Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

primeputt_holes.jpg

As some may know, I'm not a big fan of the 6', 8', or even 10' putting mats widely available. They're just not big enough to work on much, as a 9' mat gives up at least a foot on each side, as the hole is typically cut a foot or so in, and you putt a foot or so from the edge of the mat.

Recently, I've had the chance to test out the PrimePutt XXL 15' x 3' putting mat, a high-quality putting mat with a price of about $450 to $550 depending on when you buy and what specials are available.

primeputt_laidout.jpg

The PrimePutt XXL has three holes (as all of their mats do) cut starting one foot from the back edge of the mat (with the outer two about 18" from the end) with an attractive wood backstop a few inches behind the hole and short of the edge of the mat. The backstop serves as a ball rack, too.

primeputt_rack.jpg

Along the side, and every three feet, there are small diamonds that make setting up at a particular distance easy.

primeputt_marker.jpg

According to the company, the PrimePutt offers the most realistic putting surface available. If you looked at Instagram during 2020 or early 2021, you saw another putting track that offered a smooth surface and a small ramp with two differently sized holes. That surface, I can say, is not realistic as it's too smooth. Like our 1500 square foot SynLawn installation, the PrimePutt offers a little bit of bounce and imperfection, reflective of the reality of putting on a stimp 9 or 10 green. Putts wobble a bit as they slow down, which is an important characteristic of real putting greens that helps ingrain proper putting speed.

PrimePutt says they spent months of research with turf-grass experts, material scientists, and PGA professionals to create a mat that closely resembles a real grass putting green, and I think except for perhaps even more expensive solutions (like SynLawn), they've succeeded.

The nylon turf, regardless of the size of PrimePutt mat you choose, has three of the proprietary cups cut into them. PrimePutt claims that these cups accurately reproduce full-depth cups, as balls that hit the left or right edge but would stay in bump into the back lip, but putts that travel a bit too quickly ride up the lip and miss long or lip out on the opposite side. The same is true for putts that would hit the back lip of a real hole and bounce out — they bounce out on the PrimePutt cups, too.

The bottom of the PrimePutt is specially-designed and rubberized with a no-memory material so that the mat lays flat and doesn't move, even when walking on it or occasionally scuffing your feet or something.

The bullet points:

  • Engineered for at-home practice to master skills that translate to the course.
  • Designed to fit spaces of any size, from living rooms and offices to studio apartments.
  • Durable, easy to store and set up, and immediately lays flat and is ready to use.
  • Uses premium materials like US-made nylon, natural rubber, and the same plastic as regulation golf cups.
  • Made in the USA.

primeputt_fancy.jpg

And the specs:

  • Mat Size: 3 feet x 15 feet
  • Mat Thickness: 1/2 inch
  • Max. Putt Length: 14 feet
  • Cup Size: Regulation (4.25 inches)
  • Speed: (9-11 stimpmeter rating)

primeputt_ballinhole.jpg


Practice on the same high quality, USA-made nylon turf that PGA pros use.

Though the cost may surprise you at first… I will point out that a 13.5' x 4' putting mat (albeit with a foam base) costs $1199. You can find others that are a bit less expensive, but you're often trading off the realistic putting surface and roll.

primeputt_overhead_features.jpg

primeputt_closeup.jpg

primeputt_cup_features.jpg

You can find more information at PrimePutt.com.

  • Funny 1

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • iacas changed the title to PrimePutt 15' Putting Mat

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
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    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).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Wordle 1,312 4/6* ⬛⬛🟩⬛⬛ ⬛⬛🟩🟩🟩 🟨⬛🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,312 6/6* ⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ 🟨⬜🟩🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩 🟨⬜🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 back in Phew land….
    • You are not wrong. The shaft and the head together both contribute to the performance of the club. I'd also suggest that they contribute in different amounts depending upon whether we are comparing a driver, an iron or a wedge. (We could argue all day about how much is the head and how much is the shaft... and I would enjoy the argument.) Having said that, in order for a youtuber or anyone else for that matter to completely optimize the club and then hit it in comparison to another completely optimized club is all but impossible. Just one of the many reasons why all club tests should be taken with a generous pinch of salt.  Not only that but even in robot testing there are variables that are outside the areas of control. I've personally been lucky enough to witness robot testing first had. It's fascinating how non-repeatable the results can be. Let me elaborate. With an 7 or 8 iron the robot can land balls over and over again in an area the size of a kiddie pool. However, when the testers moved away from a 7 or 8 iron, the results got less and less precise. Interestingly it didn't matter if they went up or down the bag. With the robot hitting short pitches and even chips, relatively, more variation than full short iron shots. Similarly, long drives with the robot created more variation as well. This is without the effects of wind, variations in the surface and texture of where the ball lands etc...  In addition, this doesn't take into account possible bias, either consciously or unconsciously of the tester. The testers I got to witness (these happened to by Taylormade guys, but I'm sure it doesn't matter), confessed that they could influence the results if they wanted to. They could take two clubs and make either of them "win" with robot testing if they wanted to. They made to the point to illustrate that in their job they had to constantly make sure they were fighting bias and/or putting in double checks, but never-the-less when I now read about any testing saying X club is 7 yards longer, I think back to their statement.  So, if it's that difficult to get really good results out of a robot imagine how difficult it is to get quantifiable results out of a human swinging a club.  Here's a fun test to try. Hit your driver 10 times on a launch monitor and gather the data (You can do 20 or 30 swings it doesn't matter). Now group the data into 2 sets, the odd numbered swings and the even numbered swings. Look at your two data sets. I guarantee that one data set will look "better" than the other. Even though, it's the same person swinging the same club on the same day. But if you just happened to be testing a driver against your driver on that day, Even if you gather your data by switching back and forth between the two drivers you may get misleading results. I've done this test a few times in my life and it's interesting to see how the "odd numbered me" or the "even numbered me" always produces different results, sometimes one will win by a large margin.  In summary, I too enjoy watching reviews of the new clubs that come out, especially drivers. But it is information not data. 
    • Wordle 1,312 4/6* ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛🟦🟦🟦 ⬛🟦🟦🟦⬛ 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧  
    • Something I’ve been thinking about. I watch a lot of club tests, retired and get up way too early, and there’s something I think in my opinion might be being done wrong. They might pick several drivers, could be something different, and use the same shaft so things will be equal. In my mind a shaft might be good in one club and not in another. Learned the hard way, had my best ever driver at the time, G410, and kept hearing about how great the G425 MAX was. Since I sometimes have trouble finding senior shafts we traded heads and the 410 shaft never seemed to work out in the 425 head for me. Wasn’t as straight or as long so I have moved on. Don’t think everyone was wrong about the G425, just think that combination maybe didn’t work for me.  
×
×
  • 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.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...