I have to preface this article by saying that while writing this review, I was made aware that a new model of the grip had been released. I was sent three samples of the new model to compare with the original version, so this review now combines my experience with both.

Why have I switched?

I didn’t switch to JumboMax ZenLite grips because I was chasing distance, trying to copy Bryson DeChambeau, or looking for a radical equipment experiment. I switched because I was looking for ways to make golf more comfortable while dealing with elbow tendonitis.

I’ve already moved into graphite shafts, and I’ll link to those posts below, but the next idea was thicker grips. The theory is fairly simple: a thicker grip may reduce grip pressure, which can reduce tension in the hands, arms and elbow tendons. If you are gripping the club a little less tightly, perhaps the whole system becomes a little less strained.

This review is therefore not just about whether the grips feel good in the hand, or whether they perform well in normal conditions. It is about whether thicker grips can make golf feel more playable while recovering from tendonitis. On that measure, the early signs have been positive, although the full story has turned out to be more complicated.

Why JumboMax ZenLite?

Part of the reason I was interested in JumboMax was that I had listened to a few podcast interviews with CEO John Mazzanoble and Director of Sales and Fitting Alex Trujillo. They made a convincing case for why grip size matters, why a thicker grip might help golfers reduce grip pressure, and the potential benefits of doing that.

Tour validation has also increased recently, with players such as Jason Day and Sergio Garcia switching to JumboMax grips. Good players are not going to make major equipment changes lightly, especially to something as personal as grips, so that sort of validation carries some weight.

That said, tour validation only goes so far. Tour players are not paying £17.95 per grip, dealing with UK stock limitations, waiting on customs delays from a UK website, or wondering whether to replace thirteen grips out of their own pocket if something goes wrong. Their experience of equipment is not the same as ours.

Ideally, I would have tested these properly first. JumboMax sell trial packs in the USA, which would have been the sensible route, but I couldn’t source one in the UK. That meant the decision was more of a jump than I would normally like.

I used the JumboMax AI fitting tool, which recommended extra-small, and chose the ZenLite because it was an almost perfect weight match for my existing grips. That mattered because I wanted to change grip size without creating any major swing weight issues or completely changing the way the clubs felt.

Many jumbo grips are considerably heavier than standard grips, often by 20 to 30g or more. The ZenLite gets around that by using a lightweight inner core with a layer of grip rubber over it, keeping the overall weight much closer to a conventional grip.

As I was preparing to return from injury and wanted my clubs ready, I decided to replace all 13 grips rather than trialling a couple first. I was pretty convinced by the theory, and if thicker grips were going to help my elbow, I wanted the benefit across the full set rather than only on one or two clubs.

Buying Them In The UK

JumboMax grips are still not the easiest thing to source in the UK, especially if you want a specific model and size. Most of the usual online retailers I use were out of stock, and no local physical retailer stocked them either.

I contacted JMX in the USA to ask about UK suppliers, and they directed me to Ministry Golf. Peter Powell from Ministry Golf has been exceptionally helpful throughout this process, but his reply came after I had already found the grips in stock elsewhere. Being impatient, I had already ordered them from that site.

At the time, I had no reason to think I was buying anything other than current stock. That became more important later.

Fitting The Grips

Fitting them was not especially easy.

I have fitted plenty of grips before, but these took more effort than a normal grip. They are not impossible to fit, but I wouldn’t want to fit them if I were in a hurry. It’s a bit like installing a SuperStroke putter grip.

First Impressions

The initial impressions were positive.

The ZenLite extra-small felt good in the hand and almost like a larger classic Tour Velvet. Yes, they are large, but not cartoonishly so, and the material felt pleasant in dry conditions. A few playing partners tried my clubs, and their reaction was generally positive. Even for golfers who had no intention of switching to something oversized, the grips made a good first impression.

After the first couple of rounds, I noticed less elbow fatigue after playing, which was exactly what I was hoping for. The size took a little adjustment, but not as much as I expected. The clubs still felt familiar, just with a larger grip in my hands.

Performance On The Course

In dry conditions, the grips have been good.

I have not found any real issue with different types of shots. Full swings, partial shots and chipping have all been fine. That was one of my concerns before fitting them, because I wondered whether a thicker grip might make the short game feel clumsy or reduce my sense of the clubhead.

If anything, the bigger grip has made the club feel calmer in my hands. I don’t feel as though I need to squeeze it in the same way, and that seems to be part of why my elbow has felt better. I’m not saying the grips have improved my golf, but they have made playing feel more comfortable.

Wet-Weather Performance

The wet-weather performance has been less convincing.

I’ve now had enough time with the grips to play in the rain, and even wearing rain gloves, I didn’t feel especially secure with them. The material felt less convincing once wet, and I found myself thinking about the grip rather than the shot. Not ideal.

I can’t say with certainty whether this is purely down to the material or whether I am still adjusting to using a thicker grip in wet conditions. It may even be a confidence issue. But either way, for my golf in Scotland, wet-weather performance matters. A grip can feel excellent in dry conditions, but if I don’t trust it in the rain, that becomes a serious limitation.

The Grip Failure

Unfortunately, the biggest issue was durability.

After only a couple of rounds, two of the thirteen grips started to fail. The rubber sleeve at the butt end became loose and began rolling down, exposing the inner section underneath. This was not normal wear. On one grip, it was bad enough that the end of the club looked completely unfinished. On another, the sleeve had clearly started to lift and deform around the cap.

A couple more grips also started to show similar signs, so this was no longer an isolated issue. Two failures from thirteen would already be disappointing for a premium grip, but with others beginning to go the same way, it became harder to dismiss as simple bad luck.

Could clubs rubbing together in the bag have contributed? Possibly. But clubs being taken in and out of a golf bag is ordinary use, and I would expect a grip to tolerate that without starting to come apart.

Customer Service And The Old Model Issue

This is where the experience became more frustrating, although I want to be clear that my issue is not with Ministry Golf.

When the problems started, despite not having supplied my grips, Peter at Ministry was very helpful. He explained that the black and green ZenLite I had purchased was an older model, and that the newer black and white version had been improved. He suggested that I contact the seller and have the faulty grips replaced.

When I raised this with my retailer, they said JMX had not contacted them about the issue. Their first offer was to refund the two defective grips, which addressed the visible failures but not the wider concern that I had fitted thirteen older-model grips and had lost confidence in the rest of the set. In the end, I agreed to a refund for the two failed grips, along with some compensation for the inconvenience. The retailer continued to list the grips as current stock.

While dealing with the retailer, I also contacted JMX USA directly. Their response confirmed that they were “aware of this issue with the older model Zen Lite”, and that the grips in my pictures were that older model. They also said they had switched to a different manufacturer for the new ZenLite and that the revised version would no longer have the lime-green detailing.

Until then, I thought I might simply have been unlucky with two faulty grips, and I had treated the refund for those two as a reasonable compromise. After the JMX reply, it felt more like I had bought old stock of a product with a known issue.

I therefore contacted the retailer again, and they agreed to a full refund. I also contacted JMX again to ask why older stock with a known problem had remained in the supply chain and continued to be sold as current product. They did not reply.

What happened next?

If the grips had simply felt poor, the decision would be easy. I would take them off, move on, and put the experiment down to experience. But that is not what happened. The thicker grip idea has helped, and I am more comfortable playing golf with them fitted.

The problem now is trust.

Having remained in contact with Ministry Golf, Peter suggested that he send me replacements from the new range for my three faulty grips. That was a very generous offer, and he sent one XS and two Standard Jumbo grips so I could also try a size down.

Did The New Model Fix It?

Initially, these felt slightly better than the older model, but unfortunately they have not resolved the durability concerns. In fact, they have raised a few additional quality questions.

The three grips I was sent were all slightly different lengths, which immediately seemed odd. They also have a noticeable seam where the grip wrap is joined together. I actually think that could have been turned into something useful if it had been positioned and finished deliberately enough to act as an alignment reference, but as it stands, it simply feels like a construction seam.

I like the texture of the newer grips, but they do not appear particularly durable. The grip on my driver was already showing signs of wear after only a few rounds.

Then, most significantly, the driver grip failed in the same way as the older model.

While trying the new model, I have also been experimenting with other grips. When removing one of the new ZenLite grips, we noticed that the core appeared more brittle than the old one and broke up during removal. We also noticed that the grip wrap detached from the core very easily and appeared to be attached with grip tape rather than glue.

The butt end looked to be better attached, but that had not prevented another grip from failing in use.

Removing that grip, combined with the failure of the second new-model grip, was enough for me. I do not intend to purchase any more ZenLite grips and will look for an alternative solution.

Verdict

The JumboMax ZenLite grips are a difficult review because the central idea has worked better than the product experience.

On comfort, they have been a success. They feel good in the hand, encourage a lighter hold, and have made golf easier to play while I manage my elbow.

On durability, they have been disappointing, especially for a premium product. More importantly, my experience with the newer black and white model has not restored any confidence. Having now seen the same type of failure on both versions, I think JumboMax need to investigate the issue further.

For now, they have lost me as a customer, and it will be very difficult to convince me to give them a third try.

I would still recommend the idea of testing thicker grips if grip pressure, arm tension or elbow discomfort are issues for you. For me, the lesson is not that thicker grips are a bad idea. It is that a good idea still needs a product you can trust.

A final word

If you’ve experimented with JumboMax grips, or moved to a thicker grip for comfort or to reduce grip pressure, I’d be interested to hear how you got on. I’m now trying a few alternatives, so I’ll share what I find once I’ve had enough time with them.

If you enjoy this kind of independent equipment testing, you can subscribe to The Club House to get future reviews and follow the experiments as they develop.

Subscribe now

Other reading:

Fitting for graphite iron shafts at SGGT: here

The original TaylorMade Spider Tour found its way into the bags of many professional golfers and was used to great success by Jason Day and Dustin Johnson in particular. The smaller Tour X model rose to prominence when Rory McIlroy started using it in 2019, although he had also used an original Spider Tour in 2017.

More recently, Scottie Scheffler and many others have moved over to the Spider range. In fact, eight of the world’s top 20 golfers currently use a Spider putter. Listening to some television pundits, you might be forgiven for thinking they are the cure for all putting ills.

That might be overstating things, but there is no doubt that such high-level tour validation has helped make the Spider Tour X one of the most desirable putters on the market.

So how will it perform for me?

Subscribe now

First Impressions

The Tour X is an interesting putter. It is smaller than the original Spider, but remains a high MOI mallet that promises plenty of forgiveness on off-centre strikes. I never really liked the shape of the original head, and I much prefer this more compact version.

Historically, I have also been put off by TaylorMade’s True Path alignment system because I found the contrasting insert distracting. This model still has the outline on top of the head, but it is now the same colour as the rest of the putter. That makes it much more appealing to my eye.

The simple white alignment line allowed me to focus my attention towards the front of the putter, and I felt very comfortable standing over the ball.

I am also a big fan of the colour and finish TaylorMade has used on this new Spider range. It is described as a Torched PVD finish, and looks very similar to the finish on Rory McIlroy’s putter. Given how close it looks to one of the most recognisable putters in professional golf, I would imagine this version will be a very strong seller.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 562g

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: D6

• Length: 34” (KBS CT 120 stepless shaft)

• Loft: 3° (no apparent custom options)

• Lie: 70° (no apparent custom options)

• Toe Hang: 30°

• Grip: TaylorMade SuperStroke Pistol 1.0

It’s slightly disappointing that I can see no reference to customisation of loft and lie anywhere on the TaylorMade site or from online retailers.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Practice green at Craigtoun Course

• Conditions: A lovely July day with a firm green that was running 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: Lajosi custom blade

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

The practice green at Craigtoun Course was in excellent condition and rolling nicely after a period of very good weather.

Following my recent testing and review of the AimPutt training system, I have been using my custom Lajosi blade as my gamer. It felt more comfortable at address with the AimPutt than my SeeMore putters did, so it provided the benchmark for this test.

I also used AimPutt to check my setup before beginning the testing.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): Personally, I love the colour TaylorMade has used on this putter, and I much prefer the head without the contrasting white True Path insert. The simple white alignment line looks excellent against the Torched PVD finish.

I have never particularly liked the Spider Tour X whenever I have picked one up in a shop, but this version really appeals to me. It looks clean and simple behind the ball, frames it nicely and inspires confidence.

The finish also appears to be a considerable improvement over some of the earlier Spider models. Those could be prone to chipping and quickly started to look untidy, particularly around the edges of the head. The newer finishes seem much more robust, and this seems to be less of an issue now, which matters on a club that will be in and out of the bag on every hole.

Grip (+ve): The SuperStroke Pistol 1.0 is a grip I know well and have used on several other putters. I like both the feel of the material and the shape of the grip in my hands.

The markings also provide useful visual references for repeatable hand placement. At 34 inches, I needed to grip down slightly when using AimPutt, so those references were particularly helpful during this test.

Headcover (+ve): The Spider headcover is excellent. Finished in a colour that matches the putter, it is well padded and has a strong magnetic closure. I would have no concerns about it falling off during a round.

The contrasting blue stitching might not be to everyone’s taste, but I like it.

Aim/Alignment (+ve): As I have already mentioned, removing the contrasting True Path insert allowed me to focus more on the face rather than having my attention drawn towards the body of the putter. I felt very confident in my aim at address.

However, I missed a lot of putts to the right. I think that was more about how the putter moved during my stroke than any problem with my initial aim. I often felt as though I had pushed the putt and left the face open through impact.

The Tour X did not appear to work as naturally with my stroke as the Tour V had.

Feel and Sound (+ve): The Tour X feels similar to the Tour V, but not identical. Presumably, that comes down to the different head shape and the amount of mass positioned behind the face. It will be interesting to test the Tour F at some point and see whether that feels different again.

As with the Tour V, I was surprised by how much I liked the feel of the Pure Roll insert. I generally prefer milled faces, but TaylorMade has done an excellent job with both the acoustics and the feedback from the face.

Pace Control (+ve): Pace control was again excellent.

Despite being longer and slightly heavier than the Tour V I tested, the Tour X gave me very good control of distance. Testing these two putters has definitely made me reconsider some of my assumptions about insert faces.

Performance Overall (neutral): The longer I used the Tour X, the more comfortable I became and the better it performed. However, it never felt as natural to swing as the Tour V.

I often felt as though I was fighting the head slightly and trying to force the face to close. Adjusting my stance appeared to help, but I never found quite the same instinctive comfort that I had with the Tour V.

Price (neutral): At £299, the Tour X in this Rory-inspired finish is likely to fly off the shelves.

As with the other models in the range, you get the benefit of TaylorMade’s considerable research and development, extensive tour validation, a KBS shaft, a SuperStroke grip, a high-quality finish and an excellent headcover.

Taken together, I think it represents good value compared with many similarly priced alternatives.

What does Vertex say?

I completed the Vertex testing indoors on my putting mat. The results were interesting and supported some of what I had seen and felt during the outdoor testing.

Face change with the Tour X was not particularly good. Although I had a two-way miss on the practice green, the dominant miss was to the right and generally felt like a push.

Vertex confirmed what I had been feeling through the stroke. The head appeared to resist my natural movement and did not want to rotate or close in the way I needed it to. As a high MOI putter with a rear-biased centre of gravity, perhaps that should not have come as a surprise.

Against that, my tempo was very good. I enjoyed swinging both Spider putters because they had a lovely balance through the stroke. The Vertex data supported that impression, and my tempo numbers with the Tour X were even better than those I achieved with the Tour V.

The rest of the Vertex data suggested that I might benefit from a slightly more upright lie angle than the stock 70 degrees. My shaft lean and delivered loft at impact were both incredibly consistent, scoring 97 per cent.

The Tour X is included in TaylorMade’s MySpider custom programme, so you can build one to your exact specifications. There is a £50 premium for the MySpider, and it appears that you can’t specify it without a True Path alignment insert, which seems a bit strange.

I am due to attend a TaylorMade fitting day later in August, where it will be interesting to see what their product experts recommend. I will ask them more about the MySpider custom program too and find out if that might come to any of the other heads rather than just being limited to the Tour and Tour X.

Conclusion

The TaylorMade Spider Tour X deserves much of the attention it receives. It is a great-looking putter that sounds and feels better than I expected, while offering the stability and forgiveness that have made the Spider range so popular.

I was genuinely surprised by how much I liked it. The head frames the ball well, and removing the contrasting True Path insert made it far more appealing to my eye. The Pure Roll insert was probably the biggest surprise because it challenged some of my prejudices about insert putters.

The Tour X did not significantly outperform my Lajosi during this test, but it gave it a good fight as the session continued and I became more comfortable with the head. I can certainly see the appeal, and I now understand why it has become such a popular choice.

It just was not quite the right Spider for me.

The TaylorMade fitting day later this month is going to be very interesting. Between the Tour X and the previously reviewed Tour V, I can feel the Spider slowly spinning its web around me.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No

• What would I change? I would explore a slightly more upright lie angle, although the bigger issue is that the head does not naturally suit my stroke.

• What have I learned? This putter is popular on tour for good reason, but tour validation does not remove the need for a proper fitting.

You can find all my other putter reviews, including the previous Spider Tour V, by following 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 delivered directly to your inbox, please subscribe. It is free, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Subscribe now

Special thanks to Adam Legg and Auchterlonies for lending me the review putter.

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

TaylorMade describes the Spider Tour V as the putter for blade users who are looking to experiment with a mallet. With the most forward centre of gravity location in the Spider range and 33° of toe hang, it has been designed to “complement a natural arc and deliver exceptional stability and forgiveness through impact”.

The mid-mallet, “plays like a blade” part of the market is a fascinating one. While I currently use a blade, I have had success with mid-mallets in the past. When I started this blog, my gamer was a Toulon Atlanta that had been in my bag for a couple of years.

It is a category that appeals to me, but much depends on the precise head shape and the alignment system being used. Could the Tour V provide the blade-like feel I prefer while adding some of the stability and forgiveness of a mallet?

Subscribe now

First Impressions

I think this is a really good-looking putter. I wish TaylorMade offered alternative neck options beyond the L-neck, but otherwise I have very little to criticise.

In my opinion, Scotty Cameron spoiled the look of the Phantom 3.2 by using three alignment lines running across the full head. The Tour V is similar in shape and concept, but I think TaylorMade have executed the design better. The short, single alignment line is both simple and effective.

The first thing that struck me when I picked up the putter was its weight. At 548g, with a swing weight of C4, it sits at the lighter end of the putters I have tested for The Club House. I liked the way it felt.

In fact, I liked it a lot.

I also had a Spider Tour X to test at the same time. It is only modestly heavier at 562g, and a D6 swing weight, but the different COG locations make the two putters feel completely different in motion. The Tour V immediately felt easier for me to swing freely, and I was excited to see whether that first impression would carry across to the practice green.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 548g

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: C4

• Length: 33” (KBS CT 120 stepless shaft)

• Loft: 3° (no apparent custom options)

• Lie: 70° (no apparent custom options)

• Toe Hang: 33°

• Grip: TaylorMade SuperStroke Pistol 1.0

It’s slightly disappointing that I can see no reference to customisation of loft and lie anywhere on the TaylorMade site or from online retailers.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Practice green at Craigtoun Course

• Conditions: A lovely July day with a firm green that was running 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: Lajosi custom blade

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

The practice green at Craigtoun Course was in excellent condition and rolling nicely after a period of very good weather.

Following my recent testing and review of the AimPutt training system, I have been using my custom Lajosi blade as my gamer. It felt more comfortable at address with the AimPutt than my SeeMore putters did, so it provided the benchmark for this test.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): TaylorMade have really nailed the design here, and I think this is the best-looking head in the new Spider range. The shape is compact enough not to feel like a conventional mallet, while the short alignment line keeps the appearance clean and uncluttered.

If you compare it with the Scotty Cameron Phantom 3.2 that I reviewed recently, both putters share a similar design language. Both are trying to attract players away from blades, but the Tour V is the more attractive design to my eye.

Grip (+ve): The SuperStroke Pistol 1.0 is a grip that I am very familiar with and have used on other putters. I like both the feel of the material and the shape of the grip in my hands.

The writing on the grip provides useful visual references for where to place my hands for a repeatable setup.

Headcover (+ve): The Spider headcover is excellent. Finished in a colour that matches the head, it is well padded and features a strong magnetic closure. I would have no concerns about it falling off during use.

Aim/Alignment (+ve): I much prefer the single line on this head over the triple line used on the similarly shaped Scotty Phantom 3.2. It’s simple and uncomplicated and helps me focus on the face of the club.

At address, I found the Tour V very easy to set square to my target line. I never felt like I was negotiating with it as I have with some other heads. That let me settle quickly and focus on getting my pace right, knowing that I was aimed where I wanted.

Feel and Sound (+ve): I have been very open in these reviews about generally preferring the feel of a milled face to an insert. However, I genuinely liked the TaylorMade Pure Roll insert.

It produced a reassuring “tock” at impact and felt responsive without being harsh. Sound and feel are always difficult to describe and very personal, but having expected the insert to be one of the weaker parts of the putter, I was pleasantly surprised.

Pace Control (+ve): Pace control was simply excellent.

I particularly liked the overall weight and balance of the putter. It was easy to maintain control throughout the stroke, and I never felt as though the head was working against me. I could allow it to swing naturally without needing to guide or manipulate it.

The Tour V performed well across all of the tested distances. It was similarly impressive when I played a par-2 game around the green, consistently leaving the ball within comfortable two-putt range.

Performance Overall (+ve): I rarely feel this comfortable with a putter so quickly. Despite my reservations about the appearance of the plumber’s neck, there was very little I could criticise from a performance perspective.

The more I used it, the more I wanted to continue using it. I even asked Adam whether I could extend the test and take the putter onto the course under competitive conditions. Unfortunately, the demo was required for a fitting the following day.

It did not perform significantly better than my Lajosi, but it inspired slightly more confidence when I stood over a putt. Everything felt natural, from setup through the stroke and into impact.

That is unusual in one of my putter reviews.

Price (neutral): At £299, I can hardly believe I am writing this, but the Tour V now sits somewhere around the middle of the premium putter market.

For that price, you are getting TaylorMade’s research and development, considerable tour validation, a KBS shaft, a SuperStroke grip, a high-quality finish and an excellent headcover. Taken together, I think the package represents good value compared with many similarly priced alternatives.

While much of the attention appears to be focused on the Spider Tour X associated with Rory McIlroy, I think the Tour V could be an excellent seller if more golfers give it a chance.

What does Vertex say?

I completed the Vertex testing indoors on my putting mat, and, like the Scotty Phantom 3.2, the results were very encouraging. It would appear that this style of putter suits my swing.

The average face change was just 0.08° open, again astonishingly good. This time it was also very consistent. This is one of the only putters where I’ve seen such similarity between my back stroke and forward stroke rotation. It’s more common for me to leave the face open, or hold off the rotation on the forward stroke. I’m not fighting the putter in any way, and it appears to work well with my natural stroke arc.

My tempo was also very good. I had already noticed how comfortable the lighter overall weight felt outdoors, and the Vertex data supported that impression. I was able to maintain a smooth, consistent stroke and, in some respects, found the Tour V even easier to swing than my gamer.

The results were not perfect. Vertex suggested that I might benefit from a lie angle more upright than the standard 70°. I also appeared to be manipulating the loft slightly, with a modest amount of backward shaft lean at impact.

Given the similarity between these results and those from the Phantom 3.2, I do wonder whether I had miscalibrated the sensor when measuring lie angle. That is something I need to check before drawing too firm a conclusion.

Somewhat disappointingly, TaylorMade do not appear to offer a visible customisation service through their website or the retailers I checked. However, I am sure Adam at Auchterlonies, or another competent club fitter, would be able to make any required adjustments.

I am also planning to attend a TaylorMade fitting day later in August, where it will be interesting to see what their product experts recommend. They offer a fully fitted putter that can be taken away on the day, so my Auchterlonies store credit may yet take a hit.

Conclusion

The TaylorMade Spider Tour V is an excellent putter for me, and I would happily put it in the bag tomorrow.

I was genuinely surprised by how much I liked it. The compact head sat beautifully behind the ball, the short alignment line suited my eye, the lighter weight allowed me to swing it freely, and the Pure Roll insert challenged some of my assumptions about insert putters.

The Tour V did not significantly outperform my Lajosi during this test, but it gave me a little more confidence over the ball. That may be difficult to quantify, but it matters. Putting is not only about producing good numbers in a controlled test. It is also about whether a putter makes you want to stand over the next one.

This one did.

The TaylorMade fitting day will provide another opportunity to test that enthusiasm. I have already tried the Tour X, with that review coming soon, while the new Tour F and its similarly forward centre of gravity could also be a contender.

For now, though, the Tour V has done enough to make me seriously consider getting caught in the Spider web.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? Yes

• What would I change? Potentially the lie angle, subject to confirming the Vertex result through a proper fitting.

• What have I learned? Challenge your prejudices. I have historically been wary of both inserts and plumber’s necks, but that does not mean I should immediately rule out every putter that uses them. The Tour V performed extremely well, felt natural in my hands and was one of the most enjoyable putters I have tested recently.

You can find all my other putter reviews by following the link below. Look out too for my next review, covering the TaylorMade Spider Tour X.

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 delivered directly to your inbox, please subscribe. It is free, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Subscribe now

Special thanks to Adam Legg and Auchterlonies for lending me the review putter.

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

Watching The Open recently, the Scotty Cameron Phantom 3.2 was getting plenty of attention. Cameron Smith, known for his excellent putting with a Scotty Cameron 009 blade, had switched to a black version of it. Ludvig Åberg was also using one, as was Ryan Gerard, and I suspect there may also have been others.

Their putters featured different neck and alignment options from those Scotty Cameron offers at retail, but I’ll come back to that later.

If the Phantom 3.2 was good enough to tempt some excellent blade players into making a change, would it have the same impact on me?

Subscribe now

First Impressions

When is a mallet not a mallet?

I would describe the Phantom 3.2 as a compact or mid-mallet rather than a full mallet. The design should give it a higher MOI than a traditional blade, adding a little more stability, but the centre of gravity remains relatively close to the face. In theory, that should help it feel and move more like a blade through the stroke.

The TaylorMade Spider Tour V follows a similar design concept and is positioned as the Spider model most likely to appeal to blade players.

You get more stability than a standard blade and the enhanced alignment options of a mallet, but within a relatively compact head shape.

While I like the shape and size of the Phantom 3.2, I really don’t like the three alignment lines. It looks a little like a special collaboration with Adidas, although my first thought was the old Zebra mallet.

Picking it up for the first time, I was also struck by how heavy it felt. I expected something around the 560g mark, but this weighed in at a hefty 580g. That extra weight caused me some problems during testing.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 580g (on the heavy side)

• Head weight: undeclared, 2x15g head weights

• Swing weight: D8

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3.5° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Minimal 33°

• Grip: Scotty Full Contact Grey

Definitely get fitted correctly and take advantage of the custom length, lie and loft.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Practice green at Craigtoun Course

• Conditions: A lovely July day with a firm green that was running 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: Lajosi custom blade

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

The practice green at Craigtoun Course was in excellent condition and rolling nicely after a period of very good weather.

Following my recent testing and review of the AimPutt training system, I have been using my custom Lajosi blade as my gamer. It felt more comfortable at address with the AimPutt than my SeeMore putters did, so it provided the benchmark for this test.

Pros and Cons

Looks (neutral): I like the shape of the head, but I really dislike the alignment lines Scotty Cameron has chosen for the retail version.

I wish they had used the simple single line seen on Ludvig Åberg’s putter. Better still, I would choose the Cameron Smith version, which I think looks excellent.

Grip (+ve): The Grey Full Contact grip has a classic Scotty Cameron shape and feels very good in the hands. It is thinner than the SuperStroke Pistol 1.0 fitted to my Lajosi, but Scotty Cameron offers plenty of alternative grip options, so most golfers should be able to find something they like.

Headcover (-ve): This is a familiar complaint from my Scotty Cameron reviews.

Forcing a mid-mallet head into a blade headcover with a Velcro fastening is not ideal. I find the covers increasingly frustrating whenever I test a Scotty Cameron putter.

A magnetic fastening would be an obvious improvement. A more conventional mallet cover, or even a slightly wider blade cover, would also make the Phantom 3.2 much easier to live with.

Aim/Alignment (neutral): This was almost very good.

With one solid line, or perhaps the shorter line seen on Ludvig Åberg’s putter, the Phantom 3.2 would look close to perfect for me. The three lines make the retail version feel unnecessarily busy and slightly confusing.

That said, the head shape still allowed me to focus most of my attention on the face, and I found it relatively easy to aim. I just didn’t like the way it looked behind the ball.

Feel and Sound (-ve): Some of my reaction may be connected to the weight, but I also don’t like the full-face insert Scotty Cameron is using in the Phantom range.

As with my other recent Phantom reviews, I found the impact sound unpleasant. It is difficult to describe, and it certainly sounds different outdoors than it does indoors, but I preferred the TaylorMade Spider putters I was testing at the same time.

Scotty Cameron can do better than this.

How about a Teryllium option?

Pace Control (-ve): For me, pace control was the weakest part of the Phantom 3.2’s performance, and I think the weight was the main reason.

Some golfers really like heavy putters, but I find that my rhythm and tempo begin to struggle with them. I’m also not convinced the extra weight suits a head that is designed to move and release more like a blade.

Someone with greater technical insight may be able to explain that relationship better, but the result for me was clear: I found it difficult to control distance consistently.

Performance Overall (-ve): As the distance increased, the performance deteriorated quickly.

I struggled to control the head and produced a two-way miss, alongside the pace-control problems. It took a lot of concentration to get the best from the putter, and even then the results were inconsistent.

There were some good streaks, but not enough to give me confidence in the overall performance.

Price (neutral): At £449, this is an expensive putter.

The build quality is in line with what you would expect from Scotty Cameron, and the available adjustments to length, lie and loft add value. Even so, it remains expensive compared with many competing options.

What does Vertex say?

I completed the Vertex testing indoors on my putting mat, and the results were considerably more encouraging than those from the practice green.

In theory, the Vertex data appears to show a putter that should work. In reality, it didn’t perform that way outdoors.

The average face change was just 0.02° open, which was an astonishingly good number. I certainly don’t have a “straight back, straight through” stroke, and nor do I try to. However, that average concealed a relatively wide range, and the consistency was not particularly strong. The phrase about there being three types of lies, “lies, damned lies and statistics”, came to mind.

Vertex measured my tempo at 1.8, with 97% consistency.

Considering how much I felt the weight affected my rhythm on the practice green, that was a very positive result.

The weaker Vertex numbers came from lie angle, shaft lean and loft at impact. All three suggested that the putter did not fit me particularly well and that I was manipulating it during the stroke.

Given the available adjustments to length, lie and loft, there should be scope to improve those results through a proper fitting. I would also be interested to know how much of a role the overall head weight played.

Conclusion

I found the Scotty Cameron Phantom 3.2 disappointing, although there is clearly an interesting putter somewhere within the design.

I like the compact mid-mallet shape, and the Vertex results suggest that the basic concept may suit my stroke. However, the retail alignment lines are too busy for my eye, the overall weight made pace control difficult, and the outdoor performance became increasingly inconsistent as the putts got longer.

The contrast between the Vertex data and the practice-green results is perhaps the most interesting part of the review. The numbers suggest potential, but I never felt comfortable enough to turn that potential into reliable performance.

With a simpler alignment option, a lighter build and a fitting to adjust the lie and loft, I would be interested in trying the Phantom 3.2 again.

In this specification, though, it wasn’t for me.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No

• What would I change? The alignment lines and the weight.

• What have I learned? I still like the idea of a compact mid-mallet. Despite the aspects of the Phantom 3.2 that didn’t work for me, the Vertex results suggest that this type of head may suit my stroke. I may simply need to find the right version of it.

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

Special thanks to Adam Legg and Auchterlonies for lending me the review putter.

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

I received the AimPutt as a birthday present. It wasn’t exactly an unexpected one, as I had been dropping some fairly unsubtle hints beforehand. It was not supplied free by the company, and AimPutt has had no involvement in this review.

Putting training aids can sometimes be unnecessarily complicated (see my HackMotion review), but the AimPutt is based on a very simple idea. It helps you find the physical position from which your eyes see the intended line correctly. That might sound basic, but your putter can be perfectly aligned and still look wrong if your eyes, head and body are in the wrong position.

The best training aids are often the simplest, and the AimPutt is one of the simplest and most effective putting aids I own. I’ll admit that I was a bit sceptical when I first got it, but I overcame that pretty quickly.

What Is the AimPutt?

The AimPutt combines a putting gate with a vertical alignment stick. You position it between the ball and the target, take your normal address position and look towards the hole. When you are set up correctly, the vertical stick should appear to divide the hole in half.

If the stick appears to one side, you can make small adjustments to your head position, posture or distance from the ball until the view changes. The base also acts as a putting gate, giving feedback on whether the ball starts on the intended line.

There is no app, camera or complicated calibration process. The feedback is immediate and easy to understand.

The package also includes The Golf Worm and a good-quality towel. The Golf Worm is a flexible spike that goes into the ground and bends to hold the alignment stick horizontally above the putting surface, allowing it to be used as a stroke-path guide. I tried it once, but I already have a raised string line for that type of practice and, in truth, I’m not a great fan of either. The towel is a more useful addition for me, particularly on the practice green, where it gives you something to stand on if you are making repeated putts from the same position and want to avoid wearing the surface.

The AimPutt feels well made, and the supplied carry case is robust, although the shape could perhaps be reconsidered to accommodate The Golf Worm. The alignment stick has to be carried separately, which makes the package slightly less neat than it might otherwise be. A retractable stick, similar to a telescopic aerial, could make it easier to transport, although the taper might affect the visual feedback. It may also be more prone to bending.

In practice, that has not been a major issue because I have mainly used the AimPutt indoors. When I do take it to the practice green, I keep it in the putting practice bag that stays in my car, alongside balls, tees, a chalk line, notepad and digital level.

You can find more details, including the current price and package options, on the AimPutt website.

How Do You Use It?

It’s simplest when using a putting mat, but on the practice green, you just need to find a relatively flat putt between 5 and 10 feet in length. Position the AimPutt between the ball and the target. The gate and vertical stick need to be centred on the intended line, so it is worth taking a little time to make sure the device is aimed correctly before stepping into the putt (easier on a mat).

From address, the vertical stick should appear to divide the hole/target in half. If it sits to one side, adjust your position until it is in the centre. The important part is not simply finding the correct position once. Step away, reset and try to reproduce it, gradually learning what that position feels like.

The concept reminded me of an alignment test Bruce Rearick used when I went through his putting protocol. In that test, an alignment stick was placed on the ground between the ball and the hole, and you moved your setup position until you saw it pointing at the target. The AimPutt works similarly, but the stick rises vertically from the top of the gate.

I have also found it particularly useful alongside my putting mirror. The mirror lets me check ball position relative to my eyes, as well as my posture and alignment. The AimPutt then confirms whether that physical position allows me to see the intended line correctly.

What Has It Taught Me?

One of the clearest things the AimPutt has shown me is that, when I move into the position where I see the line correctly, I naturally grip down on my 34-inch putters. I already tend to grip down slightly, but I need to do it more to make the AimPoint system work. Interestingly, I have found that I am more comfortable doing that with my Lajosi putter than I am with either of my SeeMore putters.

For future putter reviews, before conducting any performance testing, I plan to use AimPutt to confirm my correct setup position with each one. Most demo putters come at 34 inches, so that will likely mean gripping down and paying closer attention to how the putter sits at address before judging its performance.

It will also be interesting to see what the Vertex putting sensor shows now that I have changed my set-up. The AimPutt has helped me find a position that looks and feels better, while the Vertex sensor should give me an objective view of what that means for my stroke.

Used alongside the putting mirror, the AimPutt has helped me build a set-up that feels more comfortable and repeatable.

Pros

• Immediate feedback on setup and visual perception

• Simple to understand and use

• Works at home and on the practice green

• Also functions as a start-line gate

• Combines well with a putting mirror

• Feels well made

• Easy to keep with the rest of my putting practice equipment

Cons

• Some golfers may consider it expensive for a simple training aid

• It needs to be aimed carefully before use

• Best used on straight, relatively flat putts

• The alignment stick has to be carried separately

• Repetition is still required before the set-up begins to feel natural

Verdict

The AimPutt does not measure face angle, stroke path or impact conditions. It does not connect to your phone or produce pages of data. It simply helps you find a position from which you can see the intended line correctly.

That simplicity is its strength.

It has helped me understand how I want to stand over a putt and given me a more comfortable, repeatable setup. Used with a putting mirror, it has become one of the simplest and most useful putting aids I own.

For me, a more comfortable and repeatable putting setup is worth far more than the cost of the AimPutt.

The best training aids do not always give you a new answer. Sometimes they help you see the right one more clearly.

Final Thoughts

Have you used the AimPutt, or any other simple training aid that changed the way you set up to a putt? Let me know in the comments.

Subscribe now

Please like the post and subscribe to The Club House for more independent putter reviews, putting experiments and honest reflections on the game.

Further Reading

• My Indoor Practice Setup

• My AimPoint experience

My current 3 hybrid is a Callaway Paradym Ai-Smoke, which has been in the bag since mid 2024. It is set at 19 degrees and fitted with a Graphite Design Tour AD-DI 85s hybrid shaft. It sits around the 200-yard spot, gaps nicely between my Qi35 3HL and 4 hybrid, and has been useful as a long iron replacement. I would not describe it as a bad club. It has just never become one of the clubs I automatically want to pull from the bag.

Off the tee, the hybrid has generally been good. From the fairway, it has been less consistent, and from the semi-rough I often prefer my 4 hybrid because it seems to get through the grass better. It can also climb a little too much into the wind, which is not ideal when most of my golf is played on links courses. I’ve always wondered whether there might be a better option in that part of the bag.

Last season I tried some utility irons, and while I quite liked them as an alternative for windy days, they didn’t inspire real confidence. They had a use, but they didn’t feel like the everyday answer. The obvious alternative was a 7 wood, although for a long time I didn’t think they were for a “better player”. That probably says more about my own prejudice than the club itself. It felt like an old man’s club: sensible, practical, probably effective, but not exactly the kind of club I expected to put in my own bag.

The perception of higher lofted fairway woods has changed. Considerably. More professional golfers are using them, there are now more adjustable options available, and the practical case against hybrids is becoming harder to ignore. A 7 wood should generally be easier to launch, more forgiving, and for some golfers more visually appealing behind the ball. It can also produce a strong flight without the same ballooning tendency I have sometimes seen from hybrids.

This test was really about trust. My 3 hybrid already filled the right yardage gap, but I wanted to know whether a 7 wood could do the same job while giving me more confidence from the fairway, the tee, and light rough.

The fitting studio

The test started with Adam Legg in the Auchterlonies fitting studio. Adam suggested I try two new options: the Titleist GTS3 and the TaylorMade Qi4D. Unfortunately, I do not have the TrackMan data from the session, so this is more of a practical test than a numbers-led review.

The first thing that impressed me was how nicely both clubs sat behind the ball. My immediate preference was for the Titleist GTS3. To my eye, it looked shallower and a little more inviting than the TaylorMade Qi4D, which had a deeper profile. I had the same concern initially with my Qi35 3HL, but quickly got over it once I used it on the course, so I tried to stay neutral.

Both clubs were very easy to launch. They were carrying around 190 to 195 yards and running out another 10 yards or so, which put them exactly where I needed them to be. More importantly, they inspired much more confidence than my hybrid ever has. The flight was strong and penetrating, without ballooning.

I also found it easy to move the ball around in my stance to alter the flight. That made both 7 woods feel more flexible than my hybrid. After the studio session, there was very little between them. The GTS3 probably won the beauty contest, but performance-wise it was a draw. Adam generously suggested I take both clubs away for a few days, try them on the course from different lies, and test them properly.

On the course

I had a game arranged at Craigtoun, so I took both clubs with me. Before the round, I warmed up with each of them and had the same confidence-inspiring experience I’d had in the studio. Both launched easily, both produced a strong, useful flight, and both immediately felt more comfortable than my 3 hybrid.

On the course, the balance started to tip towards the Qi4D. From standard fairway lies, there was very little to separate them. Both were easy to launch, and both gave me the carry distance I wanted. Off the tee, though, I started to prefer the deeper face of the Qi4D, and from fluffier semi-rough lies it also gave me more confidence that I could make a normal swing. With the GTS3, I had the feeling that I might slide under the ball and sky it. That might not be a fair criticism of the club, but it was there in my head, and that is part of testing too.

With a second round booked later in the weekend, a club outing to Kingsbarns, I decided to make the test simpler. The GTS3 had done nothing wrong, but the Qi4D had started to edge ahead, so, after a final session on the range there, rather than keep switching between both, I put the GTS3 in the car and only took the Qi4D on the course.

That turned out to be the right call. The Qi4D was excellent at Kingsbarns and quickly became my go-to club for long fairway shots, which is not something I would ever really have said about my 3 hybrid. It was easier to hit from the fairway than my 3HL, and it almost went as far. I suspect some of that is just confidence. When a club sits well, launches easily, and gives you the sense that you don’t need to manufacture anything, you swing more freely.

Round one in the fitting studio was a draw. Round two at Craigtoun was a narrow win for the Qi4D. Round three at Kingsbarns confirmed it.

Into the bag

After the test, the Auchterlonies second-hand shop happened to get a Qi4D in as a trade-in, so I bought it immediately. The club has the standard REAX shaft (white profile). Adam and I may look at trying a Ventus option to match my Qi35 3HL at some point, but there’s no rush as the standard shaft is working well enough for now.

Having now had the Qi4D in the bag for several rounds, I’m delighted with the change and don’t miss the 3 hybrid at all. That has probably been the most telling part of the whole test. I expected the 7 wood to be easier to launch, and I expected it to be good from clean fairway lies. What I didn’t expect was that I would trust it more on windy links days too.

So far, it hasn’t ballooned in the wind the way my hybrid sometimes could. I also find it easier to work the flight down when I need to. A 7 wood has a reputation for launching high, which is useful, but on a windy course high can quickly become too high. The Qi4D has given me height without taking away control.

Final thoughts

I went into this test wondering whether a modern adjustable 7 wood could replace my 3 hybrid, and for me the answer is yes. The Titleist GTS3 impressed me, especially in the fitting studio and from clean lies, but once I took both clubs onto the course, the TaylorMade Qi4D became the more convincing option.

Not because it was any longer, and not because the numbers told an obvious story. It won because it gave me more confidence from more lies, and that confidence translated into better golf shots.

So, the 3 hybrid is out of the bag, and I don’t see it coming back.

Now, can I convince myself not to buy the 9 wood that was also available?

Thanks for reading

If you enjoyed this review, please consider liking the post, leaving a comment, or subscribing to The Club House. I’ll keep testing the clubs, putters and golf ideas that interest me, and sharing what I find in the same honest way.

Subscribe now

I’m especially interested to hear from any reader who has moved from a hybrid to a 7 wood. Did it solve the same problem for you, or did you end up going back?

Extra:

For anyone wondering about the No Laying Up towel featured in the photos. This was a special commission with all profits going to the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation to raise funds for Motor Neuron Disease.

The new Titleist GTS range.

That earlier driver test was not a fitting. It was a comparison. Since then, I’ve also done a more detailed follow-up with Callaway and bought the Cobra OPTM Max-K to test properly on course. The wider driver search is still moving, but the method is the same: try them against my gamer first, see if anything is interesting enough to justify the next step, and only then think about a proper fitting.

So this session had a very simple purpose: try the new GTS2, GTS3 and GTS4 heads against my GT2, using my current shaft, and see if anything stood out.

How we tested them

The session was with Adam Legg, master fitter at Auchterlonies of St Andrews, using their TrackMan studio. It was relaxed and informal, partly because Adam and I know each other well, and partly because he knows my swing well. That helps. The numbers are useful, but they need a bit of context.

This was a head-only comparison, using my current Fujikura Ventus Red 5S Velocore+ shaft throughout. That made the test cleaner. Same shaft. Different heads. Current gamer as the benchmark.

My GT2 is a 10 degree head, set flat, and I’m now using a JumboMax Zen Lite Extra Small grip (one size up from standard jumbo). My usual bad shot with driver is a low-toe snappy hook, so I’m always looking for a driver that gives me enough forgiveness without feeling too shut or too hard to manage.

The GT2 baseline

I warmed up with my 7 iron before moving to driver and establishing a baseline with my GT2. The starting numbers were:

• Club speed 92.8mph

• Ball speed 137.5mph

• Launch 15.6°

• Spin 2829rpm

Those are not bad numbers, but my current swing with the GT2 is a bit high in launch and spin. Not dramatically so, but enough for Adam and me to notice. It also reflects what I’ve been seeing on the course and suggests there might be a little too much dynamic loft in the delivery.

That could be down to a few things. Grip, posture, balance, orthotics, injury compensation, or simply the normal movement of a golf swing over time. I’m more stable through my feet now and more balanced at the finish, but I can also get a bit steep, especially with irons. I don’t want to overplay any of that, because this was not a swing diagnosis. It was just useful context for the test.

The GT2 was still performing well, but the numbers suggested it was worth checking whether the new heads could give me a better window.

The GTS range

Before getting into the individual heads, it is worth saying that all three look like proper Titleist drivers. That is a compliment. They are clean, classic and very good looking, both at address and in the bag. If you are expecting a dramatic visual change from GT to GTS, that is not really what this range is about. The GTS heads feel more like an evolution of the Titleist look than a reinvention of it, and I suspect most Titleist players will see that as a positive.

I’m not going to turn this into a full technology breakdown, because Titleist explain the construction and model differences far better than I can on their own site. The headline is that the GTS range builds on the GT family rather than ripping it up and starting again, with the new Split Mass Frame, Speed Sync Face and more adjustable weighting giving fitters more ways to fine-tune launch, spin and forgiveness. If you want the full technical explanation, Titleist’s own GTS page is the best place to start.

Titleist GTS2

The GTS2 is the “everyman” head in the range. It should suit the widest group of golfers and will probably be the safest starting point for most fittings. It is there for golfers who want speed, forgiveness and launch without feeling as though they are being pushed into something too demanding. Compared to my GT2, the new model now has front and rear weight adjustability, rather than only rear. That gives fitters more flexibility to manage spin and forgiveness.

We started with the GTS2 in a 10 degree head, but moved quickly into the 9 degree version because the 10 degree head was spinning too much for me on the day. That made sense given the GT2 baseline. I was not short of launch, so the obvious aim was to bring the spin down.

The GTS2 9 degree did that.

• Club speed 92.1mph

• Ball speed 135.3mph

• Launch 13.5°

• Spin 2474rpm

That was the lowest spin number of the session. The head felt good, and while it may have been a little louder than my own GT2, it wasn’t dramatically so. The feel was solid, familiar and very much within the Titleist driver family.

The issue was that the lower spin came with lower launch, slightly lower ball speed and looser dispersion. It did part of what we wanted, but it did not do enough overall to make me think it was a clear improvement over my current driver.

Titleist GTS3

The GTS3 was the most tempting of the new heads.

That probably should not be a surprise given my original Titleist fitting was for the GT3. It is the more compact, lower-spin, better-player option, and on numbers it was the strongest challenger to my GT2.

• Club speed 92.1mph

• Ball speed 136.1mph

• Launch 14.4°

• Spin 2678rpm

Ball speed was close to my GT2, launch was in a sensible window, spin was lower than my original GT2 setting, and dispersion was the next best of the group. If one of the GTS heads made the strongest case, it was the GTS3.

But I’m also conscious of my history with the GT3. When I swung well, the GT3 was excellent. The problem was that I had to swing well. It could produce the best results, but it was hard work when I was not quite on top of my swing. That was the reason I moved from GT3 into GT2 in the first place. I wanted more help.

In a fuller fitting, with shafts and settings included, the GTS3 would probably be the first new head I would want to explore properly. In this head-only comparison, though, it did not stand out enough to make me change immediately.

Titleist GTS4

The GTS4 may be the most interesting head in the range, even though it was the one that worked least well for me.

Historically, the “4” head in the Titleist line has been seen as the low-spin monster. Not impossible to play, but definitely aimed at a narrower group of golfers. Adam described the new GTS4 as something closer to a middle ground than the previous version. It now has more weight adjustability than the old GT4, and he has been surprised by how popular it has been and how many players have fitted well into it.

That made me curious.

Unfortunately, I struggled with it almost immediately. The GTS4 has a slightly different shape and, to my eye, appeared to sit somewhere between neutral and closed. That is not a criticism of the head. Plenty of golfers may like that look. My preference is different. I like a driver that sits neutral to fractionally open, and once I had seen the GTS4 as a little closed, I found it difficult to commit to the shot.

The numbers reflected that.

• Club speed 89.8mph

• Ball speed 134.6mph

• Launch 14.1°

• Spin 2559rpm

I’d be careful not to judge the GTS4 too harshly from those numbers. I don’t think I gave it a fair emotional audition. Once a driver does not look right behind the ball, I don’t swing freely, and the result tells you as much about confidence as it does about performance.

That is part of testing too. A club can be technically excellent and still not suit your eye.

Going back to my GT2

After testing the new heads, we went back to my GT2 and adjusted the loft down to 9.25° while keeping it flat. This was not the original purpose of the session, but it became the most useful outcome.

• Club speed 91.2mph

• Ball speed 136.3mph

• Launch 16°

• Spin 2660rpm

The spin came down from 2,829rpm to 2,660rpm, while launch stayed healthy at 16°. Club speed and ball speed were fractionally down, but that is normal within a hitting session and not something I would overanalyse.

The bigger point was dispersion. Both versions of my GT2 were the tightest of the group, which is hard to ignore when you are comparing drivers rather than chasing one isolated number.

One slightly better number from a new head is interesting, but a tighter pattern from the club already in the bag is harder to dismiss.

That does not mean I fully trust the GT2. If I’m being honest, I have always slightly struggled to trust my Titleist driver. It can produce some fantastic drives, and when I’m swinging well it is a very good fit, but I still feel as though I need to be on top of my swing to get the most from it. The GT2 has helped compared with the GT3, but it has not completely removed the feeling that the driver is something I need to manage.

Still, in this test, it remained the strongest all-round option.

The numbers

The TrackMan report from the session does not include carry or total distance, so I’m not going to pretend this was a distance shootout. That would be the wrong way to frame it anyway. This was a head-only comparison using my existing shaft, and the more useful numbers were club speed, ball speed, launch, spin and dispersion.

The GTS2 lowered spin the most, but gave up launch, ball speed and dispersion. The GTS3 was the best of the new heads for me and probably the one with the most potential in a proper fitting. The GTS4 is difficult to judge because I never settled over it.

The adjusted GT2 did not win every individual number, but it gave me the best blend on the day: launch, spin, familiarity and dispersion.

That is why it stayed in the bag.

Who should look at the GTS range?

If you are already in a current GT driver that has been properly fitted, the new GTS heads may not blow it out of the water. That was my experience. There was not enough difference on the day to justify changing, especially when my own driver still produced the tightest dispersion and could be improved with a small loft adjustment.

That does not mean the GTS range is disappointing. Far from it. I think the bigger gains will be there for golfers coming from TSR, TSi or earlier Titleist generations. If you are looking for a new driver, these should be on your demo list.

Drivers have been close to the legal limits for years, so the gains are not always about a jump in centre-strike ball speed. The improvements now are more often about forgiveness across the face, aerodynamic efficiency, easier speed and better fitability.

That last point is probably where the range excels. The GTS2 should work for a wide range of golfers. The GTS3 offers a strong better-player option. The GTS4 seems to have become more playable and adjustable than the old GT4. As a range, it makes a lot of sense, and there is something there for every player.

There were differences between the heads. Some were visual, some were in feel and sound, and some showed up in the numbers. That is exactly why this kind of comparison is useful before committing to a full fitting.

Verdict

In the end, none of those differences added up to enough of a performance gap to make a more comprehensive GTS fitting feel like the obvious next step. Some golfers will always want the latest models, and I can understand that. But the best result for me was actually a small adjustment to the gamer: down to 9.25 degrees and still flat. So, for now, the GT2 stays in the bag. Not because it is perfect, and not because the GTS heads were disappointing, but because none of them beat it clearly enough in this comparison.

If you’ve tested the new Titleist GTS drivers, I’d be interested to hear what you found. Did one of them clearly beat your current driver, or did you end up where I did, with a small adjustment rather than a full change?

Subscribe now

As always, if you enjoyed this post, please like, subscribe, and share it with someone else who is trying to make sense of the new driver releases without getting carried away by the launch hype.

Further reading

Why Do We Keep Buying New Drivers? Here

Five New Drivers for 2026: Here

Cobra OPTM Max-K: Here

Callaway Quantum Fitting: Here

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

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

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

That was the caveat I needed.

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

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

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

Warming Up, And A 7-Iron Surprise

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

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

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

ROTEX, Driver And HiiTS

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

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

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

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

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

Why Hitting A Ball Matters

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

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

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

Is there a psychological angle?

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

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

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

Homework Before Lesson Two

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t know yet.

That is why there are three more lessons to go.

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

Subscribe now

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

Further Information

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

James Tait Golf - Skillest YouTube Instagram

The Centre of Golf Excellence, St Andrews
HiiTS Golf
ROTEXMotion

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

Subscribe now

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

First Impressions

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

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 594g

• Head weight: heavy option

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

• Length: 35”

• Loft: 2° effective loft

• Lie: 71° custom range 65°-74°

• Toe Hang: zero-torque

• Grip: Lamkin Deep Etched

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Old Eden practice green at St Andrews Academy

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

Vertex testing was done indoors on my putting mat.

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

L.A.B. Link 2.1: here

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

Subscribe now

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

First Impressions

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 548g

• Head weight: “standard”

• Swing weight: E2

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 2° effective loft

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

• Toe Hang: Zero-Torque

• Grip: L.A.B. Pistol Rubber Black

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Eden practice green at St Andrews Golf Academy

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

Vertex testing was done indoors on my putting mat.

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress intelligently. Build it to last.

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

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

Subscribe now

Further reading:

Caddie School for Soldiers

Returning Carefully

I tried to Fix How I move

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

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

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

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

How did I test the Cobra?

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

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

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

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

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final verdict

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Related topics:

• Why do we keep buying new drivers

• Five new drivers for 2026

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

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

That doesn’t always happen.

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

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

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

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

That was a surprise.

Specification (as tested)

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

• Head weight: undeclared, 2x15g head weights

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3.5° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Minimal 10-15°

• Grip: Scotty Pistolero Plus

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Practice green at Craigtoun Course

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s an important distinction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

Vertex testing was done indoors on my putting mat.

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

The Scotty Cameron Phantom 5S was another positive surprise.

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

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

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

That was the question behind this test.

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

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

Enter the Yes! Pippi 12.

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

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 542g

• Head weight: 350g

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

• Toe Hang: Around 30°

• Grip: Ping Pingman, thin.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

I’m slightly disappointed overall.

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

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

Final thought

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

I have started hitting golf balls again.

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

But still: golf balls.

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

There were a few.

But it was okay.

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

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

The problem was that my attention shifted elsewhere.

To my elbow.

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

What I do know is that it is there.

And when I started swinging again, I felt it.

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

Nothing exists in isolation.

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

I’ve tried to use the time well.

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

Awareness.

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

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

That doesn’t mean I’ve solved it.

But it does mean I noticed something.

And maybe that’s the point.

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

The elbow feels more elusive.

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

That’s the bit that concerns me most.

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

What if I can’t play freely?

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

But freely.

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

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

But I do miss it.

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

That sounds flippant, but it isn’t.

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

It is part of how I live.

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

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

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

But I’ll also be there for someone else.

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

I’ll need to listen to the caddy.

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

That doesn’t make my concerns disappear.

But it should help put them in their proper place.

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

I was shocked.

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

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

But I’m not ready to jump to surgery.

Not yet.

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

That may change.

But for now, that feels like the right approach.

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

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

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

So the ankle hasn’t created the question.

It has just made it harder to ignore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s easy to write and harder to live.

Especially when the first tee comes back into view.

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

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

So next week is not a comeback.

Not really.

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

I want to play.

I want to enjoy it.

But more than that, I want to listen.

Because getting back matters.

Getting back properly matters more.

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Further Reading

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

• The Golfing Stoic

• Transcendental Golf

• My first ankle injury post

Zero-torque putters are everywhere.

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

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

That is the theory.

But golf is rarely that tidy.

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

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

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

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

The tour players who tried it and moved back

Rickie Fowler is one of the most interesting examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different players. Different histories. Same broader lesson.

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

The wrong conclusion

The easy conclusion would be this:

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

I do not think that is right.

The better conclusion is this:

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

It is about aim.

It is about pace.

It is about how the putter sits behind the ball.

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

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

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

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

My own zero-torque experiences

I understand the appeal of zero torque.

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

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

I am looking for visual trust.

That is not quite the same thing.

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

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

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

That last point has become especially important.

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

That is a different fit.

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

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

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

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

The issue of onset

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

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

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

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

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

That is why I keep coming back to this phrase:

Visually central, functionally flowing.

That, for me, might be the sweet spot.

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

That feels relevant.

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

Why this matters for ordinary golfers

Most of us buy putters by category.

Blade or mallet.

Toe hang or face-balanced.

Centre-shafted or heel-shafted.

Insert or milled.

Zero torque or standard.

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

That is the trap I am trying to avoid.

The better questions are more personal:

• Does the face look square quickly?

• Does the shaft look connected to the strike area?

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

• Does the head feel stable without feeling locked?

• Can I feel strike and pace clearly?

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

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

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

Those questions are not as neat as a fitting chart.

But they may be more useful.

Zero torque is a solution, just not the only solution

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

Nor should they.

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

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

A putter can be more stable and less suitable.

A putter can be technically clever and visually wrong.

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

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

The putter has to do more than behave.

It has to persuade you.

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

Where I am now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes that might be zero torque.

Sometimes it might be centre-shafted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Further reading

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

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

Specification (as tested)

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

• Head weight: 358g

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

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

• Grip: Bettinardi branded Lamkin Sink Fit Deep Etched

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

Oh, I wasn’t expecting that!

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

• The shaft provides a reference.

• The leading edge provides a reference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

That is an important refinement.

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

Final thought

So, overall, a bit of a surprise.

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

That probably makes this more interesting, not less.

It is in the bag, but not fully settled.

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

That left me with an obvious question.

Was there more to find?

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

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

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

The GT2 has been behaving itself.

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

Which is exactly why this was a good test.

What we tested

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

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

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

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

The Quantum Max

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

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

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

A lot.

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

That seemed to be the real issue.

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

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

It helped.

But not enough.

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

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

The mishits were punished more.

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

The Max Triple Diamond

The Max Triple Diamond was more appealing.

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

But that was also the problem.

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

That creates a familiar fitting problem.

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

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

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

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

What did the fitting prove?

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

That would be too strong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now it has had the fitting.

And this time, I’d eliminate it.

That is useful.

Not exciting, perhaps. But useful.

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

But it can’t always make the club right.

Sometimes the answer is still no.

Final verdict

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

After this fitting, I’m no longer curious.

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

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

So the GT2 stays in the bag.

That may not be the dramatic answer.

But it is the honest one.

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

It just isn’t me.

Have you tried the new Callaway driver range yet?

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

Let me know in the comments.

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

Subscribe now

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Impressions

The first thing I liked was the compactness.

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

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

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

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 568g (SL90 shaft)

• Head weight: 360g

• Swing weight: D3

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: standard 70°

• Toe Hang: 36°

• Grip: Ai-One Pistol

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

The biggest surprise was the feel.

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

But I would not game it.

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

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

Fit verdict (for me):

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

Some moments are better than others.

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

Sensible questions, perhaps.

But underneath them are the less useful ones.

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

The boot itself doesn’t help.

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

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

There is probably a philosophical point in there somewhere.

I’m not sure I’ve found it yet.

Mostly, though, it is just irritating.

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

That detail feels relevant.

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

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

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

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

That was the moment the story changed.

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

After the X-ray, it became something else.

Likely a small fracture, but radiology will confirm.

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

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

Typical sensible me.

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

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

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

That was the real motivation.

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

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

The recommendation was that I should get orthotic insoles.

That made sense when I thought about it.

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

None of that felt especially connected at the time.

It was just how I moved.

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

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

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

But the pattern is hard to ignore.

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

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

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

Life is rarely that tidy.

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

This isn’t one injury.

It is a pattern of adaptation.

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

But what if the workaround becomes the problem?

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

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

Suddenly, the assumptions changed.

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

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

That was not ideal.

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

In theory, that is exactly what I wanted.

In practice, it is uncomfortable.

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

Which is true.

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

That last bit is annoying.

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

But I have to look at this differently.

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

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

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

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

It has become a little more than that.

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

That feels about right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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