Does Your Putter Have to Look Good?

[TShaffer]

The great Deion Sanders once said, "If you look good, you feel good. If you feel good, you play good. If you play good, they pay good."

My question is, does tht apply to the flatstick? A while back I got myself a Taylormade Ghost Manta putter for a steal on eBay. Not the biggest fan of the white putter, but I figured I could fix that, quick trip to the hardware store and a few costs of black paint and I get this. (Looks a bit worse for wear now) I liked the look a lot better and I took the liberty to add a couple alignment lines to help me out. 

Alas, the shine has faded and I find myself sneaking peeks at other putters while mine has its back turned. I feel like I'm cheating, I mean don't get me wrong, I love my putter. It's served me well over the years, but I am beginning to wonder if all those chips and scratches make me like it less.

Performance wise I don't need to be looking for a new one, so what are my options? How many spys out there have taken creative liberty with their putter's appearance? Has anyone dipped or wrapped theirs? And do you think that you really do perform better when your putter looks sharp?

Would love to hear your thoughts

[DawgDaddy]

I've always said that if I could make more putts with a brick tied to a broom stick that is what I would use.  If I'm making them the putter always looks good to me.    Personally I like the white Ghost but it's yours so black it is!

[dlow206]

Somehow I only buy putters that cost $300 and up (at least MSRP)

[TShaffer]

So in all seriousness, I doubt you've brought the brick out to the practice green to test that, but a lot of putters that claim some proprietary, "sink more putts" tech are not that appealing. Do you think there are putters that you wouldn't give a chance based on looks?

[Mr. 82]

9 hours ago, TShaffer said:

So in all seriousness, I doubt you've brought the brick out to the practice green to test that, but a lot of putters that claim some proprietary, "sink more putts" tech are not that appealing. Do you think there are putters that you wouldn't give a chance based on looks?

I probably made a thread out of this some time ago, but frankly, I post too much here, so I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for it, but I have a 20+ year old Tour Edge mallet putter that I paid like $25 for back in the day that I put back in the back last year for awhile and was putting really good with it.  I had a new Winn Grip put on it, and gamed it for awhile and I went around telling everyone what I paid for it, especially when they were all buying $400+ putters and putting worse than I was.

Disclosure, I went out and bought a $200 brand new PING Sigma2 Tyne putter that I currently game, and I absolutely love it.  But it looks as nice as anything, and I putt really well with it.

What am I trying to say to you?  Looks will play a part in the equation, but it ain't everything to me, that is for sure.  It's the feel the putter gives you that inspires confidence that will make you feel like a better putter.  For me the results always speak for themselves.  if I putt good with a 20 year old putter that has chipped paint and scratches and dents all over the place, well, I will wear that sucker out.  But a new putter had a better feel and look to it, and I love the fact that I can adjust the shaft up and down between 32 and 36 inches.  I seem to putt a lot better with my new one, so it is what it is.

Ultimately, if you are asking these questions, you will probably end up getting something else.  But will you putt better with it?  Test them out a lot and go with what helps you hole the most putts.  Because at the end of the day, the scorecard does not have any pictures.

[DawgDaddy]

10 hours ago, TShaffer said:

So in all seriousness, I doubt you've brought the brick out to the practice green to test that, but a lot of putters that claim some proprietary, "sink more putts" tech are not that appealing. Do you think there are putters that you wouldn't give a chance based on looks?

I remember when SC came out with the Futura, I knew by the looks of it that one would never be in my bag, I hated it and still dislike the looks.   I have used a few putters that I wasn't really happy with the looks but they seemed to work until I had my next case of putter fever.  

[silver & black]

For me, every club has to look good. I will not do as well with something I don't like to look at. I know full well that there are clubs that don't look good to my eye, that I could hit better... but I can't do it...lol. That includes the putter.

[MDGolfHacker]

I wouldn't care if it was the ugliest putter in the world as long as it helped me sink more putts (I suck at putting).  But since such a putter doesn't exist, then having one that looks good to my eye adds to my confidence at putting.  Bonus if it has good aerodynamics for when I miss those short 1 footers 

 

MDGolfHacker

[Jmikecpa]

I remember when SC came out with the Futura, I knew by the looks of it that one would never be in my bag, I hated it and still dislike the looks.   I have used a few putters that I wasn't really happy with the looks but they seemed to work until I had my next case of putter fever.  

I doubled down on the Futura and had the Futura broomstick in my bag for several years. Still have it in the golf room but hasn’t come out in a long while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jmikecpa]

And after my post I pulled the Futura out of hiding and put a fresh grip on it. May now get a good shot at going in my bag since I am moving back to a long putter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ZenGolfer]

I would say, no, it doesnt have to look good.  Some of my favorite putters were vintage Bullseyes and 8802s that were all dinged and nicked up because in the old days people didnt use putter covers.

Is actually kind of funny in that we value an old set of blades that is all dinged up from decades of bag chatter and see that as character but look down upon woods, hybrids and putters that have the same look.

Ive got an old Dunlop Peter Tomson putter that is from the 1950s.  Its basically a Bullseye clone with a brass head that is all dinged up, fluted steel shaft and leather wrap grip.  Its old, its kind of ugly but it rolls the ball very well.  I just look at that putter and I wonder what stories it could tell if it could talk.  I also sometimes wonder how many years and decades worth of sweat and BO is soaked into that leather grip but thats a different tale for another day and something I try not to think about.

[TShaffer]

 

1 hour ago, Retrogolfer36 said:

I would say, no, it doesnt have to look good.  Some of my favorite putters were vintage Bullseyes and 8802s that were all dinged and nicked up because in the old days people didnt use putter covers.

Is actually kind of funny in that we value an old set of blades that is all dinged up from decades of bag chatter and see that as character but look down upon woods, hybrids and putters that have the same look.

Ive got an old Dunlop Peter Tomson putter that is from the 1950s.  Its basically a Bullseye clone with a brass head that is all dinged up, fluted steel shaft and leather wrap grip.  Its old, its kind of ugly but it rolls the ball very well.  I just look at that putter and I wonder what stories it could tell if it could talk.  I also sometimes wonder how many years and decades worth of sweat and BO is soaked into that leather grip but thats a different tale for another day and something I try not to think about.

I think that is so interesting, that you can pull out a relic set of irons and people think it is nostalgic and a reminder of when golf was pure, but an old putter is just immediately written off.

[ZenGolfer]

 
I think that is so interesting, that you can pull out a relic set of irons and people think it is nostalgic and a reminder of when golf was pure, but an old putter is just immediately written off.

I feel like people look at most of my vintage putters and would think, "I could never putt with that!"

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[PMookie]

I’m sure it’s been said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” so I’d be pretty sure to guess that folks buy putters that appeal to their eye. Psychologically, I would think it would be a hindrance otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[RobotDoctor]

As with any golf club the putter has to be pleasing to my eye.  There has to be a certain flow to it that I like.  For example, I couldn't putt with a Ping Anser 2 model putter but can easily putt with a Ping Anser putter because I do not like boxy blades.  I like softer edges.  My favorite style of putter is the Ping Zing style putter.  While there is a boxy nature to this putter there is enough softness and roundness of edges that it looks great to me.  I've putted with the Ping Zing for several years then after many years of trying other putters I found a Cameron Designed by Brad Faxon that was my gamer for several years then I went with a few more putters and a few more years and have been gaming a Byron Morgan Epic Day putter.  Yes, a Ping Zing inspired putter.  To me the lines have a great flow to it that I really love. It looks great to me and I have never putted better.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by RobotDoctor

[DiscipleofPenick]

100% yes it has to look good. MGS just let me test the Evnroll and that club was beautiful, I was a bit disappointed it wasn't a fit. My current putter is a Odyssey #7, the one with fangs. Even that has a lot going on for some, but it's still clean enough for me.

Take Dead Aim

[GolfSpy BOS]

Yes, it absolutely has to look good to my eye which is not to say it has to be some exotic blade.  Also it has to feel good.

Some shapes that look good in my eye:

Scotty newport (the softer more rounded style versus the Newport 2)

Odyssey #7 and other Fang models.  Mallets bigger than that or full (like the Spider) dont look good going back and through to me.

Odyssey Rossie and half mallet styles.

Evnroll ER2 reminds me a lot of my newport but stretched back.  The 1.2 by comparison seems too long heel to toe.

PING ANSER styles seem just soft enough on the bumpers to look good to me.

Looking back at that list I guess I like the more simple designs with more rounded vs angular designs.  But its to each his own for sure.

[CarlH]

All of my clubs have to please my eye at address. 

[mysterygolfguy]

You use that putter to clear rocks? lol just kidding

But seriously it always bugs me to have paint chips on a putter, it's like the most important club for me, and having that just distracts me.

That's why I like a raw finish putter and not paint.

That's just me though.

[chisag]

... Last summer my son borrowed my 33" 8802 style putter without telling me and I was forced to get one from the clubhouse. All they had was this beat up 35" Tour Edge radically designed mallet in white paint, chipped all to he!!. I had no choice so I made the best of it and shot a 2 under 70 holing every makable putt. Balance was off, grip was wrong and it was way too long but I just focused on every putt and it obviously worked out well. But I have no illusions that that would last because the first time I missed a few makable putts the ugly TE would be getting the blame. And of course it should because it did not fit my gate stroke or my eye.

... And that is probably true for most golfers. As long as you are hitting something well that does not look good to your eye, you can live with it. But as soon as you start hitting poor shots, it is only natural to blame something that doesn't look like it can accomplish the task at hand. It doesn't have to be beautiful but it can't be ugly.