Center of Gravity vs Center of Mass

[TR1PTIK]

So I follow Flanigan Bilt Putters on Facebook and last night he posted about the CG and sight line location of Scotty Cameron and other OEM putters. His point was that he constantly gets requests to add or relocate sight lines because the OEMs don't locate the sight line where CG is also located. I'm not an engineer or even a club builder and most certainly do not possess the knowledge or talent that Ken has. However, I have to question his post.

#1 How does CG location in the image posted (see below posts) relate to a fully built club in the upright position?

#2 How does CG relate to CM on those putters where he's relocating or adding sight lines (They are not always going to be the exact same)?

Though I do love my Scotty, I'm not a loyalist by any means and do not believe that every $300+ putter is going to be built exactly perfect (though I do expect quality to be better than a $150 putter), but I can't not question his post.

What say you fellow spies?

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[cnosil]

CoG and CoM are often used interchangeably. They are slightly different but for this discussion let’s consider them the same. It has to do with gravity and will typically move the CoG below the CoM.

 

CoG is the point the putter will rotate around. If you strike the ball directly in front of the CoG the putter won’t rotate. If you strike on the toe side it will try to rotate open and in the heel it will rotate closed. You can try this by using a ball or tee and tapping the face of a putter that you hold loosely. Most manufacturers out the sightline dead center (heel to toe )on a putter which isn’t always the CoG; as shown in your picture. Hosels have the tendency to move the CoG toward the heel. The overall design of the putter can move the CoG to various points. If you are not striking the face in the correct place it could alter the start line of your ball. TP Mills putters advertise and generally show that they put their alignment aids on the CoG and not just the middle. Assembled the CoG May move more toward the heels. This isn’t limited to Cameron’s, people would just generally complain is the sightline wasn’t in the middle.

 

Hope that helps clarify.

 

[tommc23]

That is interesting thanks for the info @cnosil

[bluesmandan76]

I think having the cg slightly inside the aimline is good... because you line up the putt with putter grounded but strike it about 1/8” or 1/4” off the ground, which if you’ve kept your arms and wrists stable means you had to lift the putter slightly from the shoulder joint, meaning that it will also move out away from you so that the ball will be struck with a point closer to the heel of the putter. Either that or you need to hover the putter or lift your body or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bens197]

So let’s just say hypothetically (I hate hypotheticals) that you have a strong arc putter stroke.

Would your CM / CG need to be located differently than if you had a straight or slight arc stroke? Or are these putters designed with that already in mind with their specified toe hang?

This is starting to blow my mind a little bit.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[null]

So let’s just say hypothetically (I hate hypotheticals) that you have a strong arc putter stroke.

Would your CM / CG need to be located differently than if you had a straight or slight arc stroke? Or are these putters designed with that already in mind with their specified toe hang?

This is starting to blow my mind a little bit.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

They more architecture too your stroke the more toe hang you need. To hang will help the face square up naturally. If you you use a face balanced putter with a strong arc stroke, you'll be likely to leave the face open at impact more often than not

[bens197]

They more architecture too your stroke the more toe hang you need. To hang will help the face square up naturally. If you you use a face balanced putter with a strong arc stroke, you'll be likely to leave the face open at impact more often than not

That all makes good sense.

I’m wondering if this discussion lends itself to a more in-depth analysis of how to select certain geometry for a putter based upon your stroke.

As the industry evolves I could see putter technology push limits further than traditional Anser and Rosie designs.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[cnosil]

3 hours ago, bens197 said:

Would your CM / CG need to be located differently than if you had a straight or slight arc stroke? Or are these putters designed with that already in mind with their specified toe hang?

Toe Hang - When you balance a putter to see its toe hang,  the CoG tries to line up with the shaft.  The more a putter arcs, the putter needs to open more to stay square to the path.  This is why the typical recommendation is to have a putter with more toe hang.   Moving the CoG is a putter design thing and a method to provide the desired toe hang. 

27 minutes ago, bens197 said:

I’m wondering if this discussion lends itself to a more in-depth analysis of how to select certain geometry for a putter based upon your stroke.

 

There are lots of theories and approaches to selecting the correct putter for your stroke.  Some of the discussions are led by manufacturers and some by instructors.  Ping utilize their putting app and Odyssey used the eyefit approach (https://mygolfspy.com/odyssey-eyefit-mirror/); which are examples of how putter manufacturers fit.  My instructor looks at posture and stroke bias (most everyone has a stroke bias that causes the putters path to go more left or right during the stroke). While face angle is primarily the controller to ball direction,  the putters path does have some influence.  So if you happen to be left biased,  you might benefit from a putter that has a little more toe hang to help align the putter better at impact...which would be a bit open at impact.  Someone who is right biased might benefit from a putter that remains more closed to the path.    High level explanation,  but yes a putters geometry can help you improve your stroke.  

[TR1PTIK]

Thanks for your insight @cnosil - very informative.

I think after firing up this discussion, I'd like to see if MGS could do a CG analysis of some putters from a variety of OEMs. I'd be curious to know what the results are across a wider sample (Flanigan seems to just single out SC in his posts), and I'd love to be able to hear from a selection of golfers as well as industry experts about putter CG in relation to overall performance. Seems to me like putters are one of the least analyzed clubs, but yet is still so important to golfers. Most of what we read or hear about is MOI, face technology, and toe hang. I think Ken's post may be the first I've seen discussing CG.

[GolfSpy_APH]

@IONEPUTT

Here is a thread for further putter cg chat. 

Touches on some other aspects, but id at least in line with what you want to discuss it talk about. 

[IONEPUTT]

On 1/26/2023 at 12:43 PM, GolfSpy_APH said:

@IONEPUTT

Here is a thread for further putter cg chat. 

Touches on some other aspects, but id at least in line with what you want to discuss it talk about. 

I was talking about the up and down CG of the putter, NOT, the toe to heel CG of a putter. Two very different things in terms of how a putter will perform. I build my putters with a HIGh CG for better roll and the CG tow to heel is in the center as I always use a straight back and forward putter stroke, not a arc stroke. For those that use and arc stroke some believe the putter should be toe heavy. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 minute ago, IONEPUTT said:

I was talking about the up and down CG of the putter, NOT, the toe to heel CG of a putter. Two very different things in terms of how a putter will perform. I build my putters with a HIGh CG for better roll and the CG tow to heel is in the center as I always use a straight back and forward putter stroke, not a arc stroke. For those that use and arc stroke some believe the putter should be toe heavy. 

Regardless you can continue the CG putter location here, or create a new thread. 

[null]

34 minutes ago, IONEPUTT said:

I was talking about the up and down CG of the putter, NOT, the toe to heel CG of a putter. Two very different things in terms of how a putter will perform. I build my putters with a HIGh CG for better roll and the CG tow to heel is in the center as I always use a straight back and forward putter stroke, not a arc stroke. For those that use and arc stroke some believe the putter should be toe heavy. 

CG is 3-dimensional. 

CG, even if centered laterally on the club face, is still 2-dimentional.  A CG low and forward can create the same launch parameters as a CG high and back. And on a putter we are talking about millimeters.

Now, CG depth (forward and back) can have an impact on horizontal launch direction on off center hits, but that is not what we are talking about.  We are talking about vertical launch angle - and that can be influenced in putter construction by altering: 1) loft, face/groove construction, CG height, and CG depth

[IONEPUTT]

23 hours ago, Golfspy_Lukes said:

CG is 3-dimensional. 

CG, even if centered laterally on the club face, is still 2-dimentional.  A CG low and forward can create the same launch parameters as a CG high and back. And on a putter we are talking about millimeters.

Now, CG depth (forward and back) can have an impact on horizontal launch direction on off center hits, but that is not what we are talking about.  We are talking about vertical launch angle - and that can be influenced in putter construction by altering: 1) loft, face/groove construction, CG height, and CG depth

 

bottom line and the whole point of my posts is WHY would anyone build a putter with a low CG when we know a low CG will cause the ball to go Up and then bounce and skid when it lands which usually causes the ball to roll off line and may even cause the ball to come up short of the cup?  I just don't see any reason for a low Cg in a putter and yet most all putters built today have a low CG. Just makes no sense. 

[null]

14 minutes ago, IONEPUTT said:

 

bottom line and the whole point of my posts is WHY would anyone build a putter with a low CG when we know a low CG will cause the ball to go Up and then bounce and skid when it lands which usually causes the ball to roll off line and may even cause the ball to come up short of the cup?  I just don't see any reason for a low Cg in a putter and yet most all putters built today have a low CG. Just makes no sense. 

Im done here. 

Clearly you like arguing against years of science and R&D and just ignore basic facts when presented to you

Ill post this link one more time so that anyone coming in hear looking for factual information doesn't get thrown off with your ignorance 

I'm all for discussion and debate. But not when the person on the other side refuses to acknowledge facts and science

 

CG is a tool. Loft is a tool. These things must be used in a fitting to give the player an optimal launch angle to deliver the optimal launch angle without excess bouncing our skipping. The same CG and loft DOES NOT work for everyone

https://www.quinticballroll.com/Quintic_Ball_Roll_Launch_Angle.html

 

[GolfSpy_APH]

21 minutes ago, IONEPUTT said:

 

bottom line and the whole point of my posts is WHY would anyone build a putter with a low CG when we know a low CG will cause the ball to go Up and then bounce and skid when it lands which usually causes the ball to roll off line and may even cause the ball to come up short of the cup?  I just don't see any reason for a low Cg in a putter and yet most all putters built today have a low CG. Just makes no sense. 

I guess my question is why do we see next to none if any major OEM making higher CG putters then? Would we not then see tour pros or others make that switch if it was proven to be beneficial? Or I should say that much more improved? 

These companies spend goodness knows how much on R&D and ensuring they are making the best and try to push development of all products including putters, yet this seems to be an area that is almost entirely goes the opposite of higher CG. Or is it due to rules and regs for equipment? 

Not saying it doesn't work for you, it obviously does and you have said post after post what you believe it does for your putter which is great. All good to hear for you, but can't help and think if it was this ground breaking that one of the OEMs would have taken this avenue of design at some point...

[cksurfdude]

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

I guess my question is why do we see next to none if any major OEM making higher CG putters then?

Jeez man it's sooo obvious! It's MARKETING -- the OEMs *need* to sell us, the mass market, non-tour spec equipment that is suboptimal so that we can blame our clubs for our lousy golfing performance and thus run out to the store every Spring to buy newer, "improved" and "better" gear. Obviously!

[IONEPUTT]

22 hours ago, Golfspy_Lukes said:

Im done here. 

Clearly you like arguing against years of science and R&D and just ignore basic facts when presented to you

Ill post this link one more time so that anyone coming in hear looking for factual information doesn't get thrown off with your ignorance 

I'm all for discussion and debate. But not when the person on the other side refuses to acknowledge facts and science

 

CG is a tool. Loft is a tool. These things must be used in a fitting to give the player an optimal launch angle to deliver the optimal launch angle without excess bouncing our skipping. The same CG and loft DOES NOT work for everyone

https://www.quinticballroll.com/Quintic_Ball_Roll_Launch_Angle.html

 

Sorry to hurt your feeling, But it is YOU that is ignorant on this matter> I looked at putter designs and I built a putter with a high CG and then tested it against the top OEM putters and what I found from my testing is that my high CG putter was better at getting the ball rolling on the green than the low CG models the top OEM's are selling. You claim that I am the ignorant one here but the truth is I did the testing with a high CG putter and YOU have not. As we all know, there are not a lot of high CG putters on the market which is why I'm pretty sure you have not done any testing yourself and you are the onw that is ignorant, NOT ME. 

I'm Glad you are done here because I'm tired of arguing with people who have NOT done any testing and just repeat what others have told them. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

Love the it works for me so it will work for everyone approach despite the science, designers and fitters showing differently.

there are no absolutes in golf. Play what works for you.

I personally have never had a problem getting a ball rolling, have done a fitting and there was no need to have some special design of higher cg for my stroke.

 

[GolfSpy_APH]

37 minutes ago, IONEPUTT said:

Sorry to hurt your feeling, But it is YOU that is ignorant on this matter> I looked at putter designs and I built a putter with a high CG and then tested it against the top OEM putters and what I found from my testing is that my high CG putter was better at getting the ball rolling on the green than the low CG models the top OEM's are selling. You claim that I am the ignorant one here but the truth is I did the testing with a high CG putter and YOU have not. As we all know, there are not a lot of high CG putters on the market which is why I'm pretty sure you have not done any testing yourself and you are the onw that is ignorant, NOT ME. 

I'm Glad you are done here because I'm tired of arguing with people who have NOT done any testing and just repeat what others have told them. 

Again a simple question. Why is it we see so few high CG putters? Wouldn't there be a risk of the ball being driven into the green essentially acting like duffing a putter? 

Honestly trying to understand why there are little too none on the market if it was that beneficial. 

Testing is great, agree everyone should do their own. Is there SAM Lab data that can be shared with your putter to help show where it has benefited or changed the roll on your putts? 

Or is it more beneficial for you because of a higher attack angle on your putters?

[GolfSpy_APH]

10 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Again a simple question. Why is it we see so few high CG putters? Wouldn't there be a risk of the ball being driven into the green essentially acting like duffing a putter? 

Honestly trying to understand why there are little too none on the market if it was that beneficial. 

Testing is great, agree everyone should do their own. Is there SAM Lab data that can be shared with your putter to help show where it has benefited or changed the roll on your putts? 

Or is it more beneficial for you because of a higher attack angle on your putters?

Better yet, @GolfSpy Dave what are your thoughts on High CG putters? Why do we see so few and what are their potential pros and cons? As the resident MGS all things putter guy!

[IONEPUTT]

36 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Again a simple question. Why is it we see so few high CG putters? Wouldn't there be a risk of the ball being driven into the green essentially acting like duffing a putter? 

Honestly trying to understand why there are little too none on the market if it was that beneficial. 

Testing is great, agree everyone should do their own. Is there SAM Lab data that can be shared with your putter to help show where it has benefited or changed the roll on your putts? 

Or is it more beneficial for you because of a higher attack angle on your putters?

To answer your first question of why there are so few high CG putters, I can't tell you why. I do NOT have a golf lab to test my putter on. What I did was hit balls on the green and looked at the results to see if it worked better or not. I also had a dozen PGA golf insturctors test my putter against their high dollar OEM putters, and EVERY one of thos instructors sain the same thing. My putter rolled the ball better than the putter they had in their bag. EVERY ONE. 

My putter has 4* of loft to get the ball up out of the small depression it sits in on the green. Once to ball is level with the top of the grass, the high CG takes over and gets the ball rolling toward the cup with no bounce or skidding which is what we want with a putter. Have I don't the testing? YES. Do I have lab data to back my up? NO. I jus thave REAL world test results with over a dozen PGA instructors to back up my claims. IF that is NOT enough for you or anyone else, That's not my problem. I know the truth and if you don't want to accept it, not my problem. 

[null]

12 minutes ago, IONEPUTT said:

To answer your first question of why there are so few high CG putters, I can't tell you why. I do NOT have a golf lab to test my putter on. What I did was hit balls on the green and looked at the results to see if it worked better or not. I also had a dozen PGA golf insturctors test my putter against their high dollar OEM putters, and EVERY one of thos instructors sain the same thing. My putter rolled the ball better than the putter they had in their bag. EVERY ONE. 

My putter has 4* of loft to get the ball up out of the small depression it sits in on the green. Once to ball is level with the top of the grass, the high CG takes over and gets the ball rolling toward the cup with no bounce or skidding which is what we want with a putter. Have I don't the testing? YES. Do I have lab data to back my up? NO. I jus thave REAL world test results with over a dozen PGA instructors to back up my claims. IF that is NOT enough for you or anyone else, That's not my problem. I know the truth and if you don't want to accept it, not my problem. 

Well we know that you don't really care much about facts, lab data and science - especially since all the lab data and testing shows spining and floing a shaft is nothing more than great marketing that capitalizes on a mental placebo effect.

Super happy your stumbled upon something that works for you.  You speak in absolutes, but then admit you dont have any lab data or physics knowledge to understand the full picture.

And never have I said your putter sucks.  All I have said is you need to stop speaking in absolutes.  There are numerous factors in how a ball launches

Putter Construction: Static loft, CG height, CG depth, grooves, etc.

Player input: Stroke speed, angle of attack, shaft lean 

All of those facto into launch and forward roll.  And that doesn't factor in green condition and speed, which could also change what "ideal" launch is.  

 

[TylorJudd]

4 hours ago, IONEPUTT said:

To answer your first question of why there are so few high CG putters, I can't tell you why. I do NOT have a golf lab to test my putter on. What I did was hit balls on the green and looked at the results to see if it worked better or not. I also had a dozen PGA golf insturctors test my putter against their high dollar OEM putters, and EVERY one of thos instructors sain the same thing. My putter rolled the ball better than the putter they had in their bag. EVERY ONE. 

My putter has 4* of loft to get the ball up out of the small depression it sits in on the green. Once to ball is level with the top of the grass, the high CG takes over and gets the ball rolling toward the cup with no bounce or skidding which is what we want with a putter.

Once the ball is out of the depression, the putter is not making contact with the ball so how does the high CG take over? 

WE WANT* is an unfortunate statement as this game is incredibly subjective as is every single person's swing and attributes pertaining to it. 

What putter are you using that has this high Centre of Gravity?

[TylorJudd]

4 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Better yet, @GolfSpy Dave what are your thoughts on High CG putters? Why do we see so few and what are their potential pros and cons? As the resident MGS all things putter guy!

I don't believe we see them because as a mass, because there is A) visuals. I can't imagine a beautiful Newport that doesn't have the notch back. I would also think that now we alter balancing each end as your heaviest part of the part of the putter would be above some remaining mass on the sole. I'm spitballing here but that's my 2 cents

[GolfSpy SAM]

23 minutes ago, TylorJudd said:

What putter are you using that has this high Centre of Gravity?

He was using one of his own design - it was pictured in a thread about building putters, where there convo quickly devolved into who knew more about what every golfer wanted, similar to here. 

To be fair, his design was...novel. I'm not sure how to describe it other than that. But it worked for him, which is great. It's the demanding that everyone ELSE has it wrong that is the larger issue. 

I'll see if I can find the design in the other thread

[cnosil]

31 minutes ago, TylorJudd said:

What putter are you using that has this high Centre of Gravity?

He made his own.  You can see this same discussion in this thread:

 

We went back and forth about it and he explained how he tested the putter.   I did the test with my putter and it did what he said the high CG putters do.     I asked him to video the ball launch to show it wasn't skidding to help educate the community and he refused saying it would waste his time.   

[GolfSpy SAM]

35 minutes ago, cnosil said:

He made his own.  You can see this same discussion in this thread:

 

We went back and forth about it and he explained how he tested the putter.   I did the test with my putter and it did what he said the high CG putters do.     I asked him to video the ball launch to show it wasn't skidding to help educate the community and he refused saying it would waste his time.   

Yeah, that's the thread! I remember reading it last year... I'll give him this: it's unique. I mean, I play the Df 2.1, so I'm not going to crap on a weird design just because it's weird. But his unwillingness to even contemplate that other smart people could have a differing opinion became...a lot. 

[TylorJudd]

37 minutes ago, GolfSpy_SAM said:

Yeah, that's the thread! I remember reading it last year... I'll give him this: it's unique. I mean, I play the Df 2.1, so I'm not going to crap on a weird design just because it's weird. But his unwillingness to even contemplate that other smart people could have a differing opinion became...a lot. 

The LAB DF 2.1 is such an awesome looking putter. There are many design weirdos on here that would have appreciated his design!

[Canabuc]

If I remember correctly this thread started by somebody commenting on the fact that Scotty Cameron does not align his aim lines on putters with the center of gravity and somehow it devolved into a conversation about the height of the center of gravity of a putter which seemed to be two completely different conversations.

One thing I like about the Cleveland putters are that they have a technology where they have the sight line of a putter aligned at the exact height of the equator of the ball such that the matter where your eye line is relative to that sight line there will not be a parallax effect causing you to miss aim off the heel or toe.

Another thing I would like to comment about having to do is center of gravities of putters are that the difference between a higher and lower center of gravity and a rear and forward center gravity in a putter is in the order of magnitude of millimeters. Using the information that you can get online about the latest TaylorMade GT Max powder with adjustable weights you could see how even moving large masses of weight from the front to the back of the putter certainly does shift the center of gravity but again we are talking about on the order of several millimeters rather than inches.

At the end of the day everybody stroke is different and where the center of gravity is located will have an influence on the person's stroke pattern. Whatever stroke and head combination gets the ball rolling in the direction you want it to as early as possible is the best putter for you regardless of location of sidelines center of gravity or any other characteristics.

I do think that compared to the pros it's possible that center of gravity is maybe further back and lower down because most amateurs tend to play on courses that have greens that are a little bit longer and slower than what the guys on tour are used to playing on. This would require a little more loft or a lower and deeper center of gravity to help elevate it out of a depression. And get it rolling as early as possible.

Just my two cents.

Sent from my SM-S918W using Tapatalk