face-balanced putters. What if the Square 2 Square Jailbird and Seven become the bread and butter standard in 2025? If my best friend wanted to get into golf in 2025, these would be the first putters I hand him. Zero torque putters are just operationally simpler and more elegant. Most elegant. "Most" doesn't change month to month. "Most" sits on the throne until it is defeated. But "most" doesn't mean that other putters don't work better for an individual. If my best friend didn't like them, I would hand him a Spider or Two-ball. Not a problem. Golf is also a game of chemistry. 

 

You would encourage them to spend $600 on a new "elegant" putter?  I would encourage your friend to seek additional advice.  

[j0nesy]

12 hours ago, Phebus said:

If I’d have spent as much time practicing my putting as I have reading this thread, I’d have probably dropped two strokes off my handicap regardless of what putter I used, lol. 

 

It's funny, 'cause it's true...!

[is1ander]

1 hour ago, 5hort5tuff said:

 

You would encourage them to spend $600 on a new "elegant" putter?  I would encourage your friend to seek additional advice.  

Sorry for not making it clear. I'd hand him a Square 2 Square Odyssey Jailbird.

[StoutKing]

15 hours ago, is1ander said:

True, a good putter can putt with just about anything but zero torque putters are far beyond flavor of the month status. They have already surpassed traditional center-shafted putters and seem to have overtaken face-balanced putters. What if the Square 2 Square Jailbird and Seven become the bread and butter standard in 2025? If my best friend wanted to get into golf in 2025, these would be the first putters I hand him. Zero torque putters are just operationally simpler and more elegant. Most elegant. "Most" doesn't change month to month. "Most" sits on the throne until it is defeated. But "most" doesn't mean that other putters don't work better for an individual. If my best friend didn't like them, I would hand him a Spider or Two-ball. Not a problem. Golf is also a game of chemistry. 

I respect LAB's performance but elegant would be the last adjective I'd use to describe their looks ha ha

 

Edit: just holed a few with my patina carbon DS72.  Now that is an elegant putter, or maybe beautiful.  I'm sure LAB designs will only get better looking in time.

Edited December 14, 2024 by StoutKing