• Announcements

    • iacas

      GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Contest   09/22/2016

      Join our GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Challenge to win an autographed GAME GOLF, a Pebble Steel watch, and many more great prizes!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MAINUH

MxV Putter...a bit unusual

31 posts in this topic

I was driving down the road this past week and there was a Jeep in front of me with a spare tire cover that read - MxV Putters, Brookfield, CT.

We were coming upon a stop light so I pulled alongside him, rolled down the window and we chatted for about 30 seconds before the light turned.

My curiosity was picqued so I came home and did a quick search.

I'll leave it to ya'll to comment - it is one "interesting" design.

http://www.mxvgolf.com/home.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Saw them at the PGA Show. Their claims about topspin are simply wrong. In putting you get topspin when you have a rise angle greater than the delivered loft. Ideally you want it without NEGATIVE delivered loft, which hitting below the equator on this putter will create.

Everyone with a hare-brained idea for golf gets into putters…

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

It would seem that Dr. Abez Kryemadhi form Messiah College and Issac Newton would disagree with you.

I seem to recall some company doing a similar desigh about 10 years ago with a similar albeit more conventional head.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MAINUH

It would seem that Dr. Abez Kryemadhi form Messiah College and Issac Newton would disagree with you.

In what way? Because they can't (and don't).

Originally Posted by MAINUH

I seem to recall some company doing a similar desigh about 10 years ago with a similar albeit more conventional head.

Tear drop putters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

In what way? Because they can't (and don't).

This?

Quote:
The MxV1 putter is center weighted to promote a pendulum swing, creating a true roll. Based on Newton's Cradle (the popular executive desk toy that adorned many a corporate office in the 70's), by striking a golf ball with a putter of equal diameter, you essentially hit a ball with a ball. Naturally, you'll strike the center of gravity with less error as the club glides to its target in a steady flow of energy (momentum, hence M x V).

Please.

Here:

Guess which will create topspin or "true roll" (probably none for the latter, truthfully).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Was only kidding about the Dr. and Newton, hence the wink in my post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MAINUH

Was only kidding about the Dr. and Newton, hence the wink in my post.

Fair enough. You used the "cool dude" smiley so I read it as such.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

For 200 bones, this putter better reach up and tickle my 'nethers, because god knows it's not giving me anything that I am currently missing from my Odyssey blade.

Jack Hamm should get behind this sideshow putter and pair it with his driver.

"See how Jack Hamm shoots 2 on every hole by only using 2 clubs after the following commercial, along with people that we do not know and did not pay to awkwardly smile and agree!"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am that guy in the Jeep and the inventor of the MxV1 putter (mxvgolf.com). It is, in fact, scientifically proven to be more accurate than the #1 putter on tour. Whether you believe it or not, anything other than using one yourself, is just pure conjecture. We are not wrong in our claims about topspin as simply put, a ball hitting a ball of the same diameter will do so at the center of gravity, the sweet spot, and create the perfect roll (if you were to examine Newton's Cradle, for example). Watch the Quintic study that proves what we claim. Also, although we've been compared to the teardrop, if you look at us side by side on field test us alongside the teardrop - you'll see why we don't get the comparison.

All this to say we have a great product, we don't make claims we can't back up, and if you tried it for yourself, you can speak from a position of authority. There's too much at risk spending the time and money we have to come out with a revolutionary new product just to allow the naysayers to use a forum to discount all the hard work. Do your homework. We have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainuh... If you're local give me a shout out - I'll let you take the MxV1 for a spin...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by bkwitt

It is, in fact, scientifically proven to be more accurate than the #1 putter on tour.

No it isn't.

Seriously, enough of these baloney claims marketed as "scientifically proven." You can rig a putter test any way you want it. I could "prove" that a lead pipe produces a better roll than any putter out there.


Originally Posted by bkwitt

We are not wrong in our claims about topspin as simply put, a ball hitting a ball of the same diameter will do so at the center of gravity, the sweet spot, and create the perfect roll (if you were to examine Newton's Cradle, for example).

That comment is easily refuted by the image above. Yes, a ball with that diameter will strike the golf ball "through" the ball's center of gravity. Rise angle then plays a role, and if you strike the ball above the equator, the force will go through the ball's center of gravity and DOWNWARD, into the ground, which is the LAST thing you want in putting.

It's very, very basic physics.

Originally Posted by bkwitt

Watch the Quintic study that proves what we claim.


Originally Posted by bkwitt

All this to say we have a great product, we don't make claims we can't back up, and if you tried it for yourself, you can speak from a position of authority. There's too much at risk spending the time and money we have to come out with a revolutionary new product just to allow the naysayers to use a forum to discount all the hard work. Do your homework. We have.

I tried your putters at our booth at the PGA Show. You were right next door to us. And I've done plenty of homework in actual sciences.

If you can somehow hit "equator to equator," your putter will still produce some backspin if the AoA is negative. It will produce no spin at all if the AoA is 0. It will produce some topspin (though still have 0° of loft) if the AoA is positive.

And if you hit on top of the equator, well, you've got a whole lot of negative loft going on, and a ball that's being hit downward with the little lip of the depression in which it sits throwing things off right from the start.

Welcome to the site.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by bkwitt

I am that guy in the Jeep and the inventor of the MxV1 putter (mxvgolf.com). It is, in fact, scientifically proven to be more accurate than the #1 putter on tour. Whether you believe it or not, anything other than using one yourself, is just pure conjecture. We are not wrong in our claims about topspin as simply put, a ball hitting a ball of the same diameter will do so at the center of gravity, the sweet spot, and create the perfect roll (if you were to examine Newton's Cradle, for example). Watch the Quintic study that proves what we claim. Also, although we've been compared to the teardrop, if you look at us side by side on field test us alongside the teardrop - you'll see why we don't get the comparison.

All this to say we have a great product, we don't make claims we can't back up, and if you tried it for yourself, you can speak from a position of authority. There's too much at risk spending the time and money we have to come out with a revolutionary new product just to allow the naysayers to use a forum to discount all the hard work. Do your homework. We have.


With every business venture comes great risk. This does not necessarily mean that your claims are justified because you have a lot on the line . Anyone with an idea can become a business owner and passionately back their idea both financially and strategically through marketing. A car salesman at Ford is going to tell you what a great vehicle you are standing before and how it will change your life and it is the vehicle that you need and desire so much. Yet, this same salesman drives home in a Toyota at 5 PM?

I have owned several businesses, both very successful and not. I appreciate your passion and wish you the best of luck,but just because you have a lot of money riding on red doesn't mean that what you're saying is the way it is.

Are you also willing to provide anyone who is willing to test the product a trial, or discount on your product? With that, is there a satisfaction guarantee so that it can be returned if players begin coming on top of the ball with this putter and do not like it? Perhaps sending one of your models to the moderators here, such as Erik (iacas) and Mike (mvmac) will allow them to discuss your product in more detail. No type of research on paper will beat, or prove wrong, real-world results on the field of play.

(Edited as I see that Erik already responded to this)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can remember from the PGA Show was overwhelming support and adoption of our Center Strike Technology®, along with its sole, press, sweep putting technique. I can recall a group of pissy neighbors that sold chotchkies of no significant value and some lame putting aids (was that you?). You may have studied "science" but you're not, I assume, a scientist. We have consulted with scientists, real ones, since our inception and we stand behind our claim. Keep poking holes in it - I've got better things to do.

So we don't believe the results of an independent Quintic study or the backing of a leading, unpaid top 10 PGA teacher, or our independent study or any of that? Independent Golf Reviews "Unconventionally Straight" review, Putterzone's "Top Mallets for Summer", etc. etc... Then there's no pleasing you regardless of what you want to discount or what I want to present as evidence.

If we were to give a putter to everyone who wanted to "test" one, we'd already be out of business. If you'd like a discount, you can use the code FF on our website but I have a sense you're not actual buyers.

So thanks for the welcome, but I'll take my blogging time offline and get back to work supporting the believers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by bkwitt

All I can remember from the PGA Show was overwhelming support and adoption of our Center Strike Technology®, along with its sole, press, sweep putting technique. I can recall a group of pissy neighbors that sold chotchkies of no significant value and some lame putting aids (was that you?).

The guys in the booth next to you? Yeah, what have they done but create the best-selling golf DVD on the market right now (several months running). The booth next to you sells the best-selling training aid of all time. The booth next to you that had several Top 100 instructors stopping by, along with many of the game's up-and-coming instructors. The booth next to you that is the Golf Channel's single biggest advertiser. The booth next to you that, well, I give up. Point made.


Originally Posted by bkwitt

You may have studied "science" but you're not, I assume, a scientist. We have consulted with scientists, real ones, since our inception and we stand behind our claim. Keep poking holes in it - I've got better things to do.

Got a few degrees in the sciences and I'm a scientist, sure. You won't answer the basic scientific problems because, if you know anything about science, you know that a simple little picture and the understanding behind that picture has effectively bent your claims over a barrel and had their way with them.

Originally Posted by bkwitt

So we don't believe the results of an independent Quintic study or the backing of a leading, unpaid top 10 PGA teacher, or our independent study or any of that? Independent Golf Reviews "Unconventionally Straight" review, Putterzone's "Top Mallets for Summer", etc. etc... Then there's no pleasing you regardless of what you want to discount or what I want to present as evidence.

I've already spoken to the Quintic stuff. You can set up a putter test to show you whatever you want. I've known several people in the industry who will tell you that, been a part of some testing procedures where I've pointed this out, etc. YES! used to do this sort of thing all the time to "prove" that their "C-Grooves" rolled the ball better. TaylorMade did it with their gel-filled grooves on their Rossa putters. Etc. TONS of putters out there make claims about how their putters are reviewed. You're not the first company to get positive reviews.

At the end of the day you're making claims of "science" when there's very little actual science to be had. I could talk about how Einstein's theory of relativity explains why my line of irons is better than anyone else's, but that doesn't mean that B follows A. You can use the Newton Cradle example, but it falls apart the instant someone doesn't strike the ball exactly on the equator of the golf ball (and even then, they could be hitting up, down, or level, only the former of which is good for putting - and even then, it's delivering 0° loft, which isn't ideal for putting either).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkwitt

If we were to give a putter to everyone who wanted to "test" one, we'd already be out of business. If you'd like a discount, you can use the code FF on our website but I have a sense you're not actual buyers.

I'm not a buyer, and never asked for a free putter. I remember pointing out the silliness of your "science" at the show. Your putters don't have any true scientific theory to them, so at the end of the day, you've got a putter that looks funny, sounds bad, and which, if hit slightly above the equator of the golf ball (which if you don't want to scuff the putter is quite likely) effectively hits the ball with NEGATIVE loft time and time again.

Originally Posted by bkwitt

So thanks for the welcome, but I'll take my blogging time offline and get back to work supporting the believers.

Science doesn't have "believers."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Science doesn't have believers? Can you spell ignoramus? I've never seen such a display of holier than thou. Best wishes to you and your high and mighty Mr. Science.

If you haven't tried the putter, and you know you haven't, you're speaking out of your _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

... and out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by bkwitt

Science doesn't have believers? Can you spell ignoramus? I've never seen such a display of holier than thou. Best wishes to you and your high and mighty Mr. Science.

If you haven't tried the putter, and you know you haven't, you're speaking out of your _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

... and out.


So no free putter then?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by bkwitt

Science doesn't have believers? Can you spell ignoramus? I've never seen such a display of holier than thou. Best wishes to you and your high and mighty Mr. Science.

Science doesn't have "believers," no. Science deals with fact. It cares not whether people "believe" or not. Nobody says things like "I believe in gravity."

Faith, and religions, have "believers."

Originally Posted by bkwitt

If you haven't tried the putter, and you know you haven't, you're speaking out of your _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

I've tried the putter. You were at the booth next to us. Several of us tried it. It was bad.

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I almost like being wrong because it presents an INSTANT opportunity to upgrade my knowledge base. But you can't prove me wrong because, if you have any scientific background at all, you know what I said above is accurate.

Goodbye.

P.S. Google "MxV Putter". This thread's third.


Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

So no free putter then?

You don't want one anyway. It might be good as a fire poker. There are many reasons why the big-name companies haven't done a putter like this, and none of those reasons are "they hadn't thought of it."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Science doesn't have believers? Can you spell ignoramus? I've never seen such a display of holier than thou. Best wishes to you and your high and mighty Mr. Science. If you haven't tried the putter, and you know you haven't, you're speaking out of your _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ... and out.

Science doesn't have believers. It seeks only the truth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Mass and Force If equal force is applied to two objects, the object with the lesser mass will have the greater resulting acceleration. Correspondingly, the object with a lesser mass will travel a greater distance over an allotted time interval. In order for two objects to travel the same distance, a greater force must be applied to the object with a greater mass. (From the Internet) This does not really speak to my interest. But when you research on a quick Internet search about greater mass striking an object, this is all you find. Maybe this is why it's hard to understand “mass” and ball striking. R.L. Welsh Should You Be Using A Heavier Golf Club?  (Again, this is from the Internet) Golfers vary. If you give Davis Love III or Brad Faxon a club which is slightly heavier than what they are used to it will noticeably throw them off. Hulk Hogan or Arnold Schwarznegger will never notice the difference. The ball will just go farther. The nature of their muscle mass is what limits their top-end swing speed. Long, loose muscles generate the most speed. Large, bulky muscles generate the most torque. Fast ball pitchers and quarterbacks are never built like tight ends and linebackers. Wayne Gretsky is surprisingly scrawny and puny looking without his shirt on, yet he was able to shoot the hockey puck with great velocity. It’s a case of John Deere versus Kawasaki. The fastest motorcycle does a terrible job hauling a lot of weight and the strongest tractor is blown away by even a dinky, little motorcycle in the quarter-mile. If you add a second, two hundred pound rider to the back of the motorcycle you will drastically reduce its zero-to-sixty speed time. Adding the same weight to the tractor will have little or no impact on its rate of acceleration. A tall, scrawny runner might easily beat a stocky, muscular decathlete in a footrace until both men are given thirty-pound backpacks to wear during the race. How do we determine the optimum weight of a golf club? Well, we know that a hummingbird smashing into a golf ball at 100 miles per hour would, just before it died, cause the ball to fly only a very short distance. We also know that a massive locomotive smashing into a golf ball at 20 miles an hour would not cause the ball to go very far either. The optimum weight/speed combination rests somewhere in between. Anyone who has hit range balls with a weighted training club has experienced the same results: that ball just does not go very far regardless of how hard the golfer tries. Golf clubs can easily be made very light. That enables them to be swung at great speed, but to little avail if the weight falls below a certain amount. A lightweight, plastic, juvenile club does even more poorly than does the weighted, training club. Finding the optimum weight combination would be simple if all humans were the same size and weight and possessed the same strength and suppleness. An Iron Byron test machine or a physics professor could decide the issue in an hour or two. Unfortunately, we all vary a great deal and manufacturers are forced to go with a general average weighting pattern. There is no one precise formula. Don’t ever let anyone tell you differently. (I think this answers my question! RLW) Many, many women and seniors labor under the misassumption that ultra-light clubs will enable them to hit the ball farther. Generally, the opposite is true. They can get the club up more easily, but when it comes down to the ball it does not have enough oomph to send the ball flying. (this is my thought when I strike the ball with my Callaway X18R long irons; However, the PW is so heavy, greater mass, I notice how easy the swing and how far the ball travels with little effort. RLW) Some companies construct their ladies’ club heads so that they are actually heavier than the male counterparts. It is the golfer who can generate high club head speeds who generally benefits most from lower head weights. Golfers with slow swing speeds are the ones who benefit most from the added authority given by extra weight both overall weight and swing weight. Unfortunately, weak and elderly golfers often do not have the strength endurance to use the heavier clubs for a complete round. Strong, muscular golfers do have ample strength endurance, however. They are the ones who should experiment with added weight. They are the ones who should try heavier shafts, heavier heads and heavier grips. There are an infinite number of combinations. Adding a few extra grams to both head and grip might be the answer. (But we have to know how to do this properly; Hence go to the Fitter RLW) The Basics of MOI Matching Your Golf Clubs By Jeff Sheets With MOI matching we are attempting to place the ideal amount of resistance into the golfer’s hands that they can control the most consistently. (ie: Heavy head weight too! I have yet to have a fitter even mention this approach. RLW ) Too much resistance and he or she will struggle to accelerate the club through impact and/or have difficulty controlling it. With too little resistance the golfer may over-swing, cast the club, or simply lack the mass in the club head necessary to maximize distance. (Eureka!!!) The objective is to identify the optimum mass distribution for the golfer (head weight, length, shaft balance, etc.) and then replicate it into every club in the set. The Auditor MOI scale for complete clubs will assign a higher value to a club that has a greater resistance to swinging. In layman's terms, the lower the complete club’s MOI, the easier it will be to swing, and vice versa. Some club-fitters may realize that the same factors that influence a complete club's MOI are identical to the factors that influence swing weight. If you have made this determination, then you are correct. Making a club longer in length makes it more difficult to swing (increased MOI), but it also increases its swing weight. Making the head lighter in weight makes it easier to swing, while at the same time it reduces its MOI. The same exact factors that influence swing weight allow us to fine-tune the precise MOI target we seek in a completed club.   My original question to Tom Wishon and suggested Local Fitter was: Is it so hard to make a 6iron 280grams club-head weight? Gentlemen, I have no criticism here for anyone. I am just trying to understand. I added the bold and underline for my emphasis to “mass” or “heavy club head.” This all seems very logical to me, even if engineers do not agree. My experience tells me my 60degree Sand Wedge takes a lot more swing than my PW with a heavy club head, to make the ball travel the same distance. This alone tells me to increase the club head weight in my longer irons to calm down my swing and send the ball a greater distance with a smooth easy swing, and a consistent strike in the 'sweet.' Maybe I should put a longer shaft on my 60 SW to see if I can go the same distance with the same easy swing as my heavy PW? I thought to ask you Makers & Builders these questions thinking perhaps it has already been tried; Or perhaps some scientific principle may prove it does or does not work. But no one has yet presented any information as to the outcome of my so-called the “theory.” In a fitting I am just pointed back towards modern conventional “theory” that the Top Ball Strikers on tour have supposedly proven: “Light is better, and longer for more speed.” (Tour players mean nothing to me and my game.) Again, desiring answers to these questions are why I would go to a Custom Club maker for help. But I am finding most makers are use to doing things a certain way; Mainly the way they have been brought up in the business, the way the current business model tells them, using the current technology which is focused on “lighter is better.” Hey, what the heck, you sell a great deal of clubs the way it is. Unfortunately this is only slightly different from “mass produced” clubs. You are still in the same camp as you can not add weight to the Club Head, nor do you think it is necessary. Food for thought: The person with no preconceived notions on how “things should be” will step out and experiment to see if there is a better way. If you would say “no” that will not work, and point to the “Pro's” and what is being mass produced does work; the truth is the public does not even know what the “Pro's” are truly playing; The public knows nothing about their clubs. So I guess I will head out to the shed and start melting lead and filling in the open cavity on the back side of my cavity backed irons. Can't hurt much. The real funny thing about all of this is that my 73 year old Aunt was telling me how she saw my Grandfather out in his work shed 40 some years ago, drilling on his irons in an attempt to add weight. I never knew this before. I guess the apple does not fall too far from the tree. He was not an avid golfer but I guess he had an idea of what might work better. Sincerely, R.L. Welsh
    • So I just played my round best yesterday and only lost 2 golf balls! Which is really good for me because the course I live on has so much water and narrow fairways. The first time I went I lost a 24 pack of laddies.... so this made me happy in the wallet to say the least haha. anyhow I'm not sure where I should spend more time practicing so I wrote down my score into 3 different sections  shots to get to pitching or chipping distance. pitching and chipping. putts.   my score was a 100 with a 45 on the front and a 55 on the back... (I smoked on the back and I blame the 10 extra strokes because of this.)  shots to chipping and pitching: 18 F 22B pitching and chipping: 9F 8B putts: 18 F 22 B Penalties: 0F 2B so in my opinion I think my distance with my long game is there I just need to work on my accuracy to lower my chips and pitches. my pitching chipping and putting all go together because I've already used my GiR so my first chip or pitch is actually counting as my first putt (if I'm going for scratch golf. my putting is horrendous because of the amount of pitching and chipping I had there should be no reason for any 3 putts at all. The only time I should 3 putt is if I hit an iron to the green. tell me what u guys think
    • Mitt Romney was slow in releasing his tax returns in 2012; when he did release them, it revealed nothing of interest, and the rumors about what he was hiding quickly fell by the wayside. In reality, the worst thing that could happen to Donald Trump in releasing his tax returns now is that they would confirm what people already assume, based on the extensive investigative reporting on his financials, his foundation, and his business connections. He doesn't have anything to lose; he's just too vain to capitulate.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bandstan
      bandstan
      (46 years old)
    2. boobiemiles
      boobiemiles
      (25 years old)
    3. ElsieOlson
      ElsieOlson
      (77 years old)
    4. Matt66
      Matt66
      (26 years old)
  • Blog Entries