Frank Thomas says "the benefits of anti-skid technology" are negligible for putters

[cbae]

Well said Extra Stiff...

Everytime I mention "MOI trick" I have to explain. Why do so many people get riled up when I say "MOI trick"?

Well, I didn't get riled up by your statement. I did get a good chuckle out of it though.

 

MOI does affect the dynamics of impact...never said it didn't. Ping invented higher MOI in 1959...it's just nothing new. The MOI Trick I am talking of is some companies attaching HIGH MOI to BIG HEADS with center of gravities low and away thru their marketing processes. Amateurs bought it too. You don't have to have something that looks like a old fashioned TV antennae or hubcap to get high MOI....and the CG doesn't have to be at the lowest fartherest (that a word?) point away from the face.

The MOI of a putter isn't necessarily dictated by the CG position. MOI is increased by moving as much mass as possible away from the axis of rotation. If you took a Ping Anser putter and increased the length from heel to toe, you'd increase the MOI without moving the CG farther back. What companies are doing now is thinking "outside the box" and using materials of different densities to strategically place mass in such a way to maximize MOI, thereby increasing the forgiveness on off-center hits. IMO, what spurred this explosion of creative putter designs is the relaxation of the "plain in shape" rule by the USGA. Before, nobody knew how large putter heads could be without it being deemed non-conforming on the basis of the "plain in shape" rule. The USGA finally set the limits for putter dimensions, and it turned out to be much larger than anybody expected. That is the reason why the Ping Doc17 is 17 cm from heel to toe. 17 cm is just under the maximum 7 inches allowed by the USGA.

 

When you're free from the shackles of a 1" x 1" x 5" block of steel, you can also extend the putter head from face to back--not to push the CG farther back, but to provide the foundation for better alignment mechanisms. Heads that are longer from face to back are simply easier to align. Do you really think the original motivation behind the 2-Ball putter was to create a putter with a deep CG and it just occurred to the design engineers that the head happened to be large enough to put two big white circles on top? Obviously not. The intent was to create a large enough head to allow for the placement of the 2 circles. It just so happens that increasing the length from face to back also increases the putter's MOI. Call it serendipity.

 

A byproduct of increasing the face-to-back dimension is a deeper CG. Some companies are touting the deep CG on a putter as a benefit, but I don't believe these claims are true. Nor do I believe that it's a detriment either. IMO, the position of the CG along the face-to-back axis simply doesn't matter all that much on a putter.

 

Again, Irons and woods have the CG low and away to help you get the ball airborne...why do you want the ball to go airborn on a putter?

You don't, but that's the reason putters have lofts of 0-4 degrees instead of 60-64 degrees.

 

My question to you though is why do you believe a CG position that's low and away helps to get the ball in the air whether it be on a putter or a wedge? Just because a company makes that claim doesn't mean it's true, right?

 

All I meant was alot of putters are being advertised under the "High MOI" banner that are just big ole heads without any documentation or results. Next time you play stand off to the side of someone putting a 15 footer and watch the ball get airborn with one of these things. You can see it with the naked eye.

Unless the dynamic loft of the putter increases more for large MOI putter heads than they do for smaller putter heads, there's no scientific basis for this claim. I HIGHLY doubt that the low impact force that a golf ball imparts onto the face of a putter head is nearly enough to cause any signficant deflection of the face about the heel-to-toe axis to increase the dynamic loft at impact. On off-center hits, the face may deflect about the shaft axis since that really is the only degree of freedom there is for the head rotate. That's the reason for increasing the MOI about the shaft axis--to reduce the likelihood rotation in this manner.

 

You obviously have a bias against putter companies that tout high MOI for forgiveness on off-center hits. Many of these companies are the same ones that say that their full-swing clubs with CGs that are low and away help to hit the ball with a higher trajectory. Why would you be skeptical of one claim and not the other?

 

By the by...this is one of the better discussion threads I have seen on Golfwrx. Thanks for putting up that article Frank.

[jscw]

If anyone wants to get a solid result, he or she can order two customerized putters. One with normal (metal) face and the other with the groove. These two putters are as identical as possible except the groove. (The CG are really not exactly the same because some little metal are removed for the groove.)

Then use robot to do the rolling experiment in the lab AND in the real green.

(My guess, in the real green, the difference is hard to be seen for shot putts. No idea about the long putts)

 

If the money is not a concern here, we can change the loft (still use two nearly identical putters, one w/o groove and one w/) and do the results again.

 

If the money is really not a concern, we can redo the whole thing by choosing different shapes of putters such that the CG is higher/lower than the before.

 

I would be very excited to see those results. For me, money is a concern, ;)

[great1putt]

Well, I didn't get riled up by your statement. I did get a good chuckle out of it though.

 

Then I think you took it out of context.

 

The MOI of a putter isn't necessarily dictated by the CG position. MOI is increased by moving as much mass as possible away from the axis of rotation. If you took a Ping Anser putter and increased the length from heel to toe, you'd increase the MOI without moving the CG farther back. What companies are doing now is thinking "outside the box" and using materials of different densities to strategically place mass in such a way to maximize MOI, thereby increasing the forgiveness on off-center hits. IMO, what spurred this explosion of creative putter designs is the relaxation of the "plain in shape" rule by the USGA. Before, nobody knew how large putter heads could be without it being deemed non-conforming on the basis of the "plain in shape" rule. The USGA finally set the limits for putter dimensions, and it turned out to be much larger than anybody expected. That is the reason why the Ping Doc17 is 17 cm from heel to toe. 17 cm is just under the maximum 7 inches allowed by the USGA.

 

When you're free from the shackles of a 1" x 1" x 5" block of steel, you can also extend the putter head from face to back--not to push the CG farther back, but to provide the foundation for better alignment mechanisms. Heads that are longer from face to back are simply easier to align. Do you really think the original motivation behind the 2-Ball putter was to create a putter with a deep CG and it just occurred to the design engineers that the head happened to be large enough to put two big white circles on top? Obviously not. The intent was to create a large enough head to allow for the placement of the 2 circles. It just so happens that increasing the length from face to back also increases the putter's MOI. Call it serendipity.

 

A byproduct of increasing the face-to-back dimension is a deeper CG. Some companies are touting the deep CG on a putter as a benefit, but I don't believe these claims are true. Nor do I believe that it's a detriment either. IMO, the position of the CG along the face-to-back axis simply doesn't matter all that much on a putter.

 

I am not disagreeing with you I just think that alot of the putter head designs are a disgusting display of Marketing instead of R & D and the public eat it up. By the way, a little practice on the carpet at home is all it takes to hit the center of the putter face...it is not like you are swinging it at 120 MPH clubhead speed like a driver. Does High MOI really matter unless you are pretty drastically off the sweet spot? How hard is it to hit the sweet spot on a putter face or at least get reasonably close?

 

You don't, but that's the reason putters have lofts of 0-4 degrees instead of 60-64 degrees.

 

My question to you though is why do you believe a CG position that's low and away helps to get the ball in the air whether it be on a putter or a wedge? Just because a company makes that claim doesn't mean it's true, right?

 

Agree again...but I stick by my claim as you can see with the naked eye with a human putting or a robot putting...the ball gets airborn off the face at impact. I have also seen laser camera tests done that show it getting airborn on a low and away CG...even at 0 and 1 degree.

 

Unless the dynamic loft of the putter increases more for large MOI putter heads than they do for smaller putter heads, there's no scientific basis for this claim. I HIGHLY doubt that the low impact force that a golf ball imparts onto the face of a putter head is nearly enough to cause any signficant deflection of the face about the heel-to-toe axis to increase the dynamic loft at impact. On off-center hits, the face may deflect about the shaft axis since that really is the only degree of freedom there is for the head rotate. That's the reason for increasing the MOI about the shaft axis--to reduce the likelihood rotation in this manner.

 

You obviously have a bias against putter companies that tout high MOI for forgiveness on off-center hits. Many of these companies are the same ones that say that their full-swing clubs with CGs that are low and away help to hit the ball with a higher trajectory. Why would you be skeptical of one claim and not the other?

 

No bias. Lot of good putters out there. I do have a problem with a company making a claim then not supporting it with test results when asked by a buyer or the U.S. magazines. Rough example: Callaway for years has used the slogan "Most Forgiving". Seen any data that suggests they are more forgiving than say the Hogan CFT which had the Ti face for a hugemongous sweet spot? Or more forgiving than something Ping makes that is widely acknowledged as having some pretty large sweet spots. Or the new Mizuno Mx900 with the hemi cog.

Look...all im saying is there more bull in golf advertising than almost any other business...except maybe used cars. Arguing with a sign post is not my thing. ;) Golfers get hooked on industry buzzwords that get generated by marketing whizzes not R & D guys and spend their hard earned cash for something that really is not going to do a thing for their game. I have seen standard putter deflection test results that show only a 2.37" off line deflection on a 15' putt when the ball is struck 1" off center on the heel or toe. There are a lot of putter companies running around screaming MOI MOI when their big putters can't touch that number. That's all. If golfers would work on their swings at the driving range or their putting stroke at the practice green (just a little), their games would improve more than buying a certain claim from an equipment company marketing guy. It is that simple. Too many golfers overthink and look for angles and write dissertations.

 

[shepdog]

Don't know any of the science behind putter technology (and no offense to any of you who do and enjoy discussing it), and do't care about it. All I know is that my distance control has improved dramatically since changing from my Anser to the Yes Callie. The roll is definitely better. Putts that I think are short seem to roll out a little farther with the Callie. I have dropped 3-4 strokes per round with the Callie. Don't know if it is the lower loft, grooves or heavier head weight (a combination of all of them I suppose), but something is working well for me with this putter.

[choeppner]

Thank god. A response I can understand and follow the reasoning. LOL ;)

 

-CHRIS-

[cbae]

Well, I didn't get riled up by your statement. I did get a good chuckle out of it though.

 

Then I think you took it out of context.

Not out of context at all. I got a chuckle because I think you're just as guilty of promoting your claims without proof as much as the OEMs are when promoting high MOI. At least with the concept of MOI, there is science to back it up. It's not so difficult to understand. MOI is the rotational analog of mass. We all know from personal experience of trying to lift and move things that "higher mass" = "more difficult to move linearly". It follows that "higher MOI" = "more difficult to rotate". Why is this a "trick"? Are you actually disputing this easy to understand concept in physics?

 

I am not disagreeing with you I just think that alot of the putter head designs are a disgusting display of Marketing instead of R & D and the public eat it up. By the way, a little practice on the carpet at home is all it takes to hit the center of the putter face...it is not like you are swinging it at 120 MPH clubhead speed like a driver. Does High MOI really matter unless you are pretty drastically off the sweet spot? How hard is it to hit the sweet spot on a putter face or at least get reasonably close?

I'll play Devil's advocate here and ask you how difficult is to strike the ball in such a way to prevent the ball from launching in the air? If you're claiming that a higher CG of your patented "top weighting" helps to get the ball rolling, why can't you just hit the ball higher up on the face to get the same effect? Is that so hard to practice on the carpet at home?

 

While we're on the subject of marketing and "top weighting", can you explain a little bit about what that means? Are you saying your designs have a higher CG than other putters? If so, that must mean your Havana model has tungsten inserts along the topline, and that the flange is made of carbon fiber. Based on simple geometry, the CG on the Havana model can be no higher than the tops of the rear bumpers. Depending on the thickness of the rear flange, which runs along the sole, the CG might actually be well below the tops of the bumpers. I would guess that the vertical CG position on that model is between 1-2 mm below the midpoint between sole and top. If this is considered "top weighting" how low do you suspect the CG is on other putters?

 

Agree again...but I stick by my claim as you can see with the naked eye with a human putting or a robot putting...the ball gets airborn off the face at impact. I have also seen laser camera tests done that show it getting airborn on a low and away CG...even at 0 and 1 degree.

I don't disagree that you can make the ball get airborne by striking the ball in a particular way. Are you claiming that it doesn't ever happen with a putter with a CG that's high and closer to the face? Based on my experience, I've seen people launch the ball with blades just as much as with mallets. I see no evidence of a pattern based on head types or grooves or no grooves on the face. As it's usually the case with any negative result, I reckon it has more to do with (poor) technique than anything else.

 

No bias. Lot of good putters out there. I do have a problem with a company making a claim then not supporting it with test results when asked by a buyer or the U.S. magazines. Rough example: Callaway for years has used the slogan "Most Forgiving". Seen any data that suggests they are more forgiving than say the Hogan CFT which had the Ti face for a hugemongous sweet spot? Or more forgiving than something Ping makes that is widely acknowledged as having some pretty large sweet spots. Or the new Mizuno Mx900 with the hemi cog.

All companies make claims--not just Callaway. Any company can rig a test to make their equipment look the best or focus on the few characteristics in which theirs came out near the top. I would be willing to bet that Ben Hogan, Ping, and Mizuno do this just as much as Callaway. BTW, Callaway owns Ben Hogan so whatever claims that they make in comparing Callaway with Hogan equipment really doesn't matter.

 

Look...all im saying is there more bull in golf advertising than almost any other business...except maybe used cars. Arguing with a sign post is not my thing. ;) Golfers get hooked on industry buzzwords that get generated by marketing whizzes not R & D guys and spend their hard earned cash for something that really is not going to do a thing for their game.

No disagreement here about this. Even when the marketing angle is based on true scientific concepts, the claims can be exagerrated. One of the examples that come to mind is the "micro cavity" feature of Cleveland TA7 irons. Sure, if you remove material from the top of the head, you'll move the CG lower. However, if you used any kind of common sense, you'd know that by removing the miniscule amount of metal to create the "micro cavities", you'd be moving the CG lower by an insignificant amount.

 

Even if the claims are exaggerated, most of golf equipment marketing requires acceptance of other claims as fact. Going back to the Cleveland TA7 example, they claim that the micro cavities move the CG lower. Fine. For the sake of argument, let's say that it does. Now, why does a lower CG help to launch the ball higher? Nobody really asks why. It's just accepted as true.

 

I have seen standard putter deflection test results that show only a 2.37" off line deflection on a 15' putt when the ball is struck 1" off center on the heel or toe. There are a lot of putter companies running around screaming MOI MOI when their big putters can't touch that number.

What kind of standard putter are you talking about? In your opinion, what characteristics does this standard putter have that high MOI heads lack that prevented the head from twisting and caused the ball to roll only 2.37" off line? Also, what does this 2.37" represent? Is that best result or the average of all results?

 

That's all. If golfers would work on their swings at the driving range or their putting stroke at the practice green (just a little), their games would improve more than buying a certain claim from an equipment company marketing guy. It is that simple. Too many golfers overthink and look for angles and write dissertations.

If you believe this, why are you in the business of making putters? Don't you also make claims about your putters? Can't people just practice to overcome any deficiency that you claim your putters can help overcome?

[DB MACHINE]

Cbae: Were you the captain of your debate team?! :crazy:

 

Seriously, I do appreciate all your previous questions to me, and the others. I do not have the time at the present to go back over each, one by one. (unfortunately for you, and me, but probably fortunate for anyone else brave enough to wade through all the quotes and counter quotes, ad nauseam).

 

Please permit me to point out a few facts:

 

We are still learning more and more every day about the dynamics of club on ball. Just ask the USGA and R&A, who are in the midst of a multi-year, multi-million dollar research project on clubs and spin.

 

To one of your earlier questions: the CG location of the club, in relation to the CG of the ball, absolutely effects ball flight (launch) and spin. The off-set of the two causes the applied force to act as torque. And in fact, an increased coefficient of friction magnifies this effect. You might consider the asymmetrical deflection of the ball during compression...

 

I cannot really argue, or get into too much more detail on this, as we have pending IP covering my related discoveries and inventions. If and when the patents (or their applications) are published, you can question and critique as you please (one of the great aspects of our patent system is that we gain protection for our new inventions, but in return must explain, and eventually make available our discoveries to everyone).

 

Another truism on new inventions and patents: the inventions usually go counter to, or at least are novel from all previous art. That is, the invention was not obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art, even when combining teachings from multiple sources.

 

Now, back to the studio for me. I promised photos of some of my newest putters, and need to apply a very liberal amount of old fashioned, low tech elbow grease to several prototypes before they are ready for unveiling!

 

All the best,

 

*XS*

[cbae]

To one of your earlier questions: the CG location of the club, in relation to the CG of the ball, absolutely effects ball flight (launch) and spin. The off-set of the two causes the applied force to act as torque.

Yes! That's right. But the application of the torque is to the CLUBHEAD in reaction to the impact with the ball. This torque realized by a full-swing clubhead, as I mentioned earlier, may cause the face to deflect slightly to increase the dynamic loft of the face, thereby causing the ball to launch at a higher trajectory. However, in this scenario, there is no direct relationship between the CG of the clubhead and ball dynamics. If the force of impact were not enough to apply enough torque to the head and cause the loft of the face to change dynamically, the CG position of the head would be irrelevant.

 

I believe that that is the case with putting. The low impact force of a putt is not enough to make the head deflect in this manner. It may be enough to cause it to twist around the shaft axis since that is the only degree of freedom there is, but the force is not enough to deflect about the heel-to-toe axis. And it follows that in putting, the CG position has no effect on the "launch angle" of the ball. With all things being equal, only the static loft of the face matters.

 

And in fact, an increased coefficient of friction magnifies this effect. You might consider the asymmetrical deflection of the ball during compression...

I think this is really where we're at odds. You say it "magnifies", and I say it "may increase the effect but not signficantly". Let me ask you this though. If the grooves on the face were to provide enough increase in the coefficient of friction to cause the ball to rotate, wouldn't that mean that groove-faced putter could cause more backspin than a regular milled-faced putter if the ball were accidentally struck with a descending blow? IOW, it only really helps you if you hit the ball correctly and would exacerbate the problem if you don't. Would you agree with that assessment?

[choeppner]

Here we go again. Can we please keep our words to like 5 letters or less so I can keep up. In all honesty though. I am liking this debate. LOL

 

-CHRIS-

[DB MACHINE]

Cbae: which has greater mass, gravity and energy, the clubhead, or the ball? Do you not believe that the ball torques as well? Or rather, to an even greater degree? That torque is seen as spin.

 

To answer your question on descending blow: Yes, a putter can be made to behave similar to an iron, or even a driver. I have recorded a wide spectrum of launch conditions, as previously noted, from high to low launch, and from backspin to forward rotation.

 

I imagine a few other brave and / or crazy WRX'rs have even driven the ball with a putter, or at least seen it done. And of course, down here in Texas, we have the Texas Wedge! (we even have a golf club called the Tribute where you can try to duplicate Rocca's incredible putt on 18 at St Andrews to put him in a playoff with Daly), if you want. I happened to hook my drive to near the same spot, though a 100' + putt from off the green doesn't seem very makable, much less in 2 or 3, when standing over it. Much less to try to tie the final score in the Open! WOW!

 

Its a great game isn't it? Here's to continuing to explore, and learn, and also to appreciate all the complexities and beauties of the game! :drinks:

 

*XS*

[choeppner]

I've teed off with a putter before LOL. I think I fall into the Crazy Catagory though. LOL Didn't see much backspin, but it did roll a pretty god ways and the head went a good distance as well. Dang I miss that Ping. LOL

;)

 

-CHRIS-

[joesgonegolfing]

When I custom ordered a YES Forged Callie a couple of months ago I requested 4 degrees of loft. The production manager called me back and said that the loft request was counterproductive to how a YES putter works.

 

He said the grooves lift the ball and needed to based on the low "actual loft" of the putters. At 2 or 3 degrees if you added loft the ball would actually hop up too much with the groove technology. He went on to add that on very fast greens the YES putters really perform well if the loft is between 1 and 2 degrees, BUT that would be tough to market.

 

I ordered the putter to the specs he suggested and kept it a week. It just seemed harsher than my Ping Anser Specify that I have had for 3 or 4 years.

 

I am not sure that the groove technology is really worthwhile and I don't know if the grooves on other OEMS work the same way.

 

I am pretty sure if I just hit the ball closer to the hole to begin with I'd be better off!

 

Joe

[cbae]

Cbae: which has greater mass, gravity and energy, the clubhead, or the ball? Do you not believe that the ball torques as well? Or rather, to an even greater degree? That torque is seen as spin.

The way the ball reacts is a function of its own CG position with respect to the point of impact and the direction of the applied force. If the force vector doesn't go through the CG, there will be torque and the ball will spin. But, as I maintained all along, the CG position of the clubhead has no bearing on this. The only way CG of the clubhead can affect trajectory is if impact deflects the face while the ball is still compressed. Then the dynamic loft of the clubhead will change the direction of the force vector. FWIW, I think we're very close to agreeing on something. ;)

[choeppner]

Thank God. LOL They are close to an Agreement ;) That means its nap time for sure. LOL

 

-CHRIS-

[cbae]

Thank God. LOL They are close to an Agreement ;) That means its nap time for sure. LOL

 

-CHRIS-

I said agreement on SOMETHING--not everything. :crazy:

[choeppner]

Good point. Well. Since it's Friday night ;) :crazy: :D

 

-CHRIS-

[great1putt]

Well, I didn't get riled up by your statement. I did get a good chuckle out of it though.

 

Then I think you took it out of context.

Not out of context at all. I got a chuckle because I think you're just as guilty of promoting your claims without proof as much as the OEMs are when promoting high MOI. At least with the concept of MOI, there is science to back it up. It's not so difficult to understand. MOI is the rotational analog of mass. We all know from personal experience of trying to lift and move things that "higher mass" = "more difficult to move linearly". It follows that "higher MOI" = "more difficult to rotate". Why is this a "trick"? Are you actually disputing this easy to understand concept in physics?

 

I am not disagreeing with you I just think that alot of the putter head designs are a disgusting display of Marketing instead of R & D and the public eat it up. By the way, a little practice on the carpet at home is all it takes to hit the center of the putter face...it is not like you are swinging it at 120 MPH clubhead speed like a driver. Does High MOI really matter unless you are pretty drastically off the sweet spot? How hard is it to hit the sweet spot on a putter face or at least get reasonably close?

I'll play Devil's advocate here and ask you how difficult is to strike the ball in such a way to prevent the ball from launching in the air? If you're claiming that a higher CG of your patented "top weighting" helps to get the ball rolling, why can't you just hit the ball higher up on the face to get the same effect? Is that so hard to practice on the carpet at home?

 

While we're on the subject of marketing and "top weighting", can you explain a little bit about what that means? Are you saying your designs have a higher CG than other putters? If so, that must mean your Havana model has tungsten inserts along the topline, and that the flange is made of carbon fiber. Based on simple geometry, the CG on the Havana model can be no higher than the tops of the rear bumpers. Depending on the thickness of the rear flange, which runs along the sole, the CG might actually be well below the tops of the bumpers. I would guess that the vertical CG position on that model is between 1-2 mm below the midpoint between sole and top. If this is considered "top weighting" how low do you suspect the CG is on other putters?

 

Agree again...but I stick by my claim as you can see with the naked eye with a human putting or a robot putting...the ball gets airborn off the face at impact. I have also seen laser camera tests done that show it getting airborn on a low and away CG...even at 0 and 1 degree.

I don't disagree that you can make the ball get airborne by striking the ball in a particular way. Are you claiming that it doesn't ever happen with a putter with a CG that's high and closer to the face? Based on my experience, I've seen people launch the ball with blades just as much as with mallets. I see no evidence of a pattern based on head types or grooves or no grooves on the face. As it's usually the case with any negative result, I reckon it has more to do with (poor) technique than anything else.

 

No bias. Lot of good putters out there. I do have a problem with a company making a claim then not supporting it with test results when asked by a buyer or the U.S. magazines. Rough example: Callaway for years has used the slogan "Most Forgiving". Seen any data that suggests they are more forgiving than say the Hogan CFT which had the Ti face for a hugemongous sweet spot? Or more forgiving than something Ping makes that is widely acknowledged as having some pretty large sweet spots. Or the new Mizuno Mx900 with the hemi cog.

All companies make claims--not just Callaway. Any company can rig a test to make their equipment look the best or focus on the few characteristics in which theirs came out near the top. I would be willing to bet that Ben Hogan, Ping, and Mizuno do this just as much as Callaway. BTW, Callaway owns Ben Hogan so whatever claims that they make in comparing Callaway with Hogan equipment really doesn't matter.

 

Look...all im saying is there more bull in golf advertising than almost any other business...except maybe used cars. Arguing with a sign post is not my thing. ;) Golfers get hooked on industry buzzwords that get generated by marketing whizzes not R & D guys and spend their hard earned cash for something that really is not going to do a thing for their game.

No disagreement here about this. Even when the marketing angle is based on true scientific concepts, the claims can be exagerrated. One of the examples that come to mind is the "micro cavity" feature of Cleveland TA7 irons. Sure, if you remove material from the top of the head, you'll move the CG lower. However, if you used any kind of common sense, you'd know that by removing the miniscule amount of metal to create the "micro cavities", you'd be moving the CG lower by an insignificant amount.

 

Even if the claims are exaggerated, most of golf equipment marketing requires acceptance of other claims as fact. Going back to the Cleveland TA7 example, they claim that the micro cavities move the CG lower. Fine. For the sake of argument, let's say that it does. Now, why does a lower CG help to launch the ball higher? Nobody really asks why. It's just accepted as true.

 

I have seen standard putter deflection test results that show only a 2.37" off line deflection on a 15' putt when the ball is struck 1" off center on the heel or toe. There are a lot of putter companies running around screaming MOI MOI when their big putters can't touch that number.

What kind of standard putter are you talking about? In your opinion, what characteristics does this standard putter have that high MOI heads lack that prevented the head from twisting and caused the ball to roll only 2.37" off line? Also, what does this 2.37" represent? Is that best result or the average of all results?

 

That's all. If golfers would work on their swings at the driving range or their putting stroke at the practice green (just a little), their games would improve more than buying a certain claim from an equipment company marketing guy. It is that simple. Too many golfers overthink and look for angles and write dissertations.

If you believe this, why are you in the business of making putters? Don't you also make claims about your putters? Can't people just practice to overcome any deficiency that you claim your putters can help overcome?

 

Uh dude...I just work for a putter maker and cover the shop some...I'm not a putter maker. The guy I work for makes great putters. Who are you and how do you know Dave? I do know they have been tested by independent groups and show these numbers I assume on an average basis not a best performance basis. I've seen test results for Daves Havana and Boston B and camera shots. Some of us guys go on line down at the shop and see what is going on. You know mate, you are very edgy...I think if someone said "that is white" you would say "nah...it's black" irregardless of if it was white or black.

[cbae]

Uh dude...I just work for a putter maker and cover the shop some...I'm not a putter maker. The guy I work for makes great putters. Who are you and how do you know Dave? I do know they have been tested by independent groups and show these numbers I assume on an average basis not a best performance basis. I've seen test results for Daves Havana and Boston B and camera shots. Some of us guys go on line down at the shop and see what is going on. You know mate, you are very edgy...I think if someone said "that is white" you would say "nah...it's black" irregardless of if it was white or black.

 

Who says that I know Dave? All I know is that somebody in an anonymous messageboard with the username "great1putt" is posting this:

 

Heck...there are gimmicks and there are gimmicks...just go find one of my Havana or Boston C models. Independent tests have shown less deflection on off center hits and best over spin.

 

THANK YOU Sergizmo for agreeing with my 1999 / 2004 patent for higher CG in traditional putters. I have been elevating the CG for years now...although not always to the very top which is where Aserta made their mistake plus their balance was very bad. You want to gently raise the CG which is what I have done since leaving Tad in 1999. Over 40 Tour pros later and several wins and it is still working and feeling good to the good players. I am still waiting for the big companies to try to push higher CG. They will have to watch their step on their designs though as i have utility patents. ;)

 

BTW, if you're not Dave, why does your signature read?

 

Dave

Driver: Ping G2 10.5 UST V2 X-Stiff 44"

FW: Sonartec SS03 19*S / Sonartec SS03 13*S

Irons: Tad Moore Skyrider 3-PW Nippon graphite stiff

Wedges: Tad Moore Peach Staff 53 / 57

Prototype 60 Lob Raw

Putter: Big Oak Putters Havana or Boston B UST shaft Burnt finish

 

BTW, let's dispense with the ad hominem attacks, shall we? I don't argue about what's black or white. I do argue about what's brown and piled high and deep and what isn't.

[choeppner]

I think somebody was just busted. LOL. Also, on your profile your homepage is:

 

http://www.bigoakputters.com

 

Your screen name on here is great1putt

 

Contact e-mail for big oaks putters is [email protected]

 

Back to watching the HSBC now. LOL

 

-CHRIS-

[Z-Man]

So he was claiming not to be Dave Curry but Dave that works for Big Oak putters who Dave is the designer ,putter guru ect. I like Dave have always laughed when he sent me emails and I think he makes a great stick...If that is not him I guess Dave the shop guy knows his product very well. Now who is this cbae guy?

Later,Steve

[codylowrygolf]

Uh dude...I just work for a putter maker and cover the shop some...I'm not a putter maker. The guy I work for makes great putters. Who are you and how do you know Dave? I do know they have been tested by independent groups and show these numbers I assume on an average basis not a best performance basis. I've seen test results for Daves Havana and Boston B and camera shots. Some of us guys go on line down at the shop and see what is going on. You know mate, you are very edgy...I think if someone said "that is white" you would say "nah...it's black" irregardless of if it was white or black.

 

Who says that I know Dave? All I know is that somebody in an anonymous messageboard with the username "great1putt" is posting this:

 

Heck...there are gimmicks and there are gimmicks...just go find one of my Havana or Boston C models. Independent tests have shown less deflection on off center hits and best over spin.

 

THANK YOU Sergizmo for agreeing with my 1999 / 2004 patent for higher CG in traditional putters. I have been elevating the CG for years now...although not always to the very top which is where Aserta made their mistake plus their balance was very bad. You want to gently raise the CG which is what I have done since leaving Tad in 1999. Over 40 Tour pros later and several wins and it is still working and feeling good to the good players. I am still waiting for the big companies to try to push higher CG. They will have to watch their step on their designs though as i have utility patents. ;)

 

BTW, if you're not Dave, why does your signature read?

 

Dave

Driver: Ping G2 10.5 UST V2 X-Stiff 44"

FW: Sonartec SS03 19*S / Sonartec SS03 13*S

Irons: Tad Moore Skyrider 3-PW Nippon graphite stiff

Wedges: Tad Moore Peach Staff 53 / 57

Prototype 60 Lob Raw

Putter: Big Oak Putters Havana or Boston B UST shaft Burnt finish

 

BTW, let's dispense with the ad hominem attacks, shall we? I don't argue about what's black or white. I do argue about what's brown and piled high and deep and what isn't.

 

I know Dave casually from being a golfer in Tallahasse and he has helped me out with different putting issues... Great guy. I also know he does go on this site. I am assuming that Dave is letting this kid/guy whoever to use his name while he is at the shop. But I will let him defend himself.

 

Next-

I like the grooves. I have putted well since putting with a yes! putter (various models for almost 2 years). I have worked with the Tour Rep for Yes and used a high speed camera and all that jazz. I can see the ball rolling sooner and to me that makes sense as far as helping with ones putting. I mean we have all heard get the ball rolling as soon as possible. This is ver minimal i know, but who really cares. The way I see it is if it gets into your hands and it works.... it works. Putting is so personal. If you dont love your putter your doomed from the beginning. Wether it has grooves or not is secondary. I think it works... But I also putt well with it. So its really up to the person.

[great1putt]

First off, my apologies to you guys and others out there. When I started checking replies to my posts this morning I saw this stuff and thought...aw, geesh. Some of my compatriots zealousness to keep the brand name out there on assorted blogs gets out of whack sometimes.

I did post earlier on this thread, the last, I think, being the 11th to Sergizmo or else the This or That thread. My PC has always been used in the office by several over the last couple years for shipping, billing, websurfing, etc. I have taken care of that issue in house.

When I speak of my higher CG, and most of my guys know the numbers, I base off the testing that an independent company has done for me. I don't get into tech talk much on blogs as alot of golfers have told me they don't like confusion. They normally just tell me if it looks good and rolls the ball like they want to play it. I am always open to golfers giving me feedback and their data on what they have found. By the way, I am with choeppner. If it is over 5 letter words you've lost me. :-)

Cbae, you seem pretty knowledgable from what I am catching up with on the thread. If not in the business why don't you get in the business? If already in the business...you want a job? LOL

Lastly in reading the last posts from Z-man and Cody...I am not a putter guru. I am just a small putter maker who likes to think I have outstanding quality and a darn good roll and feel on the ball. Thanks for the back.

[choeppner]

Glad we got some of that cleared up. Thanks for the explanation. Was confused as heck for awhile there.LOL

 

-CHRIS-

[cavemeister]

Yes! putters work. Frank Thomas is an idiot. Half the guys on these websites know more than him. He just has a name and publicity, and gets paid $$$$ to pontificate.

[HeadonaStick]

Wow... blast from the past!

[progolf4life]

So a dead thread comes alive...well someone should tell Tiger that he could putt better by switching to a grooved face putter instead of using his SS Cameron :russian_roulette:

[bgash11]

Sorry to get this started back up, but I think it is interesting. This thread "ended" more than 2 years ago, and with the HUGE hit of the TM Spider, it brings back the question if grooves give a better roll

 

I have another question also: assuming grooved putters give the ball a better roll (maybe true maybe not), does that help the ball get in the hole? Obviously many Tour players are under contract, but wouldn't you think the ones that aren't would all be putting with a grooved putter if it made that much of a difference?