Plumber’s vs Flow Neck

[Flyers99]

So my stroke is slight arc back.  Not straight per se but much closer to that than a strong arc. 
 

I have been struggling in shorter putts with my plumbers neck. This is what I was fitted in to match my slight arc stroke.  Well about 10 rounds ago I switched to a cheap flow neck putter and it has been great.  Lag putts consistent with plumber but shorter putts the flow neck wins. 
 

I am now looking for a new putter and trying to decide if I should go with the flow neck which is not a “fit” for me?  Maybe I am in a honeymoon phase?

 

Anyone else using a putter that isn’t “fit” for their stroke and having sustained success?

[Pepperturbo]

From learning, I used a center shafted putter.  In 2012, because of my slight arc, I was fitted into a putter with one full offset, plumbers neck, and medium Toe Flow.  I'm still using the same putter.

[MattM97]

The putting arc and neck relationship I'd say is pretty flawed. Should be more tempo/timing and neck choice.

 

I did a fitting at Ping HQ, my initial test put me into "Straight Arc" or "Slight Arc" but I prefer flow necks. The fitter handed me a flow neck cause that's what I like and while that's "strong arc" in Ping testing is was basically perfect results based on their fittings and that was my putter. Reason being I can just time that face up the best. 

 

So end of the day if the flow neck is working best right now move to that. Your specs could possibly be the same as before so match those and see how it works. Remember we also change as golfers over time too. 

[jls667]

MattM97 is spot on. The whole matching stroke path to toe hang thing is flawed. There's an older TXG video where Ian explains how heavier toe hang putters actually rotate less because the extra weight towards the toe holds the face open while more heel weighted putters (i.e. face balanced) will close quicker because the weight being centered around the heel force it to rotate closed. It's basic physics. 

 

So the issue isn't about stroke path, it's about rate of rotation. You may need the face to rotate less which is why flow necks work for you.

 

I actually have a pretty straight stroke but putt way better with heavy toe hang putters. It's face rotation, not path.

[discover-it]

I bounce back and forth between the two. Use whatever works best for you and don't worry about the "fit". Right now, my old Ping Anser F is in the bag. A few months ago, it was a flow neck Odyssey Black Series.

[hwwong]

Don't over think it.  I go through phases too.  Use whatever gets the ball into the hole.

[Mario Good Times]

Eye dominance in my opinion makes for the most important part of lining up putters and seeing the proper sight of which neck fits you best.  I’m left handed, left eye dominant but golf right handed and I’ve tried 💯’s of putters and always go back to the flownecks.  They just sit and look best for me.  I’ve gone to the jon rahm putter with no sight lines, flowneck and hate to say it but it’s the best putter for me in 2024..

[Ben B]

Most of the time, if you are missing short putts, it's an alignment issue. Then that super computer that sits between your ears takes over and manipulates your stroke to overcome the misalignment. It goes south pretty quickly from there. Next thing you know you have zero confidence on short putts. So no matter what hosel style putter you perfer, you first need to be able to easily line the putter up. Then chose whatever style head/hosel combo that allows you to naturally swing the putter head on whatever degree of arc you have with the face remaining square. It's really that simple. But, there's certainly no "correct" putter for any certain degree of arc. 

[Ben B]

4 minutes ago, Mario Good Times said:

Eye dominance in my opinion makes for the most important part of lining up putters and seeing the proper sight of which neck fits you best.  I’m left handed, left eye dominant but golf right handed and I’ve tried 💯’s of putters and always go back to the flownecks.  They just sit and look best for me.  I’ve gone to the jon rahm putter with no sight lines, flowneck and hate to say it but it’s the best putter for me in 2024..

I am too left handed and left eye dominate. Most of us that are, perfer putters without sight lines and putt significantly better without sight lines. With the left eye out in front of the ball it's just too difficult and awkward to try and line up a line on a putter. I also perfer a flow neck or slant neck over a plumbers neck too. A plumbers neck simply does not look right to my eye. 

[Flyers99]

Thanks all.  Seems like the “fitting” guides are just that- guides.  Seems many are having success with different putters.  I will keep my plumbers neck and will be looking for a flow neck.  As some say, we change so maybe the flow neck works this year.  If something changes I can always go back to the plumbers neck. 

[Ivyguy]

I always felt that “if you like the look of it, hit it”. 
 

Worked in more ways than one in my life… Differing results, BUT in putters…. Always the best. 
 

Feel is sooooo subjective, and I think looks and the acoustics (can I buy a vowel) play a part in it. 
 

My best putting seasons are between and 8802 and an Anser. Similar, but pretty different. 
 

Love the look of mallets, but I change my stroke for them for some reason.  I’m a mental midget after all, so….

 

I think you have to like the look and feel “deadly” with it…. Putting is 95% grey (or gray) matter.  The rest is cool headcover and bull$h!t. 

[MattM97]

9 hours ago, jls667 said:

MattM97 is spot on. The whole matching stroke path to toe hang thing is flawed. There's an older TXG video where Ian explains how heavier toe hang putters actually rotate less because the extra weight towards the toe holds the face open while more heel weighted putters (i.e. face balanced) will close quicker because the weight being centered around the heel force it to rotate closed. It's basic physics. 

 

So the issue isn't about stroke path, it's about rate of rotation. You may need the face to rotate less which is why flow necks work for you.

 

I actually have a pretty straight stroke but putt way better with heavy toe hang putters. It's face rotation, not path.

 

FYI there isn't more weight in the toe with putters with more toe hang, it's the shaft axis being more heel sided to where the COG is. 

[Straphael]

I just did a fitting and found I aim plumbers necks almost 2 feet to the right on a roughly 8 foot putt. Flow neck was right on target. I made a good consistent stroke with both but aim is obviously extremely important. Stroke wise toe flow is one of the most overrated things in the world of putters but alignment is super undervalued. I honestly think it’s just easier for manufacturers to sell stroke type vs alignment that almost requires fittings to really get right. 

[Sean289]

On 7/11/2024 at 10:35 PM, MattM97 said:

The putting arc and neck relationship I'd say is pretty flawed. Should be more tempo/timing and neck choice.

 

I did a fitting at Ping HQ, my initial test put me into "Straight Arc" or "Slight Arc" but I prefer flow necks. The fitter handed me a flow neck cause that's what I like and while that's "strong arc" in Ping testing is was basically perfect results based on their fittings and that was my putter. Reason being I can just time that face up the best. 

 

So end of the day if the flow neck is working best right now move to that. Your specs could possibly be the same as before so match those and see how it works. Remember we also change as golfers over time too. 

This is interesting because I have always stayed away from flow necks because I’m fit into slight arc and theoretically should stay away from a flow neck/strong arc hosel. I’m currently gaming the PING 2023 Anser. I really like it but the compact shape isn’t overly confidence-inspiring especially on shorter putts. I know there is an Anser 2D in this line but I’m not a big fan of the soft insert that’s on it. I much prefer the milled putters in this line.
After reading this yesterday, I decided to roll the Kushin 4 for the first time that’s in the Pro Shop of the golf club that I’m joined. Again, I never thought to even touch it as I had the mentality of “It’s strong arc and that’s not my stroke type so why even try it?” I rolled it for about a half an hour today on the putting green. It’s fantastic. I don’t feel that I’m “fighting” the toe hang at all and I love the extra stability that it has compared to the Anser. The WRX’er and putter ho in me will probably have it bought by the end of the week 😂  

[Dan Drake]

I'd say that flow neck vs. plumber's neck will alter your putting much more by how it influences your aim than by how much it influences your stroke.  David Edel put together a ton of good info on which elements of putter design affect aim bias left/right for the majority of golfers.  

 

I'm a lifelong flow neck guy but I recently came across a putter without a sightline on the flange, a curved shape towards the rear of the putter, and it is slightly wider at the toe than at the heel.  All of these make it look more open to me and seem to counteract how the plumber's neck (usually) makes it seem to me that the putter is closed.  It is one of only a handful of putters I've ever held in my hands that looks like it is aimed where I think I'm aimed AND the ball seems to launch in that general direction as well!  Needless to say, I'm a bit excited about it right now.  

 

Good luck with your experimentation!

[MattM97]

20 hours ago, Sean289 said:

This is interesting because I have always stayed away from flow necks because I’m fit into slight arc and theoretically should stay away from a flow neck/strong arc hosel. I’m currently gaming the PING 2023 Anser. I really like it but the compact shape isn’t overly confidence-inspiring especially on shorter putts. I know there is an Anser 2D in this line but I’m not a big fan of the soft insert that’s on it. I much prefer the milled putters in this line.
After reading this yesterday, I decided to roll the Kushin 4 for the first time that’s in the Pro Shop of the golf club that I’m joined. Again, I never thought to even touch it as I had the mentality of “It’s strong arc and that’s not my stroke type so why even try it?” I rolled it for about a half an hour today on the putting green. It’s fantastic. I don’t feel that I’m “fighting” the toe hang at all and I love the extra stability that it has compared to the Anser. The WRX’er and putter ho in me will probably have it bought by the end of the week 😂  

 

I think people focusing on stroke type hurts them too much because they won't try. Yet in a lot of cases some  flow and slant necks have the same or less toe hang than a plumbers neck depending on the head shape. 

 

I will say this first in golf I'm a no one and contribute nothing to golf and may never will. But with putting if I was to fit I'd be focusing on closure rate the most and aim, probably put some people into setups they wouldn't think work, but might cause we gotta test. 

[DaveGoodrich]

I agree with the idea that how the putter aligns, visually, is way more important that "toe flow," etc.  The parallax/eye dominance thing is real.  It just makes sense to me that the most fundamental thing is whether you are aiming the thing where you think you are.  And I don't mean aiming by using the line on the ball to line you up from behind the ball.  IMO, if you can't aim the putter when standing over the ball, then your chances of being successful (statistically speaking) are just not good.   OTOH, if your "aim is true," then that variable is controlled, and you are free to work on making your stroke more consistent, reading greens, developing touch (speed control), etc. 

 

So whether by a fitting, or by experimentation, you have to "know" you are aimed properly, or you will make unconscious compensations that will never produce results as good as you would get if those compensations weren't necessary.   Of course, there are lots of variables to work through which can impact visual alignment, both in the putter itself, and in our stance/setup/ball position, etc.  I'm going to look for the info from David Edel that @Dan Drake mentioned.  But one way or another, getting the aim right has to be 1st priority, before caring about "forgiveness on off center hits," "matching toe hang to stroke type," etc. 

 

[Dan Drake]

@DaveGoodrich Attached is an article from Golf Digest a few years ago that gives a broad overview of Edel's findings when it comes to all things putter and their effect on alignment.  It's not comprehensive by any means, but is a great start and will probably answer a lot of golfer's questions about why they putt better with certain features of a putter and not with others.  I think you might also find that you are much more sensitive to certain features and much less to others.  For instance, I seem to be very sensitive to trail edge/flange alignment lines.  For years I thought I was more sensitive to flow neck vs. plumber's neck, but I've putted well in the past (shot my career best actually) with a plumber's neck, so what gives?  Well, guess what?  That plumber's neck putter from that round had a top line alignment line and nothing on the flange.  Hmmmm........

 

And I just want to make sure everyone is working on the right thing here.  Yes, we want a putter to be aimed where we think it is aimed.  But it doesn't have to actually be aimed there.  Where it HAS to be aimed is wherever it needs to be aimed in order to launch the ball where we think it is aimed!  It sounds like semantics, but in reality it is paramount.  

 

1. The putter must appear to the golfer that it is aimed where they think it is aimed.  

2. Without messing up #1, the putter must actually be aimed at a point that allows it to offset whatever the golfer's natural aim & stroke biases are, thus returning the putter square to the intended aimpoint at impact.  The second half of #2 is why the putter might not actually be aimed where you think it is aimed, even though it looks to you that it is!

 

Clear as mud?  

 

C'est la galf........

Golf-Magazine-Edel-Putters.pdf

[DaveGoodrich]

40 minutes ago, Dan Drake said:

And I just want to make sure everyone is working on the right thing here.  Yes, we want a putter to be aimed where we think it is aimed.  But it doesn't have to actually be aimed there.  Where it HAS to be aimed is wherever it needs to be aimed in order to launch the ball where we think it is aimed!  It sounds like semantics, but in reality it is paramount.  

 

1. The putter must appear to the golfer that it is aimed where they think it is aimed.  

2. Without messing up #1, the putter must actually be aimed at a point that allows it to offset whatever the golfer's natural aim & stroke biases are, thus returning the putter square to the intended aimpoint at impact.  The second half of #2 is why the putter might not actually be aimed where you think it is aimed, even though it looks to you that it is!

 

Clear as mud?  

 

Just about as clear as mud😜.    

 

I agree totally with your #1.  You hear so many folks saying that they line up their putts from behind the ball, but then it "doesn't look right" when they get over the ball.  I just can't see how that feeling can ever lead to good putting.    

 

But I don't like the idea that the putter can (should?) actually be aimed somewhere other than where the ball needs to start, as compensation for our "natural aim & stroke biases."   I just seems to me that we should first fix our "aim biases," so that we can know what our "stroke biases" actually are, and then fix those.   

 

Then again, I am probably completely misinterpreting what you are saying🙄. 

 

[Dan Drake]

2 hours ago, DaveGoodrich said:

 

Just about as clear as mud😜.    

 

I agree totally with your #1.  You hear so many folks saying that they line up their putts from behind the ball, but then it "doesn't look right" when they get over the ball.  I just can't see how that feeling can ever lead to good putting.    

 

But I don't like the idea that the putter can (should?) actually be aimed somewhere other than where the ball needs to start, as compensation for our "natural aim & stroke biases."   I just seems to me that we should first fix our "aim biases," so that we can know what our "stroke biases" actually are, and then fix those.   

 

Then again, I am probably completely misinterpreting what you are saying🙄. 

 

It is a bit murky, I freely admit.  Perhaps what I'm describing can be best illustrated with an example.  

 

Tiger Woods is one of the best putters of all time, I think that fact is 100% concrete.  And while he has a (measured & verified) 1° rightward aim bias, I assure you that to him, his putter is aimed exactly where he wants to aim (where he wants the ball to start) which is my maxim #1 (I HIGHLY doubt that his putter is aimed 1° open, but I could be wrong).  He then makes the stroke he wants to make, and the putter returns to the ball square (1° closed to where he actually aimed it, but exactly where he thinks he aimed it) Maxim #2 - and launches the ball on his intended start line.  

 

This is why when he putts poorly, he always says something along the lines of "I couldn't get the toe through today" meaning he was making a stroke that he didn't like and the putter was coming through somewhere around 1° open.  This is an example of why you might not want the putter to actually be aimed where you think you are aimed and it comes from perhaps the best putter of all time.  Impact is what we are ultimately after, after all.  

 

Admittedly, I have been explaining this for a few years now and still do not have a simpler/cleaner way to explain it, so this repetition and typing it out is helpful for my teaching.  

Edited July 26 by Dan Drake

[DaveGoodrich]

On 7/26/2024 at 1:09 PM, Dan Drake said:

It is a bit murky, I freely admit.  Perhaps what I'm describing can be best illustrated with an example.  

 

Tiger Woods is one of the best putters of all time, I think that fact is 100% concrete.  And while he has a (measured & verified) 1° rightward aim bias, I assure you that to him, his putter is aimed exactly where he wants to aim (where he wants the ball to start) which is my maxim #1 (I HIGHLY doubt that his putter is aimed 1° open, but I could be wrong).  He then makes the stroke he wants to make, and the putter returns to the ball square (1° closed to where he actually aimed it, but exactly where he thinks he aimed it) Maxim #2 - and launches the ball on his intended start line.  

 

This is why when he putts poorly, he always says something along the lines of "I couldn't get the toe through today" meaning he was making a stroke that he didn't like and the putter was coming through somewhere around 1° open.  This is an example of why you might not want the putter to actually be aimed where you think you are aimed and it comes from perhaps the best putter of all time.  Impact is what we are ultimately after, after all.  

 

Admittedly, I have been explaining this for a few years now and still do not have a simpler/cleaner way to explain it, so this repetition and typing it out is helpful for my teaching.  

 

Thanks for providing this explanation.  I don't think we are really disagreeing.  Tiger's great putting may have a lot to do with him having such a small aim bias.   If we all started with only a 1° bias, then that might be something that we can reasonably expect to be able compensate for, and working to get that bias <1° would probably not be worth "the squeeze."   But I suspect many amateur golfers have much more than a 1° aim bias (1° is only a lip out on a 10' putt).  

 

All I was intending to say is that having significant aim bias will make trying to improve anything else about our putting much more difficult.  So doing what we can to reduce our aim bias (fitting and/or individual experimentation with some kind of objective data) would probably pay dividends.  The Edel article you posted seems like a good starting point for anyone who thinks they need to "fix" their aim.  Thanks,