Putter Testing Question

[dang3rtown]

Ok, basically, is data driven putter testing any good?

In comparison to a driver for instance, how do you really quantify the performance data on a putter? With a driver, you can put a club in the hands of a robot, see exactly how far, how fast, at what launch angle, etc. a ball goes. One driver will absolutely hit a ball farther than another. Now, if you give a putter to a robot and properly calibrate the aim of the robot, it should be able to sink every single putt with every single putter. So, this leads me to believe that the technology of the putter is much less important than the technology in a club where a full swing is used.

 

So, that being said, based on test results, some putters seem to absolutely perform better than others in the hands of humans. I believe that data and this brings me to my second issue; are we getting enough human data for these putter tests?

 

There is clearly a much wider variety of both putters and putting techniques than there are lofted clubs and full swing techniques. With full swings, we typically see data sets for fast, medium and slow swings and maybe handicap. In putter tests, the only player divisions I tend to see are handicap. As for equipment divisions, I just see blade or mallet. In irons alone, with lofted tests we see blades as a group, better player irons, game improvement and super game improvement. When there are likely five to ten times as many putter varieties (conservative estimate), why do we group them into such broad categories?

 

I would love to some more specific testing for putters! Best blade for crosshand putters! Best mallet for tall putters, etc. I know, this means more resources but I think for putters, more specific testing is absolutely necessary.

Or maybe I'm wrong! Anyway, love the reviews, keep them coming!

[chershey]

That would take a massive amount of testing but would definitely give you some good data. Personally, I get more out of the testing in the Forums where the different golfers describe their games and you can see which golfer most resembles your game. I'm still waiting to read a wedge review on here where a golfer states that they hit every bunker shot thin and 50 yards over the green (maybe I'm the only one) until they got this new wedge they're testing which transformed their bunker game and made them look like Jordan Spieth. Trust me, I'll be first in line to buy that wedge!

[hckymeyer]

I just got fit at a Club Champion yesterday for the full bag.  It included a SAM Putt Lab session for the putter fitting portion.

 

You would be absolutely amazed at how much data is gathered in a simple putting stroke.  The machine has you hit 7 putts, then gives you all kinds of info around stroke path, face rotation, loft, lie etc.  It's pretty amazing.  It can then spit out a recommendation of toe hang, length, weight, loft and lie along with recommended head styles.  That's the science part behind putter fitting.  Then the art part comes from figuring out which head style fits your eye and alignment features will let you hit your target.

 

Robot putter testing can be great on the R&D side.  For instance Guerin Rife using a swing arm to calibrate the distance control on the Evnroll grooves.  You couldn't do that with a human tester, or at least it would take a lot longer.

 

But ultimately for any club it needs to be in the hands of human testers.

[cnosil]

There are several schools of thought on this. I am on the data centric side. I will respond to your post when I get home an can use something besides my phone.....will be a long answer.

[EthanSterlingPrice]

Robo data is good for eliminating the human error factor (captain obvious here), but I also agree that forum testers give a good look at how a putter matches with different golfers and if it helps or hurts them. Both are important

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[cnosil]

My thoughts on this are the following:  Some people are of the school that if a putter looks good to your eye that it will give you confidence and help you putt better.    Others are of the mindset that they don't want any technical data about a putters performance.  My mentality is that I want to understand everything I can and make a logical decision about my putter.  

 

When looking at putting,  1* of error will cause a 10 foot putt to miss the hole completely.  So how can we best ensure that as a player we return the putter to the correct position to start the ball on the intended line.  During the stroke the putter rotates and travels on an arc.  We typically here that players should player putters based on the arc of the stroke.  One of the best ways to measure strokes in on a SAM Puttlab and there are tens of thousands of strokes that have been captured.   What this data shows is that players have several tendencies that must be accounted for with a putter.   The first variable is how a player powers the club,  do you use your shoulders,  a particular arm, or both arms with no shoulder.  That will impact that path that the putter travels on as will the stance you use in your setup.  Are you setup open, closed, or square to the target line?  Once all your decisions are made,  you establish a fingerprint for your stroke and there is a putter that will fit that stroke with the correct rotation to enable you to start the ball online.  

 

The data is out there,  and as I started this response some people like to see that data and others don't.  If you want to,  it is out there but the key is understanding how to interpret the information. 

[revkev]

I would argue that putter testing and fitting are more significant than driver testing and fitting.

I would also argue that robot putter testing is far more reliable than robot driver testing.

Unless the robot is set to replicate my swing its driver results will not predict mine. It will only tell me which driver works best for that robots swing. If we've learned anything here it's that there is no one best driver for all players. Give me 10 drivers and 100 golfers and each one of those ten will likely be the best fit for one of the hundred.

Since putters aren't swung as hard I'm guess that the variety of swing delivery flaws are fewer. According to Guerin Rife pros hit the sweet spot of the putter 2/10. More than likely there is a misshit trend for each player. It's easy enough to get a robot to work through those and yield extremely beneficial data.

If you haven't been fit for putter yet you should be. It will change the way that you think about the club you use the most.

I greatly value putter testing.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Shankster]

Mark Crossfield is putting up some pretty cool stuff about putters, specifically his experience with Edel fitting.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Shankster]

After today's round. I'm in dire need of my Edel fitting.. missed many 3-4 footers all to the left.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[dang3rtown]

Ok, so follow up. Yes, I absolutely think putter fitting is critical! The reason it is critical is there seems to be so many variations in putting mechanics, design, etc. Basically, it seems much more "feel" based in comparison to full swing clubs where we tend to be more uniform. 

For example, I don't think it's a crazy argument to say that the new Callaway Epic driver will tremendously improve every single golfers drive compared to an old persimmon wood from the 60's. Now, in a group of 10 people, there could absolutely be one person who putts best with an old bullseye blade compared to a brand new Bettinardi. Is it that putter technology just hasn't progressed as much? No! It just doesn't appear to matter as much. We're not trying to hit putts as far as possible, just as well as possible.

So, because of this, it's hard for me to see why large data sets will make any real impact on a golfer's putter purchasing. Instead, I would say, ignore the data, go get a fitting and find the putter that works for you.

 

This all being said, based on the MGS test, I wanted to try out the Ping Sigma G Anser. I went to my store, tried it, ended getting a fitting. The Answer wasn't for me but I did end up getting a Ping Sigma G... Kushin! The fitter was great and made some excellent recommendations on equipment that really matched my putting stroke.

 

Thanks for the replies everyone!

[cnosil]

Technology will improve the consistency of the putter manufacturing process. A set of 40 year old bulls eye putters will probably all have a different feel and will probably have different weight and cog. All of these impact your ability to roll the ball well.

 

You seem to ignore large data sets but in my opinion the large data set is what helps the fitter choose putters that will fit your stroke. If you follow the mindset of fitting a putter to your stroke you can look at the edel process and see how revising a players tendencies influences putter selection. If you look at the choices you make on how you swing the putter or setup to the ball you will need a different putter.

 

Selecting a less than optimal putter doesn't mean you won't putt well but probably means you won't putt well all the time.

 

Various opinions on this and it depends on how you process information. Some people just want a putter the looks nice. I look at my tendencies to identify the design characteristics that work best for my stroke.