Jump to content
TESTERS WANTED! ×

Machine M2A Converter Putter Review Part 2: iPING Testing


GolfSpy Dave

Recommended Posts

  • SPY VIP

Machine M2A Converter Putter Review Part 2: iPING Testing

An Official MyGolfSpy.com Review

 

By now you have hopefully had a chance to read the first part of this review of the Machine M2A Converter Putter. If not, you can find Part 1 HERE. While Part 1 focused primarily on the excellent craftsmanship and aesthetics of the Machine M2A, this review will get more into how the putter performs in its different configurations.

 

I think that it is safe to say that the looks of a putter is what initially causes us to pick it up in the shop and make a couple of putts with it. Sometimes we pick out the most beautiful putter and hope that we can make putts with it. Other times, we grab the most awful looking putter figuring that it must be amazing to compensate for having a look that scares the neighborhood kids. Hopefully in our searching for the perfect flatstick we can find that ideal mix of aesthetically pleasing and ball-in-cup functionality.

 

The Machine M2A Converter: The Swiss Army Knife of Putters

As shown in Part 1, the Machine M2A that I reviewed came with three different necks and three different flanges, thus providing nine different putter configurations. These configurations may represent a minor change, such as the weight change when the standard back is switched to the fat back. The change can be more severe as well, like the change in toe hang that occurs as one switches from a plumber to a center shaft hosel or double bend neck.

 

Based upon my playing history, I feel that I putt better with a putter that is near face balanced with minimal alignment aids. This thought has been the central tenant of my putter purchasing, but it is really based upon what I think is right for me rather than hard data.

 

But How Do You Collect Putting Data?

This year, the average golfer was offered a tool that would allow him or her to collect and store data about his or her putting stroke, develop drills to improve that stroke, and also know which putter to purchase that best suited the stroke's characteristics. That tool, of course, was the iPING iPhone app. This free app, along with a $25 cradle to hold the phone, allows the golfer to collect data that was previously only available though expensive fitting equipment, such as a SAM Putting Lab. I am not saying that the iPING app is a SAM Lab equivalent, but it does do similar readings at a far more accessible complexity and price point for the average golfer. Plus, it lets you know what PING putter to buy, so that's helpful, right? :D

 

Anyway, two and two started to slide nicely together in my mind. What would happen if I combined the data collecting ability of the iPING app with the modularity and convertibility of the Machine M2A Converter? Would the iPING app support my theory that I putt best with a face-balanced putter? Additionally, can someone use the iPING app to uncover the characteristics of his or her individual putting stroke and using those characteristics, figure out the best putter to purchase from companies other than PING.

 

The D.A.V.E. Putting Lab

Once Apple finally decided to ship me my new iPhone 4S (21 days, really?), I ventured out to the garage to begin the process of testing the nine different configurations of the Machine M2A putter with the iPING app. Along with those configured putters, I also ran a few members of my putter stable through the process as well. It's always good to include a few controls in your experiment.

 

IMG_2682.jpg

 

IMG_2684.jpg

 

cradle.jpg

 

setup.jpg

 

The testing was all conducted on my Tour Links 9' Training Green (Review HERE), 2011 Titleist ProV1 balls, full-spectrum, fluorescents, and Pandora set to Electric 6 Radio. I randomized the order of the configurations prior to testing which made for a lot of part swapping, but I thought that this would prevent me from becoming too used to a neck or flange during the testing.

 

After placing the phone in the iPING cradle, I used the “Measure” feature of the app to collect the results of a five putt series. I repeated this series three times for each putter and then calculated the average of the three runs. For those unfamiliar with the iPING app, it records Stroke Type, Impact Angle, Tempo, and Consistency. I also recorded Putts Made (x/15).

 

iping screen.jpg

 

Here are the average results for the different configurations and also for the control putters.

Ave iPING Data.jpg

 

The numbers for Stroke Type, Impact Angle, and Tempo were all relatively consistent. Based upon the readings, I would describe my Stroke Type as right on the boarder of “Slight Arc” and “Straight” with a closing face. Impact Angle is slightly open and my Tempo is very consistent around 2.5/1. The iPING app will also tell you, via red, yellow, and green color-coding, how narrow or wide each measurement range was for the five putts. The combined sum of these deviations then produce the Consistency score. Of all of the readings, I think that the Consistency value may be the one that warrants the most attention as it is based upon the other three measurements. I can also post the complete data se if anyone is interested in checking it out.

 

According to the data, my most consistent stroke came with the center shaft hosel and the tongue back. It was also one of the two configurations that yielded the high score of 10/15 putts made. I was very surprised by this. With the exception of the face-balanced toe hang, this putter looks nothing like the Bettinardi BB-27 that I gamed all summer or my twisty Byron 006 longneck that owned the bag prior to that. I expected the double-bend/fatback configuration to be the winner as it was the closed in appearance to the BB-27. Hypothesis rejected there, although I did make the same number of putts with that set-up.

 

IMG_2423.jpg

 

Interested to see if the iPING data would translate to the course, I immediately dropped the M2A in the center-shaft/tongue configuration into my bag. On the course, I can confidently report back that I couldn't buy a putt with it. On many putter over 10', I was not even close to the correct line. Not what I expected at all. I had some serious issues with standing over the putt and not feeling confident that I was aimed on the correct line. Distance control was pretty good, as would be expected by the Consistency score, but aim was really spray-and-pray.

 

I think that the accuracy that I observed on the testing green was likely due to the configuration of the practice green promoting a straight ball if I hit it well. In other words, it is tougher to aim wrong on that green. On the course, I think that the extra visual features of the tongue back may have been one of the reasons that I had difficulties aiming. Thinking back to the Edel fitting that I did with Tim Tucker last spring (HERE), I found out that adding a sight line to the flange did affect my aim. I wonder if using a M2A with no alignment aids or marks on the tongue would make a difference.

 

Once I got back to the car after that round, I switched the putter to the more familiar Double Bend/Fatback configuration and immediately I regained some aiming confidence after I spent some time on the practice green. Perhaps I just need to give the center/tongue set-up more time to see if that is the ticket to becoming more competent in aiming it. Funny how playing this silly game always comes back to practice.

 

 

Overall Impressions of the iPING App

Although the iPING app is the foundation of this whole article, I am still not 100% sure about it. I think that the greatest hindrance of the app as either a diagnostic or a practice tool is the weight that the phone and the cradle add to the putter. You do affix the phone up near the grip, so the effect on swing weight is less drastic, but it is there. I found this to be much more intrusive than the measuring sensor that must be attached to the putter for SAM Lab testing. Perhaps PING can come up with a lighter sensor that connects to the iPhone via Bluetooth or something.

 

Until something like a lightweight sensor is developed though, I'll probably still break the iPING app out to practice with here and there.

 

Would I Trust the iPing App as My Putter Fitter?

Based upon the data that I collected, I don't think that I can make a putter purchase decision solely on the iPING app's recommendation. It does place me into either the Anser 0 or Anser 5 when I ask it for suggestions, which is what I would have expected. I just don't know if I trust it based upon the data though. Look at the numbers for the BB-27 and the Yes! Gina. These are two very different putters, but the numbers are very close. The Stroke Path number may reflect the different head weights or toe hang (although I believe factor that would more likely show up in Impact Angle).

 

The complexity of some other fitting systems, such as Edel, makes me think that there are so many variables in putter design that this app can just make a ballpark suggestion, but that is about all. It could be that I am missing something here, but that is my overall impression on using the app as a fitting too.

 

Maybe I didn't complete enough sessions with the app. Perhaps increasing the sample size to 100 putts/configuration would produce more definitive results, but I think that 1200 putts in an afternoon would cause my shoulders to separate.

 

In Conclusion…

So while I am not totally confident that the iPING app can replace a trained putter fitting pro, I am confident in saying that Machine can likely build you a putter that would match the findings of your fitter. Although some of the values did not change much, switching the parts of the putter did change the characteristics of the stroke. I would be curious to have one of the putter makers or professional fitters take a look at the data and suggest a putter build.

 

In spite of my initial on-course experience, I'm not quite ready to completely discard the recommendation of the app though. I'll take the center/tongue Machine out again for play and practice. Perhaps once I get a handle on the aiming, the Consistency score of the app will translate to putts made on the course.

 

IMG_2436.jpg

Volvo Intorqueo

All the cool kids follow me on twitter: @GolfspyDave

If you are not a cool kid, following me on twitter will make you cool...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SPY VIP

Great work, Dave. I'm a bit surprised to see that the numbers changed so little from putter to putter, though that does mirror my own experiments along the same lines.

I had the same thought. Funny thing that I didn't add above was that the configurations with the standard flange felt very light and squirrelly. I thought that the readings on those would be way off. But on average, they were not that far away from the others.

Volvo Intorqueo

All the cool kids follow me on twitter: @GolfspyDave

If you are not a cool kid, following me on twitter will make you cool...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In looking at your first piece of this series, the putter that iPing likes best for you is the one I'd "want"

 

But, now I'm going to need to get my hands on the iPing app. I'm really curious to see the data I could collect for myself and see if I gain any improvement.

 

Well done on getting this in depth. Would LOVE to see a comparison of this with SAM LAB results/data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...