For those who don’t know him, James is a professional long driver and speed specialist based in St Andrews. He was previously gear editor at Bunkered, where he reviewed equipment and appeared regularly in their video content, but he also competes seriously in long drive. He finished third at the 2023 World Long Drive Championship, had the longest drive of that tournament at 452 yards, and has now won seven times in Europe, including twice this year. His own ambition is to win the World Championship

I’ve known of James for a few years and used to see him at The Duke’s when he was reviewing equipment. Earlier this year, he went independent and started advertising speed training sessions on social media, working out of the Golf Centre of Excellence. I also knew Freddie Lawrence, another professional there, so before booking anything I checked in with him.

Freddie’s response was useful because it was balanced. He was very positive about James, both as a person and as a coach, but also made an interesting point of caution. In Freddie’s view, a lot of people can gain speed in a first session simply by being encouraged to hit it harder and add a few power moves. The real question is what happens after that. Can the speed be developed? Can it be made safer? Can it become usable?

That was the caveat I needed.

I’m not trying to become a long drive competitor. I’m 57, not 27, and I’m acutely aware of the need to manage my body and accept its limitations. I want to swing faster, but not by pretending I’m younger than I am or ignoring what my body is telling me. The point is not to chase speed at any cost. It is to find out how much more speed is available without making myself less able to play.

I have always been pretty efficient with driver, but I’ve never felt I’ve fully tapped into what I might be capable of producing. My iron numbers have often suggested that I underperform a little with the longer club, which is part of what makes this experiment interesting. Is the driver really limited by my body, or am I failing to access something that is already there?

I’ve also been aware of distance gradually slipping as the years pass. It has not been dramatic, and it would be easy enough to explain it away as age, caution, technique, or the simple habit of trying to keep the ball in play. But in this first lesson, my starting driver speed topped out at 94mph. That gave us a proper baseline. Not a guess. Not a memory of what I used to do. A number to work from.

Warming Up, And A 7-Iron Surprise

We started by warming up with wedges before moving into some 7-irons. James quickly helped me add around 10-15 yards of carry. That surprised me, not just because of the extra distance, but because it didn’t feel forced. If anything, it felt easier.

The change came from something simple, and annoyingly familiar. James got me to move my hands higher, which is a recurring problem for me and something I have worked on before. In theory, that should help me make a better shoulder turn, and in practice it seemed to free up the swing without asking me to swing harder.

It was an early reminder that more speed does not always have to feel like more effort.

ROTEX, Driver And HiiTS

After the 7-iron work, we moved into the ROTEX stretching. I’ve got a pretty good daily stretching routine and I’m generally fairly flexible, so I wasn’t expecting this to be the most revealing part of the lesson. But this was different. It was mainly about rotation, sequencing, and separating movement between the torso and hips. The interesting part was not whether I could get into the positions. It was whether I could use those positions properly in the swing

We then went back to the driver to test the speed again before moving into the HiiTS work. The process was simple: light, middle, heavy, then repeat, recording the maximum swing speed each time. The idea was not to hit perfect golf shots. It was to create speed, feel the difference between the weights, and see how much speed could be accessed while still hitting a ball.

Only after that did I go back to my own driver. That is when I reached 100.2mph, up from a starting best of 94mph. With the HiiTS driver, I had been faster again, reaching 103.5mph

Those numbers got my attention, but I’m being careful not to overstate them. One fast swing in a lesson is not the same as taking it to the course, and it is definitely not the same as cruising at that speed. But it does suggest that 100mph is not some distant memory from a younger version of me. It is still there. The issue is whether I can access it more often, more safely, and with enough control for it to be useful.

James talked about lifting the ceiling speed to improve cruising speed, and that idea makes sense to me. If I want to cruise at 100mph with driver, then my maximum probably needs to be higher than that. Maybe 110mph or more. I don’t want to play golf at my maximum. I want to play golf with control, and know that there’s more there if I really need it.

Why Hitting A Ball Matters

The HiiTS driver part interested me because I’ve used weighted sticks before. I used an unbranded system with interchangeable head weights, followed the programme and watched the videos. I can see the attraction: you can swing weighted sticks almost anywhere, at almost any time, without needing a range, net or golf balls.

I’ve also been able to generate good speed with them. The problem is that I have never translated that properly into driver speed when there is a ball in front of me. It doesn’t simulate impact, and that feels like a major difference. A baseball player doesn’t learn to hit hard by only making air swings. A tennis player doesn’t learn to serve hard without a ball. Golf is not played with practice swings either.

The HiiTS driver made sense because it allowed us to work on speed while still hitting a ball. The point was not really where the ball went. It was simply that there was a ball to hit. Strike, contact, balance and intent remained part of the exercise, but without turning it into a normal driving lesson. If I’m going to train speed, I want that speed to have a chance of transferring into golf, not just into a faster empty swing.

Is there a psychological angle?

I don’t know exactly what is causing my driver ceiling, and I don’t want to pretend I do. Some of it may be physical, but my suspicion is that there is also something subconscious going on. When I’ve tried this before, I’ve always seemed to top out at around 100mph, despite the read-through from my iron numbers suggesting there should be more available.

Am I protecting myself? Am I trying too hard to hit the ball perfectly? Am I worried about the consequences of a bad drive and tightening up before I have even started down?

That would make sense. With a weighted stick, the task is simple: move it fast. Put a driver and a ball in front of me, and the task changes. Suddenly I’m not just trying to create speed. I’m trying to hit a golf shot. On the course, that is exactly what I should be doing. In speed training, though, it may be the thing that holds me back.

Homework Before Lesson Two

The homework for the next four weeks is fairly simple. At the range, after a thorough warm-up with wedges and 7-iron, the driver work will be capped at twenty balls at maximum effort, or until speed starts to drop off. That cap is probably important. I know myself well enough to know that if the number is close, I’ll want one more go, and that is exactly how sensible speed training can become something less sensible.

I’ll also keep working in the gym and add some more explosive medicine ball work, including windmill throws and rebound throws. The aim for lesson two is simple: can I get above the level I reached in the first session, or was that just the easy jump that comes from being given permission to hit it harder?

That comes back to Freddie’s point before I started. The first session can produce easy gains because you are encouraged to move differently. The more useful question is whether those gains can be held, developed and turned into something I can actually use.

So lesson one set the baseline. My driver started with a best of 94mph and reached 100.2mph. The HiiTS driver got to 103.5mph. My 7-iron carry improved by around 10-15 yards without the strike falling apart.

Those are useful numbers, but they are still only starting numbers. The real question is whether I can move the ceiling again in lesson two, and whether some of that extra speed can start to feel a little less like a special effort and a little more like something I own.

I don’t know yet.

That is why there are three more lessons to go.

If you’re interested in whether an ordinary golfer can actually build usable speed rather than just find a number on a launch monitor, follow along with the next three lessons. I’ll report back on what changes, what doesn’t, and whether any of this makes its way onto the course.

Subscribe now

The Club House is free to read, but subscribing is the easiest way to get the next part of the series when it goes live.

Further Information

For anyone interested in the people and equipment mentioned in this post:

James Tait Golf - Skillest YouTube Instagram

The Centre of Golf Excellence, St Andrews
HiiTS Golf
ROTEXMotion

In my previous note on the L.A.B. Link 2.1, I said that it was a step forward in terms of material, milling and feel, but not necessarily a more convincing putter for me. In fact, despite the improvements in construction, I was better with the original Link1. That is an important distinction, because with putters, the nicest object is not always the one that performs best or gives you the most confidence.

Subscribe now

That made the Link 2.2 the more intriguing of the two new models for me. Thanks again to Adam Legg at Auchterlonies for lending me both putters to test, because having them side by side made the comparison far more meaningful. The 2.2 is smaller, wider and more compact than the 2.1, which immediately raised the question of whether it might solve some of the visual issues I had with the larger head. Could the Link 2.2 make the L.A.B. concept look and feel more natural behind the ball?

First Impressions

The Link 2.2 made a better first impression on me than the Link 2.1. The more compact, wider shape looked better proportioned straight away, and when the two putters were placed side by side, the difference was obvious. The 2.1 looked a little longer and more stretched out, whereas the 2.2 sat behind the ball in a way that felt more settled and balanced.

This particular putter was a higher-spec build. It had the heavy head, the upcharge Accra shaft and a Lamkin Deep-Etched grip. I was not sure whether the extra weight would suit me, because I do not always want a putter to feel heavier or more managed. The overall build felt more solid and stable than the 2.1 test putter.

The immediate visual negatives were the neck and the chosen alignment option. The alignment option is not really a criticism of L.A.B., because they offer an unrivalled range of options, but it is important for this specific test. I know that some players like alignment on the leading edge and the flange, but personally, I don’t and prefer either one or the other. As this is a demo putter, I had no say in the alignment lines.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 594g

• Head weight: heavy option

• Swing weight: F8 (heavy head and longer shaft)

• Length: 35”

• Loft: 2° effective loft

• Lie: 71° custom range 65°-74°

• Toe Hang: zero-torque

• Grip: Lamkin Deep Etched

L.A.B. offer a massive range of customisation options. I would definitely recommend being correctly fitted for length and lie.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Old Eden practice green at St Andrews Academy

• Conditions: A lovely early June day with warm sunshine.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

The Eden practice green at the St Andrews Link Academy is a super place to test putters. It is an original Harry Colt green from before the Eden course was altered to make way for the academy. There is plenty of space for my standard testing, and if it’s quiet enough, it also makes for a really challenging par-2 course.

I came into this test hoping that the Link 2.2 might be the more positive of the two new L.A.B. models for me. After testing the 2.1, I already knew that the new materials and milled face were a step forward, but I was still not convinced by the shape or how the putter sat behind the ball. However, the 2.2 immediately looked like the better candidate. I preferred the head shape, the proportions, and I much preferred the feel of this particular build. If I were judging the two putters purely on shape and feel, the 2.2 would win comfortably.

But putter testing is not just about which one looks better in isolation. It is about whether you can aim it, trust it and make a free stroke. That is where I still had a problem.

Pros and Cons

Looks (neutral): I much prefer the overall shape of the Link 2.2 to the Link 2.1. The smaller, wider head is better proportioned to my eye and sits more comfortably behind the ball. Compared side by side, the 2.1 looks longer and a little stretched, whereas the 2.2 looks more compact and better balanced.

However, the basic visual challenge of this style of L.A.B. putter remains the heel-shafted construction and neck arrangement, which still creates a look that I find difficult. I understand why it is designed that way: the shaft axis has to work with the centre of gravity to achieve lie-angle balance, but visually it does not quite sit right for me.

Grip (+ve): I much preferred the Lamkin Deep-Etched grip to the standard L.A.B. pistol rubber grip I tested on the Link 2.1. Grip choice is obviously personal, but this felt more familiar and comfortable to me. It also helped the overall build feel more premium. There are enough grip options available from L.A.B. that everyone should be able to find one they like.

Headcover (+ve): I thought this standard cover was actually better than the upcharge cover that came with the 2.1. It is very well padded, and the large magnetic closure makes it feel very secure. For a large blade head, this was perfect. Scotty Cameron (and others) should take note of how to do it.

Aim/Alignment (neutral to -ve): I’ve not gone for a straight negative here because part of the issue for me was the alignment option used on this demo club, and that can obviously be changed to anything you want. Given the number of options available from L.A.B., it would be great if they could develop a method that lets you try alternative designs during the fitting process. Edel fittings have done this for years, and it would be an excellent addition for L.A.B.

The neck remained my biggest issue, and I still thought this head looked like it aimed to the left. As with the 2.1, that impacted my confidence and the testing results.

Feel and Sound (+ve): The milled face and 303 stainless steel construction are clear improvements over some of the earlier L.A.B. models I have tried. I think the extra weight helped me to feel the head during the stroke compared to the 2.1. I preferred the more compact blade length and felt that I made better, more centred contact with this model. A good strike obviously helps, but I thought the 2.2 felt much nicer.

A note on the Accra shaft. I think this made a considerable difference to how the putter felt and sounded. It’s obviously subjective, but I thought it was much smoother than the standard steel offering. Would I say it justifies the extra $100? Yes, but I wish it didn’t and would be much happier if L.A.B. fitted a nicer shaft as standard.

Pace Control (+ve): It’s a heavy putter, but my pace control was generally good and better than I have experienced with some other L.A.B. putters. The heavier head did not cause the problems I thought it might. In fact, I found the putter easier to feel during the stroke than with the lighter 2.1 head.

That matters because I have sometimes struggled with distance control in zero-torque putters, particularly when the head feels too detached from my hands. The Link 2.2 did not give me that same problem. The bigger issue was aim and visual trust, rather than pace.

Performance Overall (-ve): Performance was pretty similar to the Link 2.1, so not very impressive. However, this was not a failed test. The putter looked better and felt better than the 2.1 and would be the model I’d choose if I had to.

The aiming issue remained. And for me, that is not a small detail. It shaped the whole test. I could feel the quality of the putter, and I could see why someone else might get on very well with it, especially if the L.A.B. look suits their eye. But I never felt fully comfortable standing over the ball. I do wonder if alternative alignment options could offset the issue with the neck, but unless L.A.B. come up with a way of trying that, I’ll never know for sure.

Price (-ve): At $599 plus an extra $100 for the shaft upgrade, this is a very expensive putter, and I would urge readers to get properly fitted and hopefully get a demo club to take away and try before spending that much money. No putter will ever be a magic bullet for bad green reading or technique, so think carefully.

What does Vertex say?

Vertex testing was done indoors on my putting mat.

Face at impact was 1.4° open and a bit inconsistent. Could that be due to the visual perception that it aims left, so I then compensate in my swing? Tempo was excellent at a 1.9 ratio and extremely consistent, despite inconsistent acceleration.

Lie angle at impact was unchanged from address, which was a positive. However, shaft lean and loft angle showed that I was reducing the lean through the stroke and adding loft even more than I did with the 2.1 model. That’s poor for accuracy and helped explain the poor testing.

Vertex would suggest this is not a great putter for me, but I wonder how much is down to the heavier head and how much is the zero-torque design?

Conclusion

The Link 2.2 was definitely a step in the right direction. I preferred the shape, I preferred the proportions, and I much preferred the feel of this particular build. The heavy head, Accra shaft and Lamkin Deep-Etched grip all contributed to a putter that felt more solid and comfortable than the Link 2.1.

But the same fundamental problem remained. I still felt as though I was aiming left, and once that perception appeared, it affected everything. That is the hardest thing to overcome in a putter test. You can adjust to feel. You can learn speed. You can even get used to unusual looks over time. But if a putter makes you doubt where you are aiming, it becomes very difficult to trust it.

That does not mean the Link 2.2 is a bad putter. Far from it. In fact, of the two new Link models, this is clearly the one I preferred. If you like L.A.B.’s design philosophy and want something more compact than the Link 2.1, the 2.2 may well be the better option. I would also strongly recommend taking advantage of the custom options, because alignment choice in particular could make a huge difference.

For me, though, the putter still did not quite get past the visual test. Better than the 2.1? Yes. Better feeling? Definitely. More likely to suit my eye? Also yes. But did it make me want to put it in the bag ahead of the SeeMore Nashville mFGP? No.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No

• What would I change? The alignment lines. I’d like to try this with a simple dot on the top line.

• What have I learned? I prefer the Link 2.2 over the Link 2.1, but the heel-shafted design still creates an aiming issue that I find hard to ignore. The custom options are excellent, and the feel of this build was impressive, but confidence at address matters more than almost anything else.

I’d love to know if you have tried the new Link 2.2 from L.A.B. and what you thought of it. Please leave a comment below.

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button helps more people find it.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

L.A.B. Link 2.1: here

When I saw that L.A.B. were introducing the Link 2.1 and Link 2.2, more traditionally shaped heel-shafted zero-torque putters, I knew I had to get my hands on them for testing. Fortunately, I was able to borrow both models from Adam Legg at Auchterlonies, which gave me the chance to put them through my usual review process rather than simply forming an opinion from photographs or launch material.

Subscribe now

With the degree of customisation available with L.A.B. putters, I do think it is especially important to find a good fitter and get properly dialled in. If you believe in the lie-angle balance theory, then you really do need to make sure the lie angle is right for you. These are not putters I would want to buy blindly, particularly given how much the look, lie, shaft position and alignment options can affect how they sit behind the ball.

First Impressions

The Link 2.1 is the longer of the two new heads and, to my eye, it looks a similar size to the original Link.1 that I tested last year. It would have been interesting to compare the dimensions side by side, but unfortunately I wasn’t able to do that. My immediate reaction was that it was still a little too long from heel to toe for my eye, and I found myself preferring the slightly smaller Link 2.2 model, which I will review next.

That said, there are some clear improvements here over the original Link.1. The 303 stainless steel construction and milled face make this feel like a more premium, more complete putter. This particular model had the standard steel shaft and the L.A.B. pistol rubber grip.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 548g

• Head weight: “standard”

• Swing weight: E2

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 2° effective loft

• Lie: 69° with custom range of 65°-74°

• Toe Hang: Zero-Torque

• Grip: L.A.B. Pistol Rubber Black

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Eden practice green at St Andrews Golf Academy

• Conditions: A lovely early June day with warm sunshine.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

The Eden practice green at the St Andrews Link Academy is a super place to test putters. It is an original Harry Colt green from before the Eden course was altered to make way for the academy. There is plenty of space for my standard testing, and if it’s quiet enough, it also makes for a really challenging par-2 course.

I was genuinely intrigued to see how these new L.A.B. putters would perform. Combining more traditional blade looks with modern zero-torque technology sounded like a potentially winning combination, and I went into the test really wanting to like them.

Pros and Cons

Looks (neutral): Hats off to L.A.B. for trying to produce a putter that will appeal to a more traditional market. That is no easy task when the whole design is still being built around the lie-angle balance concept. Unfortunately, to make the zero-torque design work in this shape, there has to be a compromise around the neck so that the shaft axis still matches the centre of gravity of the head. I understand why it is there, but visually, I just don’t like it.

As mentioned above, I also found the 2.1 head slightly too long for comfort. I had the same issue with the original Link.1 model. For some golfers, that extra length may create a sense of stability, but for me, it starts to look a little stretched, and that affects my confidence at address.

Grip (neutral): I have never been a big fan of the standard L.A.B. grip, although at least this one is black and should not show dirt as badly as the one I had on my old DF3. Personally, I find it a bit chunky and I don’t particularly like the feel of the material either.

The good news is that L.A.B. offer several different standard grip options, so this is easy enough to change at the time of purchase. As with most things L.A.B., the fitting and ordering process gives you plenty of ways to build something closer to your own preference.

Headcover (neutral): L.A.B. headcovers are generally very good, and this one is no exception. However, for a putter at this price, I was disappointed to see that the white cover supplied with this test model was a $20 upcharge item. That may be a small thing in the context of a premium putter, but it still slightly jars when the base price is already high.

Aim/Alignment (-ve): This was my biggest issue. I just couldn’t get on with the way this putter sat behind the ball. The heel attachment made the blade look as though it was aiming left at address, and once I saw that, I found it very hard to unsee it.

Interestingly, there was a DF3 player on the green while I was doing the testing, and he asked to try the two new models. His reaction was very similar to mine, and he didn’t particularly like them either. That doesn’t prove anything, of course, but it did suggest that I wasn’t alone in finding the look slightly awkward.

I had a similar issue when I tested the OZ.1i HS and the Axis1 Rose. There is just something about the way these heel-shafted, torque-managed putters look that doesn’t appeal to me. It will be interesting to compare them with the new heel-shafted offerings from Odyssey, because this appears to be an area that more manufacturers are exploring.

Feel and Sound (neutral): The new milled face is a big improvement over some of the other L.A.B. models I have tried. There is a cleaner, more premium feel here, and it gives the putter a quality that the older Link.1 didn’t quite have for me.

However, with the 2.1 head, I found that if I didn’t catch the ball out of the sweet spot, there was a significant change in both sound and feel. In one sense, that is good feedback. In another, it highlighted how poorly I was swinging this particular putter. The feedback was honest, but in my hands it wasn’t especially flattering.

Pace Control (+ve): Pace control was generally good and definitely better than I have experienced with some other L.A.B. putters. I don’t know whether that is down to the new milled face, the stainless steel construction, the head shape, or simply the way this model presents behind the ball, but it was one of the stronger parts of the test.

Even though I never felt fully comfortable aiming the putter, I did feel reasonably connected to distance. That is worth noting, because with some zero-torque putters, I have struggled more with pace than direction. Here, the bigger problem was not distance control but confidence and alignment.

Performance Overall (-ve): Overall, this putter simply didn’t work for me. The test results were poor, and more importantly, I never felt as though I had much confidence standing over the ball. I found it difficult to align, and although the pace control was decent, the rest of the performance did not come together.

The issues with feel and sound on slightly off-centre strikes gave me immediate feedback, but that feedback mostly confirmed that I was not delivering the putter well. That is not necessarily the putter’s fault, but it does matter in a review like this. A putter either gives you confidence and helps you organise yourself, or it doesn’t. For me, the Link 2.1 didn’t.

Price (-ve): This was a base model putter with no shaft or grip upgrades, and it comes in at $599 on the L.A.B. website. The white headcover is a $20 upcharge over the standard cover, which you will see in the 2.2 review, and which I actually prefer.

The one positive I can add is that it appears L.A.B. no longer charge extra for length and lie adjustments, although it also looks as though some of that has simply been built into a higher base price. In terms of custom alignment options, nobody really matches L.A.B. unless you are going to a bespoke putter maker, but this is still an expensive putter.

What does Vertex say?

Vertex testing was done indoors on my putting mat.

Face at impact was 0.9° open and very consistent, which is pretty much my usual stroke. Tempo was also very consistent at 1.83. Acceleration, however, was 1.4 m/s² and very inconsistent.

Lie angle at impact was unchanged from address, which was a positive. However, shaft lean and loft angle showed that I was reducing the lean through the stroke and adding loft. Both are poor for accuracy and helped confirm what I saw during the outdoor testing. I simply wasn’t delivering this putter as well as I would want to.

Conclusion

I genuinely wanted to like this new blade-style putter from L.A.B., but unfortunately I just couldn’t get on with it. Hopefully, the smaller 2.2 model will restore a bit of positivity, because there are definitely things here that I like in principle.

The 303 stainless steel construction and milled face are clear improvements, and I admire what L.A.B. are trying to do by bringing their technology into a more traditional-looking head shape. But looks and feel still have to work for the person holding the putter, and for me they didn’t. I can’t sugarcoat the fact that performance, in my hands, was poor.

That doesn’t mean it won’t work for you. In fact, if you like the look of heel-shafted putters and already get on well with L.A.B.’s design philosophy, this may be exactly the kind of model you have been waiting for. But standing over this putter gave me no confidence at all, and once that happens, it is very difficult for any putter to survive a proper test.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

• What would I change? The neck. I understand why it is designed this way, but it just doesn’t work for my eyes and makes the head look as though it is aiming left. With more time, I could probably adapt to that, but I would rather use something that gives me confidence straight away.

• What have I learned? I wish L.A.B. had brought out a slightly smaller version of the original Link.1 rather than going in this new direction. There are things I like here, particularly the milled face and 303 stainless steel construction, but performance is what matters most, and this one didn’t deliver for me.

I’d love to know if you have tried the new Link 2.1 from L.A.B. and what you thought of it. Please leave a comment below.

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button helps more people find it.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

I’ve been back playing golf for around two weeks now after my latest injury, and the overriding feeling is cautious optimism. I say my latest injury because this return has not happened in isolation. I was already easing back into golf after the hernia repair when I hurt my ankle, while also adjusting to orthotics, managing elbow pain, and experimenting with JumboMax grips. In reality, this has not felt like a simple return to golf. It has felt more like recovery part two. Recovery 2.0, if you like.

The initial target was to return in time for the Caddie School for Soldiers day at Craigtoun, which gave the comeback a useful focus. I was not simply trying to rush back for the sake of playing; I was trying to be ready for a specific day that mattered. Craigtoun is a hilly and physically demanding course, so the thought of returning there was quite daunting. Knowing I would have a caddie to help me round made it feel more manageable. In the end, after approval from my physiotherapist, I returned a couple of days earlier, easing myself in with rounds with friends on the Jubilee and Strathtyrum courses before playing at Craigtoun.

The bigger thing about the Caddie School for Soldiers day, though, was that it helped me get out of my own head. It is very easy, when you are working your way back from an injury, to become absorbed by your own thoughts, frustrations and moments of self-pity. Being at Craigtoun shifted that perspective. I was there alongside people recovering from issues far more severe than mine, trying to rebuild their lives in a new and more positive direction. That was humbling, and it was a privilege to be part of it. I hope I get the chance to do it again with future groups.

Physically, the return has been encouraging. The ankle has held up well to the rigours of play, although it remains strapped for the time being. Daily rehab is now part of my morning routine, and I’m trying to be disciplined about that rather than assuming that being back on the course means the work is done.

The elbow remains a bigger concern because it has been going on for so long. Again, daily rehab is part of the routine, and I’m also supplementing that with strength training at the gym. I’m determined to get on top of it. The theory behind switching to JumboMax grips is simple enough: a larger grip may reduce tension through the hands, forearms and elbow, and anything that eases that load is worth exploring. Initial impressions are positive, and the theory seems to be working in practice. I’ll write a proper review of the grips once I’ve had some more time with them.

Another change I’m still getting used to is orthotics, which affect how my feet meet the ground and, in turn, how the rest of my body organises itself. I’m working on the theory that if my connection to the ground is poor, if my balance is compromised, or if I’m not using pressure properly through the swing, then it makes sense that the hands and arms might end up doing more work than they should. I do not know whether that is what caused the tendonitis, but it is a possibility I am taking seriously. The question is not just how to quieten the elbow down. It is whether I can improve the movement pattern that may have helped create the problem in the first place.

As an AimPoint user, I’m relieved to report that the orthotics do not seem to have affected my ability to feel slope through my feet. If anything, their firmness may help more than hinder.

Playing with pain is mentally draining, and there have been times when I’ve found myself contemplating what life would be like if I could no longer play golf. There are bigger problems in the world than that, of course, but it is still an outcome I want to avoid. Don’t worry, I won’t be shopping for lycra any time soon.

I want to get back to playing properly, but the hard part now is not rushing to make up for lost rounds. The bigger aim is to return in a way that gives me years of golf rather than a few impatient weeks. That means balancing rounds with practice, rest and gym work. Sometimes a short, focused practice session may be better than a full round.

For now, the encouraging part is that I am playing again. A few weeks ago, the question was whether I could get back on the course at all. Now the question is how to keep moving forward without creating another setback.

That means keeping the load sensible and rebuilding trust gradually. The priority is rhythm, balance, movement, comfort and confidence.

Progress intelligently. Build it to last.

Thanks for reading. If you’ve dealt with injury, recovery, or rebuilding trust in your body on the golf course, I’d be interested to hear how you approached it.

Please like, comment, share or subscribe if you enjoy following these notes. It all helps the blog grow.

Subscribe now

Further reading:

Caddie School for Soldiers

Returning Carefully

I tried to Fix How I move

I’ve played Cobra drivers before, having been fitted for the Fly-Z and F8 previously. My best results have generally come from their more forgiving heads (but I could find them spinny), making this a very interesting experiment.

When I saw this driver listed on eBay, including an interesting upcharge shaft in the Oban Isawa Red, curiosity got the better of me, and it simply felt like too good an opportunity not to buy it and try it out. I already had a quote from a well-known retailer for selling it again, so I knew my downside was limited.

Interestingly, the previous owner had been fitted for this by SGGT (presumably Chesterfield given their address) and the shaft had also been Pured. When I received the club, I messaged the seller to ask why they had sold it. The answer was interesting. They had been a long-term Ping player, and despite the Cobra performing better in the fitting, they just felt more comfortable with Ping and had decided to switch back.

That’s been an expensive decision, as they’ve taken a big hit selling this to me, but life is too short to play a driver you don’t have confidence in. It also highlights some of the issues I touch on in my note “Why do we keep buying new drivers”. If you are just not comfortable with a club, tell the fitter before you spend the money.

How did I test the Cobra?

Because I bought this driver, I had a bit more time than usual to test it. Given that I was recovering from my ankle injury, extra time was something I needed. Testing consisted of on-course play, range sessions and launch monitor data, with my Titleist GT2 as the benchmark. The GT2 is a 10° head, set flat, and I’ve adjusted the Cobra to be as close to that as possible.

FutureFit33: There’s a lot of unfair criticism about this technology, but it is so much easier to use than some reviewers make out. You can either follow their guided fitting process, take 5-10 shots, enter the flight details and take their recommendation, or use the fitting chart and adjust yourself. It really is easy. The only downside compared to the Titleist version is that your shaft orientation will change.

Looks/Feel/Sound: Personally, I think this is a great-looking driver. To my eye, it sits behind the ball perfectly, looking neutral to slightly open, and inspires a lot of confidence. I think it is much better looking than the Callaway drivers, and the leading edge is much less distracting. I’m glad they have moved away from the matte finish of the previous model, which I never really liked.

Sound and feel are both excellent. The head doesn’t feel harsh at all and makes a lovely, powerful sound when struck.

Performance:

On course: I tried the driver on the Strathtyrum and Craigtoun courses. On the Strathtyrum, I had the time to test it directly against my Titleist GT2, but on the Craigtoun, I was playing with others in an organised match, so I could only use the one driver.

Throughout the first round, the Max-K immediately impressed me. The sound and feel were excellent and much more pleasant than the G440K. The ball just wanted to go straight and, best-for-best, it appeared to be outperforming the GT2. The concern I had was that the shaft was possibly not quite right and felt a bit “looser” than the Ventus Red in the GT2. If I really went for it, I could lose it to the left. It’s a shaft that seems to benefit from a smooth, unrushed swing.

The second round was the Cobra only, and the left tendency showed up again. It got to the point during this round that I switched to using 3-wood from the tee, rather than risking the driver. I continued to like the sound and feel, but the second round introduced more concerns about the fit.

One other caveat is that I have just switched to JumboMax grips to see if they help with my tendonitis. This was my first couple of rounds using them, and they take some time to adjust to. As I have gotten used to the grips, the GT2 performance has improved considerably.

On the range: I had two range sessions, one using Toptracer at the St Andrews Academy and the other using my Garmin R10 on the range at Dumbarnie. Toptracer only shows ball speed and carry data and doesn’t provide spin. My R10 provides spin, but with a very strong tailwind on the day of testing, I don’t think it was very accurate. The initial Toptracer session suggested the GT2 was about 8 yards longer on average over the session and was also more accurate. The second session with the R10 put them absolutely neck and neck, with only 1 yard between them. I hit a lot more balls on the second session and think it is a fairer representation. The left-to-right dispersion was tighter with the GT2.

Auchterlonies testing: I had a fitting session booked with Adam at Auchterlonies, which gave me the chance to try the Cobra on Trackman. I’d really hoped he would have a Ventus that I could try too, but he didn’t. This session confirmed my suspicions from on-course testing that it spins too much! Even reducing the loft as much as possible, it was still averaging 3300rpm of spin. That was fine when hitting downwind on the Dumbarnie range, but it will struggle in the opposite direction. Interestingly, my swing was also 3mph slower with the Cobra. But this is intended as a fairway finding driver, rather than a bombers driver.

Shaft thought: The Oban Isawa Red has a lovely smooth feel, but it’s not as stable in the tip as the Ventus Red. Both are described as mid-launch, mid-spin, but it’s how that’s delivered that makes the difference. When my timing was right with the Oban, it really got the ball out there, but it needed care and attention, coupled with a smooth tempo, to get the most from it. Swapping from club to club, I preferred the feel of my own Ventus Red, especially when I wanted to swing harder.

Final verdict

The Cobra OPTM Max-K is an excellent driver. Performance was very close to my GT2, and it doesn’t just look good, it sounds and feels good too. After the first session on the Strathtyrum, I thought it was going to go straight in the bag. But over the rest of the tests, the GT2 fought back, and it was far from a one-horse race. I can’t help but wonder how the Max-K would have performed using my own shaft, but unfortunately, I wasn’t able to test that.

A review of this driver wouldn’t be complete without mentioning price as this is where Cobra really differentiate. At £479 (or less), you are saving £100 or more over the equivalent Ping or Titleist drivers. That will buy you a couple of dozen balls or even a couple of lessons. As I said at the start, I bought this club second-hand, and at only £350, I think it was a total bargain. Especially with the Oban shaft upgrade and Pureing, which likely took the original price on this to around £650.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? I could if I had to, but my GT2 is better fitted.

• What would I change? The shaft. It would be really interesting to see if the Ventus Red could get any more performance out of the head.

• What have I learned? Driver fitting is about compromise. This driver found a lot of fairways, but I had to be careful with my swing. I couldn’t swing it as fast as my GT2, but if it’s finding fairways, then is that an issue?

• Who would it fit? Really, this should be on everyone’s must-try list in 2026. It looks great, feels great and performs well. Even without a proper fitting, it gave my GT2 a run for its money. Cobra describes it as their most forgiving driver ever, and I found that hard to disagree with. There’s a lot to like.

Have you tried the new Cobra driver range yet? Have you bought one? I’d be interested to know which model suited you best, what you switched from and why. Let me know in the comments section below.

If you enjoyed this review, please consider subscribing to The Clubhouse for more honest, everyday golf equipment testing.

Subscribe now

Related topics:

• Why do we keep buying new drivers

• Five new drivers for 2026

Having already tested the newer Phantom 5 OC and Phantom 5.5, I spotted this 2022 Phantom 5S in the Auchterlonies second-hand store and wondered if it might sit somewhere between the two.

The 5 OC exceeded my pre-test expectations. The 5.5 disappointed. But was that down to the head shape, the shaft position, or some combination of both?

That was the question that made this older 5S interesting.

Subscribe now

First Impressions

When I first picked this up, I immediately liked the way it sat behind the ball. It felt comfortable straight away.

That doesn’t always happen.

As we will come on to later, I think that has a lot to do with how the shaft attaches to the head. The shaft enters directly into the thicker blade section, with the alignment line sitting just above it. That gives a very clear relationship between the shaft, the face and the sightline.

It immediately reminded me of my SeeMore putters, which was a big positive.

This is an older Scotty Cameron model from two releases back, around 2022 to 2023. It has the solid alignment line that I like, and it also has a fully milled face rather than the insert used on the new models. It’s not completely face-balanced either, with around 10 to 15 degrees of toe hang.

The fangs are subtly different from the latest model, as shown in the alignment section below. I actually found them less distracting on this older version.

That was a surprise.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 584g (on the heavy side)

• Head weight: undeclared, 2x15g head weights

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3.5° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Minimal 10-15°

• Grip: Scotty Pistolero Plus

As this was a second-hand buy, it could be adjusted for length and lie in the store, but changing the length would likely require a new grip.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Practice green at Craigtoun Course

• Conditions: A lovely May day with warm sunshine but a stiff breeze. The wind was strong enough to need factoring in to putts.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

The practice green at Craigtoun Course was in great condition and rolling nicely. It was a lovely day for testing, although the breeze was stiff enough to need taking into consideration.

After my other centre-shafted testing, I was intrigued to see how the 5S would perform. It is at the heavier end of my comfort zone, which took a bit of getting used to, but once I settled into it, I found it a very enjoyable putter to use.

The caveat is obvious: this was a single practice-green session in breezy conditions. I would want to repeat the test and get it onto the course before drawing firmer conclusions.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I much prefer this older model to the current version. I find the fangs visually less noisy, and I was immediately more comfortable with this head.

It is a second-hand putter, but it has been well looked after and is in great condition. At £300, I wouldn’t expect anything less, though.

Grip (+ve): The Pistolero Plus grip sits very nicely in my lead hand and feels comfortable. I like a lot of the Scotty Cameron grips, and this one suited the putter well.

Headcover (-ve): A familiar complaint in my Scotty Cameron reviews.

As this is second-hand, I can’t complain too much, but Scotty Cameron really could do better with headcovers. I recently saw someone selling magnetic conversion kits, but they are only going to work if the Velcro is still in good condition.

Aim/Alignment (+ve): This is the main point of the review.

The similarity to my SeeMore putters made me very comfortable. The shaft enters directly into the thicker blade section, with the sightline sitting just above it. That combination gives me a very clear visual relationship between shaft, face and alignment.

The start-line result was solid, although just behind the SeeMore. That feels about right. The 5S gave me a very comfortable visual picture, but the SeeMore remains the benchmark for alignment and start line.

If there is one thing to come from this review, it’s that when it comes to centre-shafted putters, I seem to prefer this style of shaft attachment.

The BB-28 and Pippi 12 helped me clarify that centre-shafted putters can suit me, but this was different. The Phantom 5S felt more natural because the shaft, blade section and alignment line all worked together in a way my eyes understood quickly.

I don’t think I just like centre-shafted putters.

I think I like centre-shafted putters where the shaft enters the front section of the head directly, and where the alignment help sits close to the face.

That’s an important distinction.

Feel and Sound (+ve): It was really nice to go back to an older, fully milled Cameron head and get that familiar sound and feel.

Interestingly, I’ve always preferred the feel of Scotty Cameron mallets rather than their blades. It must be something to do with the extra mass. There is a solidity to the strike that I really enjoy, without it feeling too hard or clicky.

Pace Control (+ve): It’s a heavy putter, but my pace control was good.

It took a little while to adjust to the weight, but once I did, the 5S performed well. Uphill lag putting matched my SeeMore, and downhill it was only slightly behind. If anything, I felt more comfortable with the 5S than my SeeMore on the lag test.

That was similar to my experience with the 5 OC, where I also found pace control to be strong.

Performance Overall (+ve): The performance was strong enough to make the test feel meaningful rather than just interesting.

The Phantom 5S was very steady through the make test. From 3ft, 6ft and 9ft, the results were exactly where I would want them to be. The 12ft test was the only slightly odd one, with a poor middle set followed by a recovery, but that feels more like normal putting variance than a major concern.

It didn’t beat the SeeMore overall, and the start-line test still slightly favoured my gamer, but the 5S was close enough to make me want more time with it. That’s probably the fairest conclusion from one practice-green session.

It combined some of what I liked about the 5 OC with some of what I hoped to like about the 5.5. It had stability, a little more natural flow than I expected, and a visual setup that felt much more familiar.

Unfortunately, this one had to be returned to the shop because another customer was interested, so I didn’t get the chance to try it on the course under scoring pressure.

Price (neutral): At £300, this is still pretty expensive for a three to four-year-old putter.

That said, it’s also a good example of how well Scotty Cameron putters tend to hold their value. If you buy carefully, there is usually a decent resale market, which makes experimenting with second-hand models slightly less painful.

What does Vertex say?

Vertex testing was done indoors on my putting mat.

Face at impact: With an average of 0.9° open with 83% consistency, this was pretty much in line with my normal results.

Tempo: 1.8 with 97% consistency. Despite my comments about getting used the the weight, this was a very positive result.

Acceleration: 1.7 meters per second squared with lower consistency at 70%. That may well be down to getting comfortable with the heavier feel.

Lie angle at impact, shaft lean at impact, and loft angle at impact were all within the Vertex target ranges, suggesting a good physical fit.

Conclusion

The Scotty Cameron Phantom 5S was another positive surprise.

It didn’t replace my SeeMore, and I didn’t get the chance to take it on the course under scoring pressure, so I need to be careful not to overstate the result. But as a test, it was genuinely useful.

The 5S helped me understand why some centre-shafted putters suit my eye better than others. It isn’t just about the shaft being in the middle. It is about how the shaft enters the head, where the alignment line sits, and whether my eyes are encouraged to aim from the face rather than from the back of the putter.

That’s where this older Phantom 5S worked so well.

It gave me some of the stability I liked in the 5 OC, a little of the natural flow I wanted from the 5.5, and a visual setup that felt much closer to my SeeMore putters.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? Not quite, but only because I didn’t get enough time with it. I would definitely be interested in finding another one for more comprehensive testing.

• What would I change? The fangs. Even though I found them less distracting on this older model, I still think they would be an easy target on bad putting days.

• What have I learned? I like centre-shafted putters, but the way the shaft attaches to the head and the way alignment lines are used really matters. The Phantom 5S helped clarify that I prefer a direct shaft-to-face relationship, with the sightline close to the front section of the putter.

You can find all my other putter reviews, including my other Phantom reviews, by clicking the link below.

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button helps more people find it.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

Having been surprised by the success of the Bettinardi BB-28 in my previous review, I was keen to see if I could find a similar putter that addressed some of the size and weight concerns I had noted.

That was the question behind this test.

I’ve found that I like the design language of centre-shafted blades, especially when the putter gives me a clear relationship between the shaft, the face and the leading edge. But I also remain sensitive to weight, grip feel and alignment lines.

So the theory was simple enough: could I find something with the centre-shafted appeal of the BB-28, but in a slightly smaller and lighter package?

Enter the Yes! Pippi 12.

This is a classic Anser-style head with the C-Groove face that I liked so much on the Yes! Tracy II. Back in 2012, this was one of the first Yes! releases under the ownership of Adams Golf.

This one came from eBay. It is in excellent condition, given its age, and it cost the princely sum of £60 plus postage.

There really are some excellent putter bargains out there for the sharp-eyed.

Subscribe now

First Impressions

There is a subtle change to the design language in this Adams Golf era of Yes! putters. The older two-tone look had been replaced by an all-black PVD finish, and they added a polymer-filled sound slot.

The C-Groove face is still there, which was one of the main reasons I wanted to try it. I liked the roll and feel of the Tracy II, so I was curious to see whether that same face technology would work in a centre-shafted blade.

In terms of looks and quality, I would say this putter reminds me a little of the Odyssey DFX line. The original price point of £149 would also place it in a similar bracket.

It’s a good-looking putter, but the Bettinardi is clearly the more premium object. That’s not really a criticism of the Yes!, because the pricing reflects that difference. It just doesn’t have the same quality of materials or finish.

The only small issue is the grip. This one has been fitted with a Ping Pingman grip. I like the texture, but it’s just a touch too thin for my liking.

In theory, I’d prefer something slightly thicker. A Lamkin Deep Etched Sink Fit would be the obvious candidate, as that has worked well for me on the BB-28. But as I’ll come to later, I’m not sure the grip is the main problem.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 542g

• Head weight: 350g

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

• Toe Hang: Around 30°

• Grip: Ping Pingman, thin.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The practice green at the St Andrews Golf Academy is a bit patchy at the moment, so testing moved to the excellent green at Craigtoun, which is now running very nicely. It is a great place to practice and is more challenging than it looks in the photo.

• Conditions: A nice May afternoon with warm sunshine and a strong breeze. Strong enough to make me factor it in to my putting.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

It’s lovely to be back up practising at the Craigtoun Course again.

The green was in good condition and running well, but it was a breezy afternoon. Strong enough that I had to factor the wind into some of the longer putts, especially during the lag testing.

This was one formal test session, supported by a few more casual practice sessions. That distinction is relevant here because the Pippi 12 felt more comfortable when I was putting around than it did under structured pressure testing.

The results were decent overall, matching rather than exceeding my benchmark putter. But is that enough to earn a place in the bag?

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I like the smaller shape. It is compact, tidy and sits nicely behind the ball. The black finish works well and had no negative impact on alignment. If anything, I generally prefer black putters, so that part suited my eye.

The putter is also in excellent condition, especially given its age.

Grip (neutral): The Ping Pingman grip is a classic shape and the texture is good, but it felt too thin for me. I found myself becoming a little jerky with it, especially on longer putts.

In theory, I’d prefer something slightly thicker. However, I’m not going to change it, because the grip wouldn’t solve my bigger concerns with the feel, sound and flange line.

Headcover (-ve): Another Velcro fastener, and this one is really showing its age. The Velcro has failed, and the fabric is deteriorating. But it is 14 years old!

This obviously doesn’t affect performance, but it is one of those small second-hand putter realities. Sometimes you get a bargain. Sometimes you also get a headcover that has lived a full life, and you need to factor a replacement into the true cost.

Aim and Alignment (neutral): The actual aim performance was good. In the gate drill, the Pippi 12 matched my benchmark putter, with both going 6 from 6.

The more important point is how it looked and felt behind the ball. The Pippi 12 confirmed that I like centre-shafted, straight-shafted putters. When the shaft sits close to the ball, the whole picture feels simpler to me. I don’t feel as though I’m aiming from the heel, the hosel or the back of the putter. I feel as though the shaft, face and ball are all part of the same visual system.

It’s almost like I’m trying to hit the ball with the shaft.

That might not sound technically correct, but as a feel, it makes sense to me. It gives me confidence in my aim, and it helps my eyes settle on the strike area rather than wandering around the rest of the head.

The flange line was less convincing. It felt more prominent than expected and more “in your face” than the line on the BB-28, even though it is shorter. That’s a good reminder that alignment is not just about length. Placement, contrast and how your eye reacts to it all matter.

Feel and Sound (-ve): This was the biggest disappointment. I had high expectations here because I liked the Yes! Tracy II so much, but the Pippi 12 didn’t give me the same experience.

I think the sound slot is the problem, at least for my taste. It makes the putter sound clicky and harsh compared with the Tracy II. The C-Groove face still puts a nice roll on the ball, but the overall sound and feel were not what I hoped for.

Weight (+ve): I do prefer the lighter overall weight compared with the BB-28 and my SeeMore Nashville mFGP. At 542g, it is the same as my Mini Giant FGP, and that feels like a sensible range for me.

It is heavy enough to provide stability, but not so heavy that I feel the head is doing too much of the work.

Stability and feedback (neutral): The Pippi 12 was definitely not as stable as the BB-28 or my SeeMore putters. It gave a lot of feedback on strike quality, and I could clearly feel when contact was not quite centred, but I can’t say that I liked it. Could that be down to the shaft? It certainly doesn’t feel as stiff as my other putters.

Pace Control (neutral): This was the weakest part of the test, and I think it is related to the points above. The results were still decent overall, but I could get a little jerky with it, especially on longer putts when I felt like I had to hit it harder. The miss was more two-way than anything definite to the right or left.

It was never extreme, but it did make the putter feel slightly less predictable than my benchmark. In casual practice, pace control was better. Under structured testing, it became more fragile.

Compared with the BB-28 and SeeMore (neutral): The more I used the Pippi 12, the closer it got to the BB-28, but the Bettinardi still felt more comfortable behind the ball and better through the stroke. Pace control, feel, sound and confidence were all stronger with the BB-28 and the SeeMore.

That doesn’t mean the BB-28 has won the job. It has gone in the bag for course testing, but I still come back to the SeeMore heads for visual comfort and trust. I prefer their top alignment line and boxy, rectangular design. Both of my SeeMore putters give me more confidence at address than either the BB-28 or the Pippi 12.

That probably tells me where things stand. The Pippi 12 supports the centre-shafted idea, but it reinforces my preference for the SeeMore design.

Performance Overall (+ve): The performance was good enough to be taken seriously. But it only matched, rather than exceeded, the benchmark putter.

That makes this a useful test rather than a failed one. The issue is that performance is not the only thing that matters with a putter. Sound, feel, stability and visual confidence all feed into trust, and the Pippi 12 didn’t quite give me enough of that.

Price (+ve): At £60 plus postage, this is very good value. It is an older second-hand putter, but it is in excellent condition and offers something quite distinctive.

If you are curious about centre-shafted putters with toe hang, this is exactly the sort of model that makes sense as an experiment.

What does Vertex say?

So far, I’ve only done the Vertex testing indoors on my putting mat, as it’s easier to control the environment. The beauty of the Vertex sensor is its size and portability, though, so I do intend to start using it more on the putting green.

Face change: The Pippi 12 averaged 1.05° open at impact, but consistency was good at 87%. That fits with the outdoor testing, where aim and start line were not the main concern. The putter performed well in the gate drill, and the Vertex data seems to support that.

Rhythm: Rhythm was a little faster at 1.71, but very consistent at 96%. That probably reflects one of the things I liked about the putter. It is lighter than the BB-28 and my SeeMore Nashville mFGP, and I do like that. The lighter overall weight made it easier to move, even if it didn’t always feel as stable.

Acceleration: Acceleration was 1.8m per second squared, but consistency was much lower at 58%. That was the most interesting part of the Vertex data for me. It seems to reflect what I felt during testing and practice, where I could become a little jerky with the stroke and occasionally push putts.

Overall, the Vertex data supports the outdoor test pretty well. Face control and rhythm were decent, but acceleration consistency was the weakness, as it just didn’t always move through the ball as calmly as I wanted.

Conclusion

I’m slightly disappointed overall.

Not because the Yes! Pippi 12 performed badly. It didn’t. The results were decent, and the Vertex data broadly supported what I felt during testing.

The putter aimed well and confirmed that I like the centre-shafted space. There is something about the shaft sitting close to the ball that makes sense to my eye. But there are different ways of achieving that.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? I could, but I’m not going to.

• What would I change? The headcover. In theory, the grip too. But I’m not going to make that change, because it wouldn’t solve the sound, feel or alignment line issues.

• What have I learned? The Pippi 12 has helped me clarify my preferences around centre-shafted designs, toe hang, face-led alignment and alignment line placement.

However, for now, the SeeMore remains the putter in the bag.

Final thought

Have you tried a centre-shafted putter? Was it face-balanced, or did it have toe hang?

Let me know in the comments. I’d be interested to hear what you thought, especially if you’ve found a centre-shafted model that suited your eye.

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button helps more people find it.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

I have started hitting golf balls again.

Not many. Not violently. Not with anything that looks remotely like abandon.

But still: golf balls.

The first session was deliberately cautious. My ankle was well strapped, and I hit around thirty short-game shots. Mostly short swings and half swings, with no full loading into my lead leg. I was hyper-aware of everything. The ankle. The ground. The movement. The possibility of a twinge.

There were a few.

But it was okay.

That sounds like a small sentence, but it felt like quite a big one.

The second session was a little more ambitious. I spent half the time on short game, then hit fifteen or twenty fuller shots. Again, the ankle held up well. It didn’t feel normal, exactly, but it didn’t feel alarming either.

The problem was that my attention shifted elsewhere.

To my elbow.

That has been grumbling away for more than eighteen months now. I’ve called it tendonitis, because that’s the working assumption, but I’m not completely sure. Is it tendonitis? Is it arthritis? Is it something else? I don’t know.

What I do know is that it is there.

And when I started swinging again, I felt it.

There was a clicking sensation, which I presume is the tendon, and suddenly the ankle wasn’t the only thing I was thinking about. That’s the odd thing about returning from injury. You imagine you are working your way back from one problem, but the body has a habit of reminding you that it works as a whole.

Nothing exists in isolation.

I’ve been doing a lot of gym work during this spell away from the course. Upper body strengthening. Flexibility. Stability. Ankle rehab. Elbow rehab. The usual mixture of sensible exercises that look very minor but are somehow quite tiring when done properly.

I’ve tried to use the time well.

I’ve also finally read both of Fred Shoemaker’s books. That feels relevant, because the biggest idea I took from them was awareness. Not swing theory. Not a new move. Not a secret.

Awareness.

What am I actually doing? What am I feeling? What is my body telling me before I rush past the answer?

That has already been useful. Using a fan swing trainer and doing some slow-motion swings, I started to feel that my elbow discomfort may be made worse by early extension in the downswing. When I slowed everything down and got my wrists into a better position, the discomfort reduced.

That doesn’t mean I’ve solved it.

But it does mean I noticed something.

And maybe that’s the point.

The ankle is more obvious. It swells, it stiffens, it complains. It can be strapped, strengthened and measured. It is easier to understand, even when it is frustrating.

The elbow feels more elusive.

It’s one thing to worry about walking, turning and loading properly on the ankle. It’s another to worry that the basic act of swinging a golf club might keep irritating something that has already been hanging around for far too long.

That’s the bit that concerns me most.

I can see a route back for the ankle. It may be slow, but the path is fairly clear: rehab, strength, stability, orthotics, patience. The elbow feels less certain. And that raises a more uncomfortable question.

What if I can’t play freely?

Not perfectly. I gave up on that idea a long time ago.

But freely.

What if I’m always aware of the next twinge? What if every round becomes a negotiation with pain? What if I get back to the course, but not back to the feeling I actually miss?

Perhaps not quite as much as I expected, which has surprised me. The weather has helped. When it’s cold, wet and miserable, being injured feels slightly less offensive. I’ve also kept myself busy. Reading has helped. Writing has helped. Thinking about golf has helped.

But I do miss it.

I miss being outside. I miss the rhythm of a round. I miss the nonsense talked between shots. I miss the easy adult conversation that comes from walking beside someone for four hours with no particular agenda other than getting a small white ball around a field.

That sounds flippant, but it isn’t.

Golf is one of my main social spaces. It is where I see friends, meet people and have conversations that sit outside the immediate orbit of family life. Losing that, even temporarily, has reminded me that golf is not just a game I play.

It is part of how I live.

Next Monday, I’m due to play my first round back. It won’t be a normal round. It’s part of Caddie School for Service Veterans, a charity helping veterans move into caddying, and I’ll be playing while taking one of the caddies on a training round.

In some ways, that feels like a very fitting return.

It won’t be about score. It can’t be. I’ll need to be careful, measured and sensible. I’ll need to listen to the ankle, listen to the elbow, and resist the temptation to turn one encouraging session into evidence that everything is fixed.

But I’ll also be there for someone else.

That matters. The point of the round isn’t just to test my ankle or ease myself back into golf. It is to help give the caddy a useful training experience, to listen properly, and to be part of their day rather than making the whole thing about mine.

I’ll need to listen to the caddy.

That may be the most important part of the day. Whatever frustrations I’ve had over the last few weeks, and whatever worries I have about an ankle or an elbow, I’ll be walking beside someone whose life experience will almost certainly put my own problems into perspective.

That doesn’t make my concerns disappear.

But it should help put them in their proper place.

There has also been another, more serious, layer to all of this. My physiotherapist has suggested that, in the longer term, I may need to consider stabilisation surgery on the ankle. InternalBrace augmentation of the lateral ligament was the phrase used. In plain English, it was described to me as a kind of seatbelt for the ankle: extra support to help stabilise the joint and reduce the risk of repeated sprains.

I was shocked.

The video of the physio manipulating the ankle makes the issue very clear. Compared with the good ankle, there is far too much movement. Seeing that was quite disturbing. It is one thing to know you have a problem. It is another thing to watch it move around on a screen.

The surgery suggestion makes sense in context. I’ve had repeated sprains over the years. That frequency is one of the reasons I went to the podiatrist in the first place, and why I’ve now been fitted for orthotics.

But I’m not ready to jump to surgery.

Not yet.

My instinct is to explore and exhaust the non-surgical route first. Strengthen the ankle. Use the orthotics. Improve stability. Build better movement patterns. Give the rehab process a proper chance before deciding that the only answer is an operation.

That may change.

But for now, that feels like the right approach.

The strange thing is that this injury has not just interrupted golf. It has deepened thoughts and questions that were already there.

It is tied up with bigger decisions I’ve made about work, time and what I want life to feel like, but this probably isn’t the place to unpack all of that.

In golf terms, I’ve been circling these ideas on The Club House for a while now. I’ve written before about golf, gratitude, awareness and the danger of reducing everything to score.

So the ankle hasn’t created the question.

It has just made it harder to ignore.

My round at Kingussie was another example. I was in the Highlands to visit a friend and fitted the golf around that, rather than the other way round. For once, the score felt secondary. The peace mattered more. The air mattered more. The views mattered more.

I remember thinking that I couldn’t hit the sky or the mountains.

So why was I in such a rush to reduce everything to yardages, clubs and outcomes?

It wasn’t an epiphany. It was another nudge in the same direction.

That is the version of golf I’m trying to move towards.

Not careless golf. Not passive golf. Not pretending that scores and shots don’t matter at all, because of course they do.

But a version of golf where I’m more aware.

Aware of the body. Aware of the place. Aware of the people I’m with. Aware of the difference between trying properly and forcing things.

That’s easy to write and harder to live.

Especially when the first tee comes back into view.

But maybe that’s the opportunity in all of this. The ankle has forced me to slow down. The elbow has forced me to pay attention. Shoemaker has given me a better language for awareness. And the time away has reminded me that golf is not only something I do when my body is behaving perfectly.

It is something I need to learn how to return to properly.

So next week is not a comeback.

Not really.

It is a measured reintroduction. A careful first step. A chance to see what the body says when theory becomes walking, swinging and playing again.

I want to play.

I want to enjoy it.

But more than that, I want to listen.

Because getting back matters.

Getting back properly matters more.

Final Thoughts

Have you ever had a spell away from golf that changed how you thought about the game when you came back?

I’d genuinely be interested to hear your experiences in the comments.

And if you enjoy these more reflective pieces alongside the equipment reviews, please consider subscribing to The Club House and hitting the like button. It really does help the blog grow.

Subscribe now

Further Reading

If you want to follow some of the threads behind this post, these are good places to start:

• The Golfing Stoic

• Transcendental Golf

• My first ankle injury post

Zero-torque putters are everywhere.

What started as a slightly niche idea has become one of the biggest equipment stories in golf. L.A.B. Golf, Axis1, Odyssey, TaylorMade, PXG and others have all chased a similar promise: make the putter more stable, reduce unwanted face rotation, and help golfers start the ball online more often.

It is a compelling idea. It also makes intuitive sense. If the putter face is the biggest determinant of start line, and if unwanted rotation makes that face harder to control, then surely a putter that wants to stay square should make putting easier.

That is the theory.

But golf is rarely that tidy.

Over the last year or so, some tour players have tested zero-torque or low-torque putters and then moved back towards other shapes. Some have returned to centre-shafted mallets. Some have gone back into familiar Spider-style heads. Some, like Justin Rose, have spent years with torque-balanced ideas before still finding themselves searching elsewhere.

That does not mean zero torque is wrong. It does not mean the technology is a gimmick. In fact, some players have putted brilliantly with these models. Brian Harman won almost immediately with TaylorMade’s Spider 5K-ZT. Michael Kim won on the DP World Tour with the same putter. Plenty of golfers, professional and amateur, clearly find something useful in how these putters organise the face.

But the players who have moved away from them raise a more interesting question:

What if reducing torque solves one putting problem, but not the whole putting problem?

The tour players who tried it and moved back

Rickie Fowler is one of the most interesting examples.

Before moving into L.A.B. Golf putters, Fowler had experimented with heavier, more stable setups, including a face-balanced Odyssey Jailbird Cruiser with a lot of extra lead tape. He then spent time with L.A.B. models, including the DF3 and DF2.1, before returning to a centre-shafted Scotty Cameron GoLo-style prototype that he has apparently had for years.

That is not a move from modern technology back to an old-fashioned heel-shafted blade. It is more subtle than that. It looks like a search for the right balance between stability, weight, tempo and feel.

In an interview about the switch (towards the end of this clip), Fowler talked less about technology and more about tempo, feel, hands, timing and touch. That sounds familiar. He had tested different ways of making the putter feel more stable, but seemed to come back to something that allowed him to feel the head and use his hands in a way that suited him.

Fowler moved back to something that still looks central, clean and face-related, but perhaps gives him a more natural sense of release.

Gary Woodland appears to have followed a similar path, recently moving into a centre-shafted Scotty Cameron GoLo Tour Prototype after using one of Scotty Cameron’s low-torque Phantom OC models. Again, the interesting part is not simply that he moved away from low torque. It is what he moved towards: a centre-shafted mallet with a clear, simple relationship between shaft, face and alignment.

Brian Harman is the reminder that this is not a simple story of success or failure. He put TaylorMade’s Spider 5K-ZT into play and won almost immediately at the Valero Texas Open. And yet, from what has been reported and seen since, he appears to have moved back towards a more familiar face-balanced Spider-style setup. That does not make the zero-torque experiment a failure. It may simply show that a putter can work brilliantly for a week without becoming the putter a player wants to live with forever.

Collin Morikawa, Justin Rose and Dustin Johnson add different versions of the same point. Morikawa has searched across Spider models, flow necks, centre-shafted versions and blades. Rose used Axis1 putters for years, so he is not someone who briefly tried torque-free thinking and rejected it. DJ has moved between L.A.B., TaylorMade Spider and Scotty Cameron mallets.

Different players. Different histories. Same broader lesson.

The most stable putter on paper is not automatically the one that gives a player the best tempo, touch or freedom.

The wrong conclusion

The easy conclusion would be this:

Some tour players are leaving zero torque, so zero torque must be overrated.

I do not think that is right.

The better conclusion is this:

Tour players are testing zero torque because the idea is genuinely useful. Some stay with it. Some do not. The reason is that putting is not only about face stability.

It is about aim.

It is about pace.

It is about how the putter sits behind the ball.

It is about whether the shaft looks connected to the face.

It is about whether the head encourages a free stroke or makes you feel as though you are operating machinery.

More than anything, it is about whether the putter gives you a sense of trust before you move it.

That is the part I find most interesting, because it connects directly to my own experience testing putters.

My own zero-torque experiences

I understand the appeal of zero torque.

I like putters that make the face feel organised. I do not want to feel as though I am rescuing the face through impact. I like a putter that makes the starting direction feel obvious. I can see why a putter that reduces unwanted rotation would be attractive.

But the more putters I test, the more I realise that I am not simply looking for maximum stability.

I am looking for visual trust.

That is not quite the same thing.

My own putting pattern has become clearer over time. I am a face-led aimer. I tend to aim with the leading edge and the topline more than with large shapes behind the ball. If the face looks square quickly, I can settle. If the picture looks busy, awkward or rear-dominated, I start negotiating with the putter before I have even made a stroke.

That is why some putters can make sense on paper and still not work for me.

A high-MOI mallet might be stable, but if the back of the head dominates my eye, I may not aim it well. A face-balanced putter might match one version of my stroke, but if it feels too resistant to release, I may start steering it. A zero-torque putter might help the face behave, but if the shaft sits too far behind the face or the whole thing feels too engineered, I may lose the freedom that helps me control pace.

That last point has become especially important.

In my own testing, I have not found that I need a putter with no rotation. What I seem to need is a putter that looks visually central and face-led, while still allowing some natural flow.

That is a different fit.

It is why I have found certain centre-shafted and near-centre-shafted shapes interesting. It is why the SeeMore FGP idea makes sense to me. It is also why the Bettinardi BB-28 has been a useful diagnostic putter. It gave me a central, face-led picture without feeling locked.

I do not mind alignment help. I mind alignment help that competes with the face.

I do not mind stability. I mind stability that makes the stroke feel administered rather than made.

I do not mind technology. I mind technology that makes me think more.

The issue of onset

One of the more specific things I have noticed is that onset may matter more to me than toe hang.

Some zero-torque mallets place the shaft noticeably behind the face. That may be part of how the design works, but visually, for me, it can make the putter feel as though the face is no longer in charge. The shaft, the centre of mass and the back of the head start to become the story.

I seem to do better when the shaft looks closer to the strike area.

I do not think I am alone in that. It is interesting to see how many manufacturers are now experimenting with zero-torque designs where the shaft has been moved forward, and now with heel-shafted designs too. That seems to acknowledge something important: stability may matter, but so does the way the putter looks when you set it behind the ball.

For me, that does not mean the putter has to be perfectly centre-shafted. It does not even mean it has to be face-balanced. Some putters with meaningful toe hang can still work if the visual relationship between shaft and face feels honest.

That is why I keep coming back to this phrase:

Visually central, functionally flowing.

That, for me, might be the sweet spot.

It is also why the tour examples are so interesting. Fowler and Woodland did not appear to move from zero torque into old-school blades. They moved into centre-shafted Scotty Cameron GoLo mallets. Those putters still offer a central, face-related look. They just do it without necessarily giving the player the full zero-torque sensation.

That feels relevant.

It suggests that the alternative to zero torque is not always a traditional blade or mallet. Sometimes it is a middle ground: a putter that looks simple and central, but still lets the player feel the head release.

Why this matters for ordinary golfers

Most of us buy putters by category.

Blade or mallet.

Toe hang or face-balanced.

Centre-shafted or heel-shafted.

Insert or milled.

Zero torque or standard.

Those categories are useful, but they can also be misleading. A golfer might say they hate mallets when what they really hate is rear alignment. Another might say they need face balance when what they really need is a putter that sits square. Another might say they love centre-shafted putters when what they actually love is seeing the shaft and face in a simple relationship.

That is the trap I am trying to avoid.

The better questions are more personal:

• Does the face look square quickly?

• Does the shaft look connected to the strike area?

• Does the alignment help confirm what I already see, or does it give me a second opinion?

• Does the head feel stable without feeling locked?

• Can I feel strike and pace clearly?

• Does the putter make me want to roll the ball, or does it make me want to manage the stroke?

These are not questions you always answer in one fitting session, or by rolling six putts on an indoor mat. They take time. They take trial and error. They take a few wrong turns, a few putters that make sense on paper, and a few surprising ones that make sense only when you put them behind the ball.

In many ways, that is what this blog has become: a slow process of experimentation, self-fitting and self-discovery. Not because I think every golfer should copy my preferences, but because watching one golfer work through the process honestly might help others ask better questions about their own.

Those questions are not as neat as a fitting chart.

But they may be more useful.

Zero torque is a solution, just not the only solution

I do not think zero-torque putters are going away.

Nor should they.

They solve a real problem for a lot of golfers. If a player struggles to control the face, aims better with the shaft in that position, and feels more confident when the head resists twisting, then the technology can be genuinely liberating.

But I also do not think zero torque should be treated as the end of the conversation.

A putter can be more stable and less suitable.

A putter can be technically clever and visually wrong.

A putter can work brilliantly for a week and still not become the one a player wants to live with.

That is not because golfers are irrational, although we often are. It is because putting is a strange blend of geometry, feel, memory and nerve.

The putter has to do more than behave.

It has to persuade you.

That is what I take from the tour switches. None of them proves that zero torque is wrong. They prove that putter fitting is still personal, even for the best of the best.

Where I am now

My own conclusion is not that I should avoid zero torque.

It is that I need to be careful about what part of zero torque I am responding to.

That is one reason the two BGT putters were such a useful comparison. They came from the same zero-torque family, but presented the idea in two very different ways: one as a blade, the other as a mallet.

If I like a zero-torque putter because the face looks organised, the shaft feels close to the strike area, and the head gives me confidence without clutter, then it could absolutely work. That was closer to my experience with the BGT Blade.

If I like the idea of zero torque but the actual putter makes the face feel distant, the head feel rear-led, or the stroke feel too managed, then it probably will not. That was closer to my experience with the BGT Mallet.

That is why I keep coming back to my own putting rule:

See the face. Trust the picture. Let it release.

For me, the best putter is unlikely to be the one that simply removes the most rotation. It will be the one that gives me the clearest picture and the freest stroke.

Sometimes that might be zero torque.

Sometimes it might be centre-shafted.

Sometimes it might be a conventional mallet with the right neck.

Sometimes it might be something that makes no sense on paper but looks perfect behind the ball.

And perhaps that is the real lesson from the tour players who have tried zero torque and moved back.

The best putter is not the one with the most convincing theory.

It is the one that lets you trust what you see and feel.

Thanks for reading The Club House. This post pulls together a few different putter thoughts and experiments, but the bigger theme is one I keep coming back to: finding the right putter is rarely as simple as choosing a category.

More broadly, this site is a place for honest, independent golf equipment reviews, self-fitting experiments, and the occasional detour into the psychology of the game. It will probably always have a bias towards putters and putting, but not exclusively. If that sounds interesting, please consider subscribing.

Subscribe now

Further reading

If you want to understand how I test equipment, and follow the wider review archive, these are good places to start:

• My testing framework
  How I try to make equipment reviews fair, consistent and useful for ordinary golfers.

• On the Green
  The home for my putter reviews, putting tests and thoughts from the practice green.

This is a very interesting putter. It is a centre-shafted, wide-bodied blade/mid-mallet, with about 30° of toe-hang. Made from 303 Stainless Steel with an “aggressive” fly-milled face and a graphite grey PVD finish. It is an attractive putter.

This is the second Bettinardi putter I have tried recently, and some readers may remember the BB-48 that I tested last year. While I liked the look and performance of that putter, I really didn’t like how it felt. Will this one be different?

Subscribe now

First Impressions

I was collecting a new bag from Auchterlonies when I spied a couple of Bettinardi putters in the second-hand store. The BB-28 immediately caught my eye simply because of the way it looked. I really liked the graphite grey finish and thought it was a great-looking putter. I’ve been searching for a centre-shafted putter to try for a while, and when I noticed that this one had some toe-hang too, rather than being traditionally face-balanced, I was super intrigued to try it.

My SeeMore putters are similar in that they are very close to being centre-shafted, but both have toe hang. While the Bettinardi is between 20-30°, my Mini-Giant is 60-70°, and the Nashville is almost a full 90°.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 564g (on the heavy side of normal)

• Head weight: 358g

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

• Toe Hang: Bettinardi spec says 1/4 toe-hang, I think it’s around 30°

• Grip: Bettinardi branded Lamkin Sink Fit Deep Etched

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The very nice practice green at the St Andrews Golf Academy.

• Conditions: A lovely April afternoon with warm sunshine and a gentle breeze. Just nice enough for short sleeves.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

Oh, I wasn’t expecting that!

My SeeMore putters have seen off all comers, but are under serious threat from the Bettinardi. From the first putt, I felt very comfortable with it, and that only grew through the testing. The colour of the head hides its size and shape, and really helped me focus on the face when setting up.

This feels like a continuation of what I found through testing the zero-torque blades last season and from gaming the two SeeMore models. I like the putter shaft to be visually close to the face, and I like a putter that helps me focus on the strike area.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I think you’ll have gathered already that I like the way this looks. I’ve definitely got a preference for dark coloured putters, and I particularly like this graphite grey finish. A bit like my SeeMores, it’s a simple shape with few visual distractions (despite being essentially a large Anser shape).

Grip (+ve): I’ve always been a fan of the standard Lamkin Deep Etched grip, but this is the first time I’ve tried the SinkFit model. It has the same familiar shape, but I thought it felt even nicer than the standard model. I liked it.

Headcover (-ve): Another Velcro fastener. This one highlights the issues with that closure mechanism as it ages. One side has become pulled and frayed, making it look untidy, whilst also reducing its effectiveness. Interestingly, the BB-48 I tried last year had a magnetic closure, so maybe they’ve changed with newer models? Otherwise, it is an attractive cover that follows the graphite colour scheme and face milling, and provides good overall protection (for as long as it will stay on).

Aim/Alignment (neutral): I would describe this putter as giving me a three-way confirmation of squareness.

• The shaft provides a reference.

• The leading edge provides a reference.

• The flange line confirms the geometry, rather than competing with it.

That’s unusual for me, as I normally don’t like rear lines, and I’ve struggled with Anser rear shaping. However, I think that’s mainly when they draw attention away from the face. In this case, it seems to be less of an issue, although, being totally honest, I still prefer the top line on the SeeMore.

When I use the BB-28, I also imagine the RST aiming system from my SeeMore putters. That bottom part of the putter blade needs to remain hidden by the shaft.

Feel and Sound (+ve): Unlike my previous experience with the BB-48, this model has everything I look for in feel and sound. The BB-48 made me feel like I was putting with a snooker ball, but this BB-28 is considerably softer and exactly the right balance for a milled face. It provided excellent feedback on strike quality.

Weight (neutral): The only slight dislike I have with this putter is its weight, although I’m managing to make it work at the moment. (Head)Weight is something I seem to be quite sensitive to, but unless I go to a bespoke putter manufacturer, I’m limited to what retail manufacturers want to produce. Most heads appear to be in the 350-370g range these days, and only a few offer customisable weights. In an ideal world, I’d like to try this at 20g (or more) lighter.

Pace Control (+ve): The first thing that struck me, hitting a few balls around the practice green, was how immediately good my pace control was (despite the comment above about weight). There is enough toe hang that the putter feels like it flows naturally with my stroke, and I’m not fighting with it. I just needed to look at the hole, let the putt go, and almost inevitably it would finish close to the hole. It quickly built confidence.

On Course Performance (+ve): I was fortunate enough to have this putter for a few days when I had some real golf arranged. I put it in the bag for a round at the Craigtoun Course and a second round at Kingussie in the Scottish Highlands (a great little course with some stunning views). It may just be a honeymoon period, but SGP at Craigtoun was +4.0, and at Kingussie it was +4.6. This putter wants me to buy it! More testing to come.

Performance Overall (+ve): While it’s not the first putter to outperform the SeeMore benchmark in the standard testing, it is the first one I’ve wanted to take to the course and spend more time with. Not many putters have felt this comfortable, this quickly.

Price (neutral): This is a 2022 model putter. When released, it was likely around £399, and this second-hand example is for sale at £160. Bettinardi make excellent putters, but here in the UK, they are not that well known and don’t appear to hold their value particularly well. That makes them good value second-hand.

What does Vertex say?

This is the first putter I’ve tested since I got the Vertex putting sensor. It is a really interesting device, and more information is available here. Vertex provides a lot of data, but for this review, I’m going to focus on face change and rhythm.

Face Change: The target is to keep this under 0.6°. I know from previous SAM Puttlab sessions that I generally leave the putter about 1° open. The BB-28 saw most putts at 0.6° or less, but with a couple of extreme outliers. Interestingly, I never appeared to deliver the face closed, always open.

Rhythm: Optimal rhythm is considered around a ratio of 2, and the BB-28 was right on that average, with a range from 1.9 to 2.1.

As I said above, Vertex provides a lot of data, and I am still experimenting with the sensor. I’ve yet to decide if data helps these reviews or if actual putting performance is all that’s needed. Please let me know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Conclusion

Well, I genuinely didn’t think anything could replace my SeeMore putters. But, they may have met their match in the Bettinardi BB-28. Looks, feel, performance, and confidence make a winning combination.

This test made me think carefully about my putter preferences and challenge my views on rear lines. I am primarily a face aimer. I want the putter to let my eyes organise the picture from the front of the head rather than from the heel, hosel, or back flange. I generally prefer visual quiet and do not like rearward features that feel decorative, over-directive, or disconnected from the actual strike area.

However, this does not mean I dislike all alignment help. The BB-28 suggests that I can like alignment support when it is geometrically coherent. In other words, I seem to respond well when the putter gives confirmation, without adding clutter.

That is an important refinement.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? Yes, it’s in the bag for some real course testing.

• What would I change? The head-cover. It needs the Velcro replaced. Ideally, I would like to try a lighter version.

• What have I learned? Some centre-shafted putters seem to suit my eye and make me feel very comfortable when putting. This Bettinardi and both my SeeMore putters are great examples. They simplify things for me, and that’s a big positive.

Final thought

So, overall, a bit of a surprise.

The BB-28 performed well in testing and then backed that up over its first two rounds on the course. Since then, I’ve had an enforced absence due to my ankle injury, so the pressure testing has been paused rather than completed.

That probably makes this more interesting, not less.

It is in the bag, but not fully settled.

Have you tried a centre-shafted putter, or any other Bettinardi models? Were they face-balanced, or did they have toe hang?

Let me know in the comments. I’d be really interested to hear what you thought, especially if you’ve found a centre-shafted model that suited your eye.

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button helps more people find it.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

Not the best. Not the one I wanted to keep hitting. But interesting.

It produced some of my fastest swing speeds, spin was in a good window, and the numbers were very close to my Titleist GT2. The issue was that it also wanted to leak right, and I never quite loved the way it looked behind the ball.

That left me with an obvious question.

Was there more to find?

The first test wasn’t a fitting. It was a stock driver test, using the combinations available to me at the time. With a modern driver, especially one with as much adjustability as the Callaway, that always leaves a bit of doubt. A different shaft, a different setup, or a slightly different head could change things quite quickly.

So I booked a fitting with Mike Lander at the Callaway National Performance Centre in St Andrews.

Mike knows my swing well. I’ve used him for coaching before, and he had also read the original driver test. That made this a useful session, because we weren’t starting from scratch. He knew what I was trying to find out, and he knew the benchmark: my Titleist GT2 10° with a Ventus Red Velocore+ 5S shaft, playing at 45 inches.

The GT2 has been behaving itself.

No complaints. No crisis. No desperate need to change.

Which is exactly why this was a good test.

What we tested

This was a Callaway-only fitting. The aim was not to run through every driver on the market, but to see whether Callaway could improve on the result from my original test.

We tried the Quantum Max and the Max Triple Diamond, both in 10.5°.

The shaft was the Denali Frost Silver 60, playing at Callaway’s standard length. Callaway lists the Quantum Max at 45.75 inches, which is fairly typical of modern drivers, with many stock builds now sitting somewhere between 45.5 and 46 inches.

That was worth noting because my Titleist GT2 plays at 45 inches. Three-quarters of an inch doesn’t sound like much, but with a driver, it can make a real difference to strike location, face control and confidence.

The Quantum Max

The Quantum Max still didn’t sit comfortably for me.

At address, it looked square to slightly closed, and I couldn’t quite settle over it. Visually, I struggled with the shape of the crown where it meets the face. That curved line doesn’t suit my eye.

That might sound like a small thing, but with a driver, it matters.

A lot.

If I don’t like what I’m looking at, I tend to make small compensations. I try to steer it. I start reacting to the club rather than making my normal swing. Add a playing length that was three-quarters of an inch longer than my GT2, and centre contact became more difficult.

That seemed to be the real issue.

The right bias looked less like one single flaw and more like the result of two things working together: a longer standard-length setup that made centre contact harder for me, and a head shape that didn’t give me complete visual confidence.

Mike worked with me on gripping down the shaft and adjusting the tee height to see whether we could improve strike location and reduce the right miss.

It helped.

But not enough.

There may be performance in the head, but I wasn’t accessing it consistently enough.

The best shots were not as good as the best shots with my GT2.

The mishits were punished more.

And I never had that moment when I thought, "This could go in the bag”

The Max Triple Diamond

The Max Triple Diamond was more appealing.

Not only did I prefer how it looked (it appeared more open), but I also preferred the sound and feel. It seemed more natural to me than the Quantum Max, which is interesting because it should probably be the less forgiving option.

But that was also the problem.

The Triple Diamond felt better, but it was more erratic, and the bad shots were heavily punished. When I found the middle, there was something there. But I didn’t find the middle often enough. The overall performance wasn’t as reliable as the GT2.

That creates a familiar fitting problem.

Do you chase the club that gives you the most satisfying strike when you catch it properly?

Or do you stick with the club that produces the better average?

For me, my driver is not the place to be romantic.

I want to stand on the tee and feel that I can make a normal swing. I don’t need the occasional perfect one if the cost is more uncertainty on the others.

What did the fitting prove?

The fitting didn’t prove that the Callaway Quantum Max is a bad driver.

That would be too strong.

It proved that it isn’t the right driver for me.

That distinction matters. I can imagine plenty of players getting on well with it, especially if they like the look of the crown and are comfortable with the way the head sits. There is clearly speed there, and a good fitter has options to explore.

But the club has to fit the player in front of it.

For me, the right bias looked less like one single flaw and more like the result of two things working together: a playing length that made centre contact harder for me, and a head shape that didn’t give me complete visual confidence.

That also helped complete the picture from the original five-driver test.

At the time, the Callaway did enough to deserve a second look. It was quick, the spin was in a good window, and the numbers were closer to my GT2 than I expected. But the first test was not a fitting, and I said that at the time.

Now it has had the fitting.

And this time, I’d eliminate it.

That is useful.

Not exciting, perhaps. But useful.

It is also a good reminder of what a fitting can and can’t do. A proper fitting can get more out of a club. It can tighten dispersion, improve launch, manage spin, adjust shot shape, and sometimes turn an average first impression into something much better.

But it can’t always make the club right.

Sometimes the answer is still no.

Final verdict

The Callaway Quantum Max had enough promise in the original test to make me curious.

After this fitting, I’m no longer curious.

It didn’t suit my eye, the standard-length setup made centre contact harder for me, and neither the Quantum Max nor the Max Triple Diamond could improve on my Titleist GT2.

The Triple Diamond was the one I preferred for sound, feel and looks, but it was too erratic to be a serious option.

So the GT2 stays in the bag.

That may not be the dramatic answer.

But it is the honest one.

If you like the look of the Callaway range, I’d still recommend trying it and being properly fitted rather than judging it off the shelf. There is clearly performance there for the right player.

It just isn’t me.

Have you tried the new Callaway driver range yet?

I’d be interested to know whether the Quantum Max suits your eye better than it did mine, or whether modern standard-length drivers cause similar strike issues for you.

Let me know in the comments.

If you enjoyed this review, please consider subscribing to The Clubhouse for more honest, everyday golf equipment testing.

Subscribe now

This Odyssey Ai-One Milled Eight T came from Auchterlonies’ second-hand shop.

It was an ex-demo putter, which felt appropriate somehow. Not quite new. Not quite unknown. Still interesting enough to borrow and test properly. At £219, compared with a launch price of around £449, it’s another good example of why the second-hand market is worth watching.

I was also testing the Odyssey Ai-One Milled Two at the same time, and the Eight T had some appealing contrasts. The more compact blade length suited my eye better. It looked tidier behind the ball and less stretched from heel to toe.

Given all I’ve learned from reviews over the last year, that doesn’t mean I went into the test expecting much.

My previous experience with Odyssey’s Ai-One insert has been mixed. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in the Ai-One Milled One, and in general, I still prefer the feel of a fully milled face. But compact mallets have worked for me before, with the Toulon Atlanta being my gamer for most of two years. The shape of this putter also reminded me slightly of the Toulon Formula 90 that I tested last year.

There was enough shop appeal to make this worth a proper look.

First Impressions

The first thing I liked was the compactness.

Compared with the Ai-One Milled Two, this looked neater, and I preferred the shorter blade length. That immediately made it more appealing to me.

The dark blue finish is reasonably restrained. I didn’t find it offensive at all, but I can see why it won’t be to all tastes. Personally, I’d still prefer a more traditional black finish, and Odyssey has also produced silver versions of some Ai-One Milled heads, which may appeal to more traditional eyes.

In hand, though, it felt like a quality product. The shape is smart, the proportions are good, and there is enough toe hang to suggest it should work reasonably well with my stroke.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 568g (SL90 shaft)

• Head weight: 360g

• Swing weight: D3

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: standard 70°

• Toe Hang: 36°

• Grip: Ai-One Pistol

A standard Odyssey specification putter. Note the lighter shaft compared to the Ai-One Milled Two that I tried previously. The online specification from Odyssey suggests there will be 20-30g of counterweight.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The old Eden green at the St Andrews Links Academy. An excellent, mature putting surface, with lots of variety on offer.

• Conditions: A lovely, but slightly chilly, March afternoon. The green had recently had some maintenance work (you can see the marks in the photo), but was rolling nicely.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

The biggest surprise was the feel.

That was not what I expected after my first experience with the Ai-One insert, although the review of the Ai-One Milled Two had already challenged that perception. It still is not as nice to me as a fully milled face, but it was a good effort and better than expected for an insert.

The broader takeaway from the session is that this is a good putter, but one that never really made me question the place of my gamer.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I like the compact shape. Compared with the Ai-One Milled Two, it looked tidier and sat nicely behind the ball. The blue finish is acceptable, although I would still prefer black.

Aim/Alignment (neutral to -ve): This started reasonably well, but the full-length alignment line began to bother me as the session went on. I would prefer a shorter line and note that Odyssey also produced a “Tour Dot” version with three dots for alignment, rather than a full line (but that’s as rare as hen’s teeth). More importantly, it never inspired confidence in my aim the way my SeeMore does. Golfers who like to aim using the back and body of the putter may get on with it better than I did, as the middle section is quite distinct, a little like a TaylorMade Spider.

Feel (+ve): Better than expected. I went into the test with some scepticism because of the insert, but it felt more solid than I expected and did not feel cheap or hollow.

Sound (neutral): No real issue here. It matched the feel reasonably well and never became distracting.

Pace control (neutral): Respectable, but not standout. It lagged the SeeMore as distance increased, although it was not bad relative to the Broadie benchmarks. Uphill pace control was better than downhill.

Performance overall (neutral): This is probably the simplest summary of the review. It did a lot reasonably well, but it did not do anything especially well.

Headcover (+ve): Odyssey make good head covers, with strong magnetic closures.

Grip (neutral): Fine, but nothing memorable. No real positive or negative. I prefer the pistol grip that’s on the new Ai-Dual models.

Price (neutral): When first released, the retail price of the A-One Milled putters was around £449, and this second-hand example is £219. Much of the range can still be bought new online for around £250, although they are getting scarce.

Conclusion

The Odyssey Ai-One Milled Eight T is a good putter, and it exceeded my expectations.

There is plenty here to like. The compact shape suited my eye, it sat nicely behind the ball, and the feel was better than I expected, given previous experience with the insert.

But I would not game it.

For me, it never inspired the same confidence in aim as the SeeMore, and once that is missing, the rest of the putter’s strengths are not enough to compensate. I also think a little more toe-hang, and perhaps a slightly more upright lie angle, would have suited me better. I’d be intrigued to try the Tour Dot version if I can ever find one of them. The lighter shaft in this putter did feel better through the stroke than the previous test putter, but not by enough to change the result.

So my verdict is this: a good compact mallet that exceeded my expectations, but one that never gave me enough to replace the gamer.

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No, just a bit too much going on behind the ball.

• What would I change? Lie angle and alignment line.

• What did I learn? Not all inserts are bad! This one is actually pretty good, but it seems to depend on the head shape it’s fitted to.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

It has been exactly a week since I tripped on a tree root and rolled my ankle. The nurse thinks the X-ray shows a break, but we’re waiting to hear back from radiology.

So I am in that slightly ridiculous holding pattern where I don’t quite know what I am dealing with, but I am already trying to plan around it.

I am also trying to be a good Stoic about the whole thing. Accept what has happened. Notice the frustration without feeding it too much.

Some moments are better than others.

When can I train? When can I play golf? How much of the season will I miss? What happens to the driver fitting follow-up blog pieces I’d planned?

Sensible questions, perhaps.

But underneath them are the less useful ones.

How stupid was that? Why did I not watch where I was going? Is this just part of getting older? Why does one small accident suddenly make me feel so helpless?

The boot itself doesn’t help.

It creates a height difference that makes me walk like a pirate. Stairs are awkward, but sleeping with it on is worse. The same boot that is outside on pavements and grass is then meant to come into bed with me.

My wife is, understandably, not thrilled by this arrangement.

There is probably a philosophical point in there somewhere.

I’m not sure I’ve found it yet.

Mostly, though, it is just irritating.

It is also a constant reminder of my own stupidity. The roll happened last Friday night, after playing golf at Kingussie Golf Club. I was out at The Dell in Nethy Bridge; it had been a great day, and I had enjoyed a few beers.

That detail feels relevant.

At first, I assumed it was just a sprain. I followed the RICE protocol on Saturday, and by Sunday, it felt much better. Over the next few days, it continued to improve. Not completely, but enough to make me think I had probably got away with it.

By Wednesday, I even did a gym session with it strapped up. Nothing heroic. Nothing stupid, or at least nothing that felt stupid at the time. Recovery seemed to be on track, and light exercise should have been fine.

However, there was still some tenderness and swelling around the bone and an odd tingle in my small toe.

That is the sort of detail you can either take seriously or explain away in your head. I did a bit of both. Eventually, on Thursday, I went to the minor injuries clinic. They were concerned there might be a break, so I was sent for an X-ray.

That was the moment the story changed.

Until then, I thought I had just sprained my ankle. Annoying, yes. Poor timing, definitely. But still minor.

After the X-ray, it became something else.

Likely a small fracture, but radiology will confirm.

Not dramatic. Not catastrophic. Just enough to stop me in my tracks.

And that is what made it more frustrating. This didn’t happen because I had been pushing too hard in the gym, ignoring advice, or trying to prove something. In fact, the opposite is true. I had recently started back at the gym after hernia surgery, working under the supervision of a trainer. I was also working with my physio and had only recently returned to playing golf unrestricted.

Typical sensible me.

Not rushing. Following the protocol. Trying to build things properly.

The whole point was to understand my physical limitations and put a plan in place to address them. Rotation. Hips. Glutes. Strength. All of it was golf-specific, but not in a superficial way. This wasn’t about trying to hit the ball ten yards further by next Tuesday. It was about building a better foundation.

Not just to play better now, but to keep playing for the next twenty years or more.

That was the real motivation.

The injury and rehab journey actually started with elbow tendinosis. Working with my physio and gym instructor, I wanted to investigate my general biomechanics. Was the elbow the real problem, or was it simply where the problem had shown up?

That led to an assessment with a podiatrist and gait specialist, which highlighted issues with my feet and ankle stability. The suggestion was that my body had been compensating for that instability for years. Is it a cause of, or result of, also having mild scoliosis? One of the more interesting findings was that I have developed very large and strong calf muscles, almost as if they had been doing work that other parts of the system should have been sharing.

The recommendation was that I should get orthotic insoles.

That made sense when I thought about it.

Historically, when I walk, I almost fall forward. I am heavy on my heels. I often catch the ground early (like hitting the ball fat) and almost stumble. I have frequently tripped over my own feet, fallen off kerbs, or rolled my ankles.

None of that felt especially connected at the time.

It was just how I moved.

But that is the thing about long-standing habits. They stop feeling like habits. They just become “me”.

The theory is that the instability in my feet has knock-on implications for my golf swing. If the base is unstable, everything above it has to respond. For me, that may mean a less stable follow-through and poorer rotation. If the upper legs and glutes are weaker than they should be, the arms start doing too much. That, in turn, may have contributed to the tendinosis.

I am careful with the word “may”, because bodies are complicated and I don’t want to pretend this is neater than it is. It’s a working theory.

But the pattern is hard to ignore.

Feet and ankles. Calves. Glutes. Hips. Rotation. Back. Arms. Elbow.

Last year, protecting my elbow may have contributed to back problems. This winter, I had a second inguinal hernia. Now my ankle.

It would be too easy to draw one clean line through all of that and say: this caused that, which caused that, which caused that.

Life is rarely that tidy.

Still, I do think there is something here. Not a diagnosis. Not a theory for anyone else. Just a personal observation.

This isn’t one injury.

It is a pattern of adaptation.

That is what I find interesting. The body is extremely good at finding a way. If one part is weak, another part helps. If something is unstable, something else tightens. If movement is uncomfortable, the body alters the route. At first, that is useful. It keeps you going.

But what if the workaround becomes the problem?

For years, I have probably been moving in ways that allowed me to function reasonably well. I could play golf. I could walk. I could train. I could get through normal life without thinking too much about how my feet hit the ground or whether my glutes were doing their fair share.

Then, after the gait assessment, I started wearing my new orthotics.

Suddenly, the assumptions changed.

It feels as though my body is being asked to stand and move differently, and it’s taking time to recalibrate. My posture is better. My stability and balance in the gym are better. I don’t feel like I want to fall forward in my golf swing. My walking has improved, and I don’t have the old heavy heel pattern.

But the first time I used them for golf, I could barely make contact with the ball.

That was not ideal.

It was also quite revealing. Change the feet, and the swing changes. Change the foundation, and the old compensations no longer work in quite the same way. The body has to renegotiate. I almost have to learn to swing again.

In theory, that is exactly what I wanted.

In practice, it is uncomfortable.

Not just physically, although there is plenty of that. It is uncomfortable because it challenges the story I had about myself. I thought I was just a fairly normal middle-aged golfer trying to get a bit fitter, move a bit better, and protect his body for the years ahead.

Which is true.

But I am also someone who has spent years working around weaknesses without really knowing it. Someone who can be careful and still get it wrong. Someone who can follow the plan and still trip over a tree root after a few beers.

That last bit is annoying.

There is a temptation to see this ankle injury as a setback. In some ways, it is. The timing is poor. The boot is irritating. The stairs are awkward. The gym work will need to be adjusted. Golf will have to wait.

But I have to look at this differently.

It has made the whole body compensation thing harder to ignore.

The X-ray hasn’t yet given me a clear answer about the ankle, but it has forced a wider question: what else have I been walking around with, thinking it was just normal?

We often think change starts with effort. Train harder. Stretch more. Get stronger. Be more disciplined. There is truth in that, but maybe sometimes change starts with noticing. Noticing how you stand. How you walk. How your body compensates. How one small weakness can quietly become a whole way of moving.

For me, this began as an attempt to understand and improve my golf biomechanics.

It has become a little more than that.

I was trying to fix how I move so I could swing better, train better, and hopefully keep playing for another few decades. Instead, I have ended up in a boot, moving worse for a while, and being forced to pay attention to things I should probably have noticed years ago.

That feels about right.

Progress rarely announces itself as progress at the time. Sometimes it looks like a sensible plan. Sometimes it looks like frustration. Sometimes it looks like a dirty medical boot that you somehow have to sleep in.

For now, I am trying not to overstate the lesson.

I rolled my ankle. I may have fractured it. I had been drinking. I was unlucky, but not entirely innocent.

I also feel frustrated, stupid, old and oddly helpless, which is probably a fairly normal response to being stopped by something so small.

Still, beneath the obvious story, there is another one.

The body remembers the compromises we ask it to make. Eventually, it asks us to account for them.

If you’ve been through something similar, I’d be interested to hear how you approached it.

I’ll write more as I work out what this actually means in practice. If you’d like to follow the rehab, the golf, and the lessons learned along the way, please consider subscribing below.

When I reviewed my friend’s Phantom 11R OC recently, I was pleasantly surprised by how well it performed. It was very good for feel and pace, but I struggled with the amount of onset, which made it difficult for me to aim with confidence.

The Phantom 5 OC has considerably less onset, so the obvious question was whether the results would be even better.

Subscribe now

First Impressions

Even though this is the same basic shape as the Phantom 5.5 that I reviewed previously, I much prefer how it looks at address. The fact that it is centre-shafted seems to draw my attention away from the rear fangs and towards the leading edge and top alignment line.

That was a surprise.

Looking at promotional photos before actually seeing the putter in person, I thought I probably wouldn’t like the spud where the shaft attaches. I was concerned that it might be distracting and create the same sort of aiming issue I had with the BGT Paradox mallet.

But I was wrong!

With the BGT Paradox, the whole spud was angled, which made it look visually awkward to me. On the Phantom 5 OC, the spud is flat and much less distracting. The use of a line rather than dots for alignment helps as well. Especially as it looks like it enters into the middle of the shaft and produces good symmetry.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 600g (a heavy putter)

• Head weight: undeclared, but can alter the base weights

• Swing weight: E6

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Zero-torque

• Grip: Midsize Matador - black with red lettering

There is a decent amount of fine-tuning available for loft and lie, and length can also be specified in 0.5” increments from 33” to 35”.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The very nice practice green at the St Andrews Golf Academy.

• Conditions: A lovely April afternoon with warm sunshine and a gentle breeze. Just nice enough for short sleeves.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

This was a good day for testing, with nice weather and a practice green that was in very good condition and running well.

My expectations were fairly low coming in. I’ve had mixed results with zero-torque putters and have generally preferred the blade versions to the mallets. Given that, I did not expect the Phantom 5 OC to perform as well as it did.

But it surprised me in a good way.

After the disappointment of the Phantom 5.5, this felt like the opposite experience. The 5 OC was easier to aim than I expected, and my pace control was consistently good throughout the session.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I’m still not a fan of this particular fang shape, but it bothered me less here than it did on the 5.5. This is a very good-looking zero-torque putter and possibly the nicest one I’ve seen so far. Back in Auchterlonies, I placed it beside the Fastback OC and was surprised by how much more compact the 5 OC head is.

I liked that.

Grip (+ve): The midsize Matador is a nice grip. It’s maybe a touch larger than I like, but there’s very little to complain about.

Headcover (-ve): A familiar complaint in my Scotty Cameron reviews. At this price point, I expect something better, especially a more secure and reliable closure.

Aim/Alignment (+ve): As mentioned above, the central shaft location helped reduce the visual distraction caused by the fangs and allowed me to focus more on the leading edge and top alignment line. That was a big positive compared with the issues I had with the 5.5. With less onset, I also found this head easier to aim than the 11R OC I tried recently.

Feel and Sound (neutral): This remains one of the most subjective parts of any review. Personally, I generally prefer a fully milled face to an insert. The new Phantom line uses a full-face insert. It is definitely an improvement on the smaller inserts in earlier Scotty Cameron models, but it can still feel a little hollow and less responsive than I would like. It does not naturally inspire confidence the way a good traditional milled face can.

Pace Control (+ve): Despite the feel and sound comments, my pace control with the 5 OC was really good. From a pace perspective, I’ve had mixed results with zero-torque mallets, but this may be the best one I’ve tried so far and possibly even better than the 11R. At 600g, the static weight is high, and the swing weight of E6 is high too. Even so, the putter felt easy to swing and very stable. I didn’t need to make any setup or grip changes. I just held it lightly, as usual, and let it swing.

Performance Overall (+ve): Of the four Phantom models I’ve tested recently, this was the best performer for me. The 5 OC did many things well. While my aim was not perfect, it was better than I expected, and my pace control was especially strong.

Price (neutral): At £499, this sits firmly in premium territory, although there are zero-torque putters that are much more expensive. There is a reasonable amount of customisation available for length, loft and lie, and I would strongly urge anyone thinking of spending this much to get properly fitted first. L.A.B. have done a great job of educating the market on the importance of correct length and lie for zero-torque fitting, and that advice applies here too.

Conclusion

The Scotty Cameron Phantom 5 OC was a really positive surprise.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No, but I’m tempted.

• What would I change? The fangs. Better than the 5.5, but still some distraction.

• What have I learned? The 5.5 looked like it should work for me, but didn’t. The 5 OC looked like it probably shouldn’t, but did.

Have you tried any of the new Phantom putters from Scotty Cameron? I’d love to hear what you thought, and whether you ended up buying one.

This Phantom 5 OC worked much better than I expected and reinforced the importance of testing putters with an open mind.

You can find all my other putter reviews, including my other Phantom reviews, by clicking the link below.

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button helps more people find it.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

In my previous two Phantom reviews, the 9.2R and Phantom 7, I mentioned that I wanted to try the jet neck versions of both heads.

This time, I got the chance with the Phantom 5.5.

On paper, it looked promising. The jet neck should, in theory, suit my stroke better than some of the other Phantom models I’ve tested recently. That made this one particularly interesting.

Subscribe now

First Impressions

Behind the ball, I’m not sure I like this head shape.

The way the fangs narrow towards the back gives it something of a horseshoe look, or almost like the pincers on a crab. The perimeter of the head is fine; it’s the internal shape of the fangs that I struggle with. Overall, I found it visually confusing, and I much preferred the cleaner, straighter lines of the Phantom 7. There’s just too much going on behind the face here for me.

That is clearly a personal reaction, though, because this is a very popular putter on tour. Plenty of top professionals use it (including Justin Rose and Russell Henley), so it obviously suits some players far better than it suited me. Justin Thomas is the player I most associate with this model, but it appears he recently switched back to a blade.

This putter was fitted with the standard grey Full Contact pistol grip, which I find comfortable and a good overall size.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 575g

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: E

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Face-balanced

• Grip: Standard grey full contact pistol

There is a decent amount of fine-tuning available for loft and lie, and length can also be specified in 0.5” increments from 33” to 35”.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The very nice practice green at the St Andrews Golf Academy.

• Conditions: A lovely April afternoon with warm sunshine and a gentle breeze. Just nice enough for short sleeves.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

Well, that was a shock.

On paper, the Phantom 5.5 looked like a strong fit for me, but the performance on the green never backed that up. Broadie would say the numbers were around what you might expect from a scratch player, and in that sense, there is no great disaster here.

But the SeeMore was so much better.

I found the fangs distracting from the start, and that fed into a lack of confidence in both my aim and my stroke. I really wanted to like this one and was genuinely excited to test it, which probably made the outcome even more surprising.

Pros and Cons

Looks (neutral): On the shelf, this is a very attractive putter. The quality is obvious and it feels every bit like a premium product. For me, though, the problem started once it was behind the ball. That is a personal thing rather than a universal criticism, but looks matter if they affect how confidently you aim and stroke the putter.

Grip (+ve): The standard grey Full Contact grip is a classic Scotty Cameron shape and felt comfortable straight away. Good size, good feel, no complaints.

Headcover (-ve): This is becoming a familiar complaint in my Scotty Cameron reviews. At this price point, I expect something better, especially a more secure and reliable closure.

Aim/Alignment (-ve): I tried to focus mainly on the leading edge and top line, but the fangs kept drawing my eye. For me, the shape was visually noisy, and that made it harder to aim with confidence.

Feel and Sound (neutral): Like the other new Phantoms with the full-face insert, I prefer the feel of the older fully milled faces. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not unpleasant, it just feels and sounds a little hollow to me. That said, I still found it considerably better than the smaller insert models.

Pace Control (+ve): Despite not loving the sound or feel, pace control was reasonably solid. My misses felt more related to aim than distance.

Performance Overall (-ve): Of the four Phantom models I’ve tested recently, this was the worst performer for me. That came as a real surprise because I expected it to do much better. Relative to a scratch benchmark, it is not a disaster. Relative to my SeeMore and to what I want from a putter, it was disappointing.

Price (neutral): At £449, this sits firmly in premium territory, although that is no longer unusual in the putter market. The putter itself looks and feels like a high-quality item. As with the other Phantoms, the weak point is the headcover.

Conclusion

The Scotty Cameron Phantom 5.5 surprised me, and not in a good way.

Everything about the spec sheet suggested that I should get on well with it.

But I didn’t.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No, I’m still slightly in shock.

• What would I change? The fangs.

• What have I learned? Just because a putter looks like a good fit on paper does not mean it will work once you get it on grass.

Have you tried any of the new Phantom putters from Scotty Cameron? I’d love to hear what you thought, and whether you ended up buying one.

This Phantom 5.5 didn’t work for me. That was both a surprise and a disappointment, but it also reinforced the importance of testing putters with an open mind. Fit is about much more than a spec sheet.

You can find the other Phantom reviews through the link below, and there is still one more to come in the shape of the Phantom 5 OC. Can zero-torque do better than its more conventional stablemate?

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button helps more people find it.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

I’ve always quite liked the fang putter shape, and this latest version from Scotty Cameron is one of the most attractive on the market. It is a high MOI, face-balanced mallet that promises stability and forgiveness.

There are some subtle revisions from the previous model: a slightly deeper and more rounded face, the return of the top line, and now a full-face insert rather than a conventionally milled face. More about that later.

Scotty Cameron also reworked the sole plate on the 2026 Phantom models so they sit more flush to the ground and provide better consistency at setup.

Subscribe now

First Impressions

This putter exudes quality and looks very good behind the ball. I think the change to a slightly deeper face works, and I like the overall look at address. The double-bend shaft and face-balanced design help it feel very stable through the stroke.

If I’m honest, I prefer this shape to the Phantom 5. I find it less visually distracting.

The way the rear fangs step down as they join the blade section makes the back of the head look like two halves of an arrow. It reminded me a little of the alignment aid on the previous Phantom 11. I’m sure that will help some players with alignment, but I’m still not convinced it is ideal for me.

This design first appeared on the 2025 model, and I think both are much nicer heads than the old 2023 Phantom X 7.

The solid top alignment line, rather than three dots, also makes a welcome return. I still don’t know why Scotty Cameron and Odyssey thought dots were a good idea on some of their 2024 and 2025 models. The line is so much nicer.

This one was fitted with the standard grey Full Contact pistol grip, which I find comfortable and a good overall size.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 580g

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: E2

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Face-balanced

• Grip: Standard grey full contact pistol

There is a decent amount of fine-tuning available for loft and lie, and length can also be specified in 0.5” increments from 33” to 35”.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The very nice practice green at the Craigtoun Course, St Andrews.

• Conditions: A lovely April afternoon with warm sunshine and a gentle breeze. Just nice enough for short sleeves.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

As with the Phantom 9.2R review, this test was conducted on the practice green at the Craigtoun Course. Some recent maintenance had left the surface looking a little sandy in the photos, but it was rolling well.

The Phantom 7 surprised me.

I liked it much more than I expected, and the overall performance was solid. I’d like to spend more time with it, and I’d also like to try the 7.5 version. In theory, the 7.5 should suit my stroke better.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): This is a very good-looking putter, and one of the best fang designs I’ve seen. Visually, I think it is a big improvement on previous versions. The proportions are excellent, striking a nice balance between not too large and not too small. The finish is also up to the usual Scotty Cameron standard, as it should be at this price. As a face-aimer, I can sometimes get distracted by putters that are too noisy at the back, but I was fine with this one and got used to the design quickly.

Grip (+ve): The standard grey Full Contact grip is a classic Scotty Cameron shape and immediately felt comfortable in the hands.

Headcover (-ve): This is a familiar complaint in my Scotty Cameron reviews. At this price point, I’d expect something much better, with a more robust and reliable closure mechanism.

Aim/Alignment (+ve): I primarily used the top line on the blade when setting up to my putts. There must still be some influence from the rear of the putter, but it never felt intrusive in the way it has with some other models. I felt confident with my aim and found it easy to set up to the ball.

As the distance increased, though, there was a bit of a two-way miss. From this test alone, I can’t say whether that was down to my alignment at address or the face-balanced design being a less natural fit for my stroke.

Feel and Sound (neutral): Similar to my comments on the new Ai-Dual insert in the Odyssey models, I think head shape influences the feel of the full-face insert used in these Phantom heads. Or perhaps there is some small variability in the manufacturing process.

This one felt better to me than the 9.2R I was testing at the same time. It seemed a little firmer and gave me better feedback on strike quality.

Pace Control (+ve): The 7 was good across all distances. The longer-range data hides more of a directional issue than a pace issue. I found it easy to judge swing strength, and the head felt very stable throughout.

Performance Overall (neutral): It didn’t quite match my gamer on the day, but it put in a very good performance relative to the Broadie expectations data. There was enough here to make me want to try it for a longer dedicated test period. If I could, I’d also want to test it directly against the 7.5 model.

Price (neutral): At £449, this sits firmly at the premium end of the mass market. I would still take it over the Ai-One Milled range, which retailed at a similar price when new. The quality of the putter itself is excellent and in line with the cost. It is just a shame the headcover does not match that standard. If I bought one, I’d replace it straight away with a better aftermarket option.

Conclusion

The Scotty Cameron Phantom 7 surprised me. I didn’t expect to get on as well with the double-bend shaft and prominent rear alignment system as I did.

But I did.

There was a lot to like here.

As the distance increased, my results deteriorated, but this felt more like a line issue than a pace issue. That is probably some combination of the alignment picture and the face-balanced design, and it does make me wonder how I would perform with the 7.5 model. Testing that would help separate alignment from rotation.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No, but I could if I had to.

• What would I change? I’d like to try the 7.5 model.

• What have I learned? I can make face-balanced putters work, but I would need more time with this one to gain confidence with alignment.

Have you tried any of the new Phantom putters from Scotty Cameron? I’d love to hear what you thought, and whether you ended up buying one.

This Phantom 7 performed much better than I expected and put up a very strong fight against my SeeMore. Even so, under pressure, I know dominant traits usually reassert themselves, and I suspect the 7.5 model would be a better fit for me.

There are two more Phantom reviews to come: the jet neck 5.5 model used by so many tour professionals, and the zero-torque 5 OC. I’m looking forward to completing both of them.

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button really helps more people find it.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

This is a really interesting and highly anticipated release from Scotty Cameron, and I suspect it will be a very good seller this season.

The Phantom 9 head first appeared last year, but with a double alignment line on top that I thought looked terrible. Having tried one, I also found it distracting. This new version, with a single line, is much more appealing to my eye.

At the moment, it is only available with either a single-bend shaft or a plumber’s neck, as tested here. Scotty Cameron describes the plumber’s neck version as the middle-ground option, aimed at players with a modest arc stroke. Personally, if it makes it to retail, the version I would most like to try is the Cameron Young jet neck.

Subscribe now

First Impressions

Maybe it is just me, but when I first saw the Phantom 9 last season, I could not get the Transformers Decepticon logo out of my head.

Or was it Batman’s mask?

The central section of the head and the alignment line also reminded me a little of a TaylorMade Spider. That is not meant as criticism, especially given how successful and popular the Spider has been.

Behind the ball, other than the neck, I liked this putter straight away. The short alignment line works well for my eye and offers just enough help without taking over. If Scotty Cameron releases a 9.5 version, I hope they keep that same alignment option, because I would really like to try it. My suspicion, though, is that they would use a longer line, more like the one Cameron Young uses.

Interestingly, this putter felt quite head-heavy compared with the other Phantom models I reviewed at the same time. On paper, that is not obvious. At 575g total weight, it was broadly in line with the 5.5 and 7, and its swing weight of D9 was actually lower than the E2 of the 7 and the E0 of the 5.5.

So why did it feel so different?

I am not entirely sure. Perhaps the plumber’s neck played a part. Somewhat unhelpfully, Scotty Cameron does not publish head weights on its website.

This one was fitted with the standard grey Full Contact pistol grip, which I find comfortable and a good overall size.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 575g

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: “medium” as described by Scotty Cameron, I’d say 30°

• Grip: Standard grey full contact pistol

There is a decent amount of fine-tuning available for loft and lie, and length can be specified in 0.5” increments from 33” to 35”.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The very nice practice green at the Craigtoun Course, St Andrews.

• Conditions: A lovely April afternoon with warm sunshine and a gentle breeze. Just nice enough for short sleeves.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

Note the change of venue for this test to the practice green at the Craigtoun Course.

How Did It Perform?

Notes

This test involved a change of venue and a trip to the Craigtoun Course practice green. The views up there are fantastic, and it is one of my favourite places to test putters. Being able to pop into the clubhouse for a coffee afterwards only helps.

Some recent maintenance had left the surface looking a little sandy in the photos, but the green was rolling well.

The Phantom 9.2R started strongly, but faded as the distance increased. The main issue was pace control, and that seemed to come back to the heavy feeling of the head, not unlike the issue I had with the Ping PLD Oslo 3.

There was a lot to like here.

Just not quite enough for me.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I think this is a good-looking head. The earlier Spider comparison was intended as a compliment. The finish is also up to the usual Scotty Cameron standard, as it should be at this price.

Grip (+ve): The standard grey Full Contact grip is a classic Scotty Cameron shape and immediately felt both familiar and comfortable.

Headcover (-ve): Scotty Cameron, please stop using Velcro. This was a new putter, and already the cover was not closing properly. At this price, I expect something much better. Please move to magnets and improve the mallet covers. This will be a recurring comment across all four of my new Phantom reviews.

Aim/Alignment (neutral): I found this one a little tricky to line up, and I suspect the plumber’s neck played a part. Even so, the actual results were not bad, and I do like the short alignment line on top. It would be great if Scotty Cameron brought that option to other Phantom heads, or at least made it available through custom ordering.

Feel and Sound (neutral): I have decided to now add these two together because they are really part of the same thing. Unlike the smaller insert used in the Catalina and Fastback 1.5 that I tested last summer, Scotty Cameron has used a full-face insert in the new Phantom line.

For me, it feels better than the smaller insert, but I still do not think it is especially good. The feel remains a little hollow, and I prefer the older Phantom models with a fully milled face. I also wonder how robust that insert will prove over time.

The Scotty Cameron website says the insert is there to produce a softer feel and enhanced distance control. I can understand the argument, but I think something has been lost in the process.

Pace Control (neutral): It was good enough on shorter putts, but became less convincing as the distance increased. I think that came back to the head-heavy feeling. I never really got comfortable with it and struggled to judge my swing.

Performance Overall (neutral): Relative to the Mark Broadie baseline data, this putter performed well. The issue is that my gamer performed a little better. More importantly, my SeeMore has earned trust. With more time, my results might have improved, but the more I hit the Phantom 9.2R, the less I wanted to use it.

Price (neutral): At £449, this is a premium putter. The quality of the putter itself is excellent, as you would expect at that level. It is just a shame the headcover does not match that standard. If I bought one, I would feel compelled to replace the cover with a better, more secure, aftermarket option.

Conclusion

The Scotty Cameron Phantom 9.2R is a very nice putter, and I am sure it will be a successful one for them.

There was plenty I liked.

I liked the shape. I liked the short alignment line. I liked the overall finish.

But I never really got comfortable with the plumber’s neck or the way the putter felt during the stroke, and that showed up most clearly in pace control as the distances got longer.

That is where it broke down for me.

With my SeeMore, I feel more comfortable over the ball, more confident in my start line, and clearer in my sense of strike and pace. This Phantom did better than I expected, and that matters. But it never quite gave me the trust I needed.

I would still be very interested to try a 9.5 version if Scotty Cameron releases one.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No, but I’d like to try a 9.5 option if released.

• What would I change? I’d be tempted to experiment with some counterbalance and see whether that improved the feel of the stroke.

• What have I learned? This putter performed better than I expected and was a useful reminder to keep an open mind.

Have you tried any of the new Phantom putters from Scotty Cameron? I would love to hear what you thought, and whether you ended up buying one.

The 9.2R is not the right putter for me, but I still have the 7, 5.5 and 5OC to review.

Will one of them manage to unseat my SeeMore?

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button helps more people find it.

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

Thank you to Adam Legg and Auchterlonies for generously allowing me to take five demo drivers away for a few days and put them through their paces. Can any of the new offerings for 2026 threaten my current gamer?

Adam knows me well and selected several combinations he thought could be a good fit given my current setup: a Titleist GT2 10° with a Ventus Velocore+ Red 5S shaft. Only standard, non-upcharge shafts have been used for this test.

Fortunately, there was a good weather window for the testing.

The drivers:

Ping G440K with Denali Red 60, 6.0

Cobra OPTM X with Kai’li Dark Waves Red 50S

Mizuno JPX One with Denali Frost Blue 60, 6.0

Callaway Quantum Max with Kai’li Red 60, 6.0

TaylorMade Qi4D with Reax Red 50S

All drivers were 10.5° heads and all were set to neutral.

How were they tested?

Five drivers are a lot to get through, even with a few days for testing. The Quantum and Qi4D were first in the bag and I used them on The Old Course. The following day, the G440K, OPTM X and JPX One were used on the Craigtoun Course, with the OPTM X swapped out for the JPX One after the first nine. Conditions on both days were good, with warm sunshine and a modest breeze. The Craigtoun fairways are significantly softer than those on The Old Course, so that needed to be taken into account when assessing on-course performance.

After the course time, I booked a bay at the Centre of Golf Excellence in St Andrews to get some Trackman data. I’m not a big fan of hitting drivers indoors, as I always feel a little space-constrained, even though it has been demonstrated many times that I am in no danger of hitting anything. Still, it was useful to have some objective data to back up what I saw on the course. I used Titleist RCT balls to get better spin data.

A quick note on the use of data. My swing is unique to me, and my club and ball data will not be especially relevant to you. In this test, I’m looking for a driver that could potentially displace my current gamer, so I’m mainly using the numbers as a relative comparison against that club. However, these reviews are still a work in progress, and I welcome reader feedback on what you want to see.

How did they perform?

Ping G440K

I’ve always been a fan of Ping drivers and used a G430 LST before being fitted for my current Titleist. The looks will not be to everyone’s taste, but personally I like the turbulators and have always found that they help me when I am setting up to the ball. There is no denying that this is a large-footprint driver, as that is how Ping produces the high MOI. That alone may put some people off, but I found I could focus on the leading edge and ignore the long back.

On the course

GolfMagic described the G440K as a contender for the best driver of 2026, and I was interested to see how it would perform for me. Of the five drivers on test, this was not only the largest but also by far the loudest. Ping’s engineers have clearly worked hard on the acoustics, and each recent model has improved on the previous one. Even so, it is still a loud driver.

Performance-wise, though, it was excellent. On the Craigtoun Course, this driver really did want to go straight. It was also very forgiving and hugely confidence-inspiring on the tee. On the front nine it was up against the Cobra, and on the back nine against the Mizuno. Both of those drivers seemed slightly longer on average, but neither was as accurate or as reassuring. This was the one I wanted to keep hitting, which is why it stayed in the bag for 18 holes.

In the bay

I saw much the same in the bay. It was very straight and produced the best left-to-right dispersion on test. Despite giving me the slowest average swing speed of the group, it marginally out-carried my GT2. More importantly, it kept finding the fairway. Thinking back to my post about golf and getting older, a consistent fairway finder has to be better than the occasional bomber with no direction control. It was also impressive on mishits, where its forgiveness really stood out.

There was a downside though. At an average of almost exactly 3000 rpm, with several shots up around 3500 rpm, this was the highest-spinning driver on test. Average spin with my GT2 was 2525 rpm. That showed up in the total distance numbers, where the GT2 ended up longer despite carrying slightly less. There was very little wind when I tested at Craigtoun, and I don’t think the G440K would have done as well on a windy day on the links.

Price

This is the most expensive driver on test, with an RRP of £630. It can be found online for around £579.

Would I game it?

My only real concern is spin, and I’d like to try the 9° head to see whether that improves things. If it does, then yes, I could definitely game the Ping G440K.

Cobra OPTM X

I have several friends who use the 2025 Cobra to great effect, and it was also a strong contender when I was fitted for my current driver. Aesthetically, I much prefer the gloss crown of this year’s model to the previous matte finish. Cobra describes the OPTM X as being designed for accuracy and consistency rather than distance. That is an interesting positioning in a space dominated by distance.

On the course

This was a surprise. Great sound, great feel, great performance. It wasn’t quite as straight as the Ping, but it was close, and it seemed slightly longer on average. Remember that the Craigtoun fairways are soft, so drives were pretty much all carry with very little run. At address, this is similar to the Callaway in that the face is visually separate from the crown, with a join line between the two. I’m not a big fan of that look, although the colour contrast on the Cobra makes it easier on the eye.

In the bay

Again, the bay largely confirmed what I saw on the course. It was pretty straight and still sounded good indoors. Swing speed and carry were almost identical to the Ping, but the spin was much better, averaging 2300 rpm with no major outliers. If anything, there is a risk that this one could be too low-spinning, as several strikes came in between 1900 and 2000 rpm. Like my GT2, the Cobra had more run than the Ping and was 15 yards longer in average total distance. It was also 5 yards longer than my GT2.

For all that, I still felt more confident with the Ping.

Price

The bargain of the bunch at £479 online.

Would I game it?

If I lost my GT2 today, I would happily put this in the bag as a replacement. It did not inspire quite as much confidence as the Ping G440K, but it does everything well and I’m sure a proper fitting could make it even better.

Mizuno JPX One

I hope you like blue. This driver really pops in the sun and, while striking, the colour will not be to everyone’s taste. There are also blue accents on the clubface, and I really didn’t like those. It may fit the brand, but give me plain black every day.

On the course

This is another loud driver, producing a distinctive crack at impact. It feels solid, almost firm off the face, and it was the driver I liked least for feel. Hitting it at Craigtoun, it produced a couple of excellent drives, but it also felt as though it wanted to go left, and it was hard work compared with the Ping and Cobra. I really had to concentrate to get the best out of it.

In the bay

Even indoors, I found the Mizuno hard to like. At address, I think it looks a little closed, and that makes me immediately uncomfortable. I’m not a fan of the colour or the blue face either. Spin was also on the high side and right up there with the Ping, although the Mizuno’s spin was more consistent with less variability.

There could be some potential in the Mizuno, but it is not one I want to try again.

Price

The online price is around £529. That feels punchy for a brand that is not especially well known for drivers, and I struggle to see it getting much market attention.

Would I game it?

No. I don’t like the colour, sound, feel or price. It spins too much for me and also made me worry about the left side.

Callaway Quantum Max

If you have played previous generations of Callaway drivers, you will be familiar with the look of this one at address. It reminds me a lot of the Ai Smoke range. I find the top line a little off-putting. It is not horrendous, it just doesn’t quite do it for me, and I prefer the straighter look of the Cobra. There is a huge amount of adjustability in this head, so for simplicity I set everything to neutral.

On the course

It took me a while to get comfortable with this, but once I did the performance was quite impressive. As mentioned above, I had it set to neutral, but found that I was prone to hitting fades with it. Not slices, just a modest fade. That is not my normal draw shape, and it got me into trouble a couple of times. The sound and feel are very pleasant and I would go as far as saying they are the best of the group.

In the bay

I achieved some of my fastest swing speeds with this combination, which suggests that with more fitting input it could produce better results. Spin was in the right window at 2400 rpm and dispersion was quite tight, although it showed the same right bias I saw on the course. Across spin, carry and total distance, performance was almost exactly the same as my GT2. What the GT2 lacked in swing speed, it made up for in delivery efficiency.

Price

Another expensive one, with an RRP of £599 and an online price of £529.

Would I game it?

Maybe. I’d need to be properly fitted and see a clearer improvement over my GT2 first. I’m not a huge fan of the looks, but it feels and sounds very good.

TaylorMade Qi4D Core

This is like the bigger brother of last year’s R7 mini driver. It has much the same weighting system and a similar overall look. It is a good-looking driver behind the ball, and I didn’t think it looked as closed as the Qi35. I like the way the crown wraps around to the face, leaving none of the visible lines you get with the Cobra and Callaway. Like the Quantum, there is a lot of adjustability here, and fitting input would almost certainly help get the best out of it. For this test, everything was set to neutral, and the heavy weights were placed in the back to improve forgiveness.

On the course

Perhaps it was the shaft, or perhaps it was the way I had set up the weights in the head, but I couldn’t hit this with any consistency. It was by far the worst on test. When I say I couldn’t hit it, I genuinely mean that I almost missed the ball completely a couple of times. I wanted to like it because I really enjoyed trying my friend’s R7 mini last year and hoped this would give me something similar. It just didn’t happen.

In the bay

A similar, if slightly better, story in the bay. My swing speed was the fastest on average, but contact remained poor, and efficiency was down at 1.44. The good hits were impressive, but the dispersion was too wide. It felt like either great or dreadful, with very little in between.

Personally, I think the issue was more to do with the shaft than the head, and I don’t think this one got a fair run. The fact that swing speed was the highest suggests that a proper fitting could get more out of it.

Price

The online price is around £549.

Would I game it?

Not without a proper fitting. It is a definite improvement over the Qi35, though.

The benchmark: my Titleist GT2

It did not get any course time, simply because I already had too many drivers to hit and know broadly where I tend to put my drives with it on both courses. I did, however, take it into the bay to compare numbers. It remains a very well-fitted driver that works well for me. Swing speed was middle of the pack, spin sat right around 2500 rpm, and efficiency was strong at 1.47. It is familiar and consistent, but this test suggests it could be slightly bettered by some of the 2026 models. I’m particularly interested in trying the new GTS line when it is released, which I will hopefully do soon.

Conclusion

This was not a fitting, and it was not meant to produce a definitive winner. It was a chance to spend proper time with five of the new drivers for 2026 and see whether any of them made me question the Titleist GT2 already in my bag.

Two of them did.

The Ping G440K was the standout for confidence and forgiveness. It just wanted to go straight, and that has real value. The Cobra OPTM X was probably the best all-rounder, with strong numbers, good sound and feel, and a price that looks very reasonable alongside the rest of the market.

The Ping is the one that has really stayed with me, but only with a caveat. I would want to try a lower loft and see whether the spin comes down. If it does, it has a genuine chance of replacing my current gamer.

That said, this test also reinforced something important. At modern driver prices, buying off the shelf, without proper fitting input, makes very little sense. These were all stock combinations with minimal adjustment. A fitting could change the picture quite quickly, especially with heads like the Callaway Quantum Max and TaylorMade Qi4D Core, where there may be more to unlock.

For now, my GT2 keeps its place. But not quite as comfortably as it did before this test, especially with the new Titleist GTS line about to be released.

If you have hit any of the new 2026 drivers, let me know what stood out to you. And if you enjoy this kind of honest, player-level testing, you can subscribe below for more reviews like this.

Subscribe now

Links

For a fitting with Adam Legg, his email is: adam@auchterlonies.com

Why do we keep buying new drivers: HERE

Note on my driver fitting at SGGT: HERE

Auchterlonies new fitting studio: HERE

Thoughts about club fitting: HERE

There comes a moment in life when you have to start accepting the golfer you are now, is not the one you once were. The effortless power of your youth has gone, and you realise that golf does not get any easier as you get older.

We can’t all be like Justin Rose or Padraig Harrington, who have managed to find more distance as they’ve gotten older. For most of us, the job is simpler: accept what’s changed, then get smarter about how we play.

Drivers are a great place to start.

I’m not getting any younger. I do not have tour-level swing speed, and no amount of carbon, titanium or marketing is going to manufacture it. My body is changing, as bodies do, and that shifts what a good drive looks like. These days, I care less about the one perfect rocket and more about what happens on an average swing, on an average day, when there’s a narrow fairway and a bit of trouble waiting on one side.

That is probably why drivers hold such a powerful place in golf.

The story we tell ourselves

A new driver does not arrive as a piece of metal and carbon. It arrives as an idea. A new driver is not just a club. It is a small reset. The idea that the next one will be longer, straighter and easier. That it will make the tee shot feel simple again. That if this club works, golf itself might feel better again. That it might give you a little flashback to when the ball used to fly without quite so much effort.

Drivers are sold as progress. Not incremental progress, but proper progress. Ten more yards. Straighter ball flight. More forgiveness. More confidence. Fewer disasters.

And the story in our heads is usually some version of this:

If I buy this driver, then I’ll hit it better.
If I hit it better, then I’ll hit more fairways.
If I hit more fairways, then I’ll shoot lower scores.
If I shoot lower scores, then I’ll enjoy golf more.

That is not irrational. It’s just a lot to ask of a golf club. Especially when the limiting factor is standing over the ball, slightly tight, aware that your body has its own opinions these days, and wondering whether the swing you brought to the first tee is the same one you had on the range yesterday.

The problem is that the feeling rarely lasts. The first poor strike has a way of dragging you back to reality, and suddenly you are not thinking about materials and face technology. You are back in the same negotiation as before, asking the same old question: Can I trust this thing when it matters?

This post is the front door to my driver reviews. It’s not a “new drivers are a waste of money” post, or a “stop buying things” post, because that would be rather hypocritical coming from a gear nerd like me. It’s a more honest look at what we are really buying when we buy a driver, and the approach I’m building to test them in the real world.

What are we actually buying?

Sometimes we are buying genuine performance, especially if we are playing an older driver. Better launch. Better spin. A shaft that fits how we actually move the club, not how we think we move it.

But quite often we are buying something else:

• Confidence: the sense that this club will behave if we do our bit.

• Permission: a reason to stop worrying about driving, at least for a while.

• Hope: that golf will feel simpler again.

• A new story: about who we are off the tee.

None of that is shameful. Golf is hard. The tee shot is exposed. Everyone is watching, including the people pretending not to. A driver that makes you feel capable and confident is an easy thing to want.

The only problem is that hope can be short-lived.

When does a new driver genuinely help?

A new driver can genuinely help when:

• Your current setup is clearly fighting you on launch and spin

• Your miss pattern is predictable, and a different head or shaft genuinely compensates for it

• You have changed physically, and the old club no longer matches the golfer you are now

• Confidence has eroded, and you need something you can commit to again

• You play different courses, and what used to work no longer suits the golf you actually play

These are the questions that matter more as you get older. When you can no longer outmuscle a course, you start caring more about playability and positioning. It’s not glamorous, but it is effective.

How will I review drivers?

I’m not trying to run a tour van. I’m trying to answer a simpler question: Does this driver actually make golf easier for a normal, low-handicap golfer who knows he is not getting any younger?

When I say a driver is good, I do not mean it produced one huge number. I mean, it produced better golf for me more often. A tighter, less damaging miss. A more playable flight. A club I would happily take to the first tee when it matters.

What I see will not be what everyone sees. My swing, my strike pattern and my miss are mine. The point of these reviews is not to predict your numbers, but to share what held up in real golf and what earned my confidence.

If something I write makes you curious about a driver, the best next step is always the same: get properly fitted and try it yourself. Not just for ball speed and launch, but for the subjective bits too; how it looks behind the ball, how it feels, how it sounds, and whether you can actually commit to it.

The testing side of this is still a bit of a work in progress. I’ll keep refining it as I go, and I’m genuinely keen to hear what you’d find most useful in these reviews. More on-course context? More about strike and miss patterns? More fitting detail? More data? Tell me, and I’ll build towards it.

What will the testing look like?

Some posts will be built around fitting sessions or demo days, where I’ll usually have launch monitor data to help see what different head and shaft combinations are doing. Those sessions are great for clean numbers and quick comparisons. The downside is obvious: you rarely get to take the club away and see what it’s like on the course.

Other posts will come from time with a demo club, a second-hand find, or something I can actually take away and use. Sometimes that will be on the course, sometimes at the driving range, and sometimes both. It won’t always be as tidy as a fitting bay, but it will usually tell me more about what the club is like to live with.

I’ll always be clear about the context and how much time I’ve had with the club, so you can judge the conclusions appropriately.

What’s my benchmark driver?

Driver testing will be similar to my putter testing: everything will be compared to what I’m currently playing. For now, that’s my professionally fitted Titleist GT2. It is the club I know best, and it gives me a reference point for distance, dispersion and confidence. If it gets displaced through testing, then the new gamer becomes the benchmark. That’s how the process stays honest.

If you want background on the GT2, then the fitting session notes (and video) are linked below. I was originally fitted into the GT3 head, but after a few months, I switched to the more forgiving GT2. Same loft, same shaft.

Zooming out for a moment

Once you start paying attention to why drivers tempt us, you notice the same pattern elsewhere. In putters, wedges, gadgets, lessons, practice aids, and in many other areas of life, too.

Psychologists call it the conditional happiness cycle. If I can get this sorted, then I’ll be happy. Then becomes now, now becomes normal, and we start looking for the next thing to fix.

Golf makes the cycle easy to spot, and if there is one club where it feels most believable, it’s the driver. The one we all want to trust.

Where to go next

Driver reviews are still a small corner of the site, but I will be doing more of them.

When I test a driver, I’ll be clear about the context and the limits of what I’ve seen: whether it was a fitting session, a demo day, a range test, or time on the course. I’ll share what stood out, what held up, and what influenced my confidence.

If you enjoy thoughtful gear writing and honest reviews, you can subscribe below and follow the driver testing as it develops.

Subscribe now

Links:

SGGT driver fitting: here and the YouTube video: here

Auchterlonies new fitting studio: here

Thoughts on club fitting: here

I really like the putters in the Ping PLD range, but only a small number come with a flow or slant neck. The Oslo 3 is influenced by Tyrell Hatton’s putter, but has the Anser 3 neck, rather than his double-bend shaft. In an ideal world, I would have tried the Oslo 4 model as its slant neck is theoretically better suited to my strong arc stroke

I found this one in the second-hand store at Auchterlonies and was able to take it away to run my tests. Will I be taking it back, or will it be going in the bag?

Subscribe now

First Impressions

Other than the slightly funky neck, this is a fantastic-looking putter. I would happily put it up against any fully milled putter I’ve seen from other manufacturers. The face milling is particularly nice, and I can’t wait to discover how it feels.

It also looks great behind the ball, and despite not generally liking long alignment lines, I thought this one was ok. In some regards, the shape reminds me of the Scotty Cameron Monoblok 6.5 that I reviewed last year (and still think about today!).

This is a seriously heavy putter, and that’s important to note in the review. Forged from 303 Stainless Steel, the head alone weighs a hefty 375g, with the full putter tipping the scales at 590g. That’s the same weight as the Scotty Cameron Phantom 11R OC that I reviewed recently. But being conventionally balanced, the Ping swings very differently, and that weight is very noticeable.

It is fitted with a Ping PP58 Midsized Blackout grip, which feels lovely in my hands. There was another one in the shop with the SuperStroke grip from the Scottsdale line, but I didn’t like that as much. The PP58 felt immediately comfortable.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 590g - heavy

• Head weight: 375g

• Swing weight: F4

• Length: 35”

• Loft: 3° (+3°/-2°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-4°)

• Toe Hang: Low, more of a slight arc model

• Grip: Ping PP58 Midsize

Ping offers good adjustability, other than length, where it appears to only come at 35”.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The old Eden green at the St Andrews Links Academy. An excellent, mature putting surface, with lots of variety on offer.

• Conditions: A lovely March afternoon. Spring seems to be on the way, finally, and the green was rolling nicely.

• Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once

• Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

I really wanted to like this putter, but I struggled with the weight. Pace control was very difficult, either racing putts by the hole or leaving them too short. It did improve as I got used to it, but not enough. Perhaps I need more time with it? If you can handle the weight of this putter, then there is a lot to like about it.

As mentioned earlier, I would have liked to try the Oslo 4 model, but given that it is the same weight, I suspect I would have had the same issues. The centre-shafted version is a bit lighter, and that would also be interesting to try.

The length was also a bit of an issue, but too long is better than too short, as you can at least grip further down.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): Now, mid-mallets are something of an acquired taste, but I really like the shape of this putter. Also, the finish is excellent quality, and I’ve already mentioned the superb face milling. It is an expensive putter, but you can see the quality.

Grip (+ve): Have I stumbled across a new favourite grip? I really liked the size and feel of the PP58 fitted to this putter.

Headcover (+ve): Nothing fancy, just a good quality cover that will protect the head well and stay secure in the bag. I never think white is a good colour for something that will often be dropped on the ground, though.

Aim/Alignment (+ve): Like the Monoblok 6.5, this is a mid-mallet shape that I am comfortable with. It would be interesting to customise it and have a top line rather than the flange line, but in this case, I generally found it easy to focus on the face and didn’t get overly distracted by the line.

Feel (+ve): I was looking forward to hitting this putter, and I certainly wasn’t disappointed when I finally did. It feels great off the face and provides a lot of feedback on the quality of the strike.

Sound (neutral): When struck well, there is a very distinctive ping sound at impact. It’s not unpleasant, but it is quite high-pitched and won’t be to everyone’s tastes. It wouldn’t be a deal-breaker for me.

Pace Control (-ve): This was the biggest letdown for me. I simply couldn’t get the hang of it during testing. It definitely felt too heavy, and I never felt in control. A lot of my putts were hit on my target line, but the pace was often too fast, and the ball didn’t take the anticipated break. I could possibly adapt to that, given more time.

Performance overall (-ve): The issues with pace control let this one down. I don’t know if the Oslo 4 with the greater toe hang would have made any difference here, as the weight is the main issue. I just found it difficult to swing and definitely appear to have a preference for lighter putters. Interestingly, I found the Phantom 11R OC totally different, despite being the same weight. Pace control was the strong point of that putter, but zero-torque does swing differently, and it didn’t feel as heavy as the Ping did. Maybe I need a hybrid of the Ping and the Scotty!

Price (neutral): With an RRP of £450, this is a fairly expensive putter. However, I found this second-hand example for sale at only £275 (plus an extra 10% off for Easter), and I believe that makes it a very good second-hand proposition.

Conclusion

The PLD Oslo 3 is a superb quality putter from Ping, and I was really excited to put it through my testing (I know, I’m a nerd!). I had hoped it would perform better than it did; however, I just couldn’t get used to how heavy it felt and the impact that had on my stroke. The comparison with the Phantom 11R OC is interesting, and I wonder how the similarly weighted Ally Blue Onset would compare. Does the zero/low torque design hide the weight better?

Otherwise, there is a lot to like about this putter. The production quality is superb. The milling is excellent. The sound and feel are just the way I like them, and the PP58 grip might be going on all my future gamers!

However, despite really wanting it to, this putter didn’t work for me. That doesn’t mean I’m going to give up on all PLD putters, as I would still like to try the Anser 4D if I can find one. Although at 365g, that is also a pretty heavy head, which is a common theme for the PLD line.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No. It’s just too heavy.

• What would I change? Lighter, shorter and more toe hang.

• What have I learned? This test has confirmed my preference for lighter heads in conventional putters.

If you have a preference for heavy putters like the Oslo 3, then I would love to hear about it in the comments section below. Have you always liked heavy heads? Did it take time to get used to it? What made you go heavy?

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here