How data drives the next level putter designs and player performance Paul Hurion Interview, and Quintic Roll computer analysis; Fascinating

[IronWolf]

Topic for people who like to learn:

I know there is a group of people who do not believe in science and physics, (its marketing hype) or it is too difficult to interpret / learn. And I know it can be difficult / mentally exhausting to put into practice. Mostly because we have no way of really measuring our own performance.

 

Information is power for me, make choices based upon data. It is definitely making me a better putter. Just like the pros. Basically I want to put a quintic roll in my living room for a few months.

Last month Nick Faldo on CBS, was talking about how he noticed all the young players spending hours and hours on the launch monitors for "Putting", practicing and optimizing launch angle, skid, and spin for every length of putt. Dialing in the weight of the putter head with counterbalanced shafts, different face inserts. So, I tripped across this video as I was trying to learn more about quintic roll. Really good Q&A with Paul the inventor about what is next with putter technology and understanding and how to become a better putter.

Absolutely fascinating how science and technology slowly builds data sets.

 

Here is a list / summary of his discussion topics:

It is all about feedback, for the player. If you do not know why you missed the putt you will never be a good putter. It is very difficult to get feedback and practice face angle.

All the data Reinforces most amateurs still cannot aim their putters at the target.

Putter fitting: How does the ball’s performance change when I change equipment or technique. It confirms that you can actually aim your putter at the center of the hole/target.

Can easily be extended into practicing. He talks about coaching several tour winners practicing for hours calling out launch angle calling out face angle calling out ball velocity.

All major putting manufacturers have put his quintic system in place to design their putters.

200 systems in place worldwide.

Every physics parameter can be measured and performance engineered into the putter.

If you are not using a putter made after 2015 your giving strokes away.

the changes in the ball construction are changing putter designs. and will continue.

Compression time off the putter face got shorter and shorter because of the Pro V1 X.

The next generation of balls developed for manipulating driver and wedge spin, now have to be carefully evaluated for performance off of the putter.

The next important/marketing concept will be impact ratio of the face of the putter, face mapping of velocity. Also known as smash factor.

Additionally, shaft stiffness, shaft torque and counterbalancing to improve modern heavy putter heads that have become standard, absolutely affect performance data, especially face angle.

Impact ratio/smash factor also changes from ball to ball manufacturer. Very important to how the ball feels and performs coming off the face.

How to balance that with launch angle conditions, skid, and spin. Data data data.

 

It made me go out three weeks ago and buy a Toulon Odyssey Austin which is absolutely the best putter I have ever had in my hand.

I have committed to using one ball only, Pro V1X.

Every modern technology advancement unbelievably accurate pure roll. Beautiful putter. Happy

Cheers

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by IronWolf
typo

[RichieHunt]

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Hurrion and his research.  I might disagree with his thoughts on putter head weights.  I think today's putter heads are too heavy if you're a traditional trail hand low, reverse overlap putter.  I also know one OEM told me that they found softer putters, either due to grooves or mill grinding of the face don't perform as well in human tests, but perform better in robotic testing.  I personally found a smooth face increased the smash factor and now I don't need to take a bigger stroke to get the ball to the hole.

 

I think the heavier heads are likely better suited for people with claw/saw grips and have more of a piston/pushing motion with the trail arm.  More and more golfers are going to that technique, but for those that are using a traditional motion which is still prevalent with the very best in SG - Putting on Tour today...I'm not so sure that heavy and soft heads work, nor does counterweighting.

 

I also question if this is robotic testing vs. human testing.

 

 

 

 

RH

[IronWolf]

14 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Hurrion and his research.  I might disagree with his thoughts on putter head weights.  I think today's putter heads are too heavy if you're a traditional trail hand low, reverse overlap putter.  I also know one OEM told me that they found softer putters, either due to grooves or mill grinding of the face don't perform as well in human tests, but perform better in robotic testing.  I personally found a smooth face increased the smash factor and now I don't need to take a bigger stroke to get the ball to the hole.

 

I think the heavier heads are likely better suited for people with claw/saw grips and have more of a piston/pushing motion with the trail arm.  More and more golfers are going to that technique, but for those that are using a traditional motion which is still prevalent with the very best in SG - Putting on Tour today...I'm not so sure that heavy and soft heads work, nor does counterweighting.

 

I also question if this is robotic testing vs. human testing.

 

 

 

 

RH

I do think it is everything data sets, the manufacturers use robots to collect data in R&D, and make a new design, then they give it to the tour players to see if they can replicate the data with their hands, as you say feedback from tour players is mixed, then they go back to the drawing board and come up with the next iteration, but each iteration appears to be blending of the data sets, human and robot combined. 

Odyssey and Taylor made have been slowly increasing the velocity off the face insert over the last five years from the really soft inserts, due to tour players asking for slightly more ball velocity.   I have seen it in all the marketing for the last five years, now with a newer more firm feeling insert in response to tour players request. See the 2021 ad below.

 

I do think the engineers and designers are serious about performance they want their tour player to make every putt, we will make it exactly how you want it, but we also can measure your performance, and track if you are doing it better or if you are doing it more poorly. As well as climbing up the money list.

 

Sean Toulon definitely discusses blending the robot and human data together. We saw the head was more stable on the robot with the stiffer graphite shaft, we then tested with a human to see if it can be put into practice, and that most of the tour players that tryout a stroke lab have a tighter velocity dispersion, better control on their speed data sets, fewer overspeed putts, fewer under speed putts, very tight dispersion of distance control. And it is because the backstroke length is much more consistent.  

That is my experience with the new Toulon strokelab my backstroke is very consistent and noticeably smoother, versus my Scotty Cameron. 

I agree 365 g is probably close to a maximum but it is related to weak shafts.  

I think Paul was just saying that is what people/players seem to be experimenting with heavier, putter head weights. And the only way to deal with that is new shaft technology.

 

I think it is the same thing the drivers went through 30 years ago, only a few of the top players had access to the only existing half-million dollar launch monitor, in collaboration with tayor-made. Now we have launch monitors in every single house. Because the best drivers were out driving everybody by 20 or 30 yards because of the optimized data on launch and spin conditions. So everybody wanted one.

Now we/coaches are looking at the exact same aspects for controlling the ball off the face of the putter, which parameters are fundamental, and the best players like Dustin Johnson knows exactly every rotation, the exact velocity, and how many inches of skid for the ball off of the face of the putter. And repeats it on the green.

[Red4282]

The great thing about putting is its an inexact science. So many different ways to achieve successful putting if you look throughout history. Probably the most important aspect of all is just basic speed control.    

[IronWolf]

4 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

The great thing about putting is its an inexact science. So many different ways to achieve successful putting if you look throughout history. Probably the most important aspect of all is just basic speed control.    

I think that is what all these engineers are saying! It does not have to be that way.

Paul Hurion, Scotty Cameron, Sean Toulon, Taylor made engineers, Are trying to define how the putter and the ball work on a perfect surface.  The inexact science has to do with putting on a putting green in the outdoors with wild variables.

 

The number one topic is that you and I cannot aim our putter at the target, the engineers are trying to help us figure out how to do the very first fundamental, align the face of your putter square to your target line. That is an exact science.

 

The second exact science based on skill, is to get the ball rolling instead of bouncing and hopping and skidding sideways.

They have made fantastic progress on elucidating that exact science.  The majority of players always assume it is the bumpy putting surface, and that they do not have to bother practicing, because it is an inexact science. But the key is to have a perfect putting surface to practice, on which you can obtain feedback.

 

So I agree that some parts of putting related to putting on an organic living breathing surface are inexact.

Learning to line up and stroke the ball towards a specific target are not inexact, especially now that we have computers to measure it, we can learn to do it almost perfect. And accept the rub of the green.

 

It is a lot like a gun with the sights misaligned, our putting strokes are like a gun, we do not know how to aim it, we do not know how to align it, we do not know what the powder charge is in the cartridge, you have no idea how far it is gonna go.  And you do not know what to fix first. You have almost no hope of making a putt, if you do not learn how to putt on a perfect surface, you have little hope of making a putt on the golf course.

 

That is what these Quintic systems do. They tell you exactly what you did wrong, you know exactly why you missed, so you stop doing it, feedback, data, feedback, data, feedback. You get better and better and better a very exact science.

All of the top putting coaches talk about it creating a drill that gives the player feedback so he can change his behavior. Become more exact.

Humbly disagree some parts can become very exact.

 

[Medson]

3 hours ago, IronWolf said:

If you are not using a putter made after 2015 your giving strokes away.

Great! This is all I need. Time to talk to wife about getting a new putter! Because apparently I am giving strokes away!

[Red4282]

33 minutes ago, IronWolf said:

I think that is what all these engineers are saying! It does not have to be that way.

Paul Hurion, Scotty Cameron, Sean Toulon, Taylor made engineers, Are trying to define how the putter and the ball work on a perfect surface.  The inexact science has to do with putting on a putting green in the outdoors with wild variables.

 

The number one topic is that you and I cannot aim our putter at the target, the engineers are trying to help us figure out how to do the very first fundamental, align the face of your putter square to your target line. That is an exact science.

 

The second exact science based on skill, is to get the ball rolling instead of bouncing and hopping and skidding sideways.

They have made fantastic progress on elucidating that exact science.  The majority of players always assume it is the bumpy putting surface, and that they do not have to bother practicing, because it is an inexact science. But the key is to have a perfect putting surface to practice, on which you can obtain feedback.

 

So I agree that some parts of putting related to putting on an organic living breathing surface are inexact.

Learning to line up and stroke the ball towards a specific target are not inexact, especially now that we have computers to measure it, we can learn to do it almost perfect. And accept the rub of the green.

 

It is a lot like a gun with the sights misaligned, our putting strokes are like a gun, we do not know how to aim it, we do not know how to align it, we do not know what the powder charge is in the cartridge, you have no idea how far it is gonna go.  And you do not know what to fix first. You have almost no hope of making a putt, if you do not learn how to putt on a perfect surface, you have little hope of making a putt on the golf course.

 

That is what these Quintic systems do. They tell you exactly what you did wrong, you know exactly why you missed, so you stop doing it, feedback, data, feedback, data, feedback. You get better and better and better a very exact science.

All of the top putting coaches talk about it creating a drill that gives the player feedback so he can change his behavior. Become more exact.

Humbly disagree some parts can become very exact.

 

Well what i mean is lets say someone aims terribly, 5 degrees left of target, but yet pushes the putts or opens the face and the ball ends up at the target anyways. All that high high tech putting equipment would tell you thats bad and you need to change some stuff...but at the end of the day the ball is going at the target, and if speed control is good, then it will be very successful. Long putters, heavy, light, blades, face balanced, heavy arc, no arc, it goes on and on, have all been successful at some point in history. 

[RichieHunt]

I believe that aiming is a skill as well as having the proper fitted putter.  Most golfers I see either aim too far left and then 'push' it out to the target or they aim right and 'pull' it to the target.  Consistency becomes an issue if the aim is too far off line.

 

I was the guy that aimed about 2 degrees to the right and then cut across the ball to get the ball online.  I started to change my aiming technique and worked hard on it and eventually got to near perfect aim with the putter.  I then changed to a Bettinardi Queen B #9 and my aim moved further out to the right.  But eventually I made my path more square and with my dale head putter I have near perfect aim.

 

I think OEM's do almost exclusively robotic testing and that's why they are always trying to reduce face rotation.  I don't think reducing face rotation is bad for all players, but I think it's bad for a lot of players.

 

If you put one of those heavy, counterbalanced putters in Tiger's hands he's probably going to go a long time before he putts well with it.  I think his stroke and his putter are an excellent fit for each other and you just don't find smooth face, 328 gram putters on the market now.

 

 

 

 

 

RH