Today’s question KaqmygolfSpy comes from Twitter (still don’t call it X) Follower David G., who asks:
“Do you feel with other manufacturers copying the Lab Golf Putter Designs is an acceptance that technology is the best in the classroom? Will we all play rotary zero-Çift in the years?”
Photo this: You are sitting in the golf equipment fight room around 2015 and someone shows you a putter that seems to be escaped from a satellite dish factory. They tell you with a righteous face that this unjust opposition will revolutionize setting.
You will probably laugh them from the room.
Soon to 2025 and the same strange paletter has created an entire industry revolution. The phenomenon of zero torque feels a little like a long mile fuse leading to a dynamon tanker full of long and slow burning to get here, but an absolute explosion in the market, as we have gone by only one or two brands that almost no one knew to offer zero(ex)-Torque putters in full market penetration.
Almost every main brand now offers a zero torque option and I can say for sure they are more on the road.
If you do not make a torque coercive, are you even trying, brother?
I have written about golf equipment for 15 years and I cannot remember any tendency of equipment that has been removed to this extreme scale. Probablyet probably similar to what writers (and players) experienced while switching from steel, steel to Titan or ballata balls in modern rigid -based buildings.
It has been a wild trip and is not slowing down.
Copying Validity Theory
Golf has always been a copy industry and, with few exceptions, imitation is the authentication. It is inviolable that the laboratory has been copied. I mean, Odyssey AI-one square 2 square max It has to do with so free a first-generation knack-off as you will find.
To be clear, I use the “first generation” here because I believe others will start similar forms. While I am not sure that wholesale repetition is the type of strategy in which a category leader should be included, I think he can argue that there is a courageous module to be the first Copy DF2.1.
It is not given, but I would not be surprised less if the shape of the signature lab becomes one of those models all qualified as anser, fang and spider.
None of these should suggest that the lab was the first company to bring something similar to a zero torque. I wouldn’t even suggest that it is an uncontrollable test that the lab is best in the classroom. But while the company that took over the flow of big heads and succeeded in the tournament, it is certainly positioned as it imitates (I am diplomatic) and overcome.
Following the money, not necessarily science
While there is a lot of anecdotal evidence (and some data-supported development research) to suggest that Putters-Torque zero may be useful, the emergence of numerous competitors does not prove the efficiency of zero paw technology so much, as it admits that players are buying them.
To varying degrees, manufacturers may or may not believe in benefits, but you can bet they believe there is an opportunity to make money.
Welcome to the Golf Business side.
The approach of the “Lie Lie Balance” of the Labs differs radically from the traditional methods of putting the putter (and other approaches of torque). Where conventional wisdom adapts to putters based on the type of shock, laboratories are “balanced in a way that they make them sit on the axis where their biased position is towards the target and it stands throughout the shock.”
The promise is simple elegant: let Putter do the job so that you do not need.
Control of reality
As for the second part of your question … no. We will not all play zero -zero landmakers.
I’ve talked about this several times before, but it’s applicable here. A few years ago, a tall industry friend provided his wisdom in the realities of new equipment.
I am a little paraphrase, but the essence is that for every golf player, about what you have in the bag now, the performance of any part of the new equipment will either be better, worse or the same.
Some players will move in a zero chains and will be placed better than ever. Others will settle worse. Some will not see any change and there will be a large group that is satisfied with conventional blades and Mallete and can never feel the need to try one.
Zero torque represents evolution In placement, no revolution. It is an approach that extends your options rather than replacing everything that came before.
Ultimately
Spreading zero torque patterns does not necessarily prove Laboratory technology as “best in the classroom” but it proves market opportunity. When PXG (Allen), Odyssey (2 square square), Bettinard (antidot), Taylormade (Spider ZT) and others begin to cost R&D resources to follow your concept, you have clearly hit a chord.
The real question is not whether zero torque is objectively better; It’S’S if it’s better for you. And the only way to answer this question is in the same way CEO of Sam Hahn’s lab with his discoverer camera: Try and see.
Just don’t be surprised if what you see changes everything you thought you knew how to decide.
Or absolutely nothing at all.
The beauty of the evolution of golf equipment is that it gives us more ways to follow that perfect perfect round. Putters-torque zero are a new (or new for many) tool in an ever-expanding arsenal of hope, frustration and the moment of the pure happiness of placement.
If we all play them in the coming years depends less on the technology itself and more if the players continue to buy them.
What do you think?
Have you tried a Putter-Torque zero? Do you think the new trend is the future of deployment? Discard a comment below.
Do you have a question of yours?
E -mail us to ask@mygolfsky.com and we can simply respond to a next part.
office Is zero torque the future of placement? first appeared in MygolfSSS.
