Heel-Shafted Mallets and Alignment Lines

[iacas]

I've reviewed (or will have, as of tomorrow) two heel-shafted mallets that seem to have closed faces relative to the alignment line provided. One of them is the Monza Corza and the other is the GM2-HM (review will be online tomorrow) from Never Compromise.

I've written the review already (it's under manufacturer factual review now). While writing it, a thought came to me: is the line on the top an alignment aid or is it a stroke aid?

Most of us agree that heel-shafted putters are best putted with the "door" putting stroke - the "inside/square/inside" kind of stroke where the face opens on the backswing and closes on the follow through (in contrast to center-shafted putters best used with a straight-back/straight-through, always-square stroke).

What I'm getting at is this: perhaps an alignment aid that is slightly closed relative to the face on heel-shafted mallets is designed to encourage the inside takeaway that works best with heel-shafted putters.

What do you think? Does this sound like a likely possibility? I have no other way of explaining why the face would be closed relative to the line. I can't imagine that, unlike with slices, a large enough percentage of amateurs push putts to warrant trying to correct that as we see in drivers...

[Rafcin]

sounds interesting... but since I'm using center-shafted putter for the past 3 years I can't really contribute

[Donald MacKenzie]

Hmm. I think manufacturers are making alignment marks on drivers/fairway woods/hybrids point a little left at address (to account for toe droop and lag at impact, what Callaway used to call "dynamic address position"). But putters, I don't think there's a movement afoot to encourage a certain swing path. Aren't the mallets you refer to both face-balanced? That's a design that works with a "swinging gate" stroke, but is optimal for a back-and-through "square to square" stroke.

I'd guess the faces seem a little closed because the manufacturer/designer wants to encourage a forward press to keep the stroke from getting wristy. That's my thought on the matter. Your mileage may vary.

[iacas]

But putters, I don't think there's a movement afoot to encourage a certain swing path. Aren't the mallets you refer to both face-balanced? That's a design that works with a "swinging gate" stroke, but is optimal for a back-and-through "square to square" stroke.

I've always heard that the shaft position has more to do with the best employed stroke more than whether the putter was face-balanced or not. You can get a face-balanced putter with either a heel or a center shaft, after all.

Not everyone uses a forward press, and again, I'm not aware of a study or any evidence that, as with slices, a lot of people push their putts. So it still seems odd to me that a putter designer would say "I don't care if my face and line aren't at right angles, I want to encourage a forward press." You have to be confident in your alignment to make putts, and that comes before a forward press or a stroke.

[Donald MacKenzie]

I do think some designers intend to have a club play a certain way by engineering small details, like a sightline not being 90° to the target line (though I'd find that pretty annoying). I asked someone from a club manufacturer once why a certain set of irons set up a particular way, and it was to encourage a forward press at address, as his research showed that making a forward press with irons/wedges helped eliminate casting/breaking the wrists.

Remember, any club that's not custom fit/custom made is designed for a general audience. Maybe most golfers could do with a forward press in their putting setup. It would just be for pushing/pulling putts. It could also be that a forward press helps keep from adding loft/backspin at impact.

OR ... they could just be manufacturing problems. The alignment lines were meant to be square, but by the time the tooling was done, molds were made and product rolled off the line in China, things had shifted a bit. I'll be that if you had 10 of any putter from a big OEM, you could find 1-2 that was off a bit from spec.

As the Replacements sang, "I suppose your guess/is more or less/as bad as mine."

[xian]

I too thought that face-balanced putters were preferred for straight-back-straight-through strokes and that toe-weighted putters were preferred for swinging-door strokes. Now, for a while, most face-balaced putters were center-shafted, but that's changed. Anyway, none of this has much to do with the line on top of the putter.

Erik, did you ever contact Never Compromise to see what they had to say about it?

[iacas]

I too thought that face-balanced putters were preferred for straight-back-straight-through strokes and that toe-weighted putters were preferred for swinging-door strokes. Now, for a while, most face-balaced putters were center-shafted, but that's changed. Anyway, none of this has much to do with the line on top of the putter.

One of their designers said that they'd have probably fit me into a toe-down putter (like my Red X) instead of the face-balanced one like this one. They didn't comment specifically on the line versus the face angle, but I didn't ask them to, either - I had just asked them to look over the review.

I thought I made such a big deal about the line that if I was wrong, they'd have said something. Know what I mean?

[xian]

Weird.

[muskegman]

One of their designers said that they'd have probably fit me into a toe-down putter (like my Red X) instead of the face-balanced one like this one. They didn't comment specifically on the line versus the face angle, but I didn't ask them to, either - I had just asked them to look over the review.

Sounds to me (and you) like they acknowledged the alignment problem, er, "adjustment." Very interesting indeed.