LAB Golf Mezz

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I could see where it could help.

How?

[mohearn]

Getting back to the topic, I saw where Charl Schwartzel is using this putter. Y'know when I first saw this thread I thought it was about the $1999.99 LA Golf putter.

[Phil McGleno]

The topic appears to be a backhanded way of marketing a flat thing on the end of a stick as I think @iacas says.

Paul Azinger used The Thing for awhile.-Good luck finding those putters anywhere. Bet that THING did not have much torque either.

[JPitts]

I find it interesting that this putter gets as much hate as it does in this forum. I still get a laugh out of the physics comments. Physics still establish that torque does exist, although in minimal quantities while putting, and that different putter styles create different amounts of torque. There simply is no denying these facts, and anyone who does simply does not have a knowledge of physics. Now, to what effect that the torque plays in putting for an average golfer is something that can be discussed, but to say it does not exist is complete ignorance. 

 

Since the closed down thread from 5 years ago the putter has been reviewed on multiple golf forums, youtube channels, and golf publications. All have given positive reviews and provided data that show improvement with the putter. Of course the common negative is the looks of the putter. 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by JPitts

[woodzie264]

24 minutes ago, JPitts said:

All have given positive reviews and provided data that show improvement with the putter. Of course the common negative is the looks of the putter. 

There has been no data presented on this site by you or anyone else. Please elaborate.  If you posted on the forum with any frequency, you’d know we are about data and statistics. 

[billchao]

30 minutes ago, JPitts said:

I find it interesting that this putter gets as much hate as it does in this forum. I still get a laugh out of the physics comments. Physics still establish that torque does exist, although in minimal quantities while putting, and that different putter styles create different amounts of torque. There simply is no denying these facts, and anyone who does simply does not have a knowledge of physics. Now, to what effect that the torque plays in putting for an average golfer is something that can be discussed, but to say it does not exist is complete ignorance. 

Nobody said there is no torque applied on the putter head as it swings. We’ve said it’s such a minimal amount it’s basically inconsequential. There’s torque applied to my toothbrush when I use it, do I need a torque balanced toothbrush to clean my teeth properly?

Your hands on the grip not only easily overpower whatever torque the putter applies, but are the primary drivers of putter face rotation.

35 minutes ago, JPitts said:

Since the closed down thread from 5 years ago the putter has been reviewed on multiple golf forums, youtube channels, and golf publications. All have given positive reviews and provided data that show improvement with the putter.

And your point is? I’m sure I’d give it an overall positive review if I had one, too. It’s really hard to make a bad putter.

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s primary premise is bogus and I think they’re ugly.

[woodzie264]

1 minute ago, billchao said:

And your point is? I’m sure I’d give it an overall positive review if I had one, too. It’s really hard to make a bad putter.

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s primary premise is bogus and I think they’re ugly.

Well said

[Pretzel]

The most laughable claim about these ugly pieces of bar stock is that they're the only putter out there with zero torque at impact. Only people with zero knowledge of physics make that claim or believe it to be true.

Amost every conventional putter design out there has a point on the face where there will be zero torque about the shaft when you make contact with the ball. It's a basic geometrical concept called the center of rotation. It will be further towards the toe or heel based on the shape and weight of the head, neck, shaft, or grip as well as the lie angle and length. 

The only thing different/special about the directed force putters is that they adjust the lie angle and length to move the center of rotation into the center of the putterface as opposed to different styles of hosel or clubhead shapes.

The thing is, however, it doesn't matter in the slightest. If you make contact with the ball at the center of rotation it doesn't make any difference whether that's in the middle of the face, towards the heel, or way off the toe. You'll have no torque or twisting so long as impact is in line with the center of rotation, it's the same reason bladed irons have a sweet spot further towards the heel. Directed force just makes it "easier" to find the sweet spot because it's in the center of the face, but most people can find the sweet spot on a putter within 5-10 strokes because you can feel where you're supposed to hit it pretty obviously.

To clarify, when I mean the center of rotation is shifted I mean by somewhere in the neighborhood of +/- a quarter inch or so on most common designs. The classic standard Ping Answer/Scotty Newport style has a sweet spot slightly shifted to the heel, but not by enough to substantially notice unless you hit enough putts to wear in the sweet spot like a certain famous someone. It's a small thing, and like I said most people can figure it out within 5-10 putts.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Pretzel

[iacas]

@JPitts, that's enough of the intellectual dishonesty, please. Everything's there for people to read, so stop putting "your spin" on what's been said in the past, to put it as "respectfully" as possible. It's tough to gaslight people when they can look back for themselves at what was said.

[Denny Bang Bang]

I could never get comfortable over a putt looking down at that thing.  Will be sticking with my 2006 White Hot XG Rossie (that was also only $90).

[JPitts]

19 minutes ago, Denny Bang Bang said:

I could never get comfortable over a putt looking down at that thing.  Will be sticking with my 2006 White Hot XG Rossie (that was also only $90).

That was such a classic putter! I used one of the OG Rossie putters back in high school. Had a couple of my best putting rounds ever with that thing. Funny, now I can't stand an insert on a putter. 

[Denny Bang Bang]

30 minutes ago, JPitts said:

Funny, now I can't stand an insert on a putter. 

I bought an SC GoLo 3 after falling in love with it at the store.  Once I got them both out on the practice green together, went back to the Rossie. It just sets up correctly every time, appeals to my eyes, so I’ll take the insert that comes along with it.

 I don’t know much about Brad Snedeker, but I do understand he has great taste in putters as well. 😀

[klineka]

1 hour ago, JPitts said:

That was such a classic putter! I used one of the OG Rossie putters back in high school. Had a couple of my best putting rounds ever with that thing. Funny, now I can't stand an insert on a putter. 

Of course you choose to respond about the slightly off topic comment instead of responding to the direct request for stats and data to support your claim/position.

[ChetlovesMer]

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

How?

You got me. I don't actually know how it could help. I just said that because it seemed like it worked fine to me. No better or worse than any of the other putters. 🤪

If you are a person who has putting yips. Perhaps the uniqueness of this style of putter could change your approach to the stroke enough to be different and set you up for a new mindset. You know, that whole "Wow, this is really different so it must be helping me" Kind of thing ...  Or maybe you're just one of those people who wants to have something to talk about. You know. "Hey check out my Star Trek looking putter." ... 

Hell, I don't know? I rolled putt with it. It seemed fine. It's a putter. 

I suppose I should have said "I can see where some people would like it". 

9 hours ago, billchao said:

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s primary premise is bogus and I think they’re ugly.

Dude, you don't like Star Trek?

[JPitts]

11 hours ago, klineka said:

Of course you choose to respond about the slightly off topic comment instead of responding to the direct request for stats and data to support your claim/position.

Are you are referring to the comment stating that no data has been presented by me or anyone else on this site? If so, please explain is not a direct question, but allow me to do so. As I stated in an above post, many other golf forums and youtube channels have done reviews and testing. I could post some links to those, but I am not sure how that is received in here. I know that the TXG guys did a very good review on the putter and went pretty in depth. There are others out there as well. 

Just to clarify, I don't have a dog in this fight. Just figured it would be an interesting conversation to have. 

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, JPitts said:

Just to clarify, I don't have a dog in this fight.

If you're reasonably well read in "golf reviews," you know it's pretty difficult to find many BAD putter reviews out there. For anyone's putter. So you're not bringing the heat you think you're bringing by saying there are "a lot of good reviews" out there.

Cut the BS, @JPitts. You've mischaracterized stuff enough times now that it's past the point of tolerance.

But like I said in the other discussion, please keep bumping the topic. It helps it rise in search engine results, and then people will see plenty of comments about how ugly they feel the putters are, they'll start to look into the specious physics claims and marketing tricks, etc.

[JPitts]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

If you're reasonably well read in "golf reviews," you know it's pretty difficult to find many BAD putter reviews out there. For anyone's putter. So you're not bringing the heat you think you're bringing by saying there are "a lot of good reviews" out there.

Cut the BS, @JPitts. You've mischaracterized stuff enough times now that it's past the point of tolerance.

But like I said in the other discussion, please keep bumping the topic. It helps it rise in search engine results, and then people will see plenty of comments about how ugly they feel the putters are, they'll start to look into the specious physics claims and marketing tricks, etc.

Point of tolerance? 

Edited February 25, 2022 by JPitts

[boogielicious]

17 minutes ago, JPitts said:

Point of tolerance? 

You’ve made your points and others have refuted them. What other forums say really doesn’t matter to The Sand Trap community. We make our own observations and review relevant date. We don’t rely on some guy in another forum’s opinion or even a lot of golf review sites. Heck, Golf Digest gives pretty much everyone a Gold and Silver medal. Comments from active members carry much more weight.

Putters are personal. Mine is a putter fro 2003 that I bought on eBay for $95 dollars and had it adjusted to my fitting specs. Putting is a strength for me. I love the look and feel of my putter. The putter in the OP looks distracting to me and I would never use it.

And BTW, many of us on the forum are scientists or engineers. We understand physics quite well. Torque for putting is what my grad school professors would call a ‘negligible” factor.