Switching from a mallet putter to a blade...

[iacas]

Just now, ncarlsongolf said:

A toe weighted putter is going to allow a stroke that opens and closes to swing more freely.

Why? I feel like you're just saying the old thing.

In fact, you've likely got it backward: a face-balanced putter "allows" or makes it easier to rotate the face open and closed more easily. It requires less torque. It requires MORE torque to open and close a toe-weighted putter.

Just now, ncarlsongolf said:

Its been proven that players like Tiger and Phil who have those type of strokes use those putters because they are designed for their strokes.

No it hasn't. Where's this proof? I'm talking too about scientific level proof, not "well, but Phil has always putted with a blade." Even Tiger used a mallet in a major.

Where's this proof?

You'll find, if you haven't started to see it already, that there are a lot of bogus myths out there in golf. I've been party to if not directly involved in breaking up a few of them.

Just now, ncarlsongolf said:

Would they still be good players and good putters with a mallet sure, but they wouldn't be using equipment best suited for them.

They may not be the best suited for them, but I'd argue it has a lot more to do with alignment than anything else. I think their strokes would be almost exactly the same. (They might change over time to compensate for the way they aim them differently, of course.)

Tiger is well known to aim anywhere from 3-5° right with his blade putters. He sees them as "closed" and opens them a little. So, his stroke compensation is to really focus on "releasing the toe." When Tiger was having trouble putting early in his days with Sean Foley, I think this was why: he wasn't getting much time putting in so his timing was off.

For all we know, Tiger would have developed a better stroke not as reliant on "releasing the toe" if he had a mallet putter. The fact that Tiger and Phil (and Phil is hardly a great example given his putting…) used one type of putter most of their careers is not evidence. Would Phil have won more with a different swing? Maybe. How about Jack Nicklaus? Maybe. It's speculation. It's circumstantial evidence.

Just now, ncarlsongolf said:

It would be like a player that uses 2 degree flat clubs buying something off the rack.

It's not really like that at all. 2° lie angle is several orders of magnitude more important than the minimal differences in torque from how much a putter's toe hangs.

2° lie angle on a putter, btw, if you deliver 2° of loft at impact… affects the start line by a measly 0.07°. That's still within the tolerance to make a putt over 140 feet long.

Heck, consider that we swing our six-irons significantly faster than our putters, and yet everyone's six-iron has basically 100% toe hang (some heavily offset irons might have 98% toe hang or something), and yet good players get those clubs pretty reasonably back to "square" as well.

Or drivers. I haven't seen a face-balanced driver yet. Those are swung even faster and have even smaller margins of error.

Just now, ncarlsongolf said:

I do agree there is more to putting and picking a putter but picking something face balanced or toe weighted certainly matters and is not outdated old crutch.

I think the whole thing's a crutch, and have some data to back that up, as well as some experience.

The myth needs to die. Again, players on the PGA Tour will bounce between mallets and blades. Jim Furyk won the FedExCup with a putter unlike the one he'd used most of the season. But he won with both very different styles.

The face balance of the putter matters very, very, very little. There are far, far more important things.

FWIW, I've tested 20 to 25 people with this on SAM PuttLab too. Their aim changes quite a bit, but in the initial 10-ball test their strokes are virtually identical. I'm not assigning a lot of weight to that, but I give it at least a tiny bit.

[ncarlsongolf]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why? I feel like you're just saying the old thing.

In fact, you've likely got it backward: a face-balanced putter "allows" or makes it easier to rotate the face open and closed more easily. It requires less torque. It requires MORE torque to open and close a toe-weighted putter.

No it hasn't. Where's this proof? I'm talking too about scientific level proof, not "well, but Phil has always putted with a blade." Even Tiger used a mallet in a major.

Where's this proof?

You'll find, if you haven't started to see it already, that there are a lot of bogus myths out there in golf. I've been party to if not directly involved in breaking up a few of them.

They may not be the best suited for them, but I'd argue it has a lot more to do with alignment than anything else. I think their strokes would be almost exactly the same. (They might change over time to compensate for the way they aim them differently, of course.)

Tiger is well known to aim anywhere from 3-5° right with his blade putters. He sees them as "closed" and opens them a little. So, his stroke compensation is to really focus on "releasing the toe." When Tiger was having trouble putting early in his days with Sean Foley, I think this was why: he wasn't getting much time putting in so his timing was off.

For all we know, Tiger would have developed a better stroke not as reliant on "releasing the toe" if he had a mallet putter. The fact that Tiger and Phil (and Phil is hardly a great example given his putting…) used one type of putter most of their careers is not evidence. Would Phil have won more with a different swing? Maybe. How about Jack Nicklaus? Maybe. It's speculation. It's circumstantial evidence.

It's not really like that at all. 2° lie angle is several orders of magnitude more important than the minimal differences in torque from how much a putter's toe hangs.

2° lie angle on a putter, btw, if you deliver 2° of loft at impact… affects the start line by a measly 0.07°. That's still within the tolerance to make a putt over 140 feet long.

Heck, consider that we swing our six-irons significantly faster than our putters, and yet everyone's six-iron has basically 100% toe hang (some heavily offset irons might have 98% toe hang or something), and yet good players get those clubs pretty reasonably back to "square" as well.

Or drivers. I haven't seen a face-balanced driver yet. Those are swung even faster and have even smaller margins of error.

I think the whole thing's a crutch, and have some data to back that up, as well as some experience.

The myth needs to die. Again, players on the PGA Tour will bounce between mallets and blades. Jim Furyk won the FedExCup with a putter unlike the one he'd used most of the season. But he won with both very different styles.

The face balance of the putter matters very, very, very little. There are far, far more important things.

I don't have specific examples, but I know Stan Utley goes into this in The Art of Putting.  I don't know that I would call that circumstantial.  Certainly his book is his opinion and whats written are certainly his beliefs, but I will take his opinion as it holds some water in my book.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, ncarlsongolf said:

I don't have specific examples, but I know Stan Utley goes into this in The Art of Putting.  I don't know that I would call that circumstantial.  Certainly his book is his opinion and whats written are certainly his beliefs, but I will take his opinion as it holds some water in my book.

He wouldn't be the first guy to perpetuate a myth. Look at how many people still tell you the short game or putting is the true secret to scoring.

Basic science or physics should carry some weight, too.

[ncarlsongolf]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

He wouldn't be the first guy to perpetuate a myth. Look at how many people still tell you the short game or putting is the true secret to scoring.

Basic science or physics should carry some weight, too.

Id certainly like to hear your thoughts further on this because I am not saying your wrong, I have just never heard the argument the other way.  I am under the assumptions and thought that it is very proven.  But would like to talk outside of this more.

[iacas]

Scotty Cameron used to say that because the putter has a lie angle that's not 90° that it has to be swung on an arc. I (stupidly) cited this at least once on this site. It too is wrong: you can have whatever lie angle you want and putt straight back/straight through if you want.

Just now, ncarlsongolf said:

Id certainly like to hear your thoughts further on this because I am not saying your wrong, I have just never heard the argument the other way.  I am under the assumptions and thought that it is very proven.  But would like to talk outside of this more.

I've shared my thoughts already. There's very little torque involved in the putting stroke. In tests on the SAM PuttLab, people don't putt any differently given a blade or a mallet, which aligns with the physics on this.

Meanwhile, other things like whether your putter has a line or not affect your aim by as much as a foot. Those things matter significantly more.

[ncarlsongolf]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Scotty Cameron used to say that because the putter has a lie angle that's not 90° that it has to be swung on an arc. I (stupidly) cited this at least once on this site. It too is wrong: you can have whatever lie angle you want and putt straight back/straight through if you want.

I've shared my thoughts already. There's very little torque involved in the putting stroke. In tests on the SAM PuttLab, people don't putt any differently given a blade or a mallet, which aligns with the physics on this.

Meanwhile, other things like whether your putter has a line or not affect your aim by as much as a foot. Those things matter significantly more.

Ok I will continue here,  there is much written at length on this topic.  Different putter styles "tend" to fit better for certain strokes.

I have included this...

There are three generalized styles of putting stroke. 

1. Straight back, straight through: The putter moves in a straight line away from the ball and straight through the ball.
2. Minimum Arc: There’s a slight arc to the path of the putter head with minimal face rotation.
3. Lots of arc and face rotation: The putter head moves with a noticeable arc and plenty of face rotation.

Golfers who have an arc to their stroke with more face rotation usually prefer or fit into toe-weighted or heel-shafted putters. This gives them more control over face angle at impact.

Golfers with less arc and face rotation generally fit into a plumber’s neck model putter. These putters generally suit strokes with minimal arc and face rotation.

Golfers who like the feel of a “straight-back, straight-through” stroke tend to favor a face-balanced putter. This is a generalized comment, because sometimes different putters feel and perform better to these golfers. Ultimately, the putter should feel comfortable and very natural throughout the stroke. It should also feel very easy to line up to the target.

 

 

So you are telling me that all of these findings are just wrong?  Or that it doesn't matter very much?  I agree alignment matter and lining up is maybe the most important.  However, if you have the wrong putter for your stroke you are never going to feel very confident with your putter.  I don't see how you can just say no to that.

 

Anyone else have thoughts?

[iacas]

2 hours ago, ncarlsongolf said:

Ok I will continue here,  there is much written at length on this topic.  Different putter styles "tend" to fit better for certain strokes.

Please stop just saying "different putter styles tend to fit different strokes." Repeating it doesn't make it true, but that is seemingly what's happened over time. Someone says something, people believe it and repeat it, and eventually it becomes "common knowledge" when it's really just a myth.

Golf is full of them.

2 hours ago, ncarlsongolf said:

There are three generalized styles of putting stroke. 

1. Straight back, straight through: The putter moves in a straight line away from the ball and straight through the ball.
2. Minimum Arc: There’s a slight arc to the path of the putter head with minimal face rotation.
3. Lots of arc and face rotation: The putter head moves with a noticeable arc and plenty of face rotation.

No disagreement here, though virtually all good players fit into or very close to "Minimum Arc" depending on your definition(s).

What I am saying is that the ability or ease or "naturalness" or whatever you want to call it to executing your preferred stroke is virtually identical regardless of the putter you choose. You could putt with the PutterBall and your stroke would be pretty much the same as it is now because it, like a face-balanced putter, doesn't put much torque on your hands.

2 hours ago, ncarlsongolf said:

Golfers who have an arc to their stroke…
Golfers with less arc and face rotation…
Golfers who like the feel of a “straight-back, straight-through” stroke…

So you are telling me that all of these findings are just wrong?  Or that it doesn't matter very much?  I agree alignment matter and lining up is maybe the most important.  However, if you have the wrong putter for your stroke you are never going to feel very confident with your putter.  I don't see how you can just say no to that.

We know what the general myth says. I'm saying, that yes, I think that's wrong. It's virtually irrelevant.

Are there different torques on a face-balanced putter versus one with a lot of toe hang? Sure. Absolutely. But they're incredibly small forces. The differences in torque are minor. Teeny tiny forces.

"if you have the wrong putter for your stroke you are never going to feel very confident" has no backing in science or logic. It's just another way of perpetuating the myth. WHY? You're just saying the same old things.

Here are two things that I consider a fact right now:

• The differences to a putter's weight distribution and thus amount of "toe hang" or "face-balanced-ness" are minimal.
• The forces these differences apply to your hands during a putting stroke are, likewise, incredibly minimal.

The only thing that the weight distribution of the putter can affect is the amount of torque required to rotate the putter about the shaft. That's it.

I can say what I'm saying because… that number is incredibly small, and virtually everyone opens the face some during a putting stroke. The amount of torque required to open even a sand wedge (note that you can't measure this by hanging the club as every club will orient itself in a face-balanced manner).

And… consider this: you can have face-balanced mallets and face-balanced blades. You can mallets with toe hang and blades with toe hang. What do you think the relative torques are on either of them? Because even in the face-balanced models, the CG of the putter is not aligned with the center of the shaft. It's simply IN LINE with the shaft (near its attachment point), but the CG remains "below" the shaft when the putter is "hanging."

I'll illustrate this later, but basically and unless I'm having a brain fart right now on this little sub-point, a face-balanced mallet can require MORE torque to open the putter face than a toe-hang blade. The CG of the putter in the mallet can be farther away from the axis of the shaft. Torque, like many things in physics, is a matter of force and distance.

[Jon Hoover]

I had a mallet style Odyssey #7 putter, I just always like the way it felt then one day went and bought one, and loved it used it for probably 2 years. Then about 6-8 months ago my buddy who works at a course knew someone selling a scotty cameron laugna 2 for cheap. I bought it and decided that I was going to make the switch to the blade putter. For awhile right after the switch I wasn't putting too well, but then I got my superstroke 5.0 grip and installed it and I ended up rolling the ball way better took a little while to get used to, but I feel like I'm as good if not better with it then i was with the mallet, but I've always been a good putter. All those years of sneaking on the mini golf course near my house as a kid probably accounts for that. If you want to make the switch do it but just realize that it might take a few months to really get the feel.