| Original Message |
sammy (no login)
Posted Mar 1, 2009 1:31 AM
Dear Geoff .... Comments seriatim:
1. a nice putter head weight that works well with the golfer's body in the mass of the arms and hands, the strength, the sensitivity, the stroke timing pattern, and the type of green surfaces usually played.
Okay, Geoff ... what's "in the bag" ... everybody wants to know what yer 10 favorite putters are for yer personal use. Spill the beans and list them for us ... the putters you hold near and dear to yer heart.
2. a decent MOI that does not require too deep a recessing of the putter's center of gravity.
Ahhh, MOI ... Magic Of Inertia ... the more the better according to the ads. Would you agree that the overall weight of the putter should be adjusted for golfer's height, stance, stroke radius and putter shaft lengths so that the pendular MOI from the body's rotative axis to the putter head center of mass are relatively equivalent? This means the mr^2 for a 32 inch and 35 inch putter are the same. There is a 20% difference(if you use a wrist pivot stroke) in the r^2 between 32 and 35 inches so that a 300 gm. putter head on a 35 inch shaft is equivalent to a 360 gm., 32 inch putter. Of course you will recognize that such a relationship is counter to the location of the putter's overall Center of Percussion positions ... with the longer shafted putter suffering a CoP more removed from the putter face sweet spot ... snookered again by physics..!!!
As for the MOI around the putter head center of mass ... well that assumes you are unable to hit the ball on the sweet spot and you expect that MOI will rescue your cockeyed stroking. Not a good putting strategy.
3. loft that does not launch the ball more than slightly off the ground for the greens usually played.
I think you mentioned a loft range of 0 - 2 degrees as acceptable. Is the average golfer consistent enough to deliver the putter head loft to the ball, or does it vary because the hand-putter handle position varies too much? If you think about it, a ball located in the geometric center of the stance will be struck at 0 degrees with a 0 degree lofted putter. If the ball is moved forward by say one inch it will be caught on the upstroke with an effective loft of one degree (because the swing radius is so large 1"=1º .. 2"=2º approximately trigonometrically). Can anybody putt within such tolerances ... or are we all within say +/-3 degrees making putter loft at impact somewhat problematic..??!!!
4. / 5. / 6. / 7. Anatomical and positional factors.
8. a hoseling pattern that does not create confusion in the sense of the end of the stick that is being swung online thru the center of the ball.
What kind of confusing hosel patterns are you referring to ... one bend .. two bends .. offsets .. certainly not a straight shaft directly into the putter head itself ?
9. a heel-toe weighting scheme and shaft hoseling that does not promote the toe swinging open and closed in the stroke above what the golfer by the body action causes to eliminate or at least reduce the added opening-closing action of the putter from the off-balanced mass in the heel or toe (usually the toe).
Are you advocating a so-called "face-balanced" putter design where the shaft axis and hanging gravitational axis are coincident? I believe you have a preference for a heel-bias weighted putter which pulls the putter heel down at address thus forcing the putter face to align perpendicular to the putting line. Of course you realize that the face-balanced putter should align similarly if it is positioned in this manner.
As for a toe-weighted putter head opening and closing capriciously because the golfer is not controlling the putter head with enough grip pressure ... well that is a bogus argument against the heel-shafted 8802 style putter. Golfers who attempt to use a true blade putter and claim they cannot control it are yielding to the putter head ... the tail wagging the dog. Golfers who cannot putt straight back and through, and must stroke on a sweeping arc, may be anatomically compromised and unable to articulate their arms and upper body properly .. and to blame it on the tiny putter head .. no ..!!!
10. a sole "footprint" of the putter that promotes the golfer orienting to the very bottom of the stroke as the putter swings forward down to and thru and up away from the bottom of the stroke, with a very simple and clean stroke thru the bottom, without too little a sole and without too large a footprint as to cause attention of concern to whether the putter will swing on its natural down-up arcing without conflict with the flat surface of the green.
The putter designs I can think of that admirably meet this "footprint" criterion is a plain and simple putter like the Titleist Bullseye design ... where the sole is quite narrow and the shaft is directly mounted into the body of the putter. Another putter is the Spalding T.P. Mills models such as the T.P.M. 6.. I own and still use these old 1900s designed putters ... and when I go to the big box golf stores to test them against the new mallet-monstrosities ... well, I laugh.
Geoff ... why do all these golf-ing suckers fall for the latest, newest, "scientifically-improved" rube goldberg putters that are more like sculptures machined to incredible tolerances, and reject plain old efficient ball poking tools .. do they really think they will be able to avoid, bypass, eliminate, learning and practicing as is promised to them annually with the new designs .... sheesh ....???!!!!
|
|
|