Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 6482 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Yes! Abbie Forged vs Scotty Cameron Studio Style Newport 1.5


I’ve been playing a Scotty Cameron 1.5 for about a year and a half. Before that I was playing a Heavy Putter. From time to time, I longed for a little heavier putter so I gave the Yes! Abbie a try. Golf equipment reviews are all relative. All too often you hear a club is “good”, but the question is compared to what, and why.


Aesthetics:
Both are amazing looking putters. The Yes! has a very muted sand-blasted chrome finish on top, and shiny chrome on the face, bottom, and back. It has a very custom look to it. The Cameron oozes technology without looking garish – something that should always be respected.







Address:
The Yes! Is a bit more boxy. Notice how the edges are a little more sharp. There is quite of bit of offset as well. The Cameron looks absolutely classy. The white paint on the aiming stripe goes well with the putter, but would probably be more effective if it was black. The problem with the Cameron is that there can be quite a bit of glare from the silver finish. I’ve had to change my setup because of glare from the sun with the Cameron. You’ll
never have that problem with the Yes!.





Putting Stroke Feel:
I’m an inside-square-inside guy. I’ve never liked face balanced putters because I always felt I had to manipulate them a little bit. The Cameron feels like a door opening and shutting. The Yes! feels a lot more natural. The balance of it is perfect for my stroke. Between the offset and the balance, I’d miss my line right from time to time with the Cameron. I don’t have that problem anymore with the Yes!. It feels like I can maintain a good stroke with left maintenance.


The other main factor affecting the feel of the stroke is the lie angle. The Yes! is much more upright than the Cameron. At first I hated it, but after the adjustment, my hands are more in line with the shaft, and I have a much freer and squarer stroke (still very much inside-square-inside). Of course this is all preference, but it’s working well for me.





Feel at Impact:
The Cameron is much more muted. It’s a stainless body, with a plastic buffered stainless insert. The insert gives forgiveness without sacrificing too much feel. The Yes! is forged carbon steel with a chrome finish. The feel is soft, yet VERY crisp. If you miss-hit it, it sounds and feels like crap. If you hit it perfectly, you’re rewarded with the best sound and feel you’ve ever experience. The putter is very finicky, which forces you to make better contact. If you decelerate, you also feel and hear it. I can’t get over how much feedback you get.


Performance:
Both roll the ball very well though. The biggest difference between the two in this category is the forgiveness. The Cameron is much more forgiving on a little off-center hits as far as distance go. I think the Yes has a better lie, but Cameron may have a better loft. The Yes! doesn’t have much loft, so it depends more on its groves and an ascending blow to get the ball out of its divot and rolling. When you do hit the Yes! perfectly, it holds a line better than any putter I’ve seen. The greens are punched in Washington right now, and at times the ball just seems to float over the dimpled greens.


In conclusion, I’d recommend either putter. If you’re looking for a good putter that’s forgiving without too soft of a face, the Cameron is amazing. However, for me, it just doesn’t provide the feel and “excitement” of rolling putts as the Yes! Abbie Forged.

titleistprov1x |nikeneo |●| callawayx-forged 54/60 |● |mizunoMP68

adamsproblack 3H |●| mizunoMPtitanium5w/3w |●| mizunoMP630FT


Posted
I fell for the Scotty Cameron hype and bought a Studio Style putter a while back. In short, I thought it was one of the worst feeling putters I'd ever used. And - I WANTED to like it, and fooled myself for a few weeks thinking that it was me. Not wishing to raise the ire of the SC disciples who revere "the guys at the studio" or wring their hands wondering what "Scotty" would think when they see what they think is a fake on ebay, I can say that I use an Odyssey Black Series 1 and it is (for me) a sensational putter. Great feel and finish. The sweet spot has to be experienced to be believed.

Posted
i'll have your scotty if you dont want it anymore ;)

Driver: Taylormade R11 set to 8*
3 Wood: R9 15* Motore Stiff
Hybrid: 19° 909 H Voodoo
Irons: 4-PW AP2 Project X 5.5
52*, 60* Vokey SM Chrome

Putter: Odyssey XG #7

Ball: Titleist Pro V1x


Posted
i'll have your scotty if you dont want it anymore ;)

My brother gets dibbs. He's a huge Titleist fan. Even more than Erik.

titleistprov1x |nikeneo |●| callawayx-forged 54/60 |● |mizunoMP68

adamsproblack 3H |●| mizunoMPtitanium5w/3w |●| mizunoMP630FT


Posted
I've tried both, and I found the yes to be more forgiving. odd.

Yeah, I know.

I found the Cameron to be great when it was hit dead centre, but that centre was tiny. Another thing that put me off was the GSS insert baloney. The idea that "German Stainless Steel" has some magical quality when it comes to making contact with the plastic cover of a golf ball has to be one of the biggest golf marketing nonsenses of the last decade. Stil l- makes SC a lot of money. Good for him! BTW - sold it on ebay anyway.

Posted
I've tried both, and I found the yes to be more forgiving. odd.

From what I understand (golfwrx.com), Yes! did a couple of versions of the Abbie Forged. The first one was too soft, and a lot of people complained that it had no feel. They redid it, and the second generation had a much smaller feeling sweet spot. It'd be interesting to know if it was a change in the steel, chrome, or forging process... This one is the second generation Abbie.

My comment on the forgiveness of the putter was not only how miss-hits felt, but how far they rolled, and how far off the stroke line they rolled. For all three, the Cameron was a little better. I tested them on a practice green at the same time at least 6 different nights.

titleistprov1x |nikeneo |●| callawayx-forged 54/60 |● |mizunoMP68

adamsproblack 3H |●| mizunoMPtitanium5w/3w |●| mizunoMP630FT


Note: This thread is 6482 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.