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

[TNwanabe]

Ok went to the brand new PGA Superstore here in Franklin and tried both the LAB (the Mez and the original) and the Odyssey "Fang" version. The LABs felt better off the face. Between the two the LAB was easier to use right off the bat. I can absolutely see it takes some time to get used to the setup. Interestingly I was blocking the LAB right every time until I adjusted. When I focused on the straight back and through it was accurate. The Odyssey just did not feel as premium and was not as easy to align. Bear in mind I love the Odyssey AI line; I have 3 of them, but it just did not hold up to the LAB in feel and alignment. I can see how this has appeal.

 

For the adopters, I get it. If you choose this putter and commit to the style I can see it is effective. It is a well thought out (the internally angled grip is very fascinating) and premium putter. The original to me is fugly, but the newer versions look pretty darn cool. 

 

After a good test drive with those I picked up a 35" Bettinardi #14 and drained everything. I am sure that after all the strokes with the other putters I was more focused on being disciplined more than it being a "better" putter. It is the same putter style I have always used and it is #1 on my wish list AND it is $100 off right now. So OF COURSE I drained everything with it in the store! lol! 

 

So my conclusion on this is I believe this is just another way of putting. LAB has done an expert job of not only providing an excellent putter but also combining that with promoting and educating about how to use it. The price point is genius. A high price = commitment. Feed that commitment with actual performance and media support you get a winner. Well done LAB.

 

This is not a putter for the beginner, although it could be. I am sure there will be a $99 dollar cast knockoff version in Dicks soon. It is really for the person who is serious about their game. When I see a LAB user I think ok this guy has committed. He spent the $ ($500 bucks with tax) He has probably changed his stroke, practiced with this new toy and is confident or trying to be as he adjusts. I says to me he is working. I think thats pretty cool. Is there currently any other club today that says that about a player? Again, well done LAB.

 

In the end I just prefer the more classic putters. At least right now lol. If I get into a slump someday, I could absolutely see myself taking the dive to shake things up. 

[is1ander]

8 hours ago, SwingBlade said:

The video above makes a valid point about ball position.  Just maybe note that is a DF 2.1, not a DF 3.

 

As far as the Quintec or Sam Putt Lab, such tests would be generally useless for the validation which you are seeking.  The concept of LAB is that the putter does the task if the golfer does not allow his previous swing, grip, and release to interfere.  Again, for example, the LAB DF3 says, "Stop trying to help.  Trust me."  
 

So, if you want to use any such measuring device to determine whether "your swing" works better with a LAB than some other putter, you can pretty much be assured with near certainty that the answer will be no unless you already utilize a zero release putter swing.  You could probably save time and money by using the thumbs off open palm drill with your existing putters.  
 

As far as laying out that much cash without "knowing" whether the LAB will work for you, there is only one likely alternative, which I employed.  The first day my fitter handed me a DF3 to try, I spent about 2 hours trying it.  Wasn't sold.  That night, I watched maybe six LAB videos, especially the thumbs off videos.  Next day I went back for 2-3 more hours of testing while alternating with a thumbs off stroke. Focusing on 3-10 foot putts I began to understand the LAB swing concepts and then ordered one.  
 

After that it was probably another maybe 8 hours of practice and playing, focusing on ball position, zero release, and as pure of a pendulum swing as I could master before the LAB light really came on.   My 20 year old swing and release with my SC Newport 2 was the big obstacle that I had to overcome.  

 

 

Wow, that's commitment. Glad it paid off for you. For some, it really is reprogramming decades of muscle memory. Like going to the UK and trying to learn to drive on the other side of the road. I went to the UK and sitting shotgun with a female friend, who was not a good driver to begin with, almost gave me about 50 heart attacks. I'm going to try to be more humble about zero torque putters moving forward.

[TNwanabe]

Went to Music City Golf today and tried the Odyssey STS Jailbird and loved it. It is much better feeling than the Fang or the blade style. Just more solid. I was surprised to see it was NOT neutrally balanced. It sits on the balance point with the face sitting toward the target (left for righty) while the LAB could spin freely and end up facing anywhere. So they ARE different in that regard. The jailbird was very easy to align and the stroke feel was very similar to what I am used to. It just appeared to be automatic (of course it is on the carpet lol). I think Odyssey has a winner here in that it feels familiar while providing some of the benefits of the LAB style. It is priced more for the masses. 

This fits perfectly into the slot for the LAB "curious" like myself. Sure enough, I got one. So now, instead of picking up that Bettinardi #11 or 14 like I intended I got another Jailbird. I have problems. I understand that. Hopefully making more putts isnt one of them. 

[caniac6]

I wonder how many asked if metal woods were the flavor of the month way back in the day?

[TNwanabe]

22 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I wonder how many asked if metal woods were the flavor of the month way back in the day?

Good question. Probably to some extent. I can remember looking at them and thinking how expensive they were. I stuck with wood woods until about 98 or so. By then I was woefully behind my buddies in distance and took the leap. 

[Archimedes65]

18 hours ago, TNwanabe said:

This is not a putter for the beginner, although it could be. I am sure there will be a $99 dollar cast knockoff version in Dicks soon. It is really for the person who is serious about their game. When I see a LAB user I think ok this guy has committed. He spent the $ ($500 bucks with tax) He has probably changed his stroke, practiced with this new toy and is confident or trying to be as he adjusts. I says to me he is working. I think thats pretty cool. Is there currently any other club today that says that about a player? Again, well done LAB.

 

 

You interpret someone putting an expensive club in their bag as evidence of them being ‘serious about their game’?! 🤣

 

Lotta 15+ handicappers out there with thousands of dollars of clubs in their bag, including whatever the latest $600 driver du jour is at the time.  Usually when I see shiny new toys in the bag, I assume just the opposite, I.e., someone’s trying to buy a good golf game rather than put in the work. More often than not their play confirms it.

[dodgyman]

26 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You interpret someone putting an expensive club in their bag as evidence of them being ‘serious about their game’?! 🤣

 

Lotta 15+ handicappers out there with thousands of dollars of clubs in their bag, including whatever the latest $600 driver du jour is at the time.  Usually when I see shiny new toys in the bag, I assume just the opposite, I.e., someone’s trying to buy a good golf game rather than put in the work. More often than not their play confirms it.

In general I like your argument, in this case I think I agree with the point @TNwanabe was making. I would say the average owner of a Scotty fits your description, meaning they spend a ton of money on clubs that everyone knows are expensive and will fix their game. While I see LAB making headways into the market it still seems to be attracting those  have a lot more knowledge. Now knowledge does not equal ability, but I would think these people are far more serious than with other vanity clubs.

[purdyd]

On 12/13/2024 at 1:20 PM, 5hort5tuff said:

 

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. 

sorry is missed your question here Jim Harrington appears to be a golfer and engineer who came to the same conclusions that I’d did.

 

thiis is YouTube video from axis golf

 

you don’t have to be an engineer to see that with the axis of rotation the press grip is at the front of the putter

 

making it a face balanced putter

 

The best way to view it is as a bent shaft.  And I think we all understand how a bent hosel or neck works on a putter.

 

 

[Archimedes65]

37 minutes ago, dodgyman said:

In general I like your argument, in this case I think I agree with the point @TNwanabe was making. I would say the average owner of a Scotty fits your description, meaning they spend a ton of money on clubs that everyone knows are expensive and will fix their game. While I see LAB making headways into the market it still seems to be attracting those  have a lot more knowledge. Now knowledge does not equal ability, but I would think these people are far more serious than with other vanity clubs.

 

Yeah, I think you’re both projecting.  You making an assumption and calling it an observation.

[MattCarter]

It's personal preference. I've never held a putter I disliked more than my df3 until I rolled a few with the new Odyssey zero torque models. Something about the forced forward press just looks dreadful to me, it screams left left left. I tried l, but couldn't get past it.

[TNwanabe]

43 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Yeah, I think you’re both projecting.  You making an assumption and calling it an observation.

Its called an opinion. Projecting? Hardly. I dont have a LAB. Its MY opinion when I see someone using a very unique putter which in no way looks like anything else in the putter world. 

 

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You interpret someone putting an expensive club in their bag as evidence of them being ‘serious about their game’?! 🤣

 

Lotta 15+ handicappers out there with thousands of dollars of clubs in their bag, including whatever the latest $600 driver du jour is at the time.  Usually when I see shiny new toys in the bag, I assume just the opposite, I.e., someone’s trying to buy a good golf game rather than put in the work. More often than not their play confirms it.

Yes i do. Its my OPINION that the average LAB guy, NOT ALL (so Mr perfect here understands) cares about his game. My point was the LAB IS NOT like the newbie or average guy buying a new $600 driver (btw 1. projecting about the high price 2. projecting insecurity about one's own game by judging others is pretty obvious in the above). 

[TNwanabe]

59 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Yeah, I think you’re both projecting.  You making an assumption and calling it an observation.

Ok thanks. 

[TNwanabe]

1 hour ago, dodgyman said:

In general I like your argument, in this case I think I agree with the point @TNwanabe was making. I would say the average owner of a Scotty fits your description, meaning they spend a ton of money on clubs that everyone knows are expensive and will fix their game. While I see LAB making headways into the market it still seems to be attracting those  have a lot more knowledge. Now knowledge does not equal ability, but I would think these people are far more serious than with other vanity clubs.

In my opinion the LAB is unique in this segment more so than the Scotty because it is a different putting style wise, looks wise, aquisition wise, less user wise. This is not the same as the newest driver off the rack at Dicks, or even a Scotty picked up off the rack. I thought that was obvious. LAB may get there (off the rack and plentiful for the masses but still priced high) at some point but now they are not. 

 

I thought the LAB uniqueness was the point of this and many other threads about LAB. Guess not to some. If you cannot afford the LAB I can understand why you would be envious if you want one or are frustrated because you feel it is out of reach for you. I have been there in life. I dont have this problem with the LAB but it is not for me right now. That could change. I ended up with the Odyssey Jailbird version as a result of this thread actually. 

 

For the record, when someone buys something new for themselves (like a shiny new $600 driver "du jour") and are excited to try and use it, regardless of their abilities, I like to be happy for them and encourage them to have fun. Not crap all over their day for not being as good as I am with lesser clubs. But maybe I am projecting here........

[Red4282]

2 hours ago, purdyd said:

sorry is missed your question here Jim Harrington appears to be a golfer and engineer who came to the same conclusions that I’d did.

 

thiis is YouTube video from axis golf

 

you don’t have to be an engineer to see that with the axis of rotation the press grip is at the front of the putter

 

making it a face balanced putter

 

The best way to view it is as a bent shaft.  And I think we all understand how a bent hosel or neck works on a putter.

 

 

So his/your argument is it has static torque? Why is that important at all? Isnt dynamic torque more important?

[Archimedes65]

58 minutes ago, TNwanabe said:

My point was the LAB IS NOT like the newbie or average guy buying a new $600 driver (btw 1. projecting about the high price 2. projecting insecurity about one's own game by judging others is pretty obvious in the above). 

 

Your ‘point’ is an ‘opinion’, one that you kinda presented as if it was fact.  And even if it’s just your ‘opinion’, I’d argue that it’s no different whatsoever than the guy who buys a new driver because they think it’s better than their old one and is gonna improve their scoring.  And given the fact that your support for your argument was the price ($500), I’d say the two examples align pretty well.  My point was that you’re trying to make a distinction without any relevant supporting evidence.

 

I dunno if these putters are awesome or garbage, but I don’t think that the fact that someone spends a lot of money on a piece of golf equipment is any evidence of anything other than that they can afford expensive golf equipment.  I’ve seen exactly one person with a LAB putter, and in my statistically insignificant sample of 1, it was a guy with money, who wasn’t putting great with it, and looked at me like I was from Mars when I asked him if he had to change his putting style from the Scotty blade he had been using.

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Archimedes65

[purdyd]

46 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

So his/your argument is it has static torque? Why is that important at all? Isnt dynamic torque more important?

Because a zero torque putter won’t have static torque.

 

but a face balanced putter will

 

and you are correct a face balanced putter will not have dynamic torque and in fact will tend to straighten out, at least on the down swing, if it gets out of line.

 

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/special4.php

 

but the point is the LAB putters that most of us have tried (with the press grip) or even own is simply like so many face balanced mallet putters that already exist

so if the putters that have launched this whole zero torque revolution aren’t really zero torque, is there really anything to this trend?

 

which of course was the original question asked in this thread

 

 

 

[TNwanabe]

52 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Your ‘point’ is an ‘opinion’, one that you kinda presented as if it was fact.  And even if it’s just your ‘opinion’, I’d argue that it’s no different whatsoever than the guy who buys a new driver because they think it’s better than their old one and is gonna improve their scoring.  And given the fact that your support for your argument was the price ($500), I’d say the two examples align pretty well.  My point was that you’re trying to make a distinction without any relevant supporting evidence.

 

I dunno if these putters are awesome or garbage, but I don’t think that the fact that someone spends a lot of money on a piece of golf equipment is any evidence of anything other than that they can afford expensive golf equipment.  I’ve seen exactly one person with a LAB putter, and in my statistically insignificant sample of 1, it was a guy with money, who wasn’t putting great with it, and looked at me like I was from Mars when I asked him if he had to change his putting style from the Scotty blade he had been using.

 

Ok. I said it was my opinion. I dont know what to tell someone who is this insecure.........

Edited December 17, 2024 by TNwanabe

[Veebee3]

47 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Your ‘point’ is an ‘opinion’, one that you kinda presented as if it was fact.  And even if it’s just your ‘opinion’, I’d argue that it’s no different whatsoever than the guy who buys a new driver because they think it’s better than their old one and is gonna improve their scoring.  And given the fact that your support for your argument was the price ($500), I’d say the two examples align pretty well.  My point was that you’re trying to make a distinction without any relevant supporting evidence.

 

I dunno if these putters are awesome or garbage, but I don’t think that the fact that someone spends a lot of money on a piece of golf equipment is any evidence of anything other than that they can afford expensive golf equipment.  I’ve seen exactly one person with a LAB putter, and in my statistically insignificant sample of 1, it was a guy with money, who wasn’t putting great with it, and looked at me like I was from Mars when I asked him if he had to change his putting style from the Scotty blade he had been using.

 

I mean it’s pretty obvious that he was stating his opinion. That’s not really a take that can be a fact or have hard evidence, it’s subjective. And his take is rooted in fairly sound logic. People who arent “serious” (another subjective term) about golf but have money to blow usually buy a shiny new toy that looks cool (i.e. a scotty, new irons or whatever new driver is popular at the time). So it makes sense that guys that buy a history ugly LAB putter are actually serious about their game and want to improve even if they may be a higher handicap at the moment. Clearly not the case for everyone but not really an area being studied. 

[chip75]

4 hours ago, caniac6 said:

I wonder how many asked if metal woods were the flavor of the month way back in the day?

I was reminded of this the other day. When the TaylorMade Pittsburgh Persimmon™ turned up many thought it would hit like previous attempts, players would try something weird and go back to to the established norm. 

 

Success breeds imitation, eventually there will be a point where it goes one-way or another.  Metalwoods (cast irons, cavity-backs, multi-material heads and so on), third and fourth wedges, solid balls, composite shafts, tipped over and became the norm.

 

I wonder how many players would have adopted anchor-putting before it was deemed a no-no?

 

We know tour players are somewhat adverse to switching to something better if they need to relearn or recalibrate feel, they generally with golf's endless schedules don't have time or inclination to readjust off-season.

[Archimedes65]

7 minutes ago, TNwanabe said:

I dont know what to tell someone who is this insecure.........

 

You could tell me how you diagnosed insecurity based on my responses…did you use the DSM or are you just spitballing it?

 

And again, you deflected rather than respond to the point being debated.  What support do you have for your opinion that LAB buyers are more serious about their game, than just the price of the putter?

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Archimedes65

[TNwanabe]

8 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You could tell me how you diagnosed insecurity based on my responses…did you use the DSM or are you just spitballing it?

 

And again, you deflected rather than respond to the point being debated.  What support do you have for your opinion that LAB buyers are more serious about their game, than just the price of the putter?

 

LOL ok. Maybe you should reread the post. Not sure how you will ever be satisfied here since I cant have an opinion casually with you. Good luck and hit them straight, with whatever you play expensive or not. 

[Red4282]

53 minutes ago, purdyd said:

Because a zero torque putter won’t have static torque.

 

but a face balanced putter will

 

and you are correct a face balanced putter will not have dynamic torque and in fact will tend to straighten out, at least on the down swing, if it gets out of line.

 

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/special4.php

 

but the point is the LAB putters that most of us have tried (with the press grip) or even own is simply like so many face balanced mallet putters that already exist

so if the putters that have launched this whole zero torque revolution aren’t really zero torque, is there really anything to this trend?

 

which of course was the original question asked in this thread

 

 

 

But I didnt say anything about anything being zero torque. Im just not jiving with your science, sorry….its been 25 years since my AP physics, trying to dust off the cobwebs… Its really pretty simple physics. Gravity is one of two forces that is causing torque on the shaft. When held in a playing position, and not moving,  if the cog is directly below the shaft axis, there would be zero torque (or near zero-enough to assume the term). A face balanced putter would have a torque because the cog is to the side of the shaft axis, and because the playing position is not vertical (lie angle of 70*) gravity wants to pull that cog downwards causing a torque even when not in motion. Obviously the further the distance the more torque. The flatter the lie, the more torque. The more mass the more torque, etc etc.
 

When you put that in motion, there is an additional force applied here with the hands. At this point, we are dealing with newtons first law of motion. The shaft axis is acting as a fulcrum, with the center of mass being a lever. When the hands accelerate or change the direction of force, the center of mass or cog will want to resist (or stay in motion) causing a torque on the fulcrum, or the shaft. This is what the revealer is showing. If the cog happens to be in line with swing path (like a face balance), this force is minimal to none in motion but it still will have the force of gravity wanting to pull it down even during stroke, as the revealer shows this as well. 
 

This can be shown VERY easily to anyone who wants to see for themselves. Take a wire hanger and make an “L” shape out of it. Tape some nickels to the end of one end. Hold the other end, and now putt with it. The nickels would represent the COG. 

[Red4282]

Love a good late night chatgpt….
 

The center of gravity (CG) location of a putter and its toe hang are closely related to the torque forces experienced by the shaft, as both impact how the putter face rotates during the stroke and at impact. Here’s how these elements influence torque forces and the putting dynamics:

 

 

1. Center of Gravity (CG) Location

The CG is the point where the putter’s weight is perfectly balanced. Its position relative to the shaft axis (the “shaft plane”) has a significant effect on torque forces.

A. Torque Due to CG Offset

• If the CG is not directly in line with the shaft axis (most putters have some degree of offset), any force applied during the stroke or at impact creates torque.

• For example:

• Heel-biased CG: When the CG is closer to the heel, the face tends to close during the stroke.

• Toe-biased CG: The face may want to open.

• This off-axis CG location causes the putter face to rotate around its center of mass, leading to torque forces transmitted through the shaft.

 

A. Face-Balanced Putters

• Description: Face points straight up when balanced.

• Why: The CG is aligned with the shaft axis, so there is minimal rotational torque.

• Effect: Less torque is created during the stroke, making the face stable.

 

When asked about faced balanced putters vs neutral in relation to torque:

 

 

The key difference between face-balanced putters and neutral balanced putters (where the center of gravity (CG) intersects the shaft axis) lies in how they handle torque forces during the putting stroke. This comes down to the location of the CG relative to the shaft axis and its impact on stability, rotation, and face balance.

 

1. Face-Balanced Putters

• Definition: A putter is “face-balanced” when, if you balance the shaft horizontally, the putter face points straight upward.

• Why It Happens: The CG is positioned along a plane directly below the shaft axis but does not intersect the shaft axis. This alignment minimizes gravitational torque under static conditions.

Torque Characteristics:

• No Static Torque in Horizontal Balance: The face does not rotate under gravity when the putter is balanced horizontally because the weight distribution keeps the face stable.

• During the Stroke: Face-balanced putters resist face rotation due to the CG being close to the shaft plane but not perfectly intersecting it.

• This suits players with a straight-back, straight-through stroke who want the face to remain stable (minimal face rotation).

 

2. Neutral Balanced Putters (CG Intersects Shaft Axis)

• Definition: A neutral balanced putter is one where the CG intersects the shaft axis exactly, creating perfect rotational neutrality during the stroke.

• Why It Happens: The CG is not just aligned with the shaft but is perfectly in line with it. This is far more precise than traditional face balancing.

Torque Characteristics:

• Minimal Torque in All Directions: Since the CG intersects the shaft axis, there is no “moment arm” for torque forces to act upon.

• Dynamic Stability: This design reduces both static and dynamic torque during the stroke, meaning there is no gravitational or rotational bias to open or close the face.

• This neutrality makes it incredibly stable for both straight and slight-arc strokes, as there is no natural tendency for the face to rotate.

3. Practical Differences

 

 

4. Why It Matters

• In face-balanced putters, the CG alignment reduces torque significantly, but the CG still acts below the shaft plane, which can introduce slight torque in dynamic situations (e.g., mis-hits or imperfect strokes).

• In neutral balanced putters (CG intersects shaft axis), torque is virtually eliminated because there is no offset to create a torque moment. The face remains neutral in all directions and during all phases of the stroke.

5. Key Takeaway

• Face-balanced putters are stable and resist face rotation but still exhibit small torque forces because the CG does not perfectly intersect the shaft axis.

• Neutral balanced putters, where the CG perfectly intersects the shaft axis, achieve a true rotational neutrality, eliminating torque forces entirely and offering the most stable face dynamics during the stroke.

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Red4282

[purdyd]

6 hours ago, Red4282 said:

A face balanced putter would have a torque because the cog is to the side of the shaft axis, and because the playing position is not vertical (lie angle of 70*) gravity wants to pull that cog downwards causing a torque even when not in motion. Obviously the further the distance the more torque. The flatter the lie, the more torque. The more mass the more torque, etc etc.

 

exactly, a face balanced putter will exhibit static (non accelerating) torque when addressing the ball

 

for those who prefer something not written by chatgpt and with pictures - the link I posted to the Harold Tuttleman site is a good read

 

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/special4.php

 

and the LAB putters exhibit torque when addressing the ball and not moving when you hold the press grip as you would be if you were using the putter

 

so when using the press grip, LAB putters exhibit torque and hence are face balanced

 

 

in addition the LAB putters are not neutrally balanced, they are heel balanced which if you have one can be demonstrated by balancing the putter on a hard edge and you will see they balance face forward   

 

 

they are not dynamically zero torque putters

 

why does the putter not always square up  when they are spun in the revealer?  Because in the revealer there is more friction (sliding versus rolling) and the center of mass is so close to the shaft that very little torque is developed about the shaft

 

friction is why the LAB putters work in the revealer as long as the acceleration is limited and why they don't square up by themselves in the revealer

 

 

The Allan putter appears to have located the center of mass farther away from the shaft hence it does worse in the revealer when swung but self aligns (balances) in the revealer

 

you can see why some of the claims about the LAB putters wanting to square themselves are not entirely true as there is very little static torque developed - although LAB themselves on their website are careful not to make that claim

 

but again the LAB is balanced around the shaft and has different properties when you hold the press grip

 

again if the revealer held the press grip, the LAB putter would look miserable like any other face centered putter

 

use a different grip and it is a different story 

 

this is what Jim Harrington also says in further detail and with a bit more flourish

 

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

 

the new crop of 'zero torque' putters are also heel weighted to some various degrees hence they balance face forward but since they are not using the offset press grip will have zero static torque

 

in other words if Axis golf had put say the Allan or this Evnroll putter in their test setup they would have measured zero torque

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by purdyd

[Red4282]

On 12/8/2024 at 11:36 PM, Red4282 said:

That video proves zilch. 
Regardless of cog location, or toe hang, MOI operates the same. Point is yes your examples are doing it too. Maybe not as much, maybe only fractions of a degree, but it is. You are just flat wrong. Not going to continue engaging with someone who is being disingenuous and disrespectful. 

Oh yea Love me some AI. Just validated everything I said.

 

The amount a high MOI, neutrally balanced putter twists on a mishit depends on several factors, including MOI value, the distance of the off-center strike from the center of gravity (CG), and the force of impact. Let’s explore this in detail:

How High MOI Reduces Twisting

1. Moment of Inertia (MOI) is the putter’s resistance to twisting when struck off-center.

• A high MOI putter distributes weight far from the center to minimize twisting.

• Neutrally balanced putters, where the CG aligns with the shaft axis, provide additional stability because there’s no rotational bias from face balancing or toe hang.

2. Twisting on Mishits:

• When a ball is struck off-center (heel or toe), the impact force creates torque around the CG.

• The twisting effect depends on:

• Distance between the strike point and CG (the moment arm).

• MOI (higher MOI = more resistance to twisting).

Quantifying the Twist on a Mishit

In a high MOI putter, the face still twists, but significantly less than a low MOI blade. For context:

1. Standard Blade Putter (Low MOI ~2,000 g·cm²):

• A 1/2-inch off-center strike might produce 4-6 degrees of face twist.

2. High MOI Putter (e.g., 5,000-6,000+ g·cm²):

• On the same 1/2-inch off-center strike, face twist is reduced to around 1-2 degrees.

Impact of Neutral Balance

In a neutrally balanced putter (where CG aligns with the shaft axis):

• The neutral balance does not inherently reduce face twisting further. Instead, it reduces the torque felt in your hands because the shaft axis aligns with the CG.

• This means that while the face still twists due to off-center strikes, there’s less feedback of twisting torque through the shaft, which can make the putter feel more stable.

Key Insight: Twisting is determined by MOI and strike location, not balance type. Neutral balance primarily affects how torque is transmitted to the golfer’s hands.

Example Calculation (Hypothetical)

Let’s assume a high MOI putter with an MOI of 6,000 g·cm²:

• On a 1/2-inch mishit, the face might twist 1-2 degrees.

• On a 1-inch mishit (more extreme), the face might twist 3-4 degrees.

This is much better than a blade putter with low MOI, where the face could twist 5-6+ degrees on similar mishits.

Why It Matters

Even a 1-degree face twist can cause a putt to miss the hole, especially on longer putts:

• A 1-degree open face at impact sends the ball 2 inches off-line per 10 feet.

• A 2-degree face twist would send the ball 4 inches off-line per 10 feet—enough to miss a straight 10-foot putt.

This highlights why high MOI putters are valuable for reducing errors from mishits, even though twisting cannot be fully eliminated.

Summary

For a high MOI neutrally balanced putter:

• Twisting on mishits is significantly reduced compared to traditional low MOI putters.

• A 1/2-inch off-center hit might result in only 1-2 degrees of twist.

• Neutral balance primarily reduces the torque feedback in the hands, but it does not directly affect the physical face twisting caused by off-center impacts.

To minimize twisting even further, focus on improving center-face contact while leveraging the benefits of a high MOI putter.

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Red4282

[Red4282]

35 minutes ago, purdyd said:

 

exactly, a face balanced putter will exhibit static (non accelerating) torque when addressing the ball

 

for those who prefer something not written by chatgpt and with pictures - the link I posted to the Harold Tuttleman site is a good read

 

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/special4.php

 

and the LAB putters exhibit torque when addressing the ball and not moving when you hold the press grip as you would be if you were using the putter

 

so when using the press grip, LAB putters exhibit torque and hence are face balanced

 

 

in addition the LAB putters are not neutrally balanced, they are heel balanced which if you have one can be demonstrated by balancing the putter on a hard edge and you will see they balance face forward   

 

 

they are not dynamically zero torque putters

 

why does the putter not always square up  when they are spun in the revealer?  Because in the revealer there is more friction (sliding versus rolling) and the center of mass is so close to the shaft that very little torque is developed about the shaft

 

friction is why the LAB putters work in the revealer as long as the acceleration is limited and why they don't square up by themselves in the revealer

 

 

The Allan putter appears to have located the center of mass farther away from the shaft hence it does worse in the revealer when swung but self aligns (balances) in the revealer

 

you can see why some of the claims about the LAB putters wanting to square themselves are not entirely true as there is very little static torque developed - although LAB themselves on their website are careful not to make that claim

 

but again the LAB is balanced around the shaft and has different properties when you hold the press grip

 

again if the revealer held the press grip, the LAB putter would look miserable like any other face centered putter

 

use a different grip and it is a different story 

 

this is what Jim Harrington also says in further detail and with a bit more flourish

 

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

 

the new crop of 'zero torque' putters are also heel weighted to some various degrees hence they balance face forward but since they are not using the offset press grip will have zero static torque

 

in other words if Axis golf had put say the Allan or this Evnroll putter in their test setup they would have measured zero torque

 

First, “so when using the press grip, LAB putters exhibit torque and hence are face balanced” is absurd. What makes a putter faced balanced is its cg location, not that it exhibits torque. Also, I never said it was absolutely zero torque.   I will give you credit on correcting me in it not being 100% neutrally balanced, and I agree that it is very close. Perhaps thats why it does so well in a revealer. With the grip thing, I would argue the static torque is so small, that it is basically a non factor.  To me, the dynamic forces play a greater role in torque that affects a putting stroke. Just my opinion but thats what makes the revealer such a good litmus test. It exposes the forces that actually make a difference. 

[iteachgolf]

46 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Oh yea Love me some AI. Just validated everything I said.

 

The amount a high MOI, neutrally balanced putter twists on a mishit depends on several factors, including MOI value, the distance of the off-center strike from the center of gravity (CG), and the force of impact. Let’s explore this in detail:

How High MOI Reduces Twisting

1. Moment of Inertia (MOI) is the putter’s resistance to twisting when struck off-center.

• A high MOI putter distributes weight far from the center to minimize twisting.

• Neutrally balanced putters, where the CG aligns with the shaft axis, provide additional stability because there’s no rotational bias from face balancing or toe hang.

2. Twisting on Mishits:

• When a ball is struck off-center (heel or toe), the impact force creates torque around the CG.

• The twisting effect depends on:

• Distance between the strike point and CG (the moment arm).

• MOI (higher MOI = more resistance to twisting).

Quantifying the Twist on a Mishit

In a high MOI putter, the face still twists, but significantly less than a low MOI blade. For context:

1. Standard Blade Putter (Low MOI ~2,000 g·cm²):

• A 1/2-inch off-center strike might produce 4-6 degrees of face twist.

2. High MOI Putter (e.g., 5,000-6,000+ g·cm²):

• On the same 1/2-inch off-center strike, face twist is reduced to around 1-2 degrees.

Impact of Neutral Balance

In a neutrally balanced putter (where CG aligns with the shaft axis):

• The neutral balance does not inherently reduce face twisting further. Instead, it reduces the torque felt in your hands because the shaft axis aligns with the CG.

• This means that while the face still twists due to off-center strikes, there’s less feedback of twisting torque through the shaft, which can make the putter feel more stable.

Key Insight: Twisting is determined by MOI and strike location, not balance type. Neutral balance primarily affects how torque is transmitted to the golfer’s hands.

Example Calculation (Hypothetical)

Let’s assume a high MOI putter with an MOI of 6,000 g·cm²:

• On a 1/2-inch mishit, the face might twist 1-2 degrees.

• On a 1-inch mishit (more extreme), the face might twist 3-4 degrees.

This is much better than a blade putter with low MOI, where the face could twist 5-6+ degrees on similar mishits.

Why It Matters

Even a 1-degree face twist can cause a putt to miss the hole, especially on longer putts:

• A 1-degree open face at impact sends the ball 2 inches off-line per 10 feet.

• A 2-degree face twist would send the ball 4 inches off-line per 10 feet—enough to miss a straight 10-foot putt.

This highlights why high MOI putters are valuable for reducing errors from mishits, even though twisting cannot be fully eliminated.

Summary

For a high MOI neutrally balanced putter:

• Twisting on mishits is significantly reduced compared to traditional low MOI putters.

• A 1/2-inch off-center hit might result in only 1-2 degrees of twist.

• Neutral balance primarily reduces the torque feedback in the hands, but it does not directly affect the physical face twisting caused by off-center impacts.

To minimize twisting even further, focus on improving center-face contact while leveraging the benefits of a high MOI putter.

 

Instead of AI, I use peer reviewed scientific research.  A LOT of the face opening is occurring after the impact interval and therefore has minimal affect on actual start line.  This is extremely easy to prove.   In fact, the reason you’d miss a 10’ putt by missing sweetspot by 1” is due to reduced ballspeed, not because it misses the hole wide.  A 1” miss would have nearly half the ball outside the putter face on most mallets, in other words that’s not gonna happen.  I’ve tested a ton of players on SAM and missing the sweetspot by 6-8mm is rare and would make you terrible at that skill.  Missing the sweetspot by 20+mm just isn’t a thing in putting.   
 

nobody said MOI doesn’t exist, I make one of the highest MOI traditional blades, it simply doesn’t matter when it comes to real world putting.  Long before any mishit is bad enough to miss because start line it’ll miss WAY short.  High MOI sounds great from a marketing standpoint though. 

[ThinkingPlus]

53 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

Instead of AI, I use peer reviewed scientific research.  A LOT of the face opening is occurring after the impact interval and therefore has minimal affect on actual start line.  This is extremely easy to prove.   In fact, the reason you’d miss a 10’ putt by missing sweetspot by 1” is due to reduced ballspeed, not because it misses the hole wide.  A 1” miss would have nearly half the ball outside the putter face on most mallets, in other words that’s not gonna happen.  I’ve tested a ton of players on SAM and missing the sweetspot by 6-8mm is rare and would make you terrible at that skill.  Missing the sweetspot by 20+mm just isn’t a thing in putting.   
 

nobody said MOI doesn’t exist, I make one of the highest MOI traditional blades, it simply doesn’t matter when it comes to real world putting.  Long before any mishit is bad enough to miss because start line it’ll miss WAY short.  High MOI sounds great from a marketing standpoint though. 

Agreed. I think that's the real point of high MOI. You get better distance control. Less twisting at impact throwing the putter offline is pretty much a red herring.

 

My first L.A.B. putter was a Blad. The zero torque aspect was great and it has minimal onset and a normal grip. I liked it, but the low MOI killed my distance control. I play on such varied speed greens and don't get to practice putting much so I just wasn't hitting centered enough.

 

Went to a Mezz with the higher MOI and got my distance control back. MOI really matters for precise distance control and not much else.

[purdyd]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

First, “so when using the press grip, LAB putters exhibit torque and hence are face balanced” is absurd. What makes a putter faced balanced is its cg location, not that it exhibits torque. 

A statically balanced putter toe up putter  aka 'zero torque' will not  have torque when addressing the ball.

 

The fact that the LAB putter when held by the grip exhibits torque is evidence that the LAB putter is behaving as a face balanced putter.  Or more precisely the grip axis is in front of the center of mass

 

in other words the face will turn up when balanced on the grip

 

The LAB putter is balanced around the shaft, not the grip.  It is unbalanced around the axis of the grip.

 

When you define torque you need to define it around an axis.

 

Since you hold a putter by the grip, it is the grip axis that is important and the torque about that axis.

 

What makes the LAB putter with a press grip face balanced is that the center of mass is behind the axis of the grip.

 

You can see that when you look at it and you can do an analysis with force diagrams to show why this is the case.

 

Again, I am not the only one who has come up with this conclusion.  

 

Obviously Axis1 inventor Luis Pedraza who is an engineer knows this

 

Jim Harrington, another engineer knows this and has some pretty choice words to say about it.

 

I'm sure there is a list of others as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AlanWatts]

1 hour ago, purdyd said:

A statically balanced putter toe up putter  aka 'zero torque' will not  have torque when addressing the ball.

What about the Odyssey S2S. You have to forward press or you've got 6 degrees of loft so are you saying its no longer zero torque in address position as your grip is no longer in line with shaft Thanks

Edited December 17, 2024 by AlanWatts