I am posting this with the hope of influencing future products as well as to inform our community.  There is a deceptive marketing practice out there that seems to be swaying some of my friends.

First, I think it would be good to bear in mind the evolution of putter head designs.  Generally, here is how putters have evolved:

• Heal shafted
• Center shafted (with a period of banishment)
• Heal/toe weighted (e.g., Ping Anser)
• Mallets
• Face-balanced mallets
• Zero torque

Every putter is a trade-off between reducing torque (pre-stroke forgiveness) and increasing MOI (strike forgiveness). Over the course of this history the industry evolved from high torque to high MOI.  We went from light, heal shafted putters to heavy mallets, trading one problem for another problem.  The “perfect” putter has seemed illusive.

I believe there is no panacea.  This is because the “best” for any individual should be a balance between these two competing issues — reducing torque while trying to increase MOI — ease of making a good stroke versus forgiveness on an off-center strike.

I think it is important to note that the face-balanced mallets have become increasingly heavy (to increase MOI), which I can speculate has led to players embracing some of these new “zero torque” designs.  They are looking for a high MOI putter that is easier to control.  What they may not realize is that physics would suggest “control” comes at the expense of “forgiveness.”

Indeed some of the older center-shafted designs are functionally identical to modern blade-like zero torque designs.  The physics has not changed.  “Zero torque” was in fact the first advancement via the center-shafted putter.  LAB has recently tried to take this evolution a bit further by blending the mallet back into the zero torque idea.

A friend of mine, knowing that I am an engineer, asked that I comment on LAB’s technology.  (I had never heard of it before.) He forwarded a link to a video where LAB demonstrates zero torque in its “Revealer,” which is a device to allow the club to rotate freely on the axis of the shaft during a “stroke.”  Their putters showed zero torque while all others rotated with torque.  First thought:  That’s impressive.  Why did it take this long for putters to evolve to this?

So I considered the club based on physics, not any actual playing experience (which can be subjective, i.e., contain a placebo effect).  One is likely to play better with something that is believed to be “better.”

I could quickly see that all they had done was to center the axis of the shaft through the center of gravity of the head.  That’s the only way to achieve zero torque in any direction.  Then I found a thread on GOLFWRX that went into this rather deeply, including the notion of “grip torque.”  It was excellent, but to me, not sufficiently critical.  The player would always experience grip torque that is relative to the center of gravity of the club.

Lab use an off-center grip so that it aligns closer to the point of contact with the ball, like most putters.  This is the key issue.  They mention that this helps prevent a descending blow to the ball, but there is much more to it …

The truth is that LAB’s putters should be no better than any other face-balanced design with the same characteristics.  If it were possible to align their Revealer device through the center of the grip instead of the shaft, then their putters would rotate open just like any other face-balanced mallet.  In fact the torque would be worse, because the weight of the shaft is now also off-center to the axis of the grip and the hands of the player.

What LAB is doing, I believe, is deceptive.  With their marketing “Revealer” gadget LAB is able to create the illusion of zero torque.  The consumer sees a very high MOI design that, with the Revealer, “magically” removes the torque that leads to loss of control.  The company can thus charge a premium — hundreds of dollars above market — for a putter that is theoretically no better than a face-balanced mallet.

I don’t know what The Golfworks has in mind for future designs, but let me dissuade you beforehand from moving towards the LAB design.  I believe LAB’s “improvement” over the Axis 1 design, that of moving the center of gravity rearward per that of a mallet, is a gimmick.

The Axis 1 design, to me, is not a gimmick.  The grip is standard and the shaft goes through the point of contact with the ball.  They use carbon to create the appearance of a mallet, but in reality the weight is forward.  It won’t be as forgiving on off-center strikes, but “zero torque” might enable a player to make a better stroke and hit the center more often.  Justin Rose is a major proponent and helps drive Axis 1 designs.  I think he is spot-on.

In the meantime I am personally playing a compromise — a face-balanced mallet that is relatively light compared to modern designs.  I find it easier to control.  I putt better with it.  Now I understand why.

If The Golfworks introduces a zero torque design in the future I would encourage something closer to the Axis 1 design rather than the LAB design.  No gimmicks please.