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

This putter caught my eye in the Auchterlonies second-hand shop for one simple reason: it is not the same as the retail version.

This “Tour Issue” Odyssey Ai-One Milled Two comes with a short top alignment line and a slant neck, rather than the rear flange line and plumber’s neck found on the retail model. That immediately made it more interesting to me. If you read my post about aiming issues with standard Anser heads, then you’ll know I’ve been looking for one like this to try. Having quite liked the similarly shaped Double-Wide putter, I was interested to see how this would work.

On paper, this looked like a version of the Ai-One Milled Two that should suit me much better than the retail one.

The question was whether that would show up in the results.

First Impressions

My immediate reaction was that this is a nice-looking putter.

The straighter lines appeal to my eye, and while the blue finish was perfectly inoffensive, I would still prefer a plain black finish. More importantly, I liked the short top line much more than I would have liked a flange line, and the slant neck was a big part of the appeal. I’ve never had much success with plumber’s necks.

Looking at the rack of second-hand putters, this one immediately stood out to me.

Compared with my SeeMore Nashville mFGP gamer, the blade did look slightly long at address. I think that is partly because the SeeMore shaft enters the head in a way that visually divides it more centrally, while this Odyssey is heel shafted, so you simply see more blade length.

That does not make it bad.

But it does change the picture.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 570g (SL120 shaft)

• Head weight: 350g (assumed that it had standard sole weights)

• Swing weight: D8

• Length: 33”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: standard 70°, but suspect this is flatter

• Toe Hang: 60°

• Grip: SuperStroke Tour 1.0

I suspect this putter may be flatter than standard, and I have assumed it has standard headweights fitted. Note that the SL120 shaft is not standard.

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

This was one of those tests where the theory was more appealing than the result.

The tour issue changes made this version more interesting to me than retail, and the feel was better than I expected. But the performance never matched that early promise.

The short putts were solid enough, and the gate test suggested my start line was not really the issue. But as the stroke lengthened, the Odyssey became much less convincing, and my SeeMore stayed comfortably ahead.

In the end, this was a putter I liked more in concept than in use.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): This is a very appealing version of the Ai-One Milled Two. The slant neck and short top line make much more sense to my eye than the retail version’s plumber’s neck and rear flange line. It set up cleanly and looked good behind the ball.

Aim/Alignment (+ve): I preferred the short top alignment line, and on short putts, I felt I was starting the ball on line. The gate test backed that up with a score of 6, matching the SeeMore.

Feel (neutral to +ve): Having disliked the same insert in the Ai-One Milled One CH, I was pleasantly surprised here. The insert felt better than expected in this head. It is not as firm as a fully milled face, but it was nicer than some of Odyssey’s more synthetic-feeling inserts.

Sound (neutral to +ve): Very much the same as feel. The sound was better than anticipated, and I could quite happily live with it.

Pace control (-ve): This was the main issue. The Odyssey became much less convincing as the stroke lengthened. In the lag tests, it only scored 4 uphill and 3 downhill, versus 6 and 5 for the SeeMore, and I was generally coming up short. With longer putts, I often caught it out of the toe, causing issues with pace.

Performance (-ve): Relative to my SeeMore, I was surprised by how poor this putter was across all tests, especially the relatively short ones. Those putts can be stressful enough on their own, and don’t need the added stress of not trusting the putter. I felt that I had to work hard and really concentrate on my stroke with this putter. It was hard work. I also suspect that the lie angle may be a bit flatter than standard, which may have contributed to my problems.

Headcover (+ve): Odyssey make good head covers, with strong magnetic closures. There is nothing to dislike here, other than a suspicion that the white may get dirty.

Grip (neutral): This was fitted with a non-standard SuperStroke Tour 1.0 grip, which is one I like and have on my other SeeMore putter. The standard Ai-One grip is slightly disappointing compared to the one on the new Ai-Dual range.

Price (neutral): As this is a non-standard putter, it’s really hard to put a value on it, as I have no idea what the original cost was. However, it is being sold on behalf of a customer, so the price has been set by them, rather than by the shop. The Ai-One Milled line is now discontinued, but you can still pick them up for around £250 new, although stocks are limited. Ultimately, it’s only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and the only reason to pay the £250 asking price is if you really want the short slant neck and top line, as it’s the only way you will get them. If it had performed better, I could have been tempted. I suspect it may sit a while.

Conclusion

I still think this tour issue version of the Ai-One Milled Two suits me better than the retail model would.

The slant neck and top alignment line are much more appealing to my eye than a plumber’s neck and rear line. In theory, this should have been a better fit for me.

But in practice, it was not good enough.

My SeeMore Nashville mFGP performed better across the tests, especially once the stroke lengthened. The cleaner visuals and better-than-expected feel of the Two were not enough to overcome that.

This is one of those putters I can admire more than trust.

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

• What would I change? I’d check the lie angle and possibly re-test.

• What did I learn? That visual preferences and a better-than-expected feel are no compensation for poor performance!

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

When Scotty Cameron enters a category, it matters.

Not because every Scotty Cameron putter is automatically right for every golfer. But because it is usually a sign that a market has moved beyond novelty and into something more established. That is how I see the Phantom 11R OC. For me, it is serious validation that zero torque (or very low torque, as they describe this model) is not a fad and that Scotty Cameron believes it needs to compete in this space.

That made this putter interesting before I ever rolled a putt with it.

I had seen the Phantom 11R OC in shops, but had not had the chance to try it properly. For those unfamiliar with Scotty talk, OC stands for “Offset Centre”. This one belongs to a friend who gave me the chance to test it before we played. I was curious about this head because it reminded me a little of the Toulon Formula 90 that I reviewed last year: a high-quality milled putter, a familiar shape within an established product line, and a premium brand’s first serious take on zero torque.

The main questions for me were fairly simple. How would I get on with the feel? Could I aim it comfortably? And would I struggle with pace control the way I have with several other similar putters?

First Impressions

My first impression was positive, but cautious.

I liked it straight away, yet I was also concerned by how much onset there was, by which I mean the distance from the face to the shaft. Behind the ball, it is an attractive putter and unmistakably part of the Phantom family. The shape is clean, familiar and very obviously Scotty Cameron. It’s finished off with a custom black shaft, which is very nice, and I also liked the short alignment line.

I was particularly interested in the face. Having tried the insert version on the Catalina and Fastback last year, I was curious to see how the full face milling would feel. Having been sceptical, it turned out to be one of the most pleasant surprises.

What I did not like was the amount of onset. With the Toulon, the shaft is much closer to the face, and I have generally much preferred the other ZT models I’ve tried with a more forward shaft placement.

That was the first thing my eye kept coming back to, and my immediate reaction at address was that the putter looked slightly closed and wanted to aim left. The alignment line was not really the problem. There is only 1° of shaft lean and no press grip. When you combine that with the amount of onset, I felt very awkward over the ball. With some (not all) L.A.B. putters, the leading edge of the press grip should align with the leading edge of the putter face, making it easier to set up and feel more natural (once you know that).

Otherwise, there is nothing offensive about the way it looks, and I’m keen to see how it performs on the green.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 590g - to date, the heaviest putter I’ve tested

• Head weight: not disclosed by SC

• Swing weight: unable to test

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3.5° + 1° shaft lean

• Lie: 70° and no option to adjust

• Toe Hang: Low/Zero Torque

• Grip: SuperStroke Tour 3.0 (usually a mid-sized Matador)

Disappointingly, there does not appear to be any options to change the lie or loft, only the length.

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. Cold and windy.

• Conditions: A lovely, but chilly and windy, March afternoon. The green had been micro-tined the day before, but was rolling well.

• 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 how much I liked the feel.

That was not what I expected after how disappointed I was with the Catalina and Fastback last year. The face feels very well judged, with a pleasing sound at impact: not too loud, not too soft, just a solid middle ground. The head itself is a high-quality piece of kit. It is beautifully finished, the milling looks good, and the whole thing feels properly premium in the way a Scotty Cameron should.

It is not perfect, though. The milling gets dirty quite easily and seems to collect grass more than I would like. I also remain unconvinced by Scotty Cameron headcovers. At this price point, I would much rather see magnetic closures than Velcro. This one was already losing its sticking power.

The broader takeaway from the session is that this putter reminded me of the Toulon Formula 90, not just in concept, but in shape and the premium milled execution. However, I preferred the reduced onset of the Toulon.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I like the shape a lot. It is clearly a Phantom, and it looks like a quality item from the moment you put it down.

Aim/Alignment (-ve): This was the biggest issue. The short alignment line was fine, but the amount of onset made it look closed to me, and I never fully settled into it. While it was good on the short putts, it deteriorated quickly as the distance increased, and I think this is the first time I’ve had a zero with any putter. It would take me a long time to trust it.

Feel (+ve): A very pleasant surprise. I liked the face much more than I expected, and the balance between firm and soft was excellent. It felt considerably better than the chain-link insert used in the other Scotty Cameron models I’ve tried.

Sound (+ve): Very good. It has a pleasing sound that sits nicely between muted and loud. It was what I would want from a milled face.

Pace control (+ve): Excellent and by far the strongest part of the test. With several other ZT mallets, I’ve struggled with pace control, but I had no issues with the 11R OC. Even on poor hits, the ball generally got to the hole, so there is plenty of forgiveness on offer too.

Performance overall (neutral to -ve): I’ve marked this as neutral, primarily because pace control was so good. If I could adapt to the alignment issues, then this could be a very good putter, and if it suits your eye better than mine, you really should have it on your short list to test. I also seemed to choose a particularly tricky uphill, left-to-right breaking putt for the tests today, and that might have contributed to the perception of aiming left of the target line.

Grip (-ve to neutral): The SuperStroke Tour 3.0 is too thick for my preference. I’m not sure why my friend changed it from the standard Matador (I hope he saved it), which I personally prefer. So it’s negative for this putter, and neutral for the standard grip.

Headcover (-ve): I do not understand why Scotty Cameron persists with velcro closures. This putter deserves a better quality cover, and there are plenty to choose from in the aftermarket. Scott Readman Concepts is a great place to start.

Price (neutral): At £499, it is expensive, but not excessive relative to other Scotty Cameron putters. Prices on eBay appear quite robust at around £420. My bigger criticism at this price (and also discussed in the comments section of my Odyssey S2S #7 review) is that the customisation options appear limited to length only.

Conclusion

The Phantom 11R OC feels like a serious first effort from Scotty Cameron in the zero torque space. If I get the chance, I would like to compare it to the Fastback OC that was launched at the same time.

There is a lot to like about this putter. The shape is attractive, the head is beautifully made, the feel is much better than I expected, and the pace control was excellent (significantly better than expected). I can absolutely see why this putter will appeal, especially to golfers coming from a face-balanced mallet who want to explore zero torque without moving into something that looks too radical.

But I would not game it.

For me, there is simply too much onset. That one visual issue was enough to affect my aim, then my confidence, and finally my stroke. Once that happened, the rest of the putter’s strengths were not enough to compensate.

So my verdict is this: a great first effort from Scotty Cameron, with too much onset for me, but a putter that may suit others very well.

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

• What would I change? Less onset.

• What do I need to watch? Not assuming my visual reaction will be universal. My results were poor, but that does not mean yours will be.

If you have tried the Phantom 11R OC, I would be interested to know what you thought of it. Do you think Scotty Cameron has a winner here? Mike, I know you love it, and you used it very well when we played.

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

HackMotion is one of the more serious putting training tools I have used. It can show you useful things, but it can also tempt you to care too much about them.

I have mixed feelings about using HackMotion for putting.

Not because it is a gimmick. It isn’t.
And not because it can’t teach you anything. It can.

The difficulty is more subtle than that. A training aid can be intelligent, well-made, and genuinely informative, yet still become slightly unhelpful in the wrong hands, or in the wrong role. That, for me, is where HackMotion sits.

I have used it for a while. I have holed plenty of putts while wearing it. My strokes gained putting in real games, as measured by Tangent, suggest I am already a good putter. And yet, the more I used HackMotion, the more mechanical I became. I found myself paying closer attention to tidying small movements than to rolling the ball where I wanted it to start.

That is the tension at the heart of this review.

HackMotion can absolutely reveal things. I am just not convinced it always improves the one thing that matters most: getting the ball in the hole.

What HackMotion is

This is my own personal unit. I bought it last year from miagolftechnology.com for £265 on a Black Friday deal, then added the putting module direct from HackMotion, for an extra £105. That is a one-off payment with no annual fees involved. Having intended to use it for full swing practice over the winter, my hernia and subsequent surgery have limited my use primarily to putting.

HackMotion is a sensor-based training system that tracks wrist movement and pairs it with app-based feedback. In putting, its purpose is clear enough: measure what the wrists are doing, show how consistent that movement is, and help the golfer build a more repeatable pattern.

That is a serious idea. This is not a toy.

The appeal is obvious. Putting contains movements that can be hard to feel and harder still to see. HackMotion offers clarity. It gives you numbers, traces, drills, comparisons, and the kind of feedback many golfers find reassuring.

In the right hands, that can be useful.

What it is trying to do

The promise is fairly simple. HackMotion is trying to help you understand whether your wrist motion is stable, whether impact conditions are repeating, and whether small changes in movement might explain changes in strike, loft, or face delivery.

That is a perfectly sensible training aim.

To be fair to HackMotion, the point is not that the wrists should be completely frozen. The more sensible interpretation is that they should be controlled, functional, and reasonably consistent. That is a much better starting point than the old idea that all wrist movement in putting is a fault.

So the theory is sound enough.

What matters is what happens when that theory meets actual practice.

What I found using it

This is where my experience became more complicated.

HackMotion did exactly what it said it would do. It showed me things. It made my movement more visible. It gave me more awareness of what my wrists were doing during the stroke.

What it didn’t reliably do was make me practise better.

The more I used it, the more I found myself monitoring the motion rather than rolling the ball. I began paying too much attention to small deviations. I started trying to clean up parts of the stroke that may not have needed cleaning up at all. I became a little too careful, a little too managed, a little too mechanical.

In other words, the device became very good at showing me movement, and much less good at telling me whether that movement was actually hurting anything.

When useful feedback becomes intrusive

This, for me, is the central problem with HackMotion in putting.

A precise tool can make harmless variation look like a flaw. It can create the sense that because something is measurable, it must be important. In a full swing, golfers often make that mistake. In putting, I think it is even easier.

Because putting is so small, so exact, and so easy to over-manage.

HackMotion pulls your attention inward. Sometimes that is exactly what a player needs. If you have no idea what your wrists are doing, or if you have a genuine delivery issue that keeps reappearing, a tool like this can offer a useful explanation.

But if you already putt well, and especially if you learn best from task-based feedback, that inward pull can become slightly corrosive. The session starts to revolve around movement quality rather than ball behaviour. The trace becomes the standard. The ball becomes secondary.

Sinking nine putts in a row and being told there were problems with every one of them is where I began to lose patience with it.

The problem, for a naturally arcing stroke

There is another layer to this in my case.

I know that I have a strong natural arc to my putting stroke, and I do not want to fight that. More importantly, if the putter is returning in a repeatable, playable way, I should not need to.

That is where HackMotion began to feel slightly at odds with me.

Not because it explicitly says an arcing stroke is wrong. That would be too crude. But there were times when using it made me feel as though my task was to neaten the motion beyond what the ball was actually asking for. It encouraged a kind of quietening and organising that may look attractive in the app, while not necessarily helping the putt itself.

That is a dangerous swap.

A natural arc is not a defect. It is only a problem if it creates a problem. If the ball is starting online, if the face is returning properly, and if the putts are going in, then a training aid needs to be careful not to recast a functional pattern as something untidy that ought to be corrected.

That, for me, is the line HackMotion can blur.

Why I trust real drills more

My preferred feedback for putting is much simpler.

A start gate tells me whether the ball started where I intended.
A putter-head gate tells me whether I am returning the face as I think I am.
A chalk line or over-line gives me a visual reference.
Then the ball tells me the truth.

I like that sort of practice because it is external, honest, and difficult to argue with. It keeps the task in front of me: start line, face, strike, pace, target.

That is the sort of feedback I trust most.

HackMotion can add something to that, but for me it works best as a supporting voice, not the main one. The moment it becomes the loudest thing in the session, I start listening to the wrong questions.

How I would use it now

For me, the best role for HackMotion is as a diagnostic tool rather than a constant companion.

That is the distinction I wish I had made sooner.

I would begin with proper drills. Start gate. Putter gate. Chalk line. Over-line. A few pace-control putts. A few random putts to holes.

If the ball is behaving, I would leave HackMotion out of it.

If the ball is not behaving and I cannot tell why, that is when HackMotion begins to make more sense. In that role, it can help explain a pattern rather than invent one. It can help check whether something has drifted, without demanding the whole session revolve around the sensor.

Used that way, I can see the value in it much more clearly.

I think the same principle also applies to using it for the full swing, and I’m reminded of the aphorism that “perfection is the enemy of good”. My full swing experience with the sensor is limited, but the same risks apply (certainly for the way my brain works).

Who it may suit better than it suited me

I can still see why some golfers would enjoy HackMotion.

It should suit the golfer who likes measured feedback, enjoys structured practice, and feels more confident when movement is being made explicit rather than left to instinct. It may also suit the player who has a clear technical issue, little awareness of what the wrists are doing, or a coaching project that benefits from another layer of objective feedback.

For that golfer, HackMotion may feel clarifying.

Where I would be more cautious is with the golfer who already putts reasonably well, already responds to task-based drills, and is prone to becoming a little too analytical, the sort of player vulnerable to paralysis by analysis. That player may find HackMotion useful in small doses, but risky in large ones.

Not because it lacks value. Because it can become too persuasive.

Should you try it?

Possibly, yes.

But I would not recommend it in a blanket way.

If you want a more technical understanding of your putting stroke, and if you have a genuine issue that ordinary drills are not explaining, HackMotion is a credible and serious product. There is clearly real thought in it.

But I would be more guarded if you already putt well and know that your best putting comes from reacting to the task rather than supervising the motion. In that case, HackMotion may still help you, but only if it stays in its place.

That place, for me, is not as the ruler of practice.

It is as an occasional interpreter.

Final verdict

HackMotion is impressive. It is informative. It is clearly more than a gimmick.

It is also, in my experience, very easy to give it too much authority.

As a diagnostic tool, I can see the case for it very clearly. As a regular companion in putting practice, I found it too easy to let it overrun the skill and turn a good session into a slightly over-managed one.

That was my issue with it.

Not that it failed to show me things, but that it showed me so much I started caring about the wrong things.

For some golfers, that will still be a useful bargain. For others, especially those who putt best when their attention is outside the body rather than inside it, HackMotion may need a much shorter leash.

My own conclusion is fairly simple.

Use it to explain.
Do not let it govern.

Have you tried HackMotion for putting, or found yourself overthinking a training aid that was supposed to help? I’d love to hear your experience in the comments.

And if you enjoy thoughtful reviews of golf gear, practice tools, and what actually helps you play better golf, you can subscribe below.

Subscribe now

Links:

HackMotion website: here

Hub post for On The Green: here

The Club House welcome page: here

The #7 is a classic Odyssey shape that many other manufacturers have copied. Like the Jailbird, it lends itself perfectly to conversion to zero-torque. A shape that customers are very familiar with, in a brand they trust, and a new technology they may be curious about.

I applaud Odyssey for bringing a more cost-effective product to the zero-torque segment of the market, and I can see this head shape being very popular. Possibly even more so than the Jailbird.

First Impressions

With such a classic shape, this is an immediately comfortable putter. The modification required to accommodate the shaft position is minor and doesn’t alter the look in any detrimental way. The switch to a black shaft is a welcome change from the previous model, especially with this black head.

Like the previous Jailbird review, the immediate big miss for me is the new S2S grip. I really don’t like the shape or how it kills my feel in the swing.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 580g

• Head weight: 360g

• Swing weight: F3 (influence of longer shaft vs Jailbird)

• Length: 35”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 72°

• Toe Hang: Zero-Torque

• Grip: Odyssey S2S Press

There are no customisation options other than length. At this price, that’s an acceptable compromise.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The Eden green at the St Andrews Links Academy

• Conditions: A bright, but cold, February day. The green was slow, but it 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: My SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

The #7 performed better than the Jailbird, but struggled as distance increased and won’t be troubling the SeeMore.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): Using their conventional shapes and making them zero-torque is a very sensible move from Odyssey. They don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Both this #7 model and the previously reviewed Jailbird are very easy on the eye.

Aim/Alignment (neutral): I was able to align with the leading edge and the top line without getting too distracted by the rear lines. The putter felt square to my target line, and I didn’t feel like I was overly negotiating with it.

Feel (neutral): This is where the test got interesting. The feel from the #7 head was distinctly firmer than with the Jailbird. It produced a higher-pitched sound that I thought gave me better feedback. It’s still not as firm as a milled putter, but it was an improvement over the other putters I’ve tried with the Ai-Dual insert. If anyone else has had the same experience with this head relative to others in the range, I would be really interested to hear about it in the comments.

Pace control (-ve): Better than the Jailbird, but still not good enough. I definitely think the grip is more of a problem than the Ai-Dual insert here. I find the shape and size of the grip to be awkward in my hands, and I thought it took away any feel from the swing. I’d be really intrigued to try this and the Jailbird again with a L.A.B. press grip fitted, or even the SuperStroke that Taylormade use.

Performance (-ve): It had a decent start through 3’, 6’ and 9’, but really broke down after that. Between the slightly dead feel of the face and the lack of feel through the swing caused by the grip, I just couldn’t make this one work for me.

Headcover (+ve ): It’s a bit dull compared to the Jailbird cover, but otherwise it’s the same cover with different branding. Well-padded, with a good magnetic closure. Totally inoffensive.

Grip (-ve): Horrible, same comment as the Jailbird. It’s like a severe reverse taper. I’ve tried to show the shape by placing it beside a ruler. The putter shaft runs straight into the grip, and to create a forward press, they need to make the bottom wider than the top. It feels awkward to hold, and it definitely had a detrimental impact on my stroke. I have to assume that L.A.B. have patent protection on their press grip, because it’s so much better than this. I can see customers swapping to a L.A.B. grip or just using a standard grip. That adds another £30 or so to the price, and is disappointing. It’s a big miss for me, but I can understand why Odyssey have tried it.

Price (neutral): RRP £339 and available online for £299, this remains decent value in the Zero-Torque space, but it does come with compromises. For £199 (or less), you can still get the previous version of this putter. It comes with the standard grip, chrome shaft and original Ai-ONE insert, but if you are on a budget, it could be a great way to experiment with Zero-Torque.

Conclusion

This putter, and the Jailbird before it, are not for me. While I can get some ZT putters to work, I struggled with these new offerings from Odyssey. I really think the new press grip is part of the issue, and I wonder if an alternative would make a difference.

I applaud Odyssey for bringing the technology to market at a lower price point, and while it may not work for me, it may well be the answer for you. The familiar shape and typical Odyssey quality will appeal to a wide range of golfers. If you are interested in zero-torque putters, then this is a great place to start. Even better are the heavily discounted previous-generation models.

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No. It was better than the Jailbird, but it’s not for me.

• What would I change? The grip.

• What did I learn? That head shape can influence how the Ai-Dual insert feels. This was the best feeling of all the putters I’ve recently tried with the new Ai-Dual insert.

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 think the Jailbird/Jailbird Mini is a modern classic, a bit like the 2-ball. It has been a staple for Odyssey in recent years and really exploded when Wyndham Clark and Rickie Fowler had success with the larger, Cruiser model. There are many versions of this putter (Cruiser, Broomstick, Mini, S2S, Tri-Hot S2S, Ai-One Milled, slant neck, double-bend), and you will find it widely used on all tours.

This is the first time I’ve seen it with a white leading edge rather than black, and I wonder if that will have any impact on aim? The 1/2 ball alignment burst onto the scene in Jan 2026 when Nacho Elvira used it to excellent effect to win the Dubai Invitational. I also noticed Akshay Bathia using it shortly after that, although he has since reverted to his older O-Works head.

The only other differences between this and previous models are the new Ai-Dual face insert and the return of a top line rather than three dots. My first experience with the new insert was with the Tri-Hot S2S Rossie, where it didn’t make a great impression. Will it perform better here?

First Impressions

I’m testing two versions of the putter. A standard head and a 1/2 ball alignment head. Behind the ball, both are good-looking putters. I’ve long been a fan of the Versa alignment system. Of the heads that Odyssey use it on, I think it suits the Jailbird most. Saying that, Ludvig Aberg has also had great success with it on a #1 head.

I’ve tested several putters with the new insert and noticed that it gets dirty quite easily, and the grooves are particularly bad for holding dirt. With this model having the white leading edge, I’m concerned about how dirty that might get, too.

The 1/2 ball model is interesting. My immediate first impression was that I quite liked it and will be interested to see how it performs. They have used the 1/2 ball on a few other models, but I think it really benefits from the Jailbird's larger footprint.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 572g

• Head weight: 360g

• Swing weight: D6 (1/2 ball E3)

• Length: 34” (1/2 ball 35”)

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

• Toe Hang: Face balanced

• Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Double-bend and face balanced is not the best combination for my swing. But testing putters is also about challenging prejudices!

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 chilly, February afternoon. The green was slow, but rolling nicely. The first signs of spring!

• 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 much preferred the standard model's look to the 1/2 ball design, finding it easier to aim. However, the performance of the two was broadly similar. The lag putt test was better with the standard head, but that could be because I used the 1/2 ball model first and got a feel for pace. Alternatively, it’s from not second-guessing the aim and letting the stroke flow more naturally.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I like the Jailbird design and the Versa alignment. Moving back to a top line rather than three dots is a significant improvement. I don’t know why they thought three dots were a good idea.

Aim/Alignment (+ve/neutral): While both look square behind the ball, I found myself getting increasingly distracted by the 1/2 ball model and questioning my aim. There’s almost too much going on with that head, and I prefer the simplicity of the standard design. I found myself thinking back to the Ping G5i putters from almost 20 years ago, where they used a similar alignment system, albeit in reversed orientation.

Looking at other models with the 1/2 ball alignment, I think the one it suits best is the new #7 head. It was seeing it in the DW head that reminded me of the Ping above.

Feel (-ve): I’m sorry, Odyssey, but I’ve tried eight putters with the new Ai-Dual insert, and while head shape definitely influences the feel, I don’t really like it in any of the models I’ve tried. I find it dull and unresponsive.

Pace control (neutral): Possibly due to being more comfortable with the standard head, I felt that my pace control was better with this model. It did run the test second, though, and that must be a consideration in its performance. If I ran the lag test a couple more times, I think they would have performed broadly similarly.

Performance (neutral): A caveat; this putter isn’t the best fit for me, as I prefer more toe hang and rotation. That is the most likely cause of the dominant right miss I experienced during the distance tests and the gate test. I could certainly make the putter work, but it was streaky, and the results from 12’ are the best examples. It would be interesting to try this with a slant neck, which should, theoretically, suit me better.

Headcover (+ve): What’s not to like about this? Maybe some would prefer a plain cover (which you can get), but I love the image!

Grip (+ve): I’ve tried this grip on three putters now and like it more each time. It’s a great fit for me. If I can find an OEM version, I might have a new favourite.

Price (neutral): With an RRP of £299 and an online price of £269, this is firmly in the mid-market segment. If you can live without the latest insert, then you can pick up older Jailbird versions for considerably less.

Conclusion

The Jailbird is a great putter. Personally, I’m not a fan of the new insert or the 1/2 ball alignment, so I would recommend saving some money and buying the previous model (unless you don’t like the three-dot alignment). If they release a slant-neck model (which I’m sure they will, given it was in the previous range), I would be interested to see if it suits my stroke better.

Despite my not liking the 1/2 ball system, I need to reiterate that alignment is very personal, and it may well be an excellent fit for you. Let your own eyes be the judge rather than mine. I applaud Odyssey for continuing to innovate and bring new products to market, as they also did with the triple-track system. I’m sure Nacho Elvira would agree!

If you’ve tried the new model or are a happy user of an older Jailbird, I’d love to hear from you. Please comment below.

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No. Neither suits my stroke, and while I could make them work, I don’t think I’d ever really trust them. I’d take the standard head over the 1/2 ball head.

• What would I change? Try the slant neck model.

• What have I learned? A bit of confirmation bias regarding my dislike of current Odyssey inserts. However, just because this insert doesn’t work for me, I can’t let it prejudice all insert putters.

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 new model is essentially the same as last year’s S2S Jailbird but with the new Ai-Dual insert and a black shaft rather than chrome. I would describe the S2S range as Odyssey’s attempt at a mass-market zero-torque putter range. It’s taken the familiar Jailbird head and moved the shaft position to make it zero-torque (although, in reality, there’s a bit more to it than that!). But that’s not a bad thing! New technology in a familiar shape can only help with customer acceptance, especially in a head as popular as the Jailbird. I like the head and the versa alignment, it’s one of my favourite mallet putters. I’m interested to see how it performs as a zero-torque option.

First Impressions

Some would say that familiarity breeds contempt, but in this instance, I think that familiarity is the secret to acceptance. There is nothing offensive about the Jailbird head, and it’s not required significant alteration to make it work as a zero-torque putter either. No extra spuds or awkward shaft fittings for example. There’s not too much onset either, which is positive for me. The black shaft (in my opinion) looks much better than chrome, and the whole design holds together really well. I’m glad to see they are back with a top line rather than three dots too!

Then you get to the new S2S grip, and it suddenly gets a bit funky. I don’t ever use emojis in my posts, but I was very tempted to use one here. I know what they were trying to do, but it comes back to the old Einstein quote that “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not”. More about the grip later, but I guess you’ll already have gathered that I don’t like it!

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 586g

• Head weight: 360g

• Swing weight: E5

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 72°

• Toe Hang: Zero-Torque

• Grip: Odyssey S2S Press

There are no customisation options other than shaft length. At this price, that’s a reasonable compromise. Note that the 72° lie angle is quite different from L.A.B. putters at 69° standard lie.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The Eden green at the St Andrews Links Academy

• Conditions: A bright, but cold, February day. The green was slow, but it 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: My SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

I wanted to like this putter, I really did. It’s a shape that I like, and I feel comfortable aiming, but the love stopped with the first swing. These were the worst results I’ve had from a putter test for some time.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I’m a Jailbird fan. I like the shape, and I like the Versa design.

Aim/Alignment (+ve): I’m fortunate that the 72° standard lie angle is pretty much spot on for me. When I stood at address, I felt comfortable with my aim and alignment and didn’t feel I needed any significant negotiations.

Feel (-ve): I’ve tried several heads with the new Ai-Dual insert. I think the head shape does impact the feel of the insert, but this is the one that has felt the softest (for me). Is that the head, or the ZT design, or the combination of both?

Pace control (-ve): I’ve struggled with pace control with several zero-torque putters. With this one, I don’t have much feel for what the head is doing. Add in an insert that feels super soft, and it was a bad combination for me.

Performance (-ve): As distance increased, performance deteriorated, and confidence quickly fell away. That’s a particularly vicious cycle.

Headcover (+ve): I love the picture on the cover. The cover itself is a great quality item. It is well-padded and has a secure magnetic closure. Full marks!

Grip (-ve): Horrible. What a monstrosity. It’s like a severe reverse taper or an upside-down cone. I’ve tried to show the shape by placing it beside a ruler. The putter shaft runs straight into the grip, and to create a forward press, they needed to make the bottom wider than the top. It feels awkward to hold, and it definitely had a detrimental impact on my stroke. I have to assume that L.A.B. have patent protection on their press grip, because it’s so much better than this. I can see customers swapping to a L.A.B. grip or just using a standard grip. That adds more cost and is disappointing. It’s a big miss for me.

Price (neutral): RRP £339 and available online for £299, this remains decent value in the Zero-Torque space, but it does come with compromises. This is more of a mass-market product, and those compromises are acceptable given the price. However, you can pick up the first-generation model for considerably less, and that would be an even more budget-friendly option for someone looking to experiment with zero torque.

Conclusion

From quite liking it on my putting mat to really disliking it on the practice green, the new Odyssey Ai-Dual S2S Jailbird was a miss for me. My favourite ZT mallet so far remains the Taylormade Spider 5K, but that’s considerably more expensive than the offerings from Odyssey. I applaud Odyssey for introducing a more mass-market ZT product, and while it’s not for me, it could be very good for others. I have one regular playing partner who uses his to great effect (unfortunately!). Please don’t let me put you off trying one for yourself. It’s the only way you’ll know for sure.

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

• What would I change? Get rid of the grip!

• What did I learn? Having had some success with zero-torque blades last year, I would be interested to try a double-wide model if they bring one to this range (they had one in the previous range).

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 liked the look of a “double wide” putter. It’s not quite a mid-mallet in proportion, but it’s bigger than a standard blade. When I tried a similarly sized Scotty Cameron Catalina last year, I was surprised at how much I liked it. That head was shaped more like a conventional Anser, while this one is more angular. If you read my post about struggling to aim with an Anser head, it will be interesting to see how I get on with this alternative shape.

Odyssey have had a double-wide blade in their range for many years. This latest iteration is endowed with their new Ai-Dual face insert. I wasn’t a fan of the insert when I tried it in the S2S Rossie last year, so will this head shape and conventional design influence how it feels?

As a player with a strong arc, the double-bend shaft on this model reduces toe hang to only 10°, so it’s not the best natural fit. It also has a counterbalanced shaft, designed to provide more stability to the stroke, which may aid forgiveness on poor strikes, but may also act against my swing tendencies.

First impressions

Sometimes with Odyssey putters, the leading edge could seem a bit thick and clunky, but not this model. The face is really nice and thin. With an RRP of £299 (retail £269), I would expect good quality, and I’m not disappointed.

At address, the white insert was quite visible, and to my eye, that makes it look like it presents a lot of loft. It’s not terrible, but it is a bit distracting. This putter uses the new SL90 steel shaft, which I much prefer to the old StrokeLab shafts. It’s also fitted with the standard Odyssey Pistol grip, which I really like. It’s a classic pistol shape, fits my hands well and feels very nice. I’ll say it quietly, but I prefer it over the Lamkin Deep Etched I’ve used on other putters.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 570g (including 20g counterweight)

• Head weight: 355g (heavy but not extreme)

• Swing weight: D5.5

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

• Toe Hang: 10°

• Grip: Odyssey Pistol

These specifications are taken from the Odyssey website, while I measured the swing weight myself.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: St Andrews Links Academy, Eden Green

• Conditions: Sunny afternoon, but cold. Green was slow but running 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: My current gamer, SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

The Ai-Dual insert takes a bit of getting used to after hitting a fine-milled stainless steel head. This made distance control tricky, so it’s good that the test is run three times with the review putter.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I do like this more rectangular Anser shape. While it is wider than a conventional blade, I wouldn’t call it double. I have included a photo next to my conventionally proportioned Lajosi blade for comparison. I really like the thin leading edge of the Odyssey. It looks great.

Aim/Alignment (neutral): I definitely found this shape easier to align than a standard Anser, but I did notice myself being distracted by the flange line a couple of times and questioning my aim as a result. It would be interesting to black out the flange line and try again, or even do that in combination with a top line. I’m getting into the realms of custom putter builds there! Mostly, I felt confident that I was setting it square to my target line and could then set myself square.

Feel (-ve): While I thought the insert felt better in this head than it did in the S2S Rossie, I still find it very soft. This is extremely subjective. You may like the sound and feel produced, but I prefer more audible feedback. In comparison to my SeeMore, it just feels a bit dead. If you want to read more about the new insert, you can do so by following this link. Odyssey argue that the counterbalanced shaft helps promote a smoother swing, and I would agree that it does, but I also felt I was fighting the face to a degree.

Pace control (neutral): Despite my comments on feel, pace control improved a little as I became more used to it. I struggled most with the lag test, especially downhill. The “FRD Groove” pattern does appear to improve forgiveness on poor strikes and impart a nice roll, even on less well-hit shots.

Performance (neutral): In isolation, the DW performed well across most tests. It just didn’t perform as well as my SeeMore. The times I became distracted by the flange line are the times I made a less confident stroke. I found it difficult to decide how hard I needed to swing the club, so there was always a bit of mental negotiation going on before every putt. That kills performance.

Headcover (+ve): Odyssey always make good headcovers, and this is no exception. Well-padded and with dual magnets to secure it, it feels safe and solid on the head.

Grip (+ve): I’ve always had a soft spot for some of the Odyssey pistol grips (especially the old Pro model ones), and this is one of the best I’ve tried for a while. I do have small hands and prefer a traditionally sized grip, and this one fits the bill. It’s a similar shape and size to the Lamkin Deep Etched, but it feels nicer to me.

Price (neutral to -ve): Golf equipment is getting more expensive these days, and with an RRP of £299 (£269 retail online), this is firmly in the mid-market space. Odyssey will say you are paying for premium construction and the new face insert, but you need to judge for yourself. Personally, I think it’s a bit expensive, and if you are on a budget, you can find previous-generation models second-hand for considerably less.

Conclusion

I liked this putter more than I expected, and warmed to it further as the test went on. I could make it work for me if I had to, but I don’t think I would ever be fully comfortable with it. Compared to the Anser heads I’ve tried recently, I definitely found this more angular head easier to align. That’s good validation for the arguments in “My Problem With Anser Putters”

The face insert is something you need to try for yourself. It definitely feels different depending on which head it is in, and I have more reviews coming that also use it. I preferred it here over the S2S Rossie. Feel is a very important component for me, and even though it is better, it still isn’t what I look for in a putter.

My fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No. It was better than expected, and I’m glad I tested it. There are aspects that I liked: shape, quality, grip and aim. I could make it work if I had no other putters available, but ultimately, it fights against my natural tendencies. Close, but no.

• What would I change? The insert and the alignment line. I’d like to find a similar, fully milled alternative with a slant or flow neck to try.

• What did I learn? I like the shape of the head. Having struggled with aiming traditional Anser shapes, I found this one much easier.

If you like the confidence of a larger head, but don’t want to go all the way to a mallet, and if your stroke suits a double-bend shaft with less toe hang, then this could be a brilliant option. There’s a lot to like about this new generation of double-wide putter from Odyssey. The production quality is great, and it should be high on your test list. If you’ve tried one (even if it’s an older model), I’d love to know how you found it in the comments below.

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

Many thanks to Adam Legg and Auchterlonies for lending me this review putter.

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

The 8802 shape sits in that small category of putters that doesn’t need explaining. A timeless beauty with a slim blade, a flowing neck and hardly any visual noise. It’s the sort of putter you pick because you love putting, not because you want technology to do the work. It’s a very revealing putter. It’s also an interesting contrast to the Odyssey Metal-X #8 that I reviewed recently, as it has a fully milled face and no distracting alignment lines.

The shape harks back to the glory days of Ben Crenshaw, when he won the Masters in both 1984 and 1995. He loved the shape so much he even called his putter “Little Ben”. John Daly also used an 8802 to win the Open at St Andrews in 1995. But Arnold Palmer is probably the golfer most associated with making this style of “flanged blade” famous.

First Impressions

This is a thing of beauty, and it was pretty much love at first sight. But will that grow or fade as testing continues? The head is small without being fiddly, and the overall shape feels purposeful (and very pretty). It’s not trying to impress you. In fact, many would likely say it’s more intimidating than impressive. The face milling is lovely and adds a modern touch to this classic head.

The lack of alignment didn’t feel like a problem (initially). It actually felt a bit liberating, although the real test of that is still to come. It sat square to my intended line, and I felt like I could just set it down and swing. While visually very different, in motion, the way it swung felt broadly the same as my SeeMore Nashville mFGP, making the transition easy.

One thing I learned from the earlier Odyssey #8 test is that the sweet spot is closer to the heel than the geometric centre of the blade, which influences setup.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 524g

• Head weight: 335g

• Swing weight: C6

• Length: 34.5”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 71°

• Toe hang: 90° fully toe-down

• Grip: SuperStroke 1.0 Pistol GT

With the Odyssey having been slightly too short, this one is actually a touch too long, but that’s easier to adjust for.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Location: St Andrews Links Academy practice green

• Conditions: 6°C, but with wind chill it felt colder; green relatively slow

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

• Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft circle – uphill and downhill

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: here

How did it perform?

Notes

This is the first putter to give the SeeMore a proper run for its money. Over most of the tests today, it performed as well as, or even better than, my SeeMore. I was particularly surprised at how well it performed as the distances increased. Yes, you get a lot of feedback if you don’t strike the sweet spot, but I didn’t feel like those misses were overly punished, and my distance control was very good.

It was a cold day with additional wind chill, and the green was slow. What stood out was how quickly the 8802 felt ‘normal’. I aim the leading edge on my target line and let it go. When it missed, it tended to be a start-line issue rather than a pace issue.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): Classic 8802 shape. Small but not fiddly. ‘Just a putter’ in the best way. I really like it, but it could frighten others more used to mallets or even Anser shapes.

Aim/Alignment (+ve, for me): No line meant no negotiation with the back. I could focus on the face and aim the leading edge. That simplicity boosted confidence, and confidence in your aim is vital if you are going to use this putter.

(Context note: part of this putter test is to triangulate against the earlier review of the Odyssey Metal-X #8; a similar shape but with a front-to-back alignment line. I found that line surprisingly hard to trust, and it bled confidence.)

Feel (+ve): The full-face milling felt closer to my SeeMore Nashville mFGP than the Metal-X #8 did. That familiarity matters, as I was immediately comfortable with the putter and didn’t have to think about how the ball would react with the face. There is a lot of feedback from the head. You certainly know if you miss the sweet spot.

Pace control (+ve): Strike quality and touch are key for pace control with this design. If you are a little bit out, you will get punished, although poorly struck putts did still perform better than I expected. Similar to the Odyssey, I liked the lighter total weight of this putter, especially as the putts got longer.

Performance (+ve): These were strong test numbers across the board. With longer putts, I feel I can stroke them with real freedom, and there is something really liberating about that. With shorter putts, I did question my aim a little compared to my SeeMore. I think time and familiarity would help with that. During the lag test, the most interesting aspect was the very tight dispersion, both distance and line. When it missed, it tended to miss right, which is actually my dominant miss, as shown in the two Tangent visuals below. That reads like start-line, or holding the face open at impact, rather than pace.

Grip (neutral, as tested): The SuperStroke 1.0 Pistol GT worked fine, but if I keep the club, then I’d go thinner. EDIT - now changed, see below.

Fit (neutral): I’d trim it to 34” for my preferred build. I like the feedback I get from this putter. I know immediately if it’s been struck well or not.

Headcover (+ve): The headcover is a really nice, simple model with a magnetic closure. It comes down the shaft nicely and is a very secure fit. It fits nicely into the putter slot on my bag.

Price (neutral): These are currently selling new for around £299, which feels a bit much. The quality is excellent, though, and just as good as putters like a Ping PLD or Scotty Cameron that cost over £400. I picked this one up second-hand for £145, and despite needing to regrip it, I’d say it’s a great second-hand buy.

Conclusion

The Wilson Staff Model 8802 is a proper blade in the old sense: it doesn’t help you, and it doesn’t distract you. But it will expose you! It best suits a golfer who already has a decent sense of face control and distance control, and who prefers a visually quiet putter. If you see the putt well, like a natural release and dislike alignment aids, it could be excellent for you.

The most interesting outcome for me wasn’t the scorecard (although the make-test and lag-test numbers were strong). It was what the head removed from the process compared to the Odyssey #8. With no alignment line to second-guess, I could focus on the face and aim the leading edge. However, it can be hard to find the sweet spot, and I would like to try a top line or dot to help.

My fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? It’s definitely a contender! My SeeMore has the edge for the moment, simply because I feel more comfortable with it.

• What would I change? I’ve trimmed it to 34” and switched grip. From listening to David Edel, I’ve wanted to try a round grip and found a possible answer in the Odyssey Chipper grip. It’s the same diameter as a SuperStroke Tour 1.0, but it is totally round rather than having a flat edge.

• What did I learn? I like a putter to have less, rather than more. The contrast with the Odyssey #8 confirmed my alignment preferences. I like the clean lines of the 8802, but if my putting is off, I know it will punish me. The SeeMore still has the edge for the moment.

If you like a traditional blade and alignment lines make you think rather than commit, the 8802 is a reminder that sometimes less really is more. Please comment below if you play an 8802 or similar putter (or even tried a round grip) and tell me why.

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

Edit: Since regripping, I’ve been able to test the putter on the course. As much as I like it for pace, flow and instinctive putting, my biggest issue is at address. Because the sweet spot is slightly toward the heel, rather than the geometric middle, I find it tricky to address the ball. I ended up fiddling about and making poor strokes. I’ve since added a Sharpie mark where I feel the sweet spot is, and will try it again. There are too many things I like about it to give up yet.

Links:

Full testing framework: here

Odyssey Metal-X #8: here

All my other putter reviews: here

Phil Mickelson is probably the most famous user of an Odyssey #8. A modern interpretation of a classic Napa / 8802 shape. Given its small size and perceived lack of forgiveness, it will send shivers down the spines of many golfers. However, given what I’ve been finding out about my preferred putter styles, I thought it would be great to give this a try. Listed for only £50, it was a pretty low-risk experiment too.

First Impressions

Wow, this thing is small! Elegant shape, little visual interference, natural head flow, and a strong invitation to putt with instinct rather than with structure (other than that alignment line!). The Metal-X face insert adds a touch of technology to this most basic of putter designs.

Unfortunately, I had to immediately change the grip as the old one fell apart when I cleaned it. I had a spare, but that takes the real price up to about £65. It also didn’t come with a headcover, but I had a spare one of those, too. So, in reality, this putter has cost more like £80. That’s still not a lot of money.

While waiting on a weather window, I spent some time putting with this on my mat indoors, and my initial impressions surprised me. I liked it! I was expecting a sweet spot the size of a pea and an overall terrifying experience, but I couldn’t have been more wrong. Maybe Phil Mickelson was onto something after all. But would some of his putting magic rub off on me when I got it outside?

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 514g

• Head weight: 325g

• Swing weight: B7

• Length: 32.5” - shorter than advertised

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 72°

• Toe Hang: 90° (6 on clockface)

• Grip: Lamkin Deep Etched Cord

At only 514g, this is the lightest putter I’ve tried by around 30g (SeeMore Mini Giant is the next at 544g). The swing weight is also very light at only B7.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: St Andrews Academy practice green

• Conditions: The green had been cut and rolled, but it was a cold and windy day.

• 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: My current gamer, a SeeMore Nashville FGP (run once)

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

Out on the putting green, I continued to find it easy to make a nice, smooth stroke with this putter. Unfortunately, it is really about an inch too short for me. I took it on trust that it would be the advertised length, and carelessly, I didn’t measure it when re-gripping, as I could have extended it. It did feel a bit awkward at times.

One thing it’s made me think about is the impact of weight on my stroke, and it prompted me to add weight details to these reviews. I may investigate further the relationship between total weight, swing weight and stroke impact and bring that back as a future post.

Pros and Cons

Looks (neutral): The Metal-X #8 is for the golfer who wants a classic, old, heel-shafted blade with a lot of toe flow. I genuinely like the shape and size of this putter, but I’m not so sure about the alignment line.

Aim/Alignment (-ve): No, I’m not a fan. If the alignment line had just been on the top edge, I think I would have been fine with it, but I don’t like the way it rolls down onto the trailing side. It was fine when randomly knocking balls around the green, but once I came to conducting the actual tests and creating some pressure, my aim confidence broke down severely.

Feel (neutral): I do like the lighter overall weight of this putter, but I wonder if it’s just a bit too light overall? I struggled as the distance increased and I had to make firmer strokes. The Metal-X insert isn't great either. I didn’t like the sound or feel. Given that the rest of the face has been really nicely milled, it’s a shame Odyssey didn’t carry that through the entire head, but I know they were trying to promote new technology in a classic head. This is the insert that the new chain-link Scotty Cameron one reminded me of. I didn’t like that either! They both have a hollow feel/sound that I don’t like.

Pace control (-ve): Likely related to feel, weight and length, I struggled with pace control. I never knew how the ball would come off the face and struggled to make a consistent, confident stroke. This became more apparent as the distance increased, and it performed very poorly in the lag test. Face or weight?

Performance (neutral): This is a very revealing putter and rewards the player who has a natural release and likes to play with touch and feel. It won’t suit those who need more visual help and prefer a high MOI head. Relative to the Broadie data, the #8 performed reasonably well in isolation. It just didn’t perform as well as the benchmark putter.

Headcover (neutral): Odyssey make good headcovers, and you can pick them up relatively cheaply. It’s a shame this putter didn’t have a cover, but I can’t mark it down for that, especially given what I paid.

Grip (+ve): I would obviously give it positive marks for the grip, given that I changed it! I like the SuperStroke Tour 1.0 that came with it, but it was beyond saving.

Price (+ve): You can’t go wrong for £50, can you? Well, yes! It’s only money well spent if it works for you, and in this case, it didn’t. It was an inexpensive experiment (even with the grip and cover), and I will hopefully break even when I sell it.

Conclusion

I’ll not be calling myself Keith Mickelson any time soon, and I don’t think I’ll be winning any prizes with the Odyssey Metal-X #8. I like the shape, though, and have a Wilson Staff Model 8802 ready to test next. It will be interesting to see how that compares, given its fully milled face and lack of alignment lines.

My fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No. It’s too short, and I don’t like the insert or alignment line.

• What would I change? Increase its length to see if that improved my stroke.

• What did I learn? I like the shape. It was easier to use than expected, but I think it would take a long time to build trust. It will be interesting to try the Wilson Staff Model 8802 next.

A final thought. This is the lightest putter I have tested, and it makes me think about how weight impacts performance. Below, I’ve included a link to Tiger Woods discussing how his putter is lighter than most available today and how that impacts his stroke. It’s an interesting area, and if you’ve experimented with weight, I’d love to hear about it in the comments below.

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:

Tiger Woods: here

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

Who doesn’t love a classic Anser putter? It’s a design I have long admired in professionals’ bags, especially the Scotty Cameron versions played by Cam Smith, Jordan Spieth and Patrick Reid. Manufacturers all put their own design touches on them, but I generally just love the way they look.

In theory, an Anser should be a perfect putter for me.

In practice, it has not been.

This has never been about whether an Anser can roll the ball. It is about something that happens before I even make a stroke. I stand over it, and I don’t feel certain that I have aimed it where I want.

And if I cannot trust my aim, everything that happens next becomes harder.

What I want from a putter

At a basic level, I want a putter that gives me confidence that I am going to start the ball on my chosen line.

Not because I expect to hole everything, but because commitment matters. When the face looks square, I can make a free stroke and focus on pace. When it does not, I start managing the putter.

That is the story of the Anser for me.

Why the theory never matched the reality

The confusing part is that, on paper, an Anser should fit.

I have a strong arc, and I have had success using other flow neck models with plenty of toe hang. Mechanically, they should match the way I swing the putter.

But toe hang is about how the head wants to rotate during the stroke. My problem happens earlier. It happens at address. It’s visual.

I am a face aimer, not a rear aimer

The quickest way I can describe it is that my visual preference is to aim using the face, not the back of the head.

Some golfers seem to aim mainly using the rear line, flange, or the overall frame behind the ball. Others, including me, focus more on the leading edge and top line. I first explored that idea in this earlier post about why I struggle with some mallet putters, despite them being wildly popular on tour: here

Despite being a blade, the Anser still gives you a lot of information behind the face, and my eyes do not always interpret that information in a way that helps me aim.

The Anser makes me negotiate

With an Anser, the face can look slightly open to me at address even when it is not. I’ve commented on that in both of my recent reviews.

Once I see that, I start negotiating. I make a tiny adjustment. I check it again. I try to trust it. On a good day, I get away with it. On a bad day, it becomes a two-way miss pattern because I am not simply rolling a putt anymore. I am managing the face.

That is why I have always felt streaky with this style of putter. It is not that the stroke disappears. It is that the picture stops being stable.

Why stance matters more than it should

One of the clearest patterns I have noticed is that I tend to stand more open with Anser style blades and some mid-mallets.

It is not a choice I consciously make. It is a natural compensation. If I open my stance, the head looks better. The face and the target line start to agree again.

That helps, but it also tells me something important. The putter is not visually neutral for me. I can make it work, but it’s harder to do it the same way every time.

Right eye dominance can change the picture

I am right eye dominant, and I think that is part of the reason the Anser can be viewpoint dependent for me.

The neck, the offset relationship between shaft and face, and the heel-side geometry can all become strong visual references. From my normal setup, slightly inside the line, those references can pull my perception away from the face.

That is not a criticism of the design. It is simply a mismatch between what the putter is showing me and how my brain wants to aim.

Why the SeeMore has changed things

Since moving to the SeeMore mFGP, the questioning has happened less.

The simplest explanation is that it gives me a clearer, more face-forward picture at address. The face looks square quickly (compared to an Anser, it can almost appear closed). I can then stand square and still see what I want to see. I can commit. More importantly, it’s repeatable. Straight lines appeal to my engineering brain!

It does not make me a perfect putter. Nothing does!

But it removes the negotiation, especially on the putts that matter most, the ones inside six feet where doubt is expensive.

It would be interesting to try an Anser 4 / Newport 2 style head and see if their straighter lines suit my eyes better, and I plan to do that as soon as I find one.

A final thought

I am not writing this as a putting coach, and I am not claiming it is a universal rule. This is simply one of the clearest patterns I have found from testing and reviewing a lot of putters.

You can find the right putter for your stroke, and find it’s still the wrong putter for your eyes.

There is an old Groucho Marx line about who you are going to trust, him or your lying eyes. Putting has a version of the same problem. The specs can say one thing, but if the picture doesn’t look right, it is hard to commit. For me, that is the Anser in a nutshell.

I will come back to this idea in upcoming reviews, including two putters with very similar head shapes but very different alignment cues.

Over to you

If you have ever struggled with a putter that should work on paper, but didn’t work in practice, I would love to hear about it. What shapes look square to you, and what ones never quite do?

If you enjoy this kind of testing-based writing, consider subscribing. I will keep reviewing as many putters as I can get my hands on and share what I learn along the way.

Subscribe now

Links:

For all of my putting-related articles, go to On the Green

Two recent Anser-style putter reviews

• Toulon Garage Madison

• Yes! Tracy II

If Mallets Are So Good, Why Don’t I Use One?