We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Is the Putter the Most Over and Under Thought Piece of Equipment?

SeeMore Golf
Putting is so much about green reading and speed adjustment that good putters can putt with anything and bad putters can't putt with anything. Therefore it really just matters whether the weight balance fits your stroke if you are good at putting. From there an old putter will work just as well as a new one so what you carry IMO is about signaling to others a little bit about yourself hence the fashionable designs.

On the other hand if you are bad at putting you probably would do anything to fix it because it's the most obvious place in golf to see strokes adding up on your card. Thus bad putters are always on the hunt for something to fix their putting.
 
Id agree with that statement. Putting is the most over and under thought club because putting itself is the most over and under thought thing in golf. Most of us think that we stink at putting but most of us never really practice it and putting is such a fickle thing.
Not to mention that putter design itself is mostly gimmicks and marketing. The last true revolution in putter design was over 100 years ago. Since then, its been little more the tweaks and marketing BS.
 
JB said:
Combing through some different threads, I was taking in lots of different view points about the putter and putter technology. It seems to me there are three schools of thought.

1. Doesn’t matter, give me an old Ping from the 60s, same thing.
2. All in on every facet of face angle matching stroke and fitting.
3. None of that matters except the way it looks. Custom or Boutique only.

There appears no in between or no dabbling in other areas, or at least its not discussed. Do you fall in one of those?
Click to expand...
I have a "few" putters in my collection and I would consider putting as being the strongest part of my game. I guess I'm an outlier since I don't fall into one of those categories (I can't color within the lines either)

I don't fall into category #1 because I've got to have face milling or at least a copper insert. ;) But at the same token, I seem to putt equally well regardless of head shape, size or neck style.

However, I'm a firm believer in fittings and I do think that the face angle needs to match your stroke for best performance. Though that doesn't comport with my being just as comfortable over my Bettinardi Studio Stock 11 style blade as I am with my Odyssey #7 mallets. :unsure:

There are other terms that could be used but let's just say I'm "unique". :D
 
I used to under think putters. Now, I adore putters, but I'd call it a healthy relationship. Pondering half of your golf game seriously is a good thing?

I'm a hybrid of 2) and 3). It's gotta work right AND look good.
 
Sox_Fan said:
Based on the fact that I suck with anything I try to putt with, I am going with 1.
Click to expand...


It’s also mostly mental for me. I have 35+ putters of all shapes and I don’t putt great with any of them. Next summer I’m signing up for lessons with a top rated putting instructor recommended by a buddy and we will see how much importance he places on matching a putter to my stroke.
 
tahoebum said:
It’s also mostly mental for me. I have 35+ putters of all shapes and I don’t putt great with any of them. Next summer I’m signing up for lessons with a top rated putting instructor recommended by a buddy and we will see how much importance he places on matching a putter to my stroke.
Click to expand...

Me also. I usually have 1 putting round where I make everything I look at for every 15 that I can't make anything over 5 feet. Just switched to cross handed for about the 30th time and going to stick with it this time to see if it improves my consistency.
 
JB said:
Combing through some different threads, I was taking in lots of different view points about the putter and putter technology. It seems to me there are three schools of thought.

1. Doesn’t matter, give me an old Ping from the 60s, same thing.
2. All in on every facet of face angle matching stroke and fitting.
3. None of that matters except the way it looks. Custom or Boutique only.

There appears no in between or no dabbling in other areas, or at least its not discussed. Do you fall in one of those?
Click to expand...

I think that there is a fourth point of view, which is many putters have a tech story or or some other aspect, such as the two ball alignment aid, that materially improves the putter for its intended purpose.
 
Badger_Golfer said:
Id agree with that statement. Putting is the most over and under thought club because putting itself is the most over and under thought thing in golf. Most of us think that we stink at putting but most of us never really practice it and putting is such a fickle thing.
Not to mention that putter design itself is mostly gimmicks and marketing. The last true revolution in putter design was over 100 years ago. Since then, its been little more the tweaks and marketing BS.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more with this sentiment. Even the Anser blade-style putter, which introduced the concept of perimeter weighting, and was a revolutionary design by Karsten Solheim, is not a hundred years old. I think there have been many technological improvements in weighting, head design, moi and alignment features that have made it much easier to putt a good roll on the ball on the intended line.
 
Combo of 1 and 2. Feels good then I'll put good.
 
Tenputt said:
Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more with this sentiment. Even the Anser blade-style putter, which introduced the concept of perimeter weighting, and was a revolutionary design by Karsten Solheim, is not a hundred years old. I think there have been many technological improvements in weighting, head design, moi and alignment features that have made it much easier to putt a good roll on the ball on the intended line.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, all the Anser did was introduce a plumber's neck, which is hardly revolutionary. It was hardly the first putter with offset and even then, all it does is change the eye line to make aiming easier. In many ways, all the Anser did was take the Bullseye design, tweak the shape a bit and add offset. Nothing in that was new, although it was revolutionary in that it flew in the face of what, at the time, was convention. Prior to that, most putters were heel shafted blades but again, the Bullseye and Spalding Cash In putter predate the Anser. In the case of perimeter weighting, Ping was hardly the first to do it.
In the case of the others, they did nothing more than tweak an existing design. Again, nothing revolutionary.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Badger_Golfer said:
Respectfully, all the Anser did was introduce a plumber's neck, which is hardly revolutionary. It was hardly the first putter with offset and even then, all it does is change the eye line to make aiming easier. In many ways, all the Anser did was take the Bullseye design, tweak the shape a bit and add offset. Nothing in that was new, although it was revolutionary in that it flew in the face of what, at the time, was convention. Prior to that, most putters were heel shafted blades but again, the Bullseye and Spalding Cash In putter predate the Anser.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The Anser added quite a bit to the back of the putter from the original bullseye.

That also completely ignores all of the mallet putters on the market, which help a lot of people putt better. Modern materials, and technology are sometimes gimmicks, but to say that there’s been no innovation in putters in 100 years is just not even close to accurate.
 
I tend to approach a new putter with #3 in mind. It has to look good to my eye first. Does it inspire confidence? trust? Does the shape work for my eyes?

Then I'd get it fitted to my stroke with my correct loft, lie and length. Once that is set, I have no one else to blame but myself if I miss putts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top