Callaway Triple Track Alignment System Test

This is a test of the Callaway Triple Track (TT) ball alignment system. This is only a test. In the event of an actual round, your results may vary.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine if the Callaway Triple Track system significantly changes the required number of putts per round. I used three different balls-

Callaway Chrome Soft X triple track.

Callaway Chrome Soft 2020.

Taylor Made project A (yellow).

 I don’t have a triple track putter . However, I do have a Toulon Vegas 2019 (non stroke lab). Hopefully Callaway would approve. Given the results, I feel that a putter with significant alignment features is a significant advantage when using the triple track ball, but the triple track putter specifically is not

Procedure- The test consisted of putts from 5, 10, and 20 feet, both left and right breaking. Each ball was putt 30 times from each distance in ten sets of three, for a total of 270 putts over three days. For the TT, I obviously used the triple alignment marks. For the standard Chrome Soft, I used the product ‘name and arrows’ alignment feature, and for the project a, no alignment aid at all.

Alignment process- The TT doesn’t come with a users manual. While that may sound funny, it probably should. I began the test by placing and aligning the ball from the side, essentially in the address position. Using this method, the TT missed far more putts than either of the other balls. In order to ensure that the TT is aligned correctly (both vertically and to the target line), you must align it from the rear. Optimally, you align once while initially placing the ball, then walk further to the rear to verify the alignment, and make a second correction from behind the ball as needed. After many repetitions, that process takes about 15 seconds. If you take 36 putts per round, you added 9 minutes per round. If you’re OCD and repeat the process, or if say the entire foursome is using this ball...

Results-

The Y axis is the number of putts out of 30 attempts.

5 and 10 feet - As can be seen in the graph, at least for me, in this test, the TT does make more putts than the non-alignment specific balls at both 5 and 10 feet. Again assuming 36 putts per round, the TT is saving about 0.25 strokes per round. While that may not sound that significant for your Friday foursome, in a professional setting, it’s a stroke per 4 rounds, which over the course of a season is tremendously valuable. There’s now no doubt to my mind that professionals align their putts because they know it lowers their scores over time.

20 feet - For me, the TT both makes less putts at 20’ and beyond, and degrades my ability to determine the correct alignment. That’s because, at some point beyond 10’, I’m not aiming at an offset (as indicated by the TT’s alignment). Rather, I visualize the ball’s path, and start the ball along the path, which isn’t where the TT is pointing. There are two obvious potential solutions to this, either attempt to align to the ball path rather than an offset target, or don’t use the alignment aid beyond a certain distance. I tried the first way and found it confusing. I didn’t try the second method. Your results in actual play and methods may vary significantly here.

20 foot prox - This shows the number of 20’ putts that stopped within a one foot proximity of the hole. This appears to be another advantage for the TT. At least when the break and offset are known, aligning the ball makes it almost challenging to miss grossly. There seems to be a natural alignment extension when both the ball and putter are providing the visual clues, almost like a rifle scope.

Additionally, the results appear to show that using the ‘model name and arrows’ alignment feature does absolutely nothing when compared to the yellow ball. While that may indeed be the case, it’s unclear why. It may be that the Vegas putter itself was providing the alignment clues (in other words, it was actually working ?), or that since I already knew the line, the ball mark wasn’t as significant.