What’s the deal with Lab patents and all the other zero torque putters?

[Shwagin1066]

2 minutes ago, j0nesy said:

LAB owners defending their $600 putter purchase—who would’ve thought? The bottom line is that those who spend that kind of money are also likely putting in the time to practice and justify the expense. Nothing wrong with what I said; no need for anyone to get their panties in a twist.

You’d be surprised. Seems some people wake up with them twisted 😅 some of these guys have thousands of posts a year lol. Bit scary when you think about it! 

[jwade4653]

I’ve loved my LAB, but I was also coming out of the worst putting year of my life before purchasing. Though I find it hard to believe any patent will hold up when dinner plates and branding irons have existed for thousands of years

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, jwade4653 said:

I’ve loved my LAB, but I was also coming out of the worst putting year of my life before purchasing. Though I find it hard to believe any patent will hold up when dinner plates and branding irons have existed for thousands of years

Agree that head shape is going to be really tough to patent. 
 

I think the grip patent might hold up, but somebody might find a way to accomplish the same thing while not infringing

[soulciccia]

3 hours ago, TonyRo said:

How should they balance when they're horizontal then? 

a CG balanced putter doesn’t have any rest position. it stays the way you place it, wether it’s face up, face, toe up, toe down.

If you try with one of the many CS double sided blade putters you can experience it

[TonyRo]

4 minutes ago, soulciccia said:

a CG balanced putter doesn’t have any rest position. it stays the way you place it, wether it’s face up, face, toe up, toe down.

If you try with one of the many CS double sided blade putters you can experience it

This is part of the problem with LAB concept in general - it's apparently complicated enough that people can't even wrap their head around the basic physics.

 

The only place where what you said holds true for a lie angle balanced (it's literally in the name) putter is when it's being held at it's designated lie angle. Sam has said many times in the past that they will balance somewhere in the realm of toe up when held horizontal. That's such an arbitrary and bizarre test for a putter anyway - how the toe sits when it it's held at 90 degrees. 

[bannermannn88]

27 minutes ago, Shwagin1066 said:

You’d be surprised. Seems some people wake up with them twisted 😅 some of these guys have thousands of posts a year lol. Bit scary when you think about it! 

To be fair, this thread opened with a post discussing interest and questions surrounding the topic of LAB’s patents and how other similar offerings that have been brought to market may or may not infringe on those existing patents. 
 

You immediately commented “Zero torque isn’t a thing lol. You’re buying snake oil”, which of course has nothing to do with the original post that was simply prompting discussion about the patents related to these putters. 

[Shwagin1066]

24 minutes ago, bannermannn88 said:

To be fair, this thread opened with a post discussing interest and questions surrounding the topic of LAB’s patents and how other similar offerings that have been brought to market may or may not infringe on those existing patents. 
 

You immediately commented “Zero torque isn’t a thing lol. You’re buying snake oil”, which of course has nothing to do with the original post that was simply prompting discussion about the patents related to these putters. 

Fair point, the labboys do get me going 😅 I was more getting at the fact that they aren’t the first to offer this kind of thing, but fair critique regardless 🍻

Edited March 25 by Shwagin1066

[soulciccia]

2 hours ago, Shwagin1066 said:

yes but the force is applied at a different point, no? The revealer has the lab putter hanging from its hole in the grip. Is this not different than your 2 hands holding it? Asking honestly, I am certainly no physicist or engineer 😅
 

I understand the LABs don’t rotate at all while other putters will. I just think the amount of torque a traditional putter creates in relation to the force being applied to the grip ranges from negligible to non-existent.

 

I made a quick calculation, and the conclusion is:

between a low torque putter (I took a seemore classic) and a corrective torque putter (lab link), the difference in torque, assuming all the 3 heads at 350 grams, is the same as adding or subtracting 1,5 grams on the toe of an anser 2 putter.

So, very little difference and I don’t think anyone can feel it, so my personal conclusion is that, between low, zero and corrective torque, there’s no difference in real life.

 

BUT, comparing a lab link to an anser, we need almost 20 grams on the toe of the link to get the torque of an anser, so I’d say pretty big difference and for sure noticeable. 

 

One thing that many people don’t take into account is that forces acting around the shaft axis, generating torque, can be static, dynamic, or both. Static is when is does not depend on acceleration (so remains constant), dynamic varies during the stroke as it’s proportional to acceleration.

 

By phisics laws:

-on traditional toe hang putters (anser) both static and dynamic forces are creating torque, static because the center of gravity is behind the shaft axis, dynamic because is towards the toe.

-face balanced putters have static force only, which is the force which makes the putter face open on the revealer when lifting the putter, BUT that static force is neutralized by simply holding the putter, and does NOT change during the stroke. Furthermore, the fact that the center of gravity is behind the shaft axis but in line on the horizontal plane, it causes that “seeking square” motion, which gets higher and higher as the center of gravity is moved back from the face (concept of big mallets). I am sure, if on the revealer there would be applied a very small force just to keep the putter square before starting the motion (simulating the hands holding the putter), then it would not twist during the stroke.

-toe up putters (and lie angles balanced too), have a static force helping the face “seeking square” created by mass distribution, reason why they naturally remain square with no force applied (gravity pulls the heel down), BUT they do have a dynamic force applied during the stroke, which is proportional to acceleration, and more pronuncied as the mass distribution is more towards the heel, creating torque. This dynamic force applies the OPPOSITE direction compared to toe hang putters (when toe hang tends to open, toe up tends to close, and the opposite). 

-toe down putters like heel shafted blades are exactly the opposite as toe up.

-true 100% torque balanced simply do NOT apply any torque, since both dynamic and static forces are equal to zero.

 

lab putters fall into the toe up category, BUT very close to torque balanced.

I honestly have no idea why part of the marketing of lab is towards the “naturally seeking square” because if seeking square is the goal, then face balanced with a center of gravity moved far back is a lot more effective.

By phisics, low to zero torque putters are extremely neutral and simply “follow” the player.

 

But we know, theory is theory, then real life is different, in fact by phisics an anser or a slant neck mallet are the worst options..

 

In the end, my personal opinion on these low to zero torque putters is that they can be extremely effective, and even if I don’t play one, I appreciate the concept and have personally seen a huge improvement from the friend of mine, since he got the lab his putting has improved a lot especially from the short distances.

 

[jls667]

1 hour ago, j0nesy said:

LAB owners defending their $600 putter purchase—who would’ve thought? The bottom line is that those who spend that kind of money are also likely putting in the time to practice and justify the expense. Nothing wrong with what I said; no need for anyone to get their panties in a twist.

 

This. It's basic social psychology. People (myself included) will defend their choices more fervently in relation to the amount of sacrifice (time, effort, or money) they put in. Which is fine and completely normal, but it absolutely applies to how we talk about golf clubs.

 

How many guys do we know gush over their new driver only to end up ditching it later that season because in fact did little to nothing for them. Or, as you said, they started driving better because they practiced more because they wanted to play with their new $700 toy. I'd bet that how quickly one gets to the point of giving up on their new club is directly correlated to how much they spent in relation to their income.

 

I actually think Club Champion is the golf industry king of exploiting this. Their fittings have to be the best in the industry because they suggested a $3000 set of irons, right? 

 

I'm not saying people won't putt better with a lab, there are loads that do, but I'd wager that it's more due to finding a putter that works better for them personally than the lab technology alone.

[Shwagin1066]

40 minutes ago, soulciccia said:

 

I made a quick calculation, and the conclusion is:

between a low torque putter (I took a seemore classic) and a corrective torque putter (lab link), the difference in torque, assuming all the 3 heads at 350 grams, is the same as adding or subtracting 1,5 grams on the toe of an anser 2 putter.

So, very little difference and I don’t think anyone can feel it, so my personal conclusion is that, between low, zero and corrective torque, there’s no difference in real life.

 

BUT, comparing a lab link to an anser, we need almost 20 grams on the toe of the link to get the torque of an anser, so I’d say pretty big difference and for sure noticeable. 

 

One thing that many people don’t take into account is that forces acting around the shaft axis, generating torque, can be static, dynamic, or both. Static is when is does not depend on acceleration (so remains constant), dynamic varies during the stroke as it’s proportional to acceleration.

 

By phisics laws:

-on traditional toe hang putters (anser) both static and dynamic forces are creating torque, static because the center of gravity is behind the shaft axis, dynamic because is towards the toe.

-face balanced putters have static force only, which is the force which makes the putter face open on the revealer when lifting the putter, BUT that static force is neutralized by simply holding the putter, and does NOT change during the stroke. Furthermore, the fact that the center of gravity is behind the shaft axis but in line on the horizontal plane, it causes that “seeking square” motion, which gets higher and higher as the center of gravity is moved back from the face (concept of big mallets). I am sure, if on the revealer there would be applied a very small force just to keep the putter square before starting the motion (simulating the hands holding the putter), then it would not twist during the stroke.

-toe up putters (and lie angles balanced too), have a static force helping the face “seeking square” created by mass distribution, reason why they naturally remain square with no force applied (gravity pulls the heel down), BUT they do have a dynamic force applied during the stroke, which is proportional to acceleration, and more pronuncied as the mass distribution is more towards the heel, creating torque. This dynamic force applies the OPPOSITE direction compared to toe hang putters (when toe hang tends to open, toe up tends to close, and the opposite). 

-toe down putters like heel shafted blades are exactly the opposite as toe up.

-true 100% torque balanced simply do NOT apply any torque, since both dynamic and static forces are equal to zero.

 

lab putters fall into the toe up category, BUT very close to torque balanced.

I honestly have no idea why part of the marketing of lab is towards the “naturally seeking square” because if seeking square is the goal, then face balanced with a center of gravity moved far back is a lot more effective.

By phisics, low to zero torque putters are extremely neutral and simply “follow” the player.

 

But we know, theory is theory, then real life is different, in fact by phisics an anser or a slant neck mallet are the worst options..

 

In the end, my personal opinion on these low to zero torque putters is that they can be extremely effective, and even if I don’t play one, I appreciate the concept and have personally seen a huge improvement from the friend of mine, since he got the lab his putting has improved a lot especially from the short distances.

 

That is very interesting! And more than I would have guessed. Though I still think quite minute in terms of what it takes to combat this. 
 

And I totally agree with the second part I highlighted. I’ve always putted best with putters that, firstly, looked the best to my eye, and secondly, felt the best in my hand and off the face. So if that’s a LAB for someone, then that’s great. I think it can be extremely effective for a straight back straight through stroke. I don’t however like it for a gated stroke because I think that natural toe hang of a more heel shafted putter is tremendously helpful in guiding a gated stroke. I think this aligns with a lot of feedback I’ve heard from LAB experimenters in that they loved it from short range but struggled from lag distance because the stroke naturally wants to become more gated the longer it gets. 
 

Very interesting read all around! 🍻

Edited March 25 by Shwagin1066

[J13]

14 hours ago, vanderputts said:

LABs seem to work for a lot of people. I'm not one of them but doesn't make it a bad product or 'snake oil'.

 

I deal with Patents and wouldn't mind taking a look at theirs but it would be hard to believe that it would be enforceable, much like the SIK face technology. Trademarks for sure.

 

Putter patents are pretty much a joke which is why you don't see putter companies get purchased by larger ones.  

[jda]

This is actually really easy, but many do not want to see it.  For the haters, the marketing was horrible, there were misrepresentations and lies (there actually were) and people from LAB got on here and did dumb stuff by bashing other brands and claiming more than they were.  The haters don't care about the tool because of all of this.  For the fanboys, they like the tool and don't care about the rest.  Not much of this has to do with the putter... so if you just like the putter, then this is not the conversation for you.

[Pnwpingi210]

2 hours ago, jda said:

This is actually really easy, but many do not want to see it.  For the haters, the marketing was horrible, there were misrepresentations and lies (there actually were) and people from LAB got on here and did dumb stuff by bashing other brands and claiming more than they were.  The haters don't care about the tool because of all of this.  For the fanboys, they like the tool and don't care about the rest.  Not much of this has to do with the putter... so if you just like the putter, then this is not the conversation for you.

It was intended to be a conversation or ask for information on lab patents. 
 

Some choose to derail the conversation with the discussion points in your post, which aren’t relevant to patents

[pjm]

Returning to the original topic, the LAB Putter website lists the following US patents:

US 12011640 B2

US 9233280

US 8932148

These are not design patents, relating to the look of a product.  That is, the patents do not relate to how the putter looks, rather they relate to various functionality as defined in the claims of the respective patents.  It is not necessary for a competitor to copy in order for infringement to be found.  A competitor could infringe the claims of one or more of these patents even if they developed a competing product independently.

 

US'640 relates to a self-balancing golf club with rearward leaning shaft.

US'280 relates to a self-balancing putter.

US'148 relates to an elliptical golf club grip.

 

As an example, US'148 claims: 1. A golf club, the golf club comprising:

a club head, wherein the club head includes:

a clubface configured to make contact with a golf ball;

a shaft attached to the club head, wherein the shaft includes a center axis; and

an elliptical grip, wherein the elliptical grip includes a center axis;

wherein the center axis of the elliptical grip is non-parallel to the center axis of the shaft; and wherein the club has a balance point at an intersection of a lie angle radian and a lie angle axis and at this intersection the balance point and the center axis of the shaft converge.

 

An infringing product must have all of the features of this claim.  If a competitor has a product with an elliptical grip parallel to the center axis of the shaft, that product would not infringe this claim.

 

The other patents specify various center of mass positions and geometrical alignment.  If a competing product does not match the specified alignment and center of mass positions, then the competing product does not infringe.

  

[bluedot]

18 hours ago, Shwagin1066 said:
 

I’ve always putted best with putters that, firstly, looked the best to my eye, and secondly, felt the best in my hand and off the face. So if that’s a LAB for someone, then that’s great. I think it can be extremely effective for a straight back straight through stroke. I don’t however like it for a gated stroke because I think that natural toe hang of a more heel shafted putter is tremendously helpful in guiding a gated stroke. I think this aligns with a lot of feedback I’ve heard from LAB experimenters in that they loved it from short range but struggled from lag distance because the stroke naturally wants to become more gated the longer it gets. 
 

Very interesting read all around! 🍻

I’m not sure I understand why you say that a toe hang putter is “tremendously helpful in guiding a gated stroke”, since the weight that makes a putter toe hang is just as involved in changing the face angle in the backstroke as it is in squaring the face in the thru stroke.  That introduces an element of timing and manipulation into the putting stroke, doesn’t it?
 

Don’t read that to mean that there aren’t great putters with great putting strokes using toe hang putters, or that I’m saying that anyone would be better with a zero torque putter.  (Or face balanced or low torque, just to be clear.). But regardless of the stroke or the putter being used, the fundamental issue in any putting stroke is to have the face square to the intended line at impact.  I don’t see how “hang” in either direction could possibly HELP with that. How much hang might hurt depends on the individual, but it can’t help under the laws of physics as I understand them.

[Shwagin1066]

23 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I’m not sure I understand why you say that a toe hang putter is “tremendously helpful in guiding a gated stroke”, since the weight that makes a putter toe hang is just as involved in changing the face angle in the backstroke as it is in squaring the face in the thru stroke.  That introduces an element of timing and manipulation into the putting stroke, doesn’t it?
 

Don’t read that to mean that there aren’t great putters with great putting strokes using toe hang putters, or that I’m saying that anyone would be better with a zero torque putter.  (Or face balanced or low torque, just to be clear.). But regardless of the stroke or the putter being used, the fundamental issue in any putting stroke is to have the face square to the intended line at impact.  I don’t see how “hang” in either direction could possibly HELP with that. How much hang might hurt depends on the individual, but it can’t help under the laws of physics as I understand them.

you already answered your own question. The weight that makes the putter toe hang helps square the face  in the through stroke. Putters with toe hang are meant to be swung along a slight arc, and the toe hang helps square the face through the stroke 👍🏻

 

if you swung a putter with “heel hang” on a slight arc, the putter would be actively fighting against you squaring up the face, which is why face balanced putters work best for a straight back straight through stroke 

Edited March 26 by Shwagin1066

[J13]

21 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I’m not sure I understand why you say that a toe hang putter is “tremendously helpful in guiding a gated stroke”, since the weight that makes a putter toe hang is just as involved in changing the face angle in the backstroke as it is in squaring the face in the thru stroke.  That introduces an element of timing and manipulation into the putting stroke, doesn’t it?
 

Don’t read that to mean that there aren’t great putters with great putting strokes using toe hang putters, or that I’m saying that anyone would be better with a zero torque putter.  (Or face balanced or low torque, just to be clear.). But regardless of the stroke or the putter being used, the fundamental issue in any putting stroke is to have the face square to the intended line at impact.  I don’t see how “hang” in either direction could possibly HELP with that. How much hang might hurt depends on the individual, but it can’t help under the laws of physics as I understand them.

Toe hang can help improve timing for players that need it or like the resistance aspect of it.  In fact the majority of tour players depend on it which is why low torque putters like LAB have very few wins on tour.  The 1 win I can think of and the players who've had the most success use them in a broomstick setup.

 

But there is no right or wrong.  Low torque like LAB are great for those who need what it offers.  It's not a cure all and neither is a plumbers or slant neck.  

 

 

[bluedot]

Just now, Shwagin1066 said:

you already answered your own question. The weight that makes the putter toe hang helps square the face  in the through stroke. Putters with toe hang are meant to be swung along a slight arc, and the toe hang helps square the face through the stroke 👍🏻

No, I didn't answer my own question.  

 

You've written this before, several times, but you're ONLY talking about the thru stroke.  That same weight that you are crediting with helping to square the face causes the face to become NOT square in the back stroke, which makes the weight "necessary" to square the face back up in the thru stroke. 

 

Regardless of the degree of arc in the stroke, that's a manipulation that the golfer has to perform perfectly to deliver the putter square to the intended line.  There's no way around that, and it's been responsible for pretty much every development in putters since Karsten came up with perimeter weighting.

[Shwagin1066]

5 minutes ago, bluedot said:

No, I didn't answer my own question.  

 

You've written this before, several times, but you're ONLY talking about the thru stroke.  That same weight that you are crediting with helping to square the face causes the face to become NOT square in the back stroke, which makes the weight "necessary" to square the face back up in the thru stroke. 

 

Regardless of the degree of arc in the stroke, that's a manipulation that the golfer has to perform perfectly to deliver the putter square to the intended line.  There's no way around that, and it's been responsible for pretty much every development in putters since Karsten came up with perimeter weighting.

I think you’re misinterpreting what I said. Yes, the toe hang causes the face to become not square on the back stroke, and also helps to square it up on the through stroke. 
 

im not really sure what we’re disagreeing about to be honest. Putters with toe hang are meant to be swung along a slight arc. That’s all. 
 

if you disagree with that you’ll have to take it up with every single putter manufacturer ever lol. PING even puts a sticker on their putters with toe hang to let the user know how much arc in the stroke is intended to fit that model 

Edited March 26 by Shwagin1066

[Shwagin1066]

13 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

It was intended to be a conversation or ask for information on lab patents. 
 

Some choose to derail the conversation with the discussion points in your post, which aren’t relevant to patents

the original poster has been well engaged with where the thread direction has headed. Perhaps join the conversation, or stop continuously commenting that the thread changed direction slightly 👍🏻
 

but I know you just want to get that post count up! 😉

Edited March 26 by Shwagin1066

[Shwagin1066]

16 minutes ago, J13 said:

Toe hang can help improve timing for players that need it or like the resistance aspect of it.  In fact the majority of tour players depend on it which is why low torque putters like LAB have very few wins on tour.  The 1 win I can think of and the players who've had the most success use them in a broomstick setup.

 

But there is no right or wrong.  Low torque like LAB are great for those who need what it offers.  It's not a cure all and neither is a plumbers or slant neck.  

 

 

And you better believe EVERY single player on tour has tested them extensively. Very few have switched (and most of them are habitual putter changers) 

 

oh Adam Scott is on board? You don’t say 😅

Edited March 26 by Shwagin1066

[bluedot]

3 minutes ago, J13 said:

Toe hang can help improve timing for players that need it or like the resistance aspect of it.  In fact the majority of tour players depend on it which is why low torque putters like LAB have very few wins on tour.  The 1 win I can think of and the players who've had the most success use them in a broomstick setup.

 

But there is no right or wrong.  Low torque like LAB are great for those who need what it offers.  It's not a cure all and neither is a plumbers or slant neck.  

 

 

Ok...

 

There is an implied assumption here that anything NOT a LAB putter must be a toe hang putter, and that just isn't true, on Tour or anywhere else, including the club where you play.  I don't think we have any way of knowing the percentage of Tour pros that use toe hang putters, as opposed to face balanced and the rest of the spectrum of "not toe hang" but I'd suspect that it's less than a majority, especially among the younger guys. 

 

I also think you're underestimating the presence of LAB putters among professionals, as well as the wins, but that's another argument.  Focusing on broomstick thing when it comes to LAB and pros is a distraction; the guys who use broomsticks and armlocks of ANY brand, by definition, are willing to try new and different stuff to putt better, and may well have had putting issues in the past to boot.  It's no surprise that they'd be more likely to try a LAB putter, nor is it surprising that guys who are successful putters are much less likely to change.

[Shwagin1066]

4 minutes ago, bluedot said:

Ok...

 

There is an implied assumption here that anything NOT a LAB putter must be a toe hang putter, and that just isn't true, on Tour or anywhere else, including the club where you play.  I don't think we have any way of knowing the percentage of Tour pros that use toe hang putters, as opposed to face balanced and the rest of the spectrum of "not toe hang" but I'd suspect that it's less than a majority, especially among the younger guys. 

 

I also think you're underestimating the presence of LAB putters among professionals, as well as the wins, but that's another argument.  Focusing on broomstick thing when it comes to LAB and pros is a distraction; the guys who use broomsticks and armlocks of ANY brand, by definition, are willing to try new and different stuff to putt better, and may well have had putting issues in the past to boot.  It's no surprise that they'd be more likely to try a LAB putter, nor is it surprising that guys who are successful putters are much less likely to change.

this is a serious comment? You can look up literally every single tour players WITB on this forum, with in hand pictures… they can be counted on 2 hands, currently

 

 

Edited March 26 by Shwagin1066

[Pnwpingi210]

23 minutes ago, Shwagin1066 said:

the original poster has been well engaged with where the thread direction has headed. Perhaps join the conversation, or stop continuously commenting that the thread changed direction slightly 👍🏻
 

but I know you just want to get that post count up! 😉

[bluedot]

2 minutes ago, Shwagin1066 said:

this is a serious comment? You can look up literally every single tour players WITB on this forum, with in hand pictures…

 

 

Then perhaps you could go thru that information and collate the data on the percentages of pros that use toe hang vs face balanced, etc.  It won't be easy to do, since the Spider Tour X, for instance, comes in three models, one of which is listed as zero toe hang. 

 

Knowing the brand and model of the putter in a WITB thread here is hardly the same thing as knowing the percentages.  Blanket statements about the "majority" of Tour pros using toe hang putters could be correct, but not just because it gets repeated over and over and over.

 

In that regard, it's like saying that toe hang helps square the putter face at impact, given that the weighting may well be what caused the face angle to change in the first place.  It's one thing to say that a golfer prefers the feel of toe hang; it's another thing entirely to say that toe hang is helpful in squaring the putter face at impact.

[Shwagin1066]

9 minutes ago, bluedot said:

Then perhaps you could go thru that information and collate the data on the percentages of pros that use toe hang vs face balanced, etc.  It won't be easy to do, since the Spider Tour X, for instance, comes in three models, one of which is listed as zero toe hang. 

 

Knowing the brand and model of the putter in a WITB thread here is hardly the same thing as knowing the percentages.  Blanket statements about the "majority" of Tour pros using toe hang putters could be correct, but not just because it gets repeated over and over and over.

 

In that regard, it's like saying that toe hang helps square the putter face at impact, given that the weighting may well be what caused the face angle to change in the first place.  It's one thing to say that a golfer prefers the feel of toe hang; it's another thing entirely to say that toe hang is helpful in squaring the putter face at impact.

Well, it’s simply a fact that a putter with toe hang helps square the face in the through stroke of a gated stroke. I’m not sure what else to tell you. 
 

WITB threads here aren’t text stating the brand and model. That’s what they were in the 1990s. 
 

They are in hand pictures of the club. I’m well aware of the toe hang of each of the spider models. This is not secret information.

 

it is not a slight majority of tour pros that use a putter with toe hang. It is an overwhelming majority. Google can also be of service to you. It’s 2025 brother, you can look up and see pictures of literally every single club in every single professional players bag lol.

Edited March 26 by Shwagin1066

[J13]

13 minutes ago, bluedot said:

Ok...

 

There is an implied assumption here that anything NOT a LAB putter must be a toe hang putter, and that just isn't true, on Tour or anywhere else, including the club where you play.  I don't think we have any way of knowing the percentage of Tour pros that use toe hang putters, as opposed to face balanced and the rest of the spectrum of "not toe hang" but I'd suspect that it's less than a majority, especially among the younger guys. 

 

I also think you're underestimating the presence of LAB putters among professionals, as well as the wins, but that's another argument.  Focusing on broomstick thing when it comes to LAB and pros is a distraction; the guys who use broomsticks and armlocks of ANY brand, by definition, are willing to try new and different stuff to putt better, and may well have had putting issues in the past to boot.  It's no surprise that they'd be more likely to try a LAB putter, nor is it surprising that guys who are successful putters are much less likely to change.

 

I work in golf and have designed putters.  Face balance is a type of toe hang.  Again we are talking about LAB so I used them in the example. 

 

They are not the first and won't be the last to market alternative balanced putters. I've literally built putters that have toe hangs not even on the market.  It's not hard. LAB went into a direction and caught lightning in a bottle after years of struggling. That's awesome for them. 

 

IMO a lie angle balanced putter isn't going anywhere but instead will slowly fall into the normal mix of offerings from various companies.  If tour players don't win this year using them (especially in a standard length) you will see them gradually shift back to other options.  It doesn't mean they don't work it just means they work for some and not for others.  They aren't a cure all, nothing is (unfortunately). 

[Shwagin1066]

33 minutes ago, J13 said:

 

I work in golf and have designed putters.  Face balance is a type of toe hang.  Again we are talking about LAB so I used them in the example. 

 

They are not the first and won't be the last to market alternative balanced putters. I've literally built putters that have toe hangs not even on the market.  It's not hard. LAB went into a direction and caught lightning in a bottle after years of struggling. That's awesome for them. 

 

IMO a lie angle balanced putter isn't going anywhere but instead will slowly fall into the normal mix of offerings from various companies.  If tour players don't win this year using them (especially in a standard length) you will see them gradually shift back to other options.  It doesn't mean they don't work it just means they work for some and not for others.  They aren't a cure all, nothing is (unfortunately). 

This guy gets it ^ 
 

Precisely. And they’ve been marketed as the end all be all (and plugged as such by employees of the company on this very forum). It goes beyond just “trying to sell putters.” It’s dishonest at best.
 

That’s literally my only gripe with the company (though it isn’t a small one).

Edited March 26 by Shwagin1066

[MattM97]

36 minutes ago, J13 said:

 

I work in golf and have designed putters.  Face balance is a type of toe hang.  Again we are talking about LAB so I used them in the example. 

 

They are not the first and won't be the last to market alternative balanced putters. I've literally built putters that have toe hangs not even on the market.  It's not hard. LAB went into a direction and caught lightning in a bottle after years of struggling. That's awesome for them. 

 

IMO a lie angle balanced putter isn't going anywhere but instead will slowly fall into the normal mix of offerings from various companies.  If tour players don't win this year using them (especially in a standard length) you will see them gradually shift back to other options.  It doesn't mean they don't work it just means they work for some and not for others.  They aren't a cure all, nothing is (unfortunately). 

 

On those last 2 sentences it's almost like tour pros much like us are willing to try something different to see if it will work even for a few weeks. 

 

How many win on Sunday and seen on the putting green on Wednesday happens week after week? 

[TonyRo]

If there is one thing of which LAB has convinced me, is that golfers and OEMs currently classify putters in a pretty odd manner (where the toe points when lying horizontally on a table) because historically that's all we've had, which has probably led to a fair bit of research that doesn't make a ton of sense in the first place. Seems to me that we should be talking about the magnitude and direction of torque during the stroke instead, which is far more sensible and applicable to real life golf than how your friggin' putter balances on your kitchen counter. It's super misleading for many that toe hang and face balanced are given these names, when they are really both different magnitudes of face-opening torque putters. A classic example would be that PING (my favorite OEM, actually) classifies arc type and then recommends you a putter based on that, which is fine in my opinion if the research suggests it, but should a "straight arc" putter really still be using a putter with a face-opening torque, or is that just because it's the best that PING has? Intuitively, you'd suspect lie-angle balanced would be the way there. Going even further, is it really the arc type that's significant, or just which direction you tend to miss putts? After all, research has shown that path has very little to do with missing putts, and that face angle is a far more significant factor.

 

Seems like the golf industry needs something like the lighting industry had when LED light bulbs were new and no one knew what the hell they were buying at Home Depot. GE was putting all these sliding scales on boxes, e.g. "warm/cool" color temp, "bright/dim" intensity, recommended applications, etc. Imagine a world where you go to Golf Galaxy and every putter has a sticker telling you something like this is for a "left aim bias, left miss bias, short putt bias", etc. 

 

I'd love to quit my current engineering management gig and dedicate my life to studying and designing putters, but unfortunately I have bills to pay and a needy dog that's on prescription food! 🤣