Belly Putters

Guys I know this has probably been done in some other post's, and even in the 'spirit of the game' thread. I've not tried either a broom handle or belly putter, but get the feeling that the belly putter gives an unfair advantage. All of our clubs are used in one particular way; away from the body and anchored via 2 points (Hands) When putting with a normal putter the same principle apply's, and each player will have own his putting action, which is down to the way you grip the club or move your shoulders/arms. The belly putter has 3 anchor points, which will increase stability of the stroke. The broom handle putter is usually held away from the body, but in some cases a 3rd anchor point could be used by having it long enough to rest under the chin. The belly putter allows for a more stable, repeatable action, even in a 5-club wind.

Appreciate that many will disagree with this view, and I know there's a hell of a lot of comments throughout the world of golf from players, pundits and the written media. So maybe the R&A should sort the issue out once and for all and do some scientific research to prove/disprove if an unfair advantage is being gained. I think the laws of physics will show a 3 point anchor is better than a 2 point anchor.

Debate

Not again please

In all honesty I think this has been done to the death. They are legal, there is no factual proof they improve a putter to the extent that they gain an advantage, especially when you look at the PGA tour putting stats. Yes theres been more winners with them this year but thats inevitable with more players wielding them.

Personally don't use one nor would I but i'm all for anything that keeps people playing the game longer if they have an affliction with the short stick and they feel a belly or broom handle helps

BELLY PUTTERS: A GIFT FROM THE GOLFING GODS OR THE DEVIL'S WORK?
Written by Andrew Wild on Monday, 24 October 2011


I had a really interesting conversation with one of my members about belly putters. The member is a very good low handicapper, has himself been through the 'yips', and has thankfully come out the other side. This was done without changing his traditional style - plus he's still managed to maintain his sense of humour - not easy when the trauma lasted a couple of years.

He believes the belly putter should not only have been banned right from the outset by the R&A, but PGA professionals should not be endorsing a product which gives so much advantage to players, e.g. Adam Scott, a player who appeared to be lost in the wilderness until he changed to the belly option, and as a result (?) has since returned to the winners' circle.

However, I believe if belly putters do indeed give you a massive advantage, every golfer would be using one - even the traditionalists among us - which you might have guessed includes me. It’s also important to remember who the best putter in the world is - Luke Donald - not only does he putt in style, he putts in a traditional style.

However, in my opinion amateurs looking improve their game - whether it is 10 yards further off the tee, better bunker shots, or a few less putts - should be encouraged to seek anything to assist them.

We play this game for many reasons but lest we forget the main reason is it's fun!

I think the top echelons of the amateur game and the professional ranks should be restricted from using belly putters, but not your average Joe who vents his anger on the narrow fairways every Saturday morning.

As for the PGA professional offering the belly putter for sale in his shop; surely it is our duty to offer our members the latest and greatest, whether it is the next TaylorMade R29, or the new electric trolley from Motocaddy. If we didn’t, not only would golf be a less interesting sport, but pros would be poorer and we would all have less fun - and no one wants that, do they?

http://www.leaderboardgolf.co.uk/golf-blog/sandford-springs/belly-putters-a-gift-from-the-golfing-gods-or-the-devil-s-work.html

The piece by Andrew Wild is fine as far as it goes, but the last paragraph about club pro's selling the latest fad etc, is a bit disingenous, as the R&A have rules about club head dimensions, legnth of shafts, grooves etc, etc. Yet the putter in any form, seems to have fewer restrictions than any other golf club in the bag, plus its the club most used?

I was reading an article in The Herald this morning about how the PGA want to reign in the big hitters, I can't see the point, they might hit it further, but it hasn't translated into an increase in tournament wins for them, ditto the belly putter.

SR with regard to big hitters I agree, and you only have to look at some of the PGA tour stats Kwini posted yesterday, where JB Holmes was the longest etc, but he was well down the order of merit. A players technique, muscle tone, suppleness etc, dictate how far a player can hit the ball. It's down the individual to work with the body he has and his own technique, otherwise we would be putting a further handicap on players who are long. Luke Donald is where he is because his iron playing and putting is up there with the best, but he's no Bubba, and where is Bubba this year ....

The R&A should look at themselves and revisit some of the rules governing club design, as they spend a lot of time on driver compatibilty etc. I don't even understand the thinking behind why the groove rule changed, yet a putter head can be all shapes and sizes, composite materials used as face inserts, vastly different weights, can be made of copper, barylium, steel, aluminium, brass, replaceble weights ......

A putter actually can't be all shapes and sizes, there is a ratio of club face width to depth that cannot be exceeded, shaft bend rules, restrictions on loft, minimum length, lie angle, so there are at least some restrictions.

However, putting is a simple action, and if you don't have a good stroke and are poor at reading greens it doesn't matter what you use, you'll still be a poor putter.

Im hoping to see Poulter wielding one next year.

Diggers wrote:Im hoping to see Poulter wielding one next year.

he is goig to have to do something to get himself back in the limelight

Diggers wrote:Im hoping to see Poulter wielding one next year.

I don't get this comment. Poulter is renowned for being a good putter, it's probably the best part of his game, he may appear to miss a fair few but that tends to be because he is bold and attacks the hole on his putts.

Despite Diggers obvious dislike of Poulter (and I can understand why, although I don't agree with him) he actually has a tremendous short game and I'd certainly put him in the top 10 players in the world in that department.
If Westwood had Poulter's short game he would easily have won majors by now.

One thing that always effects my putting (In the head) on tricky greens, is the weight. I tend to be scared to death that going for it could see the ball run way past, so tend to go for a dead weight shot which usually falls away at the death. I suppose the confident putters would go for it knowing that any slight break is taken out.

Maverick wrote:

Diggers wrote:Im hoping to see Poulter wielding one next year.

I don't get this comment. Poulter is renowned for being a good putter, it's probably the best part of his game, he may appear to miss a fair few but that tends to be because he is bold and attacks the hole on his putts.

It was a joke. Based on the fact that I cant stand either Poulter or long putters so for me it would be a match made in heaven if old big mouth used one. As Super says though this year his putting has only slid from good to average whilst the rest of his game has gone from average to truly shocking in the last 6 months.

super_realist wrote:Despite Diggers obvious dislike of Poulter (and I can understand why, although I don't agree with him) he actually has a tremendous short game and I'd certainly put him in the top 10 players in the world in that department.
If Westwood had Poulter's short game he would easily have won majors by now.

Agreed. Got a lot of time for Poulter, but can see why others don't. I'd also agree regarding his short game if Westwood had the touch Poults does then we'd be seeing a few majors in his locker. It's also the reason Poulter is so good at matchplay, because no matter how bad of the tee he maybe on the day, he knows he's always in the hole and thats a nightmare to play against.

Back to the thread, there are plenty of rules on what a putter can and cannot have, but nothing regarding the length as it cannot proved to make a difference to the wielder. However the reason there are so many stipulations around drivers is there is scientific and factual evidence that proves it helps reduce shot dispertion and increase distance, so I really don't see how a comparison can be made

A couple of weeks ago I received a marketing email from one of the golf retailers advertising a conversion kit to turn your putter into a belly putter. I'll dig out the link and post when I get to work this morning.

It looks like you insert a piece into the end of the grip and that then gives an extra 7 inches. The piece reminded me of a milk lolly! I don't know if you can convert back afterwards if you don't like it but it could be a way to try it without shelling out for a brand new putter.

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:A couple of weeks ago I received a marketing email from one of the golf retailers advertising a conversion kit to turn your putter into a belly putter. I'll dig out the link and post when I get to work this morning.

It looks like you insert a piece into the end of the grip and that then gives an extra 7 inches. The piece reminded me of a milk lolly! I don't know if you can convert back afterwards if you don't like it but it could be a way to try it without shelling out for a brand new putter.

Interesting. Presumably illegal club attachment for competition purposes(?), but as you say, might be a good way to try out (not that I'm considering).

Mav when the R&A recently changed the rules on grooves, do you know why? Watching the pro's this season with the new grooves, doesn't seem to have made a difference. If the change was to cut down on back spin, it seems to me that more pro's are getting plenty, whereas the average club golfer would see no difference?

SD, I suppose it would depend on how permanent the conversion is. I guess it would be treated the same as an adjustable driver; once you set it up it's done for the round.

I have said it a million times but the main technology in golf that has to be reigned in is the ball, anything else like putter length or groves is irrelevant in comparison.

One thing, we seem satisfied that overall those using a long putter are no better than those using a short one, but what are the stats in terms of performance for the individual players switching putter type?

Mac, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current ball specifications. If you alter the distance it goes it still means that those who hit it further with the current ball are still going to hit it further with a newer shorter ball. Why should it be changed to favour the shorter players? Isn't it those who are currently doing better with it?
JB Holmes hits it further on average than anyone. What's his world ranking and what has he won this year? ditto Quiros, Garrigus etc. The only really big hitter who is any good is Dustin Johnson and he's got a good all round game.

There is no evidence to suggest that those who hit the longest ball win more tournaments. The best players are those who are accurate and are good putters and who have a good short game and and a ball which flies further doesn't really make much difference in those departments.

McLaren wrote:I have said it a million times but the main technology in golf that has to be reigned in is the ball, anything else like putter length or groves is irrelevant in comparison.

One thing, we seem satisfied that overall those using a long putter are no better than those using a short one, but what are the stats in terms of performance for the individual players switching putter type?

Mac it seems like every pro who's going through problems with the short stick, is tempted into going to a belly putter. The difference I see, is that these seasoned pro's like Phil and Lee as an example, need to completley change everything on the greens, so will take a while to get used to a new technique. Adam Scott seems to have mastered it after many hours practice. The new youngsters who have been using it since college are the ones that get results. So in one respect I can understand why theres controversy within the pro ranks. Some have just said; 'well to hell with it the horse has bolted, so I'll have a go myself'.

Regarding the groove changes, they cannot make the changes in the pro game without passing it onto the amateur game as that simply would not make things fair and we are all party to the same rules.

Changing the ball technology is not really about the ultimate distance the biggest hitter can achieve but rather the way in which the game is played. If look at the 480 yard par 4 luke Donald has 5 iron and JB holmes maybe a 6 iron. So it is not like the longest hitter gains any great advantage unless they are accurate iron players with a good short game.

You have to look at the mentality of the players on the tee and how the technology has contributed to this. The players know they can go all out and hit the ball as hard as they like with little thought about strategy. The balls are not only longer but more accurate and stable aerodynamically.

Golf was never a game of power, it should be about striking the ball and thinking your way around the course. Where does distance come into this? I don’t think it does, so why have a ball designed to go as far as possible?

Going back to the example above of the longer par 4 it is easy to see how the character of holes designed to test the player through strategy can be ruined by a ball intended to promote distance. I would like to see players have to think about hitting a long iron or lay up after a less than very well placed drive. With modern balls this is not often an issue as they can bash long irons from all over regardless of where the previous shot was placed.

Another issue is the one dimensional shot trajectory that has developed from using modern balls. Would it not be better to see players using a little more of the ground or really having to shape a shot?

I think people like super miss the point when it comes to understanding why the modern ball is bad for the game, and sadly there are way too many of his kind.

I do not have a problem with broom handle putters, except when they are used, as a club length in a dropping of the ball situation.

Once again Mac you post total irrelevance and one eyed nonsense. If golf was all about power these days then the long hitters would be using Molitors or Ultra's to eek that extra few yards out of it.
If you go look at the stats from 10 years ago, a lot of players have either dropped how far they hit it, or gained very little indeed and are just as inaccurate off the tee as ever, especially the big hitters.
Your lovechild Woods has actually lost 4 yards in the last 10 years.


Sounds like you are just trying to justify why relics like TOC wouldn't be as outdated and ordinary if they played with an old ball (by the way I'm playing it tomorrow) the fact is that even short hitters with an old commando could make mincemeat of it.




As for there being only a one dimensional trajectory with the current balls? You really can't be much of a player if you can only hit one trajectory. Trajectory is determined by launch angle, smash factor, shaft flex etc, the ball only plays a minor part in this. You'll see this if you are at the range with a bag full of different balls types. Then again, I wouldn't expect someone who gets their balls from a jumble sale to be able to tell the difference. Didn't you see how Clarke altered his trajectory on every shot to win the OPen in tough windy conditions.
I doubt you'd ever been custom fit before as I don't think they do that for hickories, but the amount they can improve accuracy (and distance) by changing club specifications would astound you, yet you are seeing these changes by hitting the same type of ball.
I don't doubt that certain balls suit certain players characteristics, but the current ball isn't an issue in professional or amateur golf as far as I can see.

super

Mac has raised a perfectly valid point about the distance achieved by modern balls. When I started playing golf, a long drive for a pro was anything over 250 yards. Today, a long drive for a pro is probably anything over 320 yards. That has a considerable effect on how holes are now played. When is the last time you saw a pro hit a wood into a par 4 green apart from when they have chopped sideways out of trouble? Even the very longest of par 4's can now be reached by those guys with a mid iron. If they hit anything more than a 5 iron it's usually because the hole is a par 5.
I remember when par 5's were driver, 3 wood then you walked up to see what you had left

D4S, I'm not arguing that balls aren't longer now they probably are by a few yards, but that the biggest technological improvements are in club design and this has been far more influential than a ball.

I bet if you took a club from when you started and one from now and a modern ball (or an old ball if you prefer) the difference would be down to the club and not the ball, because the club plays a far bigger part than the ball.
Occasional I'll find an old balata ball and stick it in my practice range bag, doens't seem to go much less

So much more is understood about swing characteristics, shaft technology, material science, optimum trajectories, club fitting etc these days.
Balls are undoubtedly longer, but it's an increase in swing speeds and club development that has made the biggest difference in accuracy and length.

Apart from oversized drivers, I'm not convinced that clubs have made that much of a difference. Shafts have moved on but I think that is more in the area of quality/consistency and fitting.
I'm also not convinced that it comes down to diet/fitness/strength. For pros this is a factor but not for amateurs. I hit the ball a LOT further now in my 50's than when I was a youngster using the old small ball then the legendary Titleist balata.

I think you might be going back a bit too far for the purpose of this. It's a bit like comparing wooden tennis rackets to the modern day.
Irons especially are far more accurate, forgiving and easier to hit than the blades of old thanks to larger sweetspots and more suitable shafts.
Shafts are probably the single biggest advance in general club technology and account for huge advancement in how golf is played.
The fact you hit it longer now doesn't mean that balls have made the difference, it might mean that you have clubs which better suit your ability and characteristics while you may also be a better golfer with better timing and a more reliable (and hence more optimal) swing.

True, I'm a better golfer now than I was back then.

If I could get hold of all the relevant bits of equipment, it would be interesting to hit modern balls with old clubs and old balls with new clubs to compare the results.

Mac makes a fair point, and the link below goes back to 2004:

http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=102619

This piece is copied from CBS Sports:

“The (newest) technology in golf balls is sweet. It’s LDP,” says pro golfer/broadcaster Gary McCord. “What it does? The mis-hits are much better. It basically increases (the) sweet spot on irons and woods.”

LDP, which stands for Low Drag Performance, was introduced in 2008 by TaylorMade to promote longer distance and better performance for a broad spectrum of player types. The technology is engineered into every ball the company now makes.

“We analyzed more than 84,000 swings and found that there are a significant amount of off-center hits for players of every level,” says Snell. “With Low Drag Performance, we’ve designed a technology that keeps the ball in the air longer by maintaining lift and reducing the drag, or resistance against the ball in flight.”

An example of what happens on a mis-hit, such as hitting the ball on the upper half of the driver, is that the spin rate drops, sometimes more than 1,000 rpm. A lower spin rate can cause the ball to knuckle, or simply, fall out of the sky.

“By varying dimple diameters, depths and edge angles in a symmetrical pattern, we are able to optimize driver distance, and increase the distance on mis-hits where the ball’s driver spin is greatly reduced,” says Snell. “Through our research, we were able to create performance benefits for players who have driver spin rates from 1,000 to 3,000 rpm, compared to previously when we fit balls into (a narrower range). So we’ve created a ball that works for a wider range of players.”

Pros that are playing balls on tour with the new LDP technology include Sergio Garcia, Justin Rose, Retief Goosen, Sean O’Hair, Darren Clarke, Hale Irwin, Natalie Gulbis and many more.;

Feedback regarding LDP technology has not been restricted to drivers. “The biggest positive feedback we’ve received from our tour staff is the consistency in iron shots, hitting distance marks that players expect,” says Snell. “The tendency was that full, short iron shots had too much spin and became inconsistent. It was challenging to hold shots to back pins and any wind factors caused the ball to be difficult to control. As best as possible, we wanted to eliminate outside factors impacting flight conditions.”

Knowing all this now, it’s obvious that a golf ball is much more than just a round object to bash around the course. It’s clearly a work of advanced technology, and a piece of equipment that can help all players’ games.

I also read something recently which said something along the lines of; Club technology has almost reached it's zenith, and the main technological game improvers, will be in shaft and ball technology.

So Both Mac and SR are correct - match drawn

Super

As I said it is not the ultimate distance that can be achieved but the ease of which considerable distance can be had. The players are handed distance on a plate so readily that any strategy involving good ball striking is practically redundant.

Yes Mac, I get what you are saying, but I'm saying that the club technology has an overwhelming influence over any changes in ball technology. These guys could use 10 year old Pro'v's and still get an almost identical result. A golf ball is a passive object. It can only react to the forces that are placed upon it by the club that hits it. Therfore if you cut across it, it's going to spin sideways.
It's true that better aerodynamics can improve things, but the way you are talking it's as if you are saying that Tour golfers are finding the middle of the fairway 310 yards up everytime. I haven't seen any evidence that the ball is improving accuracy or distance. There are simply too many other factors, forces, technology and techniques around to say for certain by how much a ball improves things.
Would you prefer we used a one piece dimpleless balls. I think it's just another of your crackpot ideas such as not raking bunkers. Do you find the game too easy? I don't see the average handicap coming down or tour scores plummeting from the introduction of ANY technology.

Hit 25 identical balls with a club 30 years old and chances are that if you hit the same amount with a modern club you'll hit more good shots with the latter and most likely an increase in distance.
Look at who is the best player in the world by a mile, Luke Donald. he's neither short nor long, but it's his course management which makes him the player he is, in other words he's a strategy player, and he'd still be number one if everyone was forced to play with one of your jumble sale Penfold Hearts.

Super

I have no problem with club technology also being rolled back.

For guys who have played the game longer than I have what era do you think the club/ball technology went a little too far?

I always think a roll back to 70's yardages would be just fine.

Why roll back anything Mac, you seem so anti progress. The game is no easier now than it was in your utopian era. What is so wrong with the game now? I presume that you play with 1970's John Letters blades, persimmon woods and Penfold Hearts? No? Why not?


You weren't even alive in the 70's and certainly not playing golf so how can you possibly comment on whether those yardages were good.
You need to stop this dewey eyed sentimentality and start looking forward for a change.

Super

I do see change, and it will be positive if the technology is reeled in.

I see courses being built which focus on strategy and not distance being built and older courses having great features brought back into play. This will increase the fun for all levels of golfer. It will hopefully open the game up for more people to get involved as well.

Once the penal mentality brought about by extreme distances fades round times will also plummet.

You haven't made a convincing argument as to why technology needs to be reigned in.
Can you say that people have less fun playing now than back in your halycon days?

You'd think by the way you were talking that there are only long courses around. It isn't true. If people weren't having fun playing golf, they wouldn't do it.

Super

It may not be as crucial at the level we play but for the pro’s it is becoming a real problem. So do we make the pro’s play with a control tournament ball at some point or keep the pro game and the amm game in line and limit technology for both.

You must accept that the technology should not go any further for pro’s and therefore there is an issue with keeping rules and equipment constant in both games in the future. I think the best solution is a roll back for both.

How is it becoming a problem for the pro's Mac? Are tournaments dominated by power, or one player, or one type of ball, or one long driver or one brand of forgiving clubs. No,
Are players still hitting bad shots, going into hazards, losing balls, slicing, hooking, making bad course management decisions, making poor putts? Yes, they are.

If you rolled technology back you'd probably find fewer people playing because they would be hitting more poor shots as clubs would be less forgiving.

I don't have to accept anything Mac, do you think all cars should be reeled in to the level of your 2CV because you are being left behind?

Super

Are you ignorant, illiterate, brain damaged or what?
I have said repeatedly it is not about how far the biggest hitters can go but how easily all players can hit it very long.

It is a problem because all courses will become 7400+ yard monsters over water with think rough up the side of each playing corridor. The viewing will become even more tedious than it should and the game will become unrecognisable to what golf should be.


Please couls someone else please provide an opinion with some thought put into it as I may as well talk to my coffee cup.

Mac, you are the ignorant one if you think there is something that "golf should be".

Who cares it they are hitting it long, or whether it's easy for them to do so. Golf is no more boring (or exciting) than it was in days of yore that you hark back to.
Why don't you just build a time machine and go back to 1971, because that's the only way you'll get what you want.

Do you want football to go back to a lace up ball and hobnail boots, tennis to wooden rackets and green flash or F1 back to a leather helmet and a cigarette on the start line?
You are living in a dreamland, population: One.

I know I'm flogging a dead horse on here, but I still don't see the difference from a golfing integrity standpoint between the belly putter and the extra-long driver.

Both have developed in use and popularity over the past thirty years - don't see why one is villified and the other's virtue is extolled.

OK, now I'll duck . . . . . . . . . . . .

Much as I hate to interrupt the argument between Mac and Super on technology with an on topic post; was it this kind of thing that led to Mac's self imposed exile?

As promised here is the link or url to the belly putter conversion kit.

http://www.golfballs.com/viewMailer.aspx?mailerID=08254A70&userID=U1322916A25

kwini

i guess the main issue is anchoring the club to the body with something other than your hands.

I dont mind a longer putter is long as it is held in the hands with something approaching a golf grip.

I can just imagine Mac like the guy on Harry Enfield when he sees someone with a belly putter.

"You don't wan't to do it like that, you want to do it like this"