I don’t know quite what possessed Scotty Cameron when they released the original Detour line back in 2006. The Detour 1 was a sight to behold, although I’ve never actually seen one in the flesh. I’m sure that adapting the original design into the more conventional Newport 2 head improved its popularity, but as the old saying goes, “it’s a face only a mother could love”. I understand the logic behind the design, but not everything that makes sense should be made!

Subscribe now

However, the Detour turned out to be an excellent candidate for conversion back into a more conventional Newport 2. But not just any Newport 2. The Detour head has a 2-degree high toe, which gives it a subtly different appearance to the standard Newport 2. Personally, I like that slightly higher toe, as it’s similar to my Lajosi gamer, with which I’m very comfortable.

I’ve been looking for a good example of one of these conversions for quite some time, and was delighted when this one became available. The work was completed by Chris Finch, from Preston, who was possibly the first person to complete a conversion. He worked with Putter Parts to develop the insert and the machining required to transform the original head.

The challenge was to create an insert heavy enough to replace Scotty Cameron’s distinctive alignment aid while retaining a pleasing feel at impact. The finished head weighs approximately 340g, a little lighter than the 350-360g of many modern blades. I’m interested to see how I get on with that given previous success with lighter putters.

So, had Chris managed to turn one of Scotty Cameron’s strangest creations into something rather special? And, perhaps more importantly, would it perform as well as it looked?

First Impressions

Wow. Chris Finch has done a fantastic job with this putter, and the photographs really don’t do it justice.

Behind the ball, I immediately felt comfortable. I’ve always preferred the straighter lines of the Newport 2 over the curvier Newport 1, and the slightly higher toe makes this particular example even more appealing. Finding one with a completely naked head is a real bonus too. Most standard Newport 2 putters have a flange line, and the Detour conversion is one of the few ways of getting this head shape without one.

The plain stainless steel head and copper insert complement each other beautifully, while the paintfill colours provide a little contrast without being overdone. It’s a very clean, understated design, which is quite remarkable when you consider what it started life as.

The original owner specified a flat face on the copper insert, and I’m glad they did. I’ve used deeply milled putters that have felt a little too soft for my liking, and I suspect milling this particular insert might have taken things too far. Copper is already a relatively soft material, and I was interested to see how it would feel.

Of course, there’s a danger in falling in love with a putter before you’ve even hit a ball with it. I may have done that here as it went straight into the bag before I’d completed my usual testing.

But looking good and performing well aren’t necessarily the same thing. The testing would still have to justify my enthusiasm.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 574g (surprisingly heavy)

• Head weight: 340g

• Swing weight: C0 (light head and shorter length)

• Length: 33.5”

• Loft: 4°

• Lie: 71°

• Toe Hang: 60°

• Grip: Scotty Cameron midsize Matador (86g - quite heavy)

  

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The St Andrews Golf Academy Eden green

• Conditions: A cold, damp Sunday afternoon in early November.

• 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 using Aim Putt

• Benchmark: Lajosi custom blade

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

It was a cold and damp afternoon, with plenty of moisture on the green. It hadn’t been cut for a couple of days either, so the grass was longer than usual and the green was running quite slowly. Nevertheless, it’s still my favourite place to test putters, and you can see from the results that I was putting well with both of them today.

As with my other recent tests, my Lajosi LP7JS was the benchmark. I also hit a few putts with a very old and rusty Circa 62 No. 3 to decide whether it might be worth restoring. More on that another time!

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): I’ve already made my feelings about the appearance fairly clear, but it’s worth mentioning how well the head sits behind the ball. There’s slightly more offset than with my Lajosi, but that doesn’t bother me at all. The higher toe, clean lines and complete absence of alignment markings all contribute to a shape that really suits my eye. It’s one of the nicest-looking putters I’ve owned.

Grip (neutral): The Scotty Cameron midsize Matador currently fitted is a very nice grip, but it’s just a little thicker than I normally prefer. I’d also rather have a black grip, as white tends to get dirty too easily.

I may remove and save the Matador, replacing it with another Ping PP58, which is my current grip of choice. That’s 6g lighter and would increase the swing weight slightly, possibly bringing it up towards C2. Alternatively, if I want to retain a Scotty Cameron grip, the smaller Matador weighs 77g, some 9g less than the current one.

Headcover (+ve): An unusual positive for me in a Scotty Cameron review, but this one comes with a Chris Finch headcover rather than the original Scotty. It has my preferred magnetic closure, the material feels excellent quality and the fit is very secure. There’s little danger of this one falling off!

Aim/Alignment (+ve): I know I’m a little unusual in preferring completely naked putters, but they seem to work well for me. This Newport 2.5 is no exception.

Without a sight line or dot, I find myself concentrating more on the leading edge of the putter. That feels more natural than trying to match a line on the head with my intended target line. I’m also comfortable with a simple dot marking the sweet spot, but I tend to use that to centre the ball at address rather than as an aiming aid.

There’s something rather ironic about taking a putter originally designed around an elaborate alignment system, removing it entirely, and discovering that the result works better for me!

Feel and Sound (+ve): I really wasn’t sure what to expect from the copper insert. I’ve used other flat-faced stainless steel Scotty Cameron putters before, and they have sometimes felt a little harsh, with a pronounced click at impact.

That’s not the case here. The copper insert produces a pleasingly solid sensation, accompanied by a slightly muted sound. There’s still enough feedback to know where you’ve struck the ball, but without the harshness I’ve occasionally experienced with other stainless steel blades.

I recently reviewed a Studio Select Newport 2.6, which has a stainless steel face with fine milling. Both putters produce a similarly solid click at impact, but the copper insert is a touch more muted.

I like both, but the Detour conversion probably has the edge for me.

Pace Control (+ve): This was perhaps the most interesting finding from the test, and an area where the Newport offered a noticeable improvement over my Lajosi.

Pace control has always been the weakest aspect of my Lajosi. When I commissioned it, I specified deep face milling, and I’ve often wondered whether that contributes to my tendency to leave putts short. It’s certainly a recurring pattern, although I can occasionally overcompensate and send the ball well past the hole too.

That tendency was evident again during this test, with most of the Lajosi’s misses finishing short.

The Newport was different. I found it easier to get the ball to the hole without feeling I needed to make an exaggerated stroke, and I wasn’t sending as many putts racing past either. My distance control felt more natural, and that gave me increasing confidence as the session progressed.

I wouldn’t necessarily attribute that improvement entirely to the copper insert. The two putters differ in head weight, swing weight, face construction and several other respects, so it’s difficult to isolate one particular factor. Nevertheless, the difference was noticeable, especially on a slow green where getting the ball to the hole can be a challenge.

For me, that’s a significant positive.

Performance Overall (+ve): The results were close, and I putted well with both putters. However, the more I used the Newport, the more confident I became, particularly with my pace control.

That was interesting because my Lajosi is a putter I know extremely well. I’ve spent a lot of time with it, understand how it behaves and have always been comfortable standing over the ball. Yet here was a relatively unfamiliar putter giving me at least as much confidence, and arguably more.

The Newport has now been in the bag for three rounds and has performed well on the course too. I haven’t been keeping my usual putting statistics recently, largely because it’s fiddly to operate my watch beneath several layers of autumn clothing, but I’ve been pleased with what I’ve seen.

It’s still early days, of course, and three rounds aren’t enough to establish anything definitive. But the signs are encouraging.

Price (+ve): This is a rare putter, especially in such good condition, and I paid £230 including delivery. I’m very happy with that.

You can certainly find newer Newport 2.5 models for a similar price, or sometimes less, but almost all will have sight lines, and very few will have a copper insert. Champions Choice and Teryllium models are considerably more expensive.

Original Detour putters are also becoming harder to find, and once you factor in the cost of conversion and restoration, I suspect you’d struggle to replicate this one for £230.

Of course, value is subjective, particularly with something as unusual as this. But given the quality of the work, the condition and how much I enjoy using it, I think I’ve done rather well.

What does Vertex say?

I completed the Vertex testing indoors on my putting mat. The putter that’s performed best for me on Vertex so far has been the TaylorMade Spider Tour V, but this Newport 2.5 has produced some encouraging results too.

The average face change was just 0.45° open, and the results were very consistent. By comparison, the Newport 2.6 I reviewed recently recorded 0.55°. Both are within the ideal limit of 0.6°.

Tempo was also good and, again, remarkably consistent. What’s becoming increasingly interesting is the relationship between swing weight and my ability to deliver a repeatable stroke.

I’m beginning to see a pattern where putters with lighter swing weights seem to suit me particularly well. This Newport measures just C0, yet I had no difficulty controlling it, and the Vertex results suggest that my stroke was very consistent.

That doesn’t necessarily mean lighter swing weights are universally better for me, or that swing weight alone explains the results. There are other variables involved, including length, grip weight and head design. However, it’s another piece of evidence pointing in a similar direction.

There was also almost no manipulation of the lie angle during the stroke, suggesting that the current 71° is a good fit.

The less positive finding concerned shaft lean. I appear to be delivering the putter with more forward lean than ideal, effectively reducing its dynamic loft. The standard 4° loft is higher than my Lajosi, and when I was recently fitted for the Spider Tour V, Bradley Rowntree recommended reducing its loft by 2°.

It’s interesting to see a similar pattern emerging here. Perhaps my natural delivery is better suited to a putter with less static loft than the traditional 4°.

If the Newport remains in the bag, I’ll look at having the loft adjusted. For now, though, I don’t want to change too much when the putter is performing so well.

Conclusion

I’ve been looking for a good example of a Detour conversion for a long time, so finding this one so soon after testing the Newport 2.6 was a pleasant surprise.

It was love at first sight, which isn’t necessarily the best starting point for an objective equipment review. I wanted this putter to be good, and perhaps that influenced my initial impressions. But after completing my usual testing, examining the Vertex data and playing three rounds with it, I’m delighted to say that the performance has justified my enthusiasm.

What I particularly like is the simplicity. The original Detour was designed around an elaborate alignment concept, yet the conversion has removed all of that and produced a clean, traditional-looking blade with a rather special copper insert.

And for me, it works.

The improved pace control compared with my Lajosi was particularly encouraging, while the Vertex results have added to my growing suspicion that lighter swing weights may suit my stroke better than I’d previously appreciated.

It’s still early days, and I may make a couple of small changes to the grip and loft, but I can certainly see this putter staying in the bag for some time.

Chris Finch has done an excellent job with the conversion, and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend his refurbishment work to anyone looking to restore an older putter.

It’s quite a transformation. From one of Scotty Cameron’s strangest designs to one of the nicest-looking blades I’ve owned.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? Yes. In fact, it went into the bag before I’d even completed testing!

• What would I change? Probably the grip, to something a little smaller and lighter. I may also reduce the loft.

• What have I learned? Not all blades are created equal. The subtle differences between the Newport and Newport 2 shapes make a surprising difference to my confidence at address. I’m also beginning to appreciate just how much swing weight and face construction may influence my pace control.

You can find all my other putter reviews by following the link below.

If you’ve enjoyed this review, please give it a like. It helps more golfers discover The Club House.

And if you enjoy independent, real-world testing of golf equipment, along with the occasional exploration of the psychology and philosophy of the game, why not subscribe? It’s free, and you’ll get new reviews and articles delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

I live in St Andrews, one of golf’s great mythical destinations.

But even inside a myth, life doesn’t stop being life. When I lived and worked in New Zealand, I remember describing the experience as “the same shit, but with different weather”. Visiting somewhere and living there are very different propositions. That might sound ungrateful, but it isn’t meant to. St Andrews is a special place that’s far from ordinary, but the practicalities of everyday life remain: the weather, errands, traffic, tee times, tourists, parking, and all the usual small frustrations don’t disappear.

Subscribe now

My relationship with St Andrews goes back considerably further than the four years I’ve lived here. I grew up elsewhere in Fife, and some of my earliest memories are of childhood trips and holidays to Craigtoun Park. I’ve known the town my whole life, and it was a well-considered choice when we moved here in 2022. Having retired, we were fortunate enough to be able to decide where we wanted to live. St Andrews was enormously appealing. The history, architecture, beaches, schools for our girls, surrounding countryside, familiarity and, inevitably, the golf. There aren’t many places that offer quite the same combination. I know, because we looked!

Of course, that also makes me part of the town’s changing demographic. I’m an early retiree who has chosen to live somewhere desirable, and I enjoy the benefits that come with its prosperity. However, I’m hardly an impartial observer, and I certainly don’t want to become one of those people who moves somewhere because they love it and then complains when others want to do the same. That would be like buying a house on a golf course and complaining about balls in your garden!

A Place of Pilgrimage

St Andrews has attracted pilgrims for centuries, long before golf became its most famous attraction. The ruined cathedral and castle remind us of the town’s religious importance. The crowds gathering at the Old Course suggest pilgrimage is still alive and well, albeit with a rather different focus. While today’s golfing pilgrims may be carrying clubs rather than seeking the relics of St Andrew, I suspect the anticipation is much the same. Some may simply be ticking another famous course off their list while others are fulfilling a lifelong dream. I’m sure many golfers would consider playing St Andrews akin to a religious experience.

One of my own regular pilgrimages is walking along the quiet, tree-lined Lade Braes into town, where I often find myself worshipping at the altar of Auchterlonies. Drawn in like a ball to a bunker, I seem to visit so often that I’ve occasionally been mistaken for a member of staff! Other times I might get a coffee and sit on the steps behind the first and eighteenth holes of the Old Course to watch golfers start and finish rounds they may have dreamed about for their whole golfing lives. The nerves on the first tee, the joy of hitting a good shot up the last, and the sight of someone hugging their caddie like a long-lost brother. The photographs, the relief and the sheer delight of finally playing the Old Course. These are moments that will live in their memories and be retold for years. When I remember to look properly, it’s hard not to be moved.

And I understand that feeling too. I’ve played golf since I was nine, and the Old Course has always occupied a special place in my imagination. As boys playing at Balbirnie, my friends and I would imagine holing putts on the eighteenth green to win The Open at St Andrews. Even after playing the real thing many times, I still find myself looking around and thinking how remarkable it is to be there, occasionally alongside some of the same childhood friends. Standing on the first tee, crossing the Swilcan Bridge or walking up the eighteenth fairway is never ordinary, no matter how familiar it has become. What a blessing.

Living with the Links

As a golfer, one of the great benefits of living here is having a resident Links ticket. It’s enormously good value, and I definitely don’t take it for granted, although it does come with compromises. Income from visiting golfers obviously helps make it possible, and I’m under no illusions about how different things might be if St Andrews Links operated as a purely commercial golf resort rather than as a charitable trust. Sponsored by Callaway and twinned with Carlsbad, California, perhaps?

But having a Links ticket and actually being able to play when you want aren’t quite the same thing. Demand for tee times is enormous, particularly for the Old Course, and hosting visitors on any course can be complicated. We can’t book more than a week ahead, and we enter the Old Course ballot just like everyone else, which makes planning difficult when friends want to organise their visits months in advance. There’s also a points system for bringing guests, and the allowance can disappear surprisingly quickly. Then there are the occasional requests to help people get onto the Old. I’m generally happy to try, as I rarely turn down the chance to play it, although I sometimes wonder whether they really want to play golf with me or if I’m simply their best chance of securing a tee time!

The Links Trust clubhouses are impressive, although I sometimes feel that the menus are more geared towards visiting golfers than those of us who just want a quick bite after a round. Finish after 11.30 am and the humble filled roll is no longer available, leaving you with a more elaborate and expensive lunch menu. It’s hardly a major hardship, but sometimes all I want is a coffee and something simple before heading home. Fortunately, the halfway houses on the Old, Castle and Craigtoun offer a magnificent steak and black pudding pie, closely rivalled by the pork and haggis sausage roll. Perhaps the solution is to eat more at the halfway house and forget about lunch afterwards. Or just nip over to the excellent Dook Café instead!

The Links Trust faces a difficult balancing act. In 2025, almost 300,000 rounds were played across its seven courses, with some accommodating more than 50,000 each. That’s an enormous amount of wear and tear, yet the greenkeeping teams do a remarkable job of maintaining and improving the courses. They deserve enormous credit for that. But there must be a limit to how much golf these courses can accommodate, which makes me wonder about the continued efforts to attract even more visitors. My social media feeds seem increasingly full of influencers enjoying St Andrews, but do we really need to keep finding new ways to promote it? After all, there is only one Home of Golf.

Beyond the Golf Courses

St Andrews is much more than golf, something I wrote about a few years ago in a rather light-hearted poem called The Auld Grey Toon. The beaches, the Lade Braes, the Botanics, the old streets, the Cathedral and Castle, and the simple pleasure of walking around a beautiful historic town all contribute to what makes it such a wonderful place to live. The University brings energy and an international character. How many butchers in Scotland offer a Thanksgiving special? Although judging by the number of students cycling without helmets or lights, some of them should simply be thankful they haven’t had an accident!

Visitors also help support a thriving local economy. St Andrews is prosperous and increasingly desirable, with considerable investment underway in housing, student accommodation, tourism and golf. That’s largely positive, but I sometimes wonder what all this success is doing to the town’s character.

The town centre has no shortage of coffee shops, charity shops, shops selling Scottish tat and an increasingly impressive selection of restaurants. Yet we’ve lost our local cookware shop and now face losing our Post Office. But at least we have a Hotel Chocolat! Of course, high streets are changing across the UK, and St Andrews is hardly immune. But everyday life here also seems to come with a St Andrews premium, whether it’s groceries, petrol, eating out or buying a house.

St Andrews is also changing physically, with developments such as St Andrews West bringing substantial numbers of new homes. More housing should be a good thing, particularly given the difficulties younger families and those working locally face in finding somewhere affordable to live. But I wonder how many of these new homes will actually meet their needs, rather than attracting more affluent buyers who can afford to choose St Andrews as their home. It’s not just housing, either. How many five-star luxury hotels can a town sustain, particularly given the seasonal nature of demand? I’m not arguing against further development, but St Andrews isn’t a large place, and much of its appeal comes from its scale, setting and character.

Perhaps that’s the real dilemma. St Andrews has always welcomed visitors, and much of its success comes from doing so. But how do we ensure that it remains a town people live in, rather than simply somewhere people come to visit? I don’t think its identity is under immediate threat, but I do wonder whether the balance is gradually changing.

Living With the Myth

There’s an obvious degree of contradiction in much of what I’ve written. I’m sure the St Andrews of my childhood had its own difficulties, and I don’t believe there was some golden age we should be trying to recreate. It would be rather selective of me to enjoy all the improvements while objecting to the changes that helped create them.

I genuinely love living in St Andrews, and right now I can’t imagine living anywhere else. It’s been a wonderful place for our children to grow up and go to school, and we’ve been fortunate to enjoy so much of what the town offers. Of course, everywhere involves compromises, and St Andrews is no exception. Mine just happen to include the occasional frustration of trying to get a tee time, finding somewhere to park or negotiating the traffic around West Sands on a sunny afternoon. And the less said about our supermarket provision, the better.

But I also recognise that my relationship with St Andrews won’t necessarily remain the same. Our children will eventually finish school and move on (one already has), and I wonder whether we’ll feel the same pull to stay here when they do. Will the golf, the beaches, the history and the quality of life be enough, or will we find ourselves wanting to be closer to wherever their lives take them? I genuinely don’t know, and perhaps that’s part of the point. Places change, but so do we.

In the meantime, I want to enjoy living here without taking it for granted. I hope St Andrews continues to welcome visitors from around the world, invest in its future and remain a thriving town, while preserving the qualities that make it so special to those of us fortunate enough to call it home.

And if I occasionally find myself stuck behind a camper van on the way to a tee time, perhaps I should just remember to leave home five minutes earlier.

If you’ve enjoyed this glimpse of life inside the Home of Golf, perhaps you’d like to subscribe and join me in The Club House. There’s plenty of golf equipment to discuss, but occasionally the conversations wander a little further. And if you enjoyed the article, giving it a like helps more people discover it.

Subscribe now

Introduction

When I started working with James Tait, I wanted to find out whether I could increase my swing speed and, more importantly, whether I could make that additional speed useful on the golf course. At 57, I was also conscious that there was little point in chasing a few extra yards if I ended up injuring myself in the process and made the promise to stop if it did.

Subscribe now

In my original article, I explained how we established a baseline driver speed of around 94mph. During that first session, I managed to reach 100.2mph with my own driver and 103.5mph with the HiiTS training driver. I’d never broken 100mph in a session before, so that was an encouraging start. But finding some additional speed during a lesson is one thing; developing it, retaining it and learning to use it on the course is quite another.

Now, three further sessions later, I’ve recorded a maximum driver speed of 107.3mph, and my normal swing speed has increased to around 100mph and appears quite stable there. However, the experience has also highlighted some of the limitations of my swing and the difficulty of confidently taking new movements onto the course.

So, was it worthwhile?

The Training Sessions

Every session began with a comprehensive stretching and warm-up routine. We used Rotex Motion plates and exercise bands to work on mobility and loosen everything up before swinging a club. When I was previously using speed sticks at home, this was the area I spent the least time on, which is how injuries happen! During these sessions, and while practicing, I was consistently finding that my lats were tight, so we gave them additional attention. I also introduced new stretches to my gym sessions to help.

Once we’d finished stretching, we moved on to hitting balls, starting with wedges to get the body moving before progressing to the 7-iron and gradually increasing the speed. From there, we’d hit some drivers before moving into the speed training itself, using either the Speed Toad or HiiTS driver.

The objective with these training aids was simple: swing as fast as possible without worrying about hitting a ball and where it might finish. With the Speed Toad, I eventually recorded a swing speed of 113mph. Of course, that’s not directly comparable with swinging a normal driver, but it was encouraging to see what my body was capable of producing when swinging with full intent.

Finally, we’d return to hitting drivers and try to translate some of that speed into a proper golf swing. Put a ball in front of me, and things changed. Suddenly I’m thinking about making a good strike, controlling the clubface and where the ball might finish. Rather than simply swinging freely, I start trying to manage the outcome. And, somewhat ironically, that can make me swing less efficiently. The more I did it, the more comfortable I got though, and it was during this final stage of the programme that I recorded my fastest driver swing of 107.3mph.

The Physical Demands

I’ll make no bones about it, these were physically demanding sessions. By the time we’d worked through the warm-up, the various clubs, the speed training aids and the final driver swings, I’d often hit 150 or more shots. And, unlike a normal practice session, most of that work involved swinging at or close to maximum effort. I certainly felt it by the end.

One of my original concerns was how my body would cope with the demands of speed training. I’m pleased to say that, although I was tired at the end of each session, I didn’t experience much discomfort afterwards.

It’s also worth pointing out that for most of this year I’ve been following a comprehensive gym programme, guided by my physiotherapist and using TPI exercises. By working on my physical conditioning alongside the speed training, I’m hoping the two complement each other. I certainly wouldn’t want to overlook the contribution of the work I’m doing away from the golf course.

The Results

The headline number is 107.3mph. That’s an improvement of 13.3mph over my original baseline of 94mph, or just over 14%. When I started this programme, I really didn’t know what to expect, but I’m delighted with that result. When I tried speed training before, I never consistently got above 100mph.

But while the maximum speed is impressive, I’m actually more pleased with what has happened to my normal driver swing.

Before starting the programme, I was swinging at around 94mph. That’s now increased to around 100mph, and it seems to be becoming my new cruising speed. During my recent TaylorMade Qi4D driver fitting with Adam Legg, I was swinging at 101mph, and I was also crusing over 100mph during the warm-up for my final session with James.

That’s encouraging because I wasn’t trying to break any records on either occasion. Additional speed is starting to become part of my normal swing rather than something I can only produce when making a maximum effort.

Interestingly, though, I suspect there’s still more to come.

During the final session, I was swinging my 7-iron at around 89 to 90mph, producing carry distances of between 165 and 170 yards. When you consider that the PGA Tour average is 92mph, that’s a pretty good result for this 57yr old! However, given the relationship between iron and driver speeds, it seems reasonable to think that I might not yet be making the most of my potential with driver.

There are still some inefficiencies in my swing, particularly with my weight transfer and transition. I still have a tendency to become impatient at the top of the backswing, then spending some of my speed too early rather than allowing it to build naturally through impact. I have a habit of trying to muscle the ball despite knowing that a smooth, fluid swing generally produces better results. Knowing something and actually doing it are two different things. For whatever reason, I currently find it much easier to trust that feeling with my shorter clubs than I do with driver.

Perhaps the next gains won’t come from learning to swing faster, but from learning to use the speed I’ve already developed more efectively.

Taking It Onto the Course

Of course, generating additional speed on a launch monitor is one thing. Taking it onto the golf course, where there are consequences for a poor shot, is quite another.

I’ve found it considerably easier to transfer the changes into my iron play. One of the main things I’ve been working on is making a fuller shoulder turn and getting my hands higher in the backswing. For some reason, I just find that more natural with an iron in my hands than I do with driver.

The results have been encouraging. My ball flight has become much more neutral, and I’m hitting my irons at least one club further than I was before starting the programme. That’s a substantial improvement, and one I’m very happy with.

I’ve subsequently completed a gapping session to establish my new carry distances, although learning to trust those numbers on the course is another challenge. With winter approaching, that might have to wait until next season before I can properly assess the benefits.

With driver, however, things have been rather more complicated and I’ve played some of my best and worst golf of the year since starting the training.

When I trust the swing, make a full turn and allow everything to flow naturally, the results can be excellent. But when I become concerned about where the ball might finish, or start trying to force some additional speed, my old habits return. I get impatient in transition, come over the top and cast the club, with occasionally disastrous consequences off the tee. Stay out of trouble from the tee and I’ve been able to score well. But there have been too many tee shot penalties.

I’ve touched on this before in Living with the Wave. Trusting the swing is easy to talk about, but considerably harder to do when you’re standing on a tee with trouble waiting for anything that goes offline. I know what a good swing feels like, and I’ve seen what it can produce. But that doesn’t mean I can summon it whenever I want.

Was It Worthwhile?

Absolutely. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend working with James. As the world’s No. 5 long-drive competitor, he certainly knows how to generate speed, but more importantly, he’s helped me make significant improvements to my own game. The gains in my iron play alone have made the experience worthwhile.

The driver is still a work in progress, but I don’t regard that as a failure of the training. I’ve increased both my maximum speed and my normal cruising speed, and I’ve seen what I can produce when I allow the swing to flow. What I haven’t yet developed is the confidence and consistency to access that speed as often as I’d like.

My objective remains to increase my normal, comfortable swing speed while knowing that I have more available when I need it. That, for me, is the real value of speed training. It’s not simply about discovering how fast you can swing a club, but making some of that additional speed part of your normal golf game.

What Comes Next?

I could continue working with James over the winter, and there’s certainly more to learn. However, there’s also a financial consideration. For roughly the same cost as another four sessions, I could buy The Stack System and follow a structured speed training programme myself.

Much like going to the gym, I suspect that consistency will be important if I’m going to maintain and develop the gains I’ve made. Realistically, I should be doing some dedicated speed work at least once or twice a week throughout the winter, rather than relying on occasional sessions. Which also points to something like The Stack.

There’s also the possibility of joining a group training programme at Drumoig, which I’ve expressed an interest in. They also use Smart2Move force plates, and I’d be fascinated to see what they reveal about how I’m using the ground to generate speed. I’ve also booked a GEARS session at Archerfield to gain a better understanding of my body movements and swing mechanics. I’m hoping GEARS might also shed some light on how my swing is contributing to my ongoing elbow tendonitis and other physical issues.

When I started this experiment, I wanted to discover whether I could increase my swing speed. James has helped me answer that question rather emphatically. I also finish the sessions convinced that I have more speed available if I can learn to tap into it. More patience in transition appears to be one of the key components and something to work on over winter.

The final challenge is learning to take my higher speed onto the course and trusting it.

If you’ve enjoyed following my speed training experiment, I’d love to hear whether you’ve tried anything similar and how well the results transferred onto the course.

And if you’re interested in more independent equipment reviews, golfing experiments and the occasional reflection on the game, please consider subscribing to The Club House. It’s free, and you’ll receive new articles directly in your inbox.

Subscribe now

Further Reading

Speed Training with James Tait: Baseline Setting

James Tait Golf: Skillest YouTube Instagram

Originally released in 2008, the Scotty Cameron Studio Select Newport 2.6 is a precision-milled, 303 stainless steel putter that combines the classic Newport 2 blade shape with an unusual straight-shafted design. Unlike the more familiar plumber’s neck configuration, the shaft enters the head close to its centre, giving the putter a very different appearance at address whilst still retaining a considerable amount of toe hang.

Subscribe now

I’ve wanted to try one for a long time, particularly given my previous success with the SeeMore Nashville mFGP and my positive experience with the Bettinardi BB-28. Unfortunately, finding one to test has proved difficult, so I was delighted when my friend Martin offered to lend me his. Whether he’ll get it back remains to be seen!

I’ve often thought that the second-hand putter market offers some of the best value in golf equipment. While manufacturers of drivers, fairway woods and irons have made genuine technological advances over the years, the same argument is harder to make for putters, particularly traditional milled blades.

That’s not to suggest that putter technology has stood still. There have been developments in forgiveness, alignment and face technology, while the emergence of zero-torque designs represents a more fundamental change in how putters behave during the stroke. But a precision-milled stainless steel putter from nearly twenty years ago isn’t necessarily going to perform any worse than one made today. A milled stainless steel head is still a milled stainless steel head.

So, how does this nearly twenty-year-old Scotty Cameron compare with the modern putters I’ve been testing, and does it demonstrate just how much value there might be in the second-hand market?

First Impressions

This is still a very nice-looking putter. I know that the shaft design won’t suit everyone’s taste, but I like it. For me, the straight shaft and the way it enters the head create a simple visual clarity. It does mean that the top line needs to be a bit thicker than on the Bettinardi BB-28 or the Yes! Pippi 12, but I think the head looks better for it. I put this putter behind the ball and immediately feel comfortable.

One interesting aspect of this particular putter is its weight and balance. Despite weighing a relatively substantial 570g overall, its 33” length contributes to a swing weight of just C4, the same as the Spider Tour V that I really liked when testing recently. Normally, a putter built to this length would have heavier 20g sole weights installed, whereas this one has 15g weights. That suggests it probably started life as a 34” putter and has subsequently been cut down.

But, as with the Spider, I really liked the balance.

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 570g (surprisingly heavy)

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: C4

• Length: 33”

• Loft: 4°

• Lie: 71°

• Toe Hang: 75° - see image below

• Grip: TaylorMade SuperStroke Tour 1.0

One of the interesting things about the Newport 2.6 is that its shaft position suggests something closer to face-balanced. In reality, the toe hang is substantial, and much more than you might expect when looking at the putter at address.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: The St Andrews Golf Academy Eden green

• Conditions: A pleasant October day. The green had been cut and rolled.

• 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 was in excellent condition. It had just been cut and rolled, so it was running very nicely.

As with my other recent tests, my Lajosi LP7JS was the benchmark putter.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): Some players will actively recoil when they see this style of putter. I know it’s an acquired taste, but it’s one that I like. It suits my eye, and I particularly like the geometry and visual clarity that the shaft position creates. If I could change one thing, I would remove the flange line and have a naked head, the same as my gamer.

I’m reminded of the SeeMore m7 Tour that I tried last year, although the proportions of the Newport are more refined and pleasing to my eye. I thought the m7 was quite bulky and clumsy in comparison. Interestingly, the shaft enters the m7 head much closer to the heel than on the Newport, yet both putters have similar amounts of toe hang.

For a putter that’s almost twenty years old, this one is in remarkably good condition and a credit to Martin, who has clearly looked after it very well.

Grip (+ve): The SuperStroke Tour 1.0 is a grip I’m very familiar with and have used on other putters. I like both the feel of the material and the shape in my hands, although my current grip of choice is the midsize Ping PP58. That would be very easy to change.

Headcover (neutral): I’ll cut the cover some slack on this occasion. It’s obviously also almost twenty years old, but it highlights the issues that come with Velcro fasteners. I’d be forever worried about it falling off. Having said that, the leather itself has aged very well, as has the protective lining. I’d be tempted to stitch in a couple of magnets rather than replacing the Velcro.

It’s a shame the pitch repair tool is missing, but it has probably fallen into someone’s bag or been used and not replaced.

Aim/Alignment (neutral): I’m perhaps being a bit harsh here because, as I’ve said above, I love the geometry of this design and find it easy to align. However, my ideal putter wouldn’t have the flange line. In reality, the white line on this particular head isn’t especially prominent against the polished stainless steel, so it almost blends in. But once I’ve seen it, I can’t unsee it.

This model also has a red dot on the heel, similar to the RST design on SeeMore putters, but without their additional lines. I’ve seen something similar on a few Circle T Scotty Camerons too, and I wonder who came up with the idea first. I’m assuming it was SeeMore.

Feel and Sound (+ve): This was a pleasant surprise, as I’ve often disliked the feel of older Scotty Cameron putters. The face milling is quite fine, giving it a firm feel with a solid “click” at impact, compared with the softer “tock” of my Lajosi. I genuinely preferred the way the Newport felt, and I’ve always regretted specifying deep milling when I ordered the Lajosi.

Compared with the new Scotty Cameron models I’ve tested, I much prefer the feel of this fully milled stainless steel head to the newer chain-link insert. I’d really like to see Scotty Cameron return to traditionally milled faces rather than continuing down the insert route.

Pace Control (+ve): Pace control was excellent, and I was surprised to see a perfect score on the lag tests.

The balance of this putter was especially nice. With some putters, I occasionally find myself fighting the inertia of the head at takeaway and transition, but the Newport was really smooth to swing and never felt forced. I wonder if I’m partial to a lighter swing weight, as I had a similar experience with the Spider Tour V, which was also C4, although lighter overall.

I found it easy to maintain control throughout the stroke and never felt as though the head was working against me.

Performance Overall (+ve): This was a really interesting test, and it’s fair to say that the Newport 2.6 significantly exceeded my expectations. Looking at the data, you can see that I had a good putting day with both clubs, but the Newport really started to impress me as the testing continued. Strangely, I actually found myself wanting it to beat the Lajosi.

The more I used it, the more I liked it, and the better it performed. Since testing, I’ve also taken it out for a round on the Castle Course here in St Andrews, which has notoriously tricky greens. It performed well there too, reinforcing the confidence I’d gained during testing.

Price (+ve): This is an old and relatively rare putter, but decent examples can still be found in the £150 to £200 range (I’ve not addressed that with Martin yet). As with everything Scotty Cameron, some sellers want silly money, but if you shop around, there are good examples available at sensible prices.

Compared with the £449 price of a new Scotty Cameron, I’d say it represents very good value, especially for someone like me who prefers the feel of the traditionally milled face to the newer chain-link insert.

What does Vertex say?

I completed the Vertex testing indoors on my putting mat, and while the results weren’t as good as those I recorded with the Spider Tour V, they were still pretty good.

The average face change was 0.55° open and very consistent, which is within a range I’m comfortable with. The average hides a spread from 0° to 0.9°.

Tempo was also good and, again, very consistent. As I mentioned earlier, I thought this putter felt lovely to swing, and I think that’s reflected in the rhythm data.

The slightly more upright lie angle of 71° appeared to suit me, with very little manipulation during the stroke. The same can’t be said for shaft lean, though, where I appear to be trying to deloft the putter from its stated 4°.

It would be interesting to know whether a professional fitter could adjust the loft on this style of neck. Otherwise, at 33” and 71°, it looks like a pretty good fit.

Conclusion

I’ve waited a long time to test this putter, and I’m really pleased to say that it didn’t disappoint. In fact, I was surprised by just how much I liked it and how well it performed. Taking a test putter out for a counting round of golf isn’t something I often do either, which says quite a lot about the confidence I had in it.

It also reinforces my belief that the second-hand market can be a rich source of excellent value putters if you know what you’re looking for. In this case, I’d actually choose the older Scotty Cameron over the newer models I’ve tested, largely because I prefer the feel of its traditionally milled face.

Perhaps the most interesting thing is that, despite all the technological developments of the past eighteen years, I don’t feel as though I’m sacrificing anything by using this putter. Quite the opposite, in fact. I enjoyed it so much that I’m seriously considering making Martin an offer for it.

I did warn him that he might not get it back!

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? Yes, and I’ve already used it in a counting round.

• What would I change? Potentially the loft, if that can be adjusted with this style of neck.

• What have I learned? This is a very nice older putter. It provides me with everything I liked about the SeeMore mFGP and the Bettinardi BB-28, but in a shape that I like and with a feel that I prefer.

You can find all my other putter reviews by following the link below.

If you’ve enjoyed this review, please give it a like. It helps more golfers discover The Club House.

And if you enjoy independent, real-world testing of golf equipment, along with the occasional exploration of the psychology and philosophy of the game, why not subscribe? It’s free, and you’ll get new reviews and articles delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

This piece began with two scorecards. One day I shot one under par at Drumoig. The next day I shot fourteen over par at Craigtoun. Same golfer, same body, same clubs, same swing, twenty-four hours apart. Nothing material had changed, but something clearly had. At Drumoig I had simply played golf. By the time I arrived at Craigtoun, expectation had joined me.

That contrast bothered me because I had only recently written You’ve Gotta Have Faith, an essay about trusting the golfer who turns up, and recognising that faith cannot depend on a particular outcome. That piece developed its own soundtrack. George Michael would appear at the start and tell me to have Faith, while Bon Jovi arrived in times of stress to tell me to Keep the Faith.

For this essay, I have expanded the musical theme rather substantially. What began with two songs has somehow become a 36-track playlist, and I’ve called it The Sounds of the Wave. Some songs describe the golf, some describe what happens inside my head, and several describe the surprisingly inventive ways I can self-sabotage, despite having written extensively about why I shouldn’t.

Listen along: The Sounds of the Wave — a 36-track soundtrack to the rise, fall and recovery.

But why a wave? Well, golf, like life, is cyclical. Form rises and falls. Confidence rises and falls. Mood, energy, belief and expectation move with it. At any one time, we will be somewhere on those waves. Some will coincide while others will cross in opposite directions. The mistake is believing that your current location is permanent. For good or bad, all waves will turn.

Subscribe now

Fools Gold

Somewhere between leaving Drumoig and arriving at Craigtoun the following morning, a good round had acquired a burden. One under par was no longer simply something that had happened; it had become evidence of what I thought I should now be capable of.

That is the seductive thing about a peak. It can start to feel less like a passing crest and more like the sea level itself has risen. Perhaps this is the level I belong at now. Perhaps all the physical work, speed training and swing changes have finally come together. Perhaps I have found it. I had already written about exactly that tendency in You’ve Gotta Have Faith. But apparently writing something down doesn’t make me immune from doing it again.

That is where some of the confidence at the crest becomes Fools Gold. Not because confidence is false, but because it is so easy to mistake a temporary state for a permanent entitlement.

A recent podcast with Debbie Crews gave me a useful way to think about what happened next: the difference between wants, intentions and needs. “I’d like to hit this fairway” leaves room for whatever outcome happens. “I need to hit this fairway” gives the shot another job before I have even started the backswing. Miss the fairway and I have somehow failed.

At Drumoig, I had intentions. At Craigtoun, I had needs.

I needed to confirm the previous day. I needed to prove it wasn’t an aberration. I needed to look like the golfer who had just shot one under. Each shot stopped being merely a shot and became evidence for or against the story I was telling myself.

That is a pretty efficient form of Sabotage.

The irony is that nothing meaningful about the golfer had physically changed overnight. What changed was my relationship with the golf. Something I had previously allowed to happen became something I was monitoring, protecting and trying to reproduce.

The grip tightened. The swing became more manufactured. Freedom acquired supervision. There was no graceful descent. One under, then fourteen over. I was Shot Down in Flames.

Yesterday’s golf becomes today’s obligation, and the wave turned down.

Loaded

That matters because I genuinely am trying to change as a golfer, and I am working hard at it too. I’m 57 and want to be playing competitively at 77. I’m in the gym to get stronger and more flexible. My swing speed has improved through my work with James Tait. The movement changes associated with that have produced some of the best iron striking I can remember. There is evidence that the ceiling has risen. There is rather less evidence that the floor has caught up.

However, it does raise an uncomfortable question. Should I have left the old golfer alone? That golfer got me to a handicap of 3, but he also contained the limitations that made me want to improve. So the answer is no. Training is where I work on changing the golfer. Playing is where I have to let whichever golfer the training has produced that day actually play. But I also have to remember that I’m going through swing Changes and be kind to myself through the process.

Speed training has taught me something else: effort and speed are not the same thing. When I become anxious with the driver, I tend to go hard from the top, tense up as I try to muscle the ball and spend the speed too early. Fastlove, originally added to the playlist as a joke, turned out to be annoyingly accurate. I want the speed now, the movement now, and the good golf back now.

That brought me back to Transcendental Golf, which described one of those rare rounds when everything felt quiet and unforced. I was absorbed in the game rather than standing outside myself supervising it. Trying to reproduce that state has proved considerably harder. I joked recently that perhaps “the zone” is a bit like Fight Club: the first rule of getting into the zone is not to talk about getting into the zone.

Something similar happened after You’ve Gotta Have Faith. Before writing it, the songs appeared spontaneously. Afterwards, I’ve caught myself trying to summon them. I had taken something spontaneous, examined it, named it and then, like many golfers, attempted to turn it into a repeatable technique. Perhaps I hadn’t lost faith. Perhaps I had simply started trying too hard to recreate the state that had allowed it to appear.

The opening of Primal Scream’s Loaded asks a beautifully simple question: “Just what is it that you want to do?”

That feels much more useful than asking what I need to shoot, where my handicap needs to go or how I get back into the zone. What do I actually want to do? If I’m honest, I just want to make good decisions, commit to shots, swing freely, compete, accept what happens and, most importantly, enjoy myself. I’m supposed to be here to have fun, not to drive down the Road to Hell.

Born Under a Bad Sign

If the crest distorts perspective, so does the trough.

Deep enough into a poor spell, Born Under a Bad Sign begins to make perfect sense. The putt lips out because, “of course it does”. A good drive kicks into trouble because apparently “nothing ever goes right for me”. Someone else gets the lucky bounce, and it becomes another exhibit for the prosecution.

Before long, I am no longer simply playing badly or experiencing bad luck. I have created a story in which the universe has taken a personal interest in ruining my afternoon.

That is self-pity rather than analysis.

One of the dangers of the trough is believing that the experience is uniquely mine. It isn’t. Everybody Hurts, even if golfers are particularly skilled at assuming nobody else has ever hit three drives that badly.

And when the trough lasts long enough, there is another temptation: to believe There Must Be a Better World Somewhere — another swing, another answer, another version of me in which all of this feels easier. YouTube and The Cult of Personality suck you in with the promise of quick fixes.

And the awkward part is that I know all this already. I have spent years reading about patience, acceptance, trust and commitment, and have written essays explaining them to myself. But none of it prevents a part of my brain from occasionally turning into Rage Against the Machine and screaming, “fuck you, I won’t do what you told me.”

Apparently intellectual understanding and behavioural compliance remain two different departments.

There was more happening than golf too: my daughter had left for university, one of my closest friends had suffered a stroke, and autumn had arrived. None of those things causes a hook, but they inevitably affect the resources with which I respond to one.

Golf is normally somewhere I go to feel absorbed and free. During this spell it has occasionally become another place where I felt uncertain. My behaviour was the giveaway: shoulders down, moping, complaining about shots and bounces and generally behaving like an entitled brat.

The Thrill Is Gone would be overstating it, but some of the lightness certainly had.

That’s Life

This is where the wave began to make more sense.

There isn’t only one. There is a long wave of life involving ageing, family, health and identity. There is a seasonal wave affecting mood and energy. There is a golf wave affecting form and confidence, with smaller waves inside it for driving, putting, course management and everything else.

Usually they are at different stages. Occasionally several troughs coincide and the combined experience feels much bigger than any one part.

Progress itself seems to have the same shape. We like to imagine improvement as a steadily rising line: practise more, get better; get stronger, get better; handicap falls and continues obediently downwards.

Reality looks more like a sine wave wrapped around a longer-term trend.

I can be stronger, faster and capable of better ball striking while simultaneously scoring worse. I can shoot five under on the Strathtyrum, one under at Drumoig and fourteen over at Craigtoun without any one of those rounds providing a definitive verdict on whether I am improving.

There is a phrase I have often heard at funerals that seems particularly suited to the wave: this too shall pass. We usually hear it as comfort in difficult times, and it certainly works that way in a golfing trough. Poor form, frustration and self-doubt are not permanent conditions, however convincing they feel while we are inside them.

But it applies equally at the crest.

The good golf will pass too. The confidence, the feeling that everything has clicked, even the belief that I have finally found “it” — none of them come with permanent residency.

That isn’t pessimism. It is perspective.

As Frank says, That’s Life.

The difficulty is that handicap is not simply a number to me. Getting to 3 represented years of work and competence, and I subconsciously attached status to that, whether I like admitting it or not. Moving back towards 5 therefore felt like more than losing a couple of shots. It started nibbling at identity.

That raises a Who Made Who question. Did I construct the golfer, or has the golfer — the handicap, competence and status — become part of how I construct myself?

Probably a bit of both.

That is when The Pretender arrives. Standing over a tee shot with very little idea where the ball is going can make a low-handicap golfer reconsider his entire history. Perhaps I am not as good as I thought. Perhaps the handicap flattered me. Perhaps no one will ever take my blog seriously if my handicap goes up!

Emotionally persuasive. Logically ridiculous.

The good golf was real. The bad golf is real too.

What I cannot reasonably demand is that past ability guarantees present performance. Perhaps that is where confidence needs redefining.

In You’ve Gotta Have Faith, I wrote that faith was not the belief that my A game would arrive, but faith in whichever game did. Perhaps confidence is not believing the good golf will show up. Perhaps it is believing I can cope if it doesn’t.

Pick Yourself Up

That is a less glamorous form of confidence, but perhaps a more useful one.

A better question than “which golfer is going to turn up?” is: what game have I got today, and how well can I play with it?

That accepts uncertainty without surrendering responsibility. I do not need to know whether the driver will behave for eighteen holes. I need to decide what I want to do with the shot in front of me, bring whatever serves that intention and live with the result.

Sometimes that may be Mr Nice: patient and accepting. Sometimes it may be Mr Nasty: stubborn, competitive and unwilling to indulge another five minutes of internal drama. Like the CEO I used to know who signed off emails with JGIFD, perhaps I need to just get it fucking done.

A recent round on the New Course gave me some evidence. After a messy stretch on the front nine, I carried on rather than declaring the day lost, played the back nine in one under and finished four over. Nothing had been fixed; the poor golf simply hadn’t been allowed to dictate what happened next.

I reread an essay I wrote in 2023 called Pick Yourself Up. It wasn’t just about golf, but much of this was already in there.

Apparently some lessons need to be repeated to be learned.

A Little Less Conversation

That may be the real relationship between this essay and You’ve Gotta Have Faith. The earlier essay wasn’t wrong. I’ve simply mistaken articulating the lesson for learning it.

I had already written that faith couldn’t depend on which golfer turned up, and that the difficult moments might be the lesson. The poor golf days I’m experiencing now are the difficult moments. They are where the philosophy has to earn its keep.

But there’s a point where analysis becomes another form of interference. I have read the books, listened to the podcasts, written the essays, discussed the essays, reflected on the reflections and assembled a Spotify playlist sufficiently elaborate to provide musical commentary on most of my psychological weaknesses.

Elvis may have had a point with A Little Less Conversation.

The next time I play, it doesn’t need to prove that the slump is over, recreate Drumoig or rediscover some perfect state. I can want to play well without needing to. I can choose the shot, decide what serves me, commit to it and accept what happens.

A good shot that gets a bad bounce can remain a good shot rather than becoming another verse of Born Under a Bad Sign. A great round can remain a great round rather than becoming tomorrow’s compulsory standard. I can recognise Fools Gold at the crest without declaring bankruptcy in the trough.

The wave will keep moving. That is not the problem.

The aim is not to flatten it, but to become better at living with it: enjoying the peaks without believing I am entitled to remain there, and navigating the troughs without believing they define me.

The crest passes. The trough passes. This too shall pass.

Maybe that is what Faith looks like when it is tested: not certainty about what comes next, but enough trust to keep playing when it doesn’t look like yesterday.

The practice never finishes.

Perhaps that is the journey.

Where are you on the wave at the moment?
And if your current stretch of golf had a soundtrack, what song would be on it?

Add it in the comments. I may yet find room on The Sounds of the Wave.

Subscribe now

The Playlist (Spotify)

The Sounds of the Wave

Further Reading:

You’ve Gotta Have Faith

Transcendental Golf

Pick Yourself Up

For a long time, I thought remote-controlled golf trolleys were just an expensive fad. My PowaKaddy CT6 did everything I needed and, despite some reliability issues, I liked the design and how easy it was to manoeuvre. A remote trolley seemed like an expensive answer to a question I wasn’t really asking.

Subscribe now

That gradually changed. Injuries and subsequent conversations with friends and other golfers who already used remote trolleys swayed my opinion. Several people talked about the physical benefits of being able to walk more naturally, with both arms free, rather than constantly reaching for a trolley and twisting to steer it. With recent back injuries, reducing strain and twisting on my back started to sound much more significant than I had previously thought.

Eventually, I decided to try one, but what followed wasn’t quite what I expected. As always before a large purchase, I did a lot of research and spoke to as many users as I could find. I then bought a Stewart Q Follow, really liked some aspects of it, became increasingly concerned about others and eventually returned it after only a few weeks. Then I bought a Motocaddy M7 GPS Remote, which I’ve now been using for around six weeks (and haven’t returned!).

This isn't really two conventional product reviews; it’s the story of moving from one trolley to another and why I’ve done that. So, while Robot Wars might suggest a straightforward battle with one trolley emerging victorious, that isn't quite what happened.

Why a remote trolley?

The main attraction wasn’t laziness, or the novelty of controlling my trolley from a distance (which isn’t actually as easy as it sounds). As mentioned above, the more I spoke to people who used remote trolleys, the more I believed there could be a genuine physical benefit. With a conventional electric trolley, you still need to reach for the handle to steer it and adjust the speed. Although it’s powered, you remain physically connected to it for much of the round. Which is helpful for pulling me up some of the hills at the Craigtoun Course.

A remote trolley allows you to send it ahead and simply walk. Both arms are free; I can stretch my shoulders as I go and, most importantly for me at the moment, there is less reaching and twisting to control it. Having used remote trolleys now for a couple of months, I definitely notice less fatigue at the end of the round, and I like being able to walk more naturally between shots.

Ironically, I still sometimes forget I have the remote and revert to old trolley habits. After years of walking and holding my trolley, it is taking me a while to remember that I can just let it go.

Why the Stewart Q Follow?

The Stewart appealed for several reasons, not least because its four-wheel chassis looked exceptionally stable. The Follow function was also intriguing. Rather than simply controlling the trolley remotely, you can have it follow you around the course, which sounded like the ultimate version of the hands-free experience I was looking for.

Before buying it, I spoke to several existing owners. I was aware of some concerns regarding the robustness of the handle and chassis, but most feedback was generally very positive. While I found that reassuring, perhaps there was also a little buyer justification going. After an expensive purchase, most of us want to believe we’ve made the right decision. Either way, I went into the purchase aware that it wasn’t necessarily flawless, but sufficiently reassured by people who actually owned one.

I bought mine online from Bargain Golf Equipment at Seaham Golf Club and, initially at least, I was delighted with it.

First impressions of the Stewart

The Q Follow is a substantial piece of equipment. It’s heavy, but it feels solid, and once unfolded, the four-wheel design gives it a reassuringly planted stance. More impressively, it folds into a remarkably compact package considering its size and weight. The folding mechanism is clever; there’s a practical carry handle, and it fits very easily into my car boot.

On the course, the chassis is probably the best part of the trolley. It is quiet, extremely stable and very secure on side slopes where it tracks well without needing constant little corrections. Once moving at normal walking pace, it feels very natural to control, and I quickly became comfortable sending it ahead of me.

Slow speed manoeuvring is less impressive. This is a big, heavy trolley and moving it around confined spaces isn’t particularly easy. It was particularly tricky to get over car park kerbs! That’s not unique to the Stewart, though, and is something I’ve subsequently found with the Motocaddy too. My old CT6 was much easier to shuffle around manually, whereas with both of these I often find myself using the powered wheels and remote to help manoeuvre them. The M7 wheels can be adjusted to freewheel, which I may start doing more often when walking from the car.

Following the golfer

The Follow function is the feature that separates the Stewart from most remote trolleys and, technically, it works remarkably well. There is something undeniably clever about walking away and having your golf bag obediently trundling along behind you. But it is a very expensive option too, at around £400 extra.

In practice, I used it much less than I expected. It was most useful on relatively flat, open parts of the course, but those were also the places where simply sending the trolley ahead with the remote was also easiest. On more complicated terrain, I preferred having the trolley where I could see exactly what it was doing, as I didn’t particularly like having my clubs behind me. Headcovers, towels and other bits and pieces occasionally work loose from a golf bag, and I found myself wondering whether something had fallen off without me noticing.

However, it is an impressive feature, and I’m glad I tried it, but for me it turned out not to be the reason to own the trolley. The greater benefit was simply having remote control and the freedom that gave me while walking.

The little things started to bother me

My concerns with the Stewart weren’t really about how it drove. Quite the opposite. Out on the course, I thought it was excellent. It was the small details around the overall product build quality that gradually started to bother me.

The battery has excellent capacity, but it is large and heavy, and removing it is slightly awkward. More strangely for a premium product, there is no simple charge indicator on the battery itself, and you have to use a phone app. The remote is similar, so something as basic as checking whether your trolley and remote are ready for tomorrow’s round (or two rounds in the same day) becomes more complicated than I think it needs to be.

Charging the remote also requires its own cable rather than a conventional USB cable. Stewart specifies the power output required and warns that your warranty will be invalidated if you use the wrong charger, but doesn’t supply a compatible charging plug!

None of these things is disastrous in isolation, but on an expensive trolley I kept finding myself wondering why straightforward things hadn’t been made more straightforward.

I had similar reservations about the handle. I knew before buying the trolley that other owners had expressed concerns about its robustness, and while mine didn’t fail, it never felt like the strongest part of an otherwise substantial machine. When you have to put force through the handle to lift wheels over kerbs etc, you want something more robust than plastic. The fundamental chassis feels hugely robust, yet some of the smaller components attached to it don’t inspire the same confidence.

And then one of those small components failed.

A very small part with a very big consequence

The battery is retained by a small plastic clip. Mine stopped operating properly after only a few weeks, leaving me unable to release the battery normally.

I can’t say definitively what caused it. My suspicion is that sand or grit may have found its way into the mechanism, but that’s only my theory. Golf trolleys inevitably encounter sand, grass, mud and water, so it did make me wonder how well this particular part of the design has been tested in the environment in which it actually has to operate. I subsequently heard of other owners experiencing a similar problem.

What struck me most was the absurdity of it. Here was a sophisticated, premium electric trolley with remote control, Bluetooth connectivity and the ability to follow its owner around a golf course, compromised by what appeared to be a tiny plastic component that probably costs pennies.

Perhaps that’s unfair. Any component on any product can fail. But because I’d already started questioning some of the smaller details, the clip failure increased my concerns.

When a small fault becomes a bigger problem

This is where the story changed.

I had bought the trolley from Bargain Golf Equipment, but the warranty issue needed to be coordinated through Stewart. For a product less than 30 days old, I expected a replacement would be sent and the faulty one collected. Their initial proposal was that I return just the battery to them. That would obviously have left me with a virtually new trolley that I couldn’t use, which didn’t seem reasonable when I’d owned it for only a few weeks.

I asked instead for a replacement battery to be sent out, after which I would return the faulty one. Stewart weren’t initially keen on doing that, and communication took longer than I would have expected. Eventually I decided that I no longer wanted to continue with the trolley and exercised my right to return it.

Stewart subsequently offered to send a replacement battery and also offered compensation, but by then my mind was made up. The failed clip itself wasn’t really the deciding factor. Components fail, and I’ve subsequently had a minor component fail on the Motocaddy too. It was the combination of that failure, my existing concerns about some of the other components and an aftersales experience that dented confidence about what would happen if something else went wrong in future.

Bargain Golf Equipment, by contrast, were excellent. They arranged collection of the trolley and refunded me promptly. I couldn’t fault their service.

The whole experience also changed what I wanted from the replacement. I still wanted a remote trolley, because I’d already been convinced of the benefits, but I now placed considerably more value on being able to buy locally and knowing exactly where I would go if something went wrong.

Trying something different

My local retailer is Auchterlonies of St Andrews, where I physically compared the current PowaKaddy and Motocaddy ranges. My previous reliability problems with the CT6 had dented my confidence in PowaKaddy, and I also had some reservations about the larger GPS displays too. A big screen looks impressive in the shop, but it is also something else that can potentially get knocked or broken when the trolley is being lifted in and out of the car.

The Motocaddy M7 appealed for different reasons. I liked its folding mechanism, and the GPS screen was compact while still offering plenty of information. Having golfed with other Motocaddy owners, I’d also been impressed by how quiet their trolleys were, particularly compared with my old CT6. I compared the features of the GPS and non-GPS versions before deciding on the M7 GPS Remote.

I had also discussed exchanging the Stewart with Bargain Golf Equipment, but they didn’t have one in stock at the time. After what had happened, buying the replacement locally from Auchterlonies felt like the best choice anyway.

First impressions of the M7

The first thing to say is that the Motocaddy isn’t a lightweight alternative. It is another substantial trolley and feels every bit as heavy and robust as the Stewart. The folding mechanism is excellent in its simplicity, and setting it up and packing it away is remarkably quick and easy. Six weeks in, that has become one of the things I like most about it.

It is still fairly bulky when folded, even with the wheels inverted. The Stewart wins this particular comparison quite comfortably and was much more boot-friendly. The M7 takes up roughly the same amount of space as my old CT6, so it isn’t a major problem for me, but the Stewart’s packaging is undeniably more clever.

The battery arrangement is much better. Removal is simple, but importantly I don’t have to remove it at all because it can be charged while still fitted to the trolley. The remote is smaller, lighter and easier to hold than the Stewart’s, and it charges using a conventional USB connection. There are also two places on the trolley where I can clip it when I’m not using it.

These aren’t exciting features, but after my experience with the Stewart, I found myself appreciating boring, simple solutions.

On the course

The M7 is extremely smooth and quiet in operation. If anything, it feels slightly more refined when setting off than the Stewart, with less of a jerk as the motors initially engage. The wide rear wheelbase makes it feel planted and secure, and my Titleist bag fits particularly well. I much prefer Motocaddy’s elasticated bungee style attachments over the rubber straps on the Stewart, which never seemed quite as happy with my bag.

There is, however, one area where I definitely preferred the Stewart: steering and side-slope stability. The M7 has a freely swivelling front wheel, which makes it very manoeuvrable but also means it requires more small corrections to keep it travelling straight. When you make those corrections, it slows down quite noticeably. If the trolley is well ahead of you that isn’t a problem, but there have been plenty of occasions when I’ve found myself catching up to it more quickly than expected while making a series of adjustments.

The difference is even more noticeable on side slopes. The Stewart’s four-wheel chassis was superb here and would track confidently across a side slope. The swivelling front wheel on the M7 naturally wants to turn downhill, so on hillier courses I find myself holding the handle considerably more often than I expected to or having to constantly adjust path with the remote. Given that reducing the amount of reaching and twisting was one of the reasons I went remote in the first place, that’s more than a minor irritation. The fixed wheel of the CT6 was better in this regard.

If I could transplant one major element from the Stewart onto the Motocaddy, it would be the four-wheel chassis.

The GPS I didn’t think I needed

One of the surprises has been how much I like having GPS built in. When I had the Stewart, I used Tangent on my phone and Apple Watch and initially assumed that would be perfectly adequate. In fact, I missed having information permanently visible on the handle more than I expected and ended up buying a phone holder for the Stewart so I could quickly glance at the Tangent information.

The M7’s screen isn’t huge, but it gives me the information I want without dominating the handle or creating another large, vulnerable component. The screen protector is particularly robust, but was an optional extra that I think should be standard. I particularly like the hole flyover and distance bands, which provide useful context rather than simply giving front, middle and back yardages.

I still use Tangent on my phone and Apple Watch most of the time because I like its wider functionality, but there are occasions when a trolley GPS is simply quicker and more convenient. That’s especially true in winter, when finding an Apple Watch underneath several layers of clothing can be irritating.

A feature on the new model is that it has instructions for administering CPR in an emergency. Hopefully that’s one feature I’ll never have to review properly.

Six weeks with the M7

The M7 hasn’t been with me long enough to draw any long-term reliability conclusions, but after around six weeks it has largely settled into the background, which is what I wanted from a trolley in the first place. The battery has been straightforward to charge, the remote is unobtrusive, and the trolley is extremely easy to erect and fold. I’m noticeably quicker getting ready before a round and packing everything away afterwards.

However, I've had one minor reliability issue. The button that secures the rear stabiliser wheel fell off, leaving the stabiliser bar stuck in position. It didn’t stop me using the trolley, and Motocaddy quickly sent me a replacement part that simply screws into place. It just shouldn’t have happened.

It is interesting to compare my reaction to that with the Stewart battery failure. Both involved relatively small components on expensive products, and neither is something I particularly want to experience. The difference was in the consequence and the resolution. The M7 remained perfectly usable, and getting the replacement part was straightforward. I popped into Auchterlonies, they called Motocaddy and the part arrived within a couple of days. With the Stewart, a similarly small failure affected something fundamental to using the trolley, and resolving it became much more complicated than it should have been.

At slow speeds, the Motocaddy shares one of the Stewart’s weaknesses. It’s heavy and can be awkward to manoeuvre manually, so I often use the remote to help steer it with the powered wheels. Neither is as easy to move around manually as my old CT6 was.

You also need to be slightly careful with the remote. It is small enough to slip easily into a pocket, which is convenient until you accidentally press one of the buttons. I’ve learned to use the clips on the trolley when leaving the trolley at the greenside.

Has going remote actually helped?

I definitely feel less fatigued after golfing, and I like being able to send it ahead while I walk with both arms free. I can stretch my shoulders, change my posture and generally walk naturally. So yes, it has helped.

That doesn’t mean either trolley completely removes the physical interaction. Both are heavy and need some assistance at very low speeds, while the M7’s behaviour on side slopes means I probably reach for its handle more often than I did with the Stewart. Nevertheless, the overall experience is noticeably different from using a conventional electric trolley, and the physical benefit has been significant enough that I wouldn’t willingly go back.

Perhaps the strongest evidence is that when the Stewart went back, I never seriously considered abandoning the idea of a remote trolley. I immediately started looking for another one.

The trolley I’d really like

Having owned both, the frustrating conclusion is that I can see exactly what my ideal remote trolley would look like. I’d take the Stewart’s chassis, its four-wheel stability, excellent performance on slopes and compact folded dimensions. Then I’d add the Motocaddy’s more substantial handle, bag attachment system, battery arrangement, compact remote, conventional charging and GPS display.

That would be a very good trolley indeed.

Unfortunately, I had to choose between the two that actually exist.

Verdict

If the battery clip on my Stewart hadn’t failed, I might still own it. There was a lot I liked about the Q Follow and, purely in terms of how the trolley moved around a golf course, there are things I still think it does better than the M7.

But the clip did fail, and it happened after I’d already started questioning some of the other components, like the handle. The subsequent customer service experience then turned a relatively minor problem into a much bigger ownership concern. Once I’d started wondering what the next failure might be and how difficult it would be to resolve, my confidence in the trolley, and Stewart, had gone.

The Motocaddy isn’t perfect either. I’ve already had a minor component fall off, and it isn’t as good as the Stewart on slopes. It is also still a big, heavy piece of equipment. But I enjoy using it. More importantly, the remote trolley concept itself has delivered what I hoped it would, and the GPS, which I initially regarded as something of an optional extra, has also become a feature I’m very pleased I chose. It adds more value to me than the Follow feature I’ve lost.

Perhaps the biggest lesson from owning these two trolleys isn’t really just about product features. Premium products don’t just have to impress when everything is working. They also have to be easy to live with when something isn’t. While the Stewart impressed me more than I expected, it ultimately made me nervous about owning it longer term. The Motocaddy has its own compromises, but so far I’ve found them easier to live with, and aftercare has been better too.

For something that’s going to accompany me for hundreds of miles around golf courses, that may ultimately matter more than which one has the cleverest technology.

Have you made the move to a remote trolley? I’d be particularly interested to hear from Stewart and Motocaddy owners about how yours has performed over the longer term. Leave a comment below.

And if you enjoy independent golf equipment reviews based on actually living with the gear, rather than simply trying it for a few holes, you can subscribe to The Club House below.

Subscribe now

What am I really looking for in a driver?

Subscribe now

My current driver is a Titleist GT2, 10° in the standard setting, playing at 45 inches with a Fujikura Ventus Velocore+ Red 5S shaft. I was originally fitted for the GT3 head, but found it overly demanding and switched to the GT2. Titleist makes excellent drivers, and their popularity on Tour speaks for itself. But I’ve never really settled with mine, and that’s become a problem. My playing partners have noticed too, commenting more than once that I don’t drive the ball as well with the Titleist and that I’ve lost my consistent fairway-finding habit.

Tangent shows the deterioration since I switched too. This data is relative to a scratch golfer. I am working with James Tait to improve my speed and hopefully close some of the distance gap, but it’s interesting to see that distance deteriorated with the GT2. Direction at a headline +0.4 looks fine, but it has deteriorated relative to my old driver. Mistakes are basically the same.

None of this proves the GT2 was responsible. I know I can hit good drives with it; I just don’t do it often enough. No driver will cure a poor swing, just like no putter can compensate for a bad read. But when the numbers become less convincing, and you don’t feel particularly comfortable with the club in your hands, eventually you have to pay attention.

So What Am I Looking For?

Readers will remember that I wrote about why we keep buying new drivers, and I thought about that note carefully before going for this fitting. I’ve been struggling with the GT2 for too long, and my confidence has eroded to the point that I simply don’t trust it any more. My good shots are fine, but my poor shots get punished heavily. Playability and positioning are what’s important to me now, and that’s where the Ping G440 K impressed me in the early group test. It just wanted to go straight, and it found the fairway much more frequently.

I’m unlikely to find a transformational distance gain simply by changing driver heads, so the bigger opportunity is improving my swing and speed, which is exactly what I’m working on with James. But there is not much point in generating more clubhead speed if the ball is just disappearing further into the trees.

I wanted to see if a proper fitting session would confirm what I saw with the G440 K, and, given how much I like my Qi35 3HL and Qi4D 7 wood, I wanted to give the Qi4D driver a better test too. While I didn’t get on with the Core head in the group test, I always believed a fitting could get more from it. An earlier fitting had ruled out Callaway (I just don’t like the look behind the ball and can’t get comfortable), and the Cobra Max K experiment was interesting, but ultimately unsuccessful.

So, I booked a fitting with Adam Legg at Auchterlonies, and gave him a pretty simple brief: find me a forgiving driver that doesn’t sacrifice too much distance and keeps the ball in play. That sounds so simple written down!

Keeping the Fitting Simple

Adam has the benefit of knowing my game and my swing really well. Not just from previous studio sessions and fittings, but from golfing together too, so he has seen my GT2 issues up close.

The Ventus shaft was originally fitted independently of the driver head, and having also had success with the heavier version in my Qi35 fairway, we decided not to go down the rabbit hole of a full shaft fitting. The Ventus is also an expensive aftermarket shaft, so we wanted to re-use it if we possibly could.

Fortunately, Adam had a demo Ventus Velocore+ Red 5S available to use in the new heads, which allowed us to more fairly compare their performance against my GT2. In addition to the standard shafts provided by the club manufacturers, Adam also stocks a wide range of aftermarket shafts, and his universal fitting kit allows you to try the same shaft in different heads.

Establishing a Baseline

We started with my GT2. There were some good shots and some bad ones, which was probably a fairly accurate representation of my relationship with that driver.

I did manage one particularly good drive that gave us a useful benchmark for distance, spin, etc. While that best shot was good, the overall dispersion pattern was less convincing, and that was ultimately what I wanted to improve.

TaylorMade Qi4D Max

I had expected us to start with the standard Qi4D head, but Adam wanted to go straight to the Max. His reasoning was straightforward: my priority was forgiveness, so why not start with the most forgiving option and see whether there were any obvious compromises?

After my earlier G440 K testing, my concern with forgiving heads was spin. But that was a 10.5° head, and there was surely scope to improve. I have no trouble hitting up on the ball with driver, so we went with a 9° Qi4D Max in the standard setting, with the heavy weight positioned at the back.

As it turned out, the spin concern never really materialised.

I immediately liked the look and feel of the Qi4D Max. Having spent quite a bit of time with the Qi35 3HL and Qi4D 7 wood, the shape and presentation behind the ball felt familiar. I had read a lot of comments about the sound from the carbon face, but I liked that too. Interestingly, I had gone into the fitting expecting to prefer the Ping (as I like the turbulators), but I actually preferred the look of the TaylorMade.

More importantly, I was immediately hitting it well. My average club speed was around 100mph, with the fastest swing of the day reaching 101mph. That was encouraging in itself and suggests the work with James is starting to pay off. The best drive carried 250 yards and finished at around 270 yards total, while spin was generally around 2,300rpm, which was in a very comfortable window.

But the most important part was the dispersion.

Like my early testing with the G440 K, the Qi4D Max just seemed to want to go straight. Good swings produced good drives, but even the poorer strikes tended to stay much closer to the intended line. Where the GT2 might have produced a wider draw or fade, the TaylorMade was generally producing something much smaller.

There was still the occasional snap hook, but no amount of forgiveness is going to save me from that one. That is a swing problem, not a driver problem.

What impressed me was what happened with the lesser misses. The dispersion circle was noticeably tighter, and I was striking the Qi4D Max much more consistently than the GT2. That was exactly what I had asked Adam to help me find. That better strike was also producing good distance, and I actually managed to beat the best strike with the GT2. It’s amazing what hitting the sweet spot can do!

Ping G440 Max

The Ping result was probably the biggest surprise. I had really liked the G440 K during my earlier group test and had also been very impressed with the standard G440 Max. If anything, I had gone into this session wanting Ping to win. I was really just hoping Adam would validate my thoughts before I pressed the “buy it now” button on one of the saved eBay drivers I was watching.

But it didn’t win.

We already knew from previous testing that I could generate a little too much spin with the K, but this time the bigger issue with the Max was simply that I struggled to swing it consistently. Ping driver heads are slightly heavier than those from many other manufacturers, and we wondered whether that was affecting how the Ventus shaft loaded during the swing.

Whatever the reason, I found it much harder to put a repeatable swing on the club. My swing speed was slower, and the dispersion was considerably wider than with the Qi4D Max, so we were able to rule it out quite quickly.

That made me think back to my own G440 Max experiment. I had played a couple of rounds with the same head using the Chrome 6S shaft and found it very impressive. The combination felt easy to swing and was much more consistent for me than the G440 Max and Ventus Red combination during this fitting.

That makes me reluctant to draw a firm conclusion about the Ping head itself. This was deliberately not a full head and shaft fitting and, given how much I had liked the G440 Max with the Chrome 6S, I do wonder how it might have performed with a dedicated shaft fitting.

For this particular test, with this particular shaft, the Qi4D Max was comfortably better. And that was what mattered.

A Clear Winner

By the end of this test, the Qi4D Max had produced the tightest dispersion; I was striking it better, the spin was good, and I was not giving anything away in distance.

In fact, the longest Qi4D drive slightly bettered my best GT2 shot. That was significant because I had gone into the fitting prepared to accept some trade-off of distance for accuracy. That didn’t happen. The Qi4D Max gave me the forgiveness I was looking for while still producing very good numbers.

Auchterlonies actually had a spare demo head available, so rather than ordering anything immediately, Adam swapped the adapter on my current Ventus shaft and gave me the Qi4D Max head to take away and try for a couple of weeks.

That seemed like the perfect next step. A launch monitor can tell you plenty, but if I am looking for a fairway finder, ultimately I need to find out whether it actually finds fairways.

An Unexpected Discovery

When Adam removed the adapter from my Ventus shaft, we discovered that it had been built with a 3g tip weight. That surprised both of us. The GT2 has interchangeable head weights, so if the original build had needed additional swing weight, we would have expected that adjustment to be made through the head rather than by adding weight at the shaft tip.

There may have been a perfectly good reason for doing it, and without knowing the thinking behind the original build, I don’t want to suggest it was necessarily wrong. But we decided to remove it. However, with my relatively heavy Golf Pride CP midsize grips, which weigh around 70g, the Qi4D Max then measured roughly C8 swing weight. And I definitely noticed that on the course.

Getting the Swing Weight Right

At C8, I struggled to sense the clubhead properly during the swing. The fitting had been excellent, but once I got outside, I did not feel like I could locate the head particularly well, and my timing suffered as a result.

So I started experimenting with lead tape. The first addition took the driver to around D0, and that immediately felt better. I had much more awareness of the clubhead during the swing and started to feel far more comfortable with the timing. I then added a little more tape and moved it to D1, which currently feels like the sweet spot.

In total, I have added roughly 6g of lead tape, all positioned towards the front of the head. That is not an insignificant amount of weight. Subjectively, I think the driver may now be launching slightly lower, which would make some sense given where I have positioned the extra mass, but I would need to get back on a simulator to confirm that suspicion.

What I can say with much more confidence is that the club feels considerably better to me at D1 than it did at C8 and, more importantly, it is performing better too. I’m still making swing changes with James, so I have to be careful about separating improvements in my swing from improvements in the club. Even allowing for that, I really think we’ve found a winner here, and I don’t anticipate giving the demo head back!

What Have I Learned?

The obvious conclusion is that the Qi4D Max was the clear winner of this fitting, but I think there is a little more to it than that.

The Ping G440 K and Max had both impressed me previously and looked like obvious contenders, yet the Ping and Ventus combination simply did not work as well for me on the day. That does not make either Ping a bad driver, nor does it mean they wouldn’t work for me with a different shaft. If anything, it reinforces the importance of fitting and properly testing the complete club.

The same applies to the Qi4D Max. The head was unquestionably the best fit during the session, but taking it onto the golf course at C8 showed me that choosing the right head was only part of the equation. Getting the overall build and feel right mattered too.

At D1, the driver now feels much more comfortable, and I really like how it is performing. Perhaps most encouragingly, I’m starting to see the extra speed I’ve been working towards while also feeling that I have a little more help when the swing isn’t perfect. I’ve hit some of my best drives of the year with this club, and it is quickly building trust.

For years, I was never the longest driver in the group, but I was usually a reliable one. I stood on the tee believing that a reasonable swing would normally leave me somewhere playable.

That is what I’ve been missing, and it was really the whole point of this exercise.

I wanted a fairway finder and, so far, the Qi4D Max is making a very strong case.

My thanks to Adam Legg at Auchterlonies for this fitting session and the opportunity to take the demo head away to try on the course.

Have you ever had a driver fitting produce a result you didn’t expect? Let me know in the comments.

If you enjoy this kind of real-world equipment testing, subscribe to The Club House for more reviews and fitting experiences.

Subscribe now

Further Reading

• Five New Drivers for 2026 – the original group test where the Ping G440 K first caught my attention.

• Callaway Quantum Max Fitting Review – another part of the search for something better off the tee.

• Speed Training with James Tait – the other half of the project: increasing speed while trying to keep the ball in play.

My JumboMax ZenLite experiment ended in a slightly unusual place. The grips themselves disappointed me in terms of durability, but the idea behind them did not. I liked using a larger grip; I felt as though I could hold the club with less pressure and, most importantly, my elbow seemed to appreciate the change.

By the end of that experiment, though, I had also learned something else. JumboMax Extra Small was probably too big a jump in size. Of the options I tried, a more conventional midsize grip felt best, so despite losing confidence in the ZenLite grips, I didn’t want to go back to where I had started and put my old standard grips back on.

The Next Experiment

For years, my grip of choice had been the Lamkin Sonar+. It has a reduced taper profile and offers good levels of comfort without ever feeling excessively soft. It also came in midsize but, unfortunately, after Lamkin’s acquisition by SuperStroke, they were no longer available, so returning to what I knew wasn’t an option. I had the original grips in the garage, but I didn’t want to return to standard thickness either.

I had also previously used and enjoyed the Golf Pride CP Pro grip, and Adam Legg at Auchterlonies hinted that Golf Pride had something new coming that might be worth experimenting with when it arrived.

Enter the new Golf Pride CP grip.

The CP sits somewhere between the very soft CPX and the firmer, but still relatively soft, CP Pro. Golf Pride describes it as offering “comfortable performance”. It also uses their Plus4 Technology to reduce taper in the lower hand, which further adds to the appeal.

As someone who suffers from elbow tendonitis, I have been trying to find a grip that helps in two different ways: thicker than standard, so I don’t feel the need to squeeze quite as hard, and soft enough to reduce some of the vibration that can aggravate the problem. A midsize, reduced taper grip with more cushioning, but without becoming excessively soft or wearing too quickly, sounded very close to what I was looking for.

Could this be a win all round?

First Impressions

My first thought when I picked one up was that these were both very soft and very tacky. Almost immediately, that raised two questions. Would they twist or move once fitted to the club and, perhaps more importantly after my JumboMax experience, how durable would they prove?

In terms of feel, they reminded me more of the CP Pro than the Sonar+, although noticeably softer. They also looked much better made than the JumboMax grips. The moulding and finish felt more substantial and, while that was only a first impression, it gave me a little more confidence before I had even installed them.

I also like the new cap design Golf Pride is using across its range, and I think the grey colour on these grips looks particularly good. Grips are hardly the most exciting piece of golf equipment aesthetically, but these are smart without trying too hard.

Size and Shape

Having learned from my previous experiment, rather than regripping the whole bag, I started by installing the CP midsize on a couple of clubs where the ZenLites had failed and therefore needed to be replaced quickly.

The ZenLite experiment suggested that standard midsize was the sweet spot for me, and these grips reinforced that view. They filled my hands nicely without ever feeling cumbersome, while the Plus4 profile felt particularly good in my lower hand. They felt right almost immediately.

There is a nice balance in the size of this grip, and I like the feeling of having more substance under the lower hand. It helps the grip feel more even and, at least subjectively, seems to discourage me from squeezing quite as hard. That was exactly what I had been hoping for.

Weight and Swing Weight

Weight was always likely to be a potential downside for a conventional midsize grip. Compared with my old Lamkin Sonar+, which weighed 54 g, the Golf Pride CP midsize came in at 70 g on my scales, which is 2 g heavier than Golf Pride’s stated weight. In practice, that meant adding 16 g of static weight and therefore reducing swing weight by around three to four points.

I didn’t notice that immediately in the irons, but I did more in the woods. Despite the higher static weight, I had less awareness of the clubhead in motion. Some golfers actively like that counterbalanced feeling and may even feel they can swing the club faster, but I prefer a little more sense of where the head is.

So I decided to experiment with lead tape to bring the swing weights back up. I’ve also wanted to experiment with more progressive weighting in my irons too. I would have loved to MOI match the set, but that is beyond my ability and available equipment, so this was the next best option. The driver is now at D1, while the 3 wood, 7 wood and hybrid are at D2. My irons progress from D0 in the 5 iron through to D4 in the 58° wedge. There was quite a lot of tape involved on some clubs, which underlines just how much difference the heavier grips can make. In some cases, I needed 6 g or more, and when combined with the extra grip weight, most clubs are now more than 20 g heavier on a static basis. That’s quite a difference.

This brings another potential complication too. Adding head weight isn’t completely neutral, as its positioning can influence the club’s centre of gravity and MOI. I now have quite a lot of extra weight towards the front of my driver, for example, which could theoretically alter its launch, spin and forgiveness characteristics.

I've only just made the lead tape changes. My first couple of range sessions have been encouraging, as was the first on-course performance. Further rounds will be more important in judging how effective the changes have been and whether there are any further unintended consequences. If the changes are successful, I will try to source heavier OEM weights for the heads and remove the lead tape. It’s really just an issue on the woods as it sits on the sole of the club and therefore attracts dirt and grass.

Comfort

This is where the CP grips have really impressed me. Having been happy with the first couple I fitted, I fairly quickly regripped the whole set. Since then, I have played around a dozen rounds with them, and the difference in comfort has been significant.

They feel very good in my hands. The combination of the midsize profile, reduced taper and softer material seems to allow me to hold the club more comfortably and with less tension. Whether I am actually using dramatically less grip pressure is difficult to quantify, but that is certainly how it feels.

More importantly, my elbow agrees. I have been playing a lot of golf recently, and my elbow is the most comfortable it has felt all year. During and after rounds, I am experiencing much less fatigue and considerably less pain. Interestingly, that improvement seems greater than it was with the ZenLite grips, which were thicker but considerably firmer.

I do need to be careful about claiming cause and effect here. I am also committed to daily rehabilitation exercises for my tendonitis, so the improvement may be coming from a combination of factors. Even so, I genuinely believe the grips are helping because the difference from the ZenLites has been significant.

That is particularly encouraging because I was using the Sonar+ when the elbow problem originally became more noticeable. I liked those grips a lot, but the CP appears to be giving me another level of cushioning.

Performance in the Wet

After the JumboMax experience, I was particularly interested to see how the CP grips would behave in poor weather. So far, they have been excellent.

I have now played in the rain a couple of times, including one very heavy downpour, and I haven’t experienced any of the slipping or loss of confidence I had with the ZenLite grips. The CP remains tacky and secure when wet, and I have never felt as though the club was moving in my hands.

Durability

The other obvious question is wear. Very soft grips can sometimes trade durability for comfort. Having heard reports of quicker wear with the Golf Pride CPX grip, I was wary of ending up in the same position I had just escaped from with JumboMax.

After around a dozen rounds, though, the signs are encouraging. The grips are proving robust, and I am seeing very little wear. There is a tiny amount on the butt end of my driver grip, but I don’t find that particularly concerning at this stage. The photo actually makes it look a lot worse than it really is.

That club has also been used heavily during my speed training sessions, and I know I have a tendency to hold my clubs too much in my palm rather than properly in my fingers. Both of those things are likely to increase wear in that area, and I see a similar pattern with my glove wear too. There is no similar wear on my 7i, which is probably used even more than my driver when practising.

For now, durability is very much a case of so far, so good.

Finding the Right Balance

The more I use the new CP grip, the more I think Golf Pride has found a very good middle ground. It has some of the familiarity and structure I remember from the CP Pro, but with considerably more cushioning, while the Plus4 profile gives me something closer to the reduced taper feel I enjoyed with the Sonar+.

The JumboMax experiment also helped confirm that I didn’t need to go as large as Extra Small. A conventional midsize grip with reduced taper gives me enough extra size to feel comfortable without becoming excessive, and the softer construction of the CP adds another level of cushioning that seems to suit me particularly well.

Grip feel remains incredibly personal. Some golfers will pick up the CP and immediately think it is too soft. Others may like the cushioning but dislike the heavier weight or the way that changes the balance of the club. For my hands, and particularly for my elbow, the combination of size, taper and softness appears to be working very well.

Verdict

After around a dozen rounds, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend trying the new Golf Pride CP grip for yourself. I am extremely happy with the comfort; the Plus4 profile has worked well for me and, so far, both wet-weather performance and overall durability have been excellent.

Most importantly, my elbow is feeling considerably better.

Has Golf Pride perfected comfort? Probably not for everyone, but for me, they have come remarkably close.

If you’ve tried the new Golf Pride CP grips, or have found another grip that has helped with comfort or elbow issues, I’d be interested to hear how you’ve got on.

And if you enjoy this kind of practical, real-world equipment testing, you can subscribe to The Club House for more reviews and experiments from an everyday golfer.

Subscribe now

Further reading

JumboMax ZenLite Grip Review
The experiment that led me here, and why I eventually lost confidence in the grips.

Graphite Shafts for Tendonitis
Why I moved into graphite iron shafts in an effort to make golf easier on my elbow.

Speed Training with James Tait
The speed work that has been running alongside this grip experiment and adds some context to the driver wear and swing changes.

After recently reviewing the new Spider Tour X and Spider Tour V, I jumped at the chance to be fitted by the TaylorMade tour fitter when he visited St Andrews. My own testing had suggested that the Tour V could be a good fit for me, so I was interested to see whether their fitting process would reach the same conclusion.

Subscribe now

My friend Hector and I both had appointments, which also gave me the chance to observe his fitting before going through the process myself.

The fitting was originally due to take place on the excellent putting green at the Fairmont, just outside St Andrews. Unfortunately, the weather intervened, and we moved indoors to the Auchterlonies fitting studio instead. The fitting process itself was largely unchanged, although it would have been even better to see how everything translated onto the putting green.

Our fitter was Bradley Rowntree from TaylorMade.

Auchterlonies have also recently installed an excellent putting platform in the main store, so while we were waiting, I got Hector to roll a few putts using my Vertex sensor. As regular playing partners, we have long known that he tends to aim left with his Spider Tour and then essentially cut across the ball with his stroke.

Despite having a very consistent rhythm, his face at impact can be inconsistent, as demonstrated by the Vertex data below. You can see he opens on the backswing and never manages to close it again on the forward stroke. It would be interesting to see how that shows up during the fitting.

The Process

As a putter nerd, I was fascinated to watch the fitting as an observer before becoming the participant. The session promised “Tour-level fitting” and a custom putter that you could take away on the day.

Regular readers will know that I have worked with several people, particularly Bruce Rearick, to gain a better understanding of my own preferences and biases when it comes to putter fitting. Inevitably, certain parts of the process prompted some discussion between Bradley and me, although I tried to stay out of Hector’s fitting as much as possible and let Bradley do things his way.

One thing worth mentioning is that this was predominantly an observational, trial-and-error fitting rather than a technology-led one. Capto was used to examine ball roll and help assess loft requirements, but much of the process came down to watching the player, changing variables and looking at the outcome.

Bradley and I also agreed on one thing immediately: neither of us particularly likes the weight of the SAM PuttLab sensor attached to the putter, as we both feel it can influence the stroke.

• Own putter test. Bradley starts by asking you to roll some putts with your current putter while he observes your set-up and stroke.

• Laser aim test. After watching Hector hit a few putts, Bradley used a putting laser to show just how far left he was aiming at address. The line on the ball also made the effect of his open face at impact very obvious, with the ball appearing almost to have slice spin.

• Observations. Hector uses a line on the ball when setting up. Bradley noticed that he was struggling first to align the ball and then to square the putter correctly to that line. He pointed this out, although there wasn’t an immediate solution. We discussed dominant eye and the effect that can have on aim, then experimented with a few changes. Those improved Hector’s static aim, but didn’t significantly change the stroke itself.

• Alternative putters. Bradley felt that the Tour X should suit Hector better than his existing Spider Tour, thanks to its slightly lower MOI and more forward centre of gravity. It immediately appeared to work better with his stroke and, importantly, he was no longer leaving the face as open at impact.

  First win.

• Length and lie. Bradley then used an adjustable fitting putter to assess Hector’s preferred length and lie. This was one area where we had slightly different views on the process. Bradley asked Hector to take his stance and tell him when he felt comfortable, then used a putting mirror to check his eye position before making some adjustments to posture.

  To be clear, he wasn’t advocating that Hector needed his eyes directly over the ball.

  My preference would be slightly different. I would first have Hector establish the posture and head position from which he sees his intended line most accurately, and then fit the putter around that. As a check, we tried that approach too. Interestingly, the resulting specifications were almost identical.

  Second win.

• Fine-tuning the putter. This is where the TaylorMade fitting really differentiated itself from most others I have experienced. Bradley had a large selection of ungripped putters with him, allowing Hector to choose the head and colour he preferred before having the length and lie altered to his exact requirements.

  They then experimented with grips to see how those affected his stroke. The standard SuperStroke appeared to encourage him to grip the putter too tightly, while he performed considerably better with a Golf Pride Green Star cord grip.

  Third win.

• Weight. This produced another interesting discussion. Bradley believes many modern putters are too light. I tend to think they are too heavy. Ultimately, we agreed that it is largely personal preference. The important thing was that Bradley could change the head weights and assess the effect rather than simply accepting the stock configuration.

• Loft. Finally, the Quintic phone app was used to look at impact and launch conditions before adjusting loft accordingly.

Hector walked into the session with a Spider Tour and left with a Spider Tour X.

On paper, that might not sound like a dramatic change, but the Tour X clearly suited his stroke better and was producing excellent results in the studio. He also left with some things to work on around alignment and dominant eye.

I will no doubt be cursing his improved putting in future games.

What About My Fitting?

My own fitting was rather less dramatic.

When I went through the laser test, my aim split the middle of the hole. I then rolled ten putts to almost the same spot. My tempo was good, and Bradley could see no obvious issues with my stroke.

Using Capto, he felt he might reduce the loft on my Lajosi from its current 3° to around 2°, but he was reluctant to change anything because the putter was already working so well.

In other words, the fitting was doing what a good fitting probably should: not finding a problem where one didn’t exist.

The only putter in the Spider range Bradley thought could get close to my Lajosi was the Tour V.

The same conclusion I had reached during my own testing.

We tried to build one as close to the specifications of my Lajosi as possible, although we couldn’t quite replicate it. Even so, I liked what we produced and still see considerable promise in the Tour V head.

If I’m being particularly critical of my own putter, the one thing I might change is the face milling. When I ordered the Lajosi, I probably should have specified something slightly shallower. During my Tour V review, I felt that I controlled pace exceptionally well with it, and the firmer TaylorMade insert may have played a part in that.

Bradley is now going to see whether he can source a more customised Tour V that gets closer to my preferred specifications. In reality, it’s probably too much to ask, but if he can manage that, it should make for a much more meaningful comparison against my gamer.

Conclusion

I didn’t leave Auchterlonies with a new putter.

Hector did.

And in some ways, those two outcomes probably say more about the fitting than if we had both walked away with new Spiders.

Hector arrived with some identifiable issues in both aim and face control. Bradley was able to find a different head, alter the specifications, experiment with grip and weight, and build something that clearly worked better for him.

With me, there was very little to fix. Rather than forcing a change, Bradley effectively confirmed that my current putter suits me extremely well, while also identifying the Tour V as the one Spider model most likely to offer a genuine alternative.

That feels like a pretty good fitting experience.

The ability to adjust head, length, lie, loft, weight and grip, then build the finished putter there and then, is what really separates this from simply trying a few models in a shop. If you get the opportunity to experience one of these TaylorMade fitting sessions, I would thoroughly recommend it.

My thanks to Adam Legg at Auchterlonies for organising the fitting, and to Bradley Rowntree from TaylorMade for taking us through the process.

If you enjoyed this fitting experience, you can read my full reviews of the TaylorMade Spider Tour X and Spider Tour V. If Bradley manages to source the more customised Tour V we discussed, there may yet be another chapter to this story.

Subscribe to The Club House so you don’t miss it.

Subscribe now

Further reading

Putter testing framework: here

All putter reviews: here

Putter weight discussions: here and here

Scotty Cameron describes the Phantom 12 as “the most stable putter across the entire Scotty Cameron lineup”. Technically, there is plenty going on here to support that claim. It is a large, high-MOI putter with the lowest CoG of any model in the Phantom range, using a stainless steel body and aluminium face to move more weight down and back in the head.

The problem for me was much simpler.

I just didn’t particularly like looking at it.

That matters with a putter. However clever the engineering might be, you still have to stand over it and want to make a stroke. My first reaction to the Phantom 12 was fairly lukewarm, so the interesting part of this test became whether performance could change my mind.

Subscribe now

First Impressions

I think this putter will divide opinion. To me, it looks like the love child of an old Scotty Cameron Detour and a TaylorMade Spider X. I’m not saying it is ugly, but it certainly wouldn’t be my first choice in the current Phantom lineup. Personally, I think this and the previously reviewed Phantom 3.2 are both a bit of a miss in the looks department.

Many golfers will like the long alignment line and contrasting colours. They certainly make the T-shaped section stand out and, if you aim using the rear or body of the putter, that could be a real advantage.

For me, though, there was simply too much going on behind the ball. I found the head busy and slightly distracting.

Still, looks are only part of the story. Could the performance change my mind?

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 568g

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: E4

• Length: 35”

• Loft: 3° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Face-balanced

• Grip: Standard grey full contact pistol

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

• Conditions: A very pleasant summer afternoon with warm sunshine and a gentle breeze.

• 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 KLP7J

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

This test was conducted on the practice green at the Craigtoun Course. With the recent hot weather, the green was firm and running fast.

Pros and Cons

Looks (neutral): I think the Phantom 12 will divide opinion. The shape and choice of materials have clearly been driven by CoG and MOI requirements, and visually it has something of the old Scotty Detour about it, mixed with the wings of a Spider Tour X.

It is certainly different, but still recognisable as a Scotty Cameron and nowhere near as outlandish as some of the older Futura or Phantom X models. Does anyone want to bring back black and lime green?

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

Headcover (-ve): This is becoming a familiar complaint in my Scotty Cameron reviews. At this price point, I’d expect something much better, particularly a more robust and reliable closure mechanism. I actually used a TaylorMade Spider cover to protect this one.

Aim/Alignment (neutral): This is probably where the disconnect started. As a face aimer, I found the head too busy and struggled to get completely comfortable at address. My eye kept being drawn into the rear of the putter rather than settling naturally on the face and target line.

If you are a rear aimer, I can see the appeal. The prominent T-section and long alignment line could be a real strength. For me, though, they had the opposite effect.

Feel and Sound (+ve): This was the big surprise. I had some concerns about how the aluminium face would feel, but I thought it was really good.

I wonder if that is partly because it is a fully milled face rather than an insert, or whether the combination of aluminium and stainless steel gives it a slightly different sound and response at impact. Either way, the feel was much better than I expected and probably the strongest part of the putter for me.

Interestingly, the more I used it, the more I liked the feel.

Pace Control (neutral): Despite liking the feel of the club, I struggled a bit with pace control. It still produced a respectable result in the lag test, just not as good as my regular putter.

Performance Overall (neutral): The overall performance was perfectly respectable, but it didn’t do enough to overcome my lack of connection with the putter.

I think I chose a particularly tricky six-foot putt because I struggled badly from that distance, but the rest of the results were decent relative to the Brodie expectations for a scratch golfer.

That is probably the key point. The Phantom 12 was not giving me obviously bad results. It simply never gave me any reason to want to keep testing it.

Price (neutral): At £449, this sits firmly at the premium end of the mass market. The quality of the putter itself is excellent and I really like the combination of materials.

But at this price, I still want a better headcover.

What did Vertex Say?

Vertex testing was conducted indoors on my putting mat. The results reinforced most of what I saw out on the putting green.

On average, my face change number was encouraging at just 0.48° open. Taken in isolation, that looks pretty good.

But the average hid a huge range of outcomes, as the consistency number shows. I was fighting the putter too much from stroke to stroke to ever feel completely comfortable with it.

That actually matched my subjective experience quite well. I could make the putter work, but it never felt particularly natural.

Rhythm was decent and close to the magic 2:1 ratio. The heavier head may also have played a part in me swinging this slightly faster than usual, but the tempo consistency itself was good.

The other interesting result was dynamic loft. I was adding quite a lot of loft through impact, with considerable backwards shaft lean.

Was I subconsciously trying to help the ball into the air because of the size and shape of the head? Or was the additional inertia of the heavier head influencing how I delivered it?

I don’t know the answer, but again it suggested that my stroke and this putter were not working together particularly naturally.

Conclusion

I think this review probably tells me something fairly simple about putters.

You have to want to use them.

The Phantom 12 is well made, technically interesting and, despite my concerns about the aluminium face, it actually feels very good. The performance was respectable too. There is nothing here that allows me to dismiss it as a bad putter.

I just never connected with it.

Every time I stood over the ball, I found myself looking at a head that I didn’t particularly enjoy looking at. The alignment system didn’t suit the way I aim and, rather than wanting to keep putting with it, I found myself wanting to go back to something else.

The Vertex numbers reinforce that feeling rather than create it. I could produce decent strokes with the Phantom 12, but I never felt particularly natural doing so.

That is probably the distinction that matters most. A putter can be stable, forgiving, beautifully made and technically impressive, but if you never really connect with it, none of those things may matter very much.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

• What would I change? Nothing. I don’t think the putter needs changing. I’d simply choose a different model.

• What have I learned? Performance alone isn’t enough. I have to like what I’m looking at and actually want to putt with it.

Have you tried the new Phantom 12 yet? I’d love to hear about your experience with it in the comments below. What were you playing before, what did you think of the multi-material design, and did you end up buying one?

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

The hotly anticipated L.A.B. VZN.1i has finally arrived. L.A.B. talks about the design being “Optically Optimised”, intended to help golfers aim and align more accurately. It describes the putter as being “designed to show where the face is pointed and intentionally positioned to help lock in on the target line”.

Funny, but I thought all putters were designed to do that.

The VZN.1i has been getting some gushing reviews elsewhere on the internet and is already being widely touted as the best L.A.B. yet. I was lucky enough that Adam Legg at Auchterlonies gave me both the Press and straight-shafted versions to test.

Having had mixed success with other L.A.B. putters, would this latest release finally win me over?

Subscribe now

First Impressions

Like most L.A.B. heads, I genuinely believe this shape will split opinion. Personally, I think it looks OK, although I can’t help seeing my potato masher when I look at it.

The range of alignment options available from L.A.B. is vast, so I’m sure almost every golfer will find something they like. Purely on looks, I preferred the blue Press model.

The black putter is also a higher and more expensive specification than the blue. It has the upcharge Accra shaft and, because it doesn’t use the Press setup, a SuperStroke Pistol 1.0 grip. I prefer that grip to the L.A.B. Press grip fitted to the blue model.

Build quality feels a touch lacking for such a premium product and certainly doesn’t give me the same impression of quality as some similarly priced putters. As with other L.A.B. models, the insert is essentially bolted into the head and, to my eye, looks slightly unfinished. I’d like to see some polymer or another material filling the gaps around it to make everything look more integrated.

It reminds me a little of looking at a car with uneven panel gaps. Nothing is actually wrong, but once you notice it, it is difficult not to see it.

On the upside, the face milling is much improved from earlier models and doesn’t suffer from the sharp edges I’ve experienced previously.

Specification (as tested)

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 They Perform?

Notes

he Craigtoun Course has an excellent, large practice green, with plenty of slope and a good variety of putts available. After the recent spell of good weather, it was running firm and fast, which made it a useful test of both pace control and start line.

Following my recent testing and review of the AimPutt training system, I have been using my custom Lajosi blade as my gamer. I also used AimPutt to check my setup before beginning the test, so I was reasonably confident that anything unusual in the results wasn’t simply coming from my address position.

Unfortunately, the results with both VZN.1i models were disappointing.

Pros and Cons

Looks (neutral): Like many L.A.B. putters, the shape will probably polarise golfers. I preferred the blue Press model at address to the straight-shafted black version and, personally, I think this is one of L.A.B.’s better-looking heads.

But it still makes me think of a potato masher.

That is probably unfair, but it’s what I see.

There is also something about both putters that stops them looking quite as premium as their price suggests. It’s hard to isolate one thing. Perhaps it is the finishing around the insert, or the way the shaft enters the head, but there are a few details that make them feel slightly unfinished to me. At this price, I would just like those final touches to be better.

Grips (neutral): The SuperStroke Pistol 1.0 is a grip I know well and have used on several other putters, so it immediately felt comfortable.

The Press 1.5 grip is also familiar from other L.A.B. putters I’ve tested. It isn’t offensive, but it isn’t my favourite either. I don’t particularly like the feel of the material, and I find it just a touch too thick.

I am glad it now comes in black though. The white one on my DF3 was almost impossible to keep clean.

Headcover (+ve): One thing I’ve always liked about L.A.B is that they make some of the best standard headcovers. They are always well padded, made of good materials, and provide a very secure magnetic closure.

Aim/Alignment (neutral): This is obviously an unusual putter shape, but I felt reasonably comfortable with both models at address.

Alignment markings are very personal, and L.A.B. offers a huge number of options. Most golfers should be able to find something that suits the way they like to aim. Of these two, I preferred the T-shape on the blue head to the three lines on the black one.

More importantly, I felt comfortable with my aim using both putters. Which makes the results even more disappointing.

Feel and Sound (+ve): I think L.A.B. has nailed the face milling with this one. The rough edges I mentioned in my OZ.1i HS review have gone, leaving the face feeling much smoother than before.

Interaction with the ball also felt noticeably better, with the head producing a lovely solid sound at impact.

The upcharge Accra shaft felt better to me than the standard steel shaft too, although I really wish that wasn’t the case. Given what these putters cost, I think the standard shaft should feel better than it does.

Pace Control (neutral): Pace control was decent with both models, although I felt more comfortable with the standard-weight blue head. The longer I used them, the more accustomed I became to the feel and weighting.

Neither gave me any significant concern when putting from distance. Unfortunately, getting the ball started on the right line was a different story.

Performance Overall (-ve): I can’t really dress these results up. Neither putter performed well in my hands.

Despite feeling more comfortable with the blue Press model, its results were pretty abysmal, even from three feet. I simply couldn’t get comfortable with either head and had a two-way miss with both of them.

I also used both putters for a par-2 loop around the green and, to be fair, they performed much better in that less structured environment, particularly the blue model. But ultimately I need to trust a putter when I’m standing over an eight-footer for par on the 12th, not just when I’m knocking putts around the practice green for fun.

Price (-ve): The standard putter starts at £499. Adding custom lie and length takes the basic blue model to £599, while the Accra shaft fitted to the black putter pushes the price to £699.

These are seriously expensive putters.

Before spending that sort of money, I think you need to understand what part of your putting you are actually trying to improve. A putter cannot revolutionise your game if the bigger issue is green reading or pace control, so make sure you know why you are changing before assuming the equipment is the answer.

Neither of these suits my eye or my stroke particularly well, which makes walking away from them relatively easy.

What does Vertex say?

I completed the Vertex testing indoors on my putting mat, and the results supported much of what I had seen during the outdoor test.

Unsurprisingly, the face-control numbers were poor. I was leaving the face open with both putters, which goes a long way towards explaining my struggles with the start-line gate drill.

The averages also hid a huge range, from 3.8° open to 1° closed. That inconsistency was probably more important than the headline average. I wasn’t simply delivering the face consistently open. I was struggling to control where it was pointing at all.

These putters just don’t seem to match my stroke particularly well.

If I put some real effort into adapting to them, I could probably make the numbers tolerable. But I’m not convinced I would ever become genuinely comfortable.

Against that, my rhythm was decent with both putters, albeit a little quick. It was slightly more consistent with the heavier head, where I felt I had more awareness of where the putter was throughout the stroke.

The rest of the Vertex data was perfectly acceptable with both models, but it becomes fairly academic when I can’t consistently start the ball where I am aiming.

Press or No Press?

Despite it performing worse in the structured testing, I preferred the Press model.

Combined with the Press grip, it simply looked more natural to me at address and made me feel more comfortable over the ball. The Press setup also seemed to make the onset less visually obvious.

When I align the leading edge of the grip with the leading edge of the putter, the relationship between the shaft and head makes more sense to my eye. With the straight-shafted model, I became much more aware of the onset, and that made me uncomfortable.

If L.A.B. could persuade SuperStroke to make a Press version of the Pistol 1.0, I’d probably like the Press setup even more.

That preference clearly didn’t translate into better performance here, but if I were being fitted for a VZN.1i, the Press model is unquestionably where I would start.

Conclusion

Whilst this might be the nicest-feeling L.A.B. putter I have tested to date, it just doesn’t work for me.

That probably sums up this test better than anything else. The face milling is much improved, the sound and feel are excellent, and I can understand why so many golfers are excited about the VZN.1i. But the degree of onset doesn’t suit my eye and, as I have found with several zero-torque putters now, I struggle to control the face consistently.

That doesn’t make the VZN.1i a bad putter. Far from it. I know golfers who swear by L.A.B. and have transformed their putting after moving into one. It simply reinforces how personal putter fitting is.

L.A.B. offers an enormous amount of customisation in lie, length, shaft, grip and alignment options, so if you are considering spending this much money on one, I would strongly recommend being properly fitted rather than buying a standard specification and hoping for the best.

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game a VZN tomorrow? No

• Press or no press? Press. It simply felt more natural at address.

• What would I change? I’d like the overall finishing and build quality to feel a little more premium.

• What have I learned? Having previously been critical of the feel of some L.A.B. putters, I think they have really nailed it with this one. Unfortunately, feel alone isn’t enough.

Have you tried the new VZN.1i? If you have, I’d love to hear how you got on with it in the comments below.

If you found this review useful, hitting the like button really helps more people find it. And if you value independent testing and would like new reviews delivered directly to your inbox, please subscribe. It’s free, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Subscribe now

Special thanks to Adam Legg and Auchterlonies for lending me both review putters.

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

Early in a round, it’s usually George Michael telling me that I’ve gotta have it. Later, if I’m getting nervous, I’ve had a couple of poor holes, or I’m trying to close out a good score, Bon Jovi takes over and reminds me to keep it. It sounds a bit ridiculous when I write it down, but that’s genuinely how it works. Before a tee shot, an approach or a putt, one of those songs will often drift into my head. Sometimes consciously, sometimes without me even noticing.

But faith in what?

For a long time, I probably thought it meant faith that I would hit a good shot, hole the putt or somehow produce the round I wanted. But I don’t think that is quite right any more. Confidence in a particular outcome comes and goes; it often disappears as quickly as it arrives. Faith feels like something different. Something quieter, something more permanent.

A few years ago, I started reading philosophy because I wanted to become a better man. It began as a way of making sense of life, then gradually became something I wanted to explore more deeply. It wasn’t long before those ideas found their way into my writing and then onto the golf course. Writing helped me understand what I was learning, while golf gave me somewhere to practice it. It is easy to understand patience, acceptance and perspective while reading a book. It is rather harder to embody them after a bad bounce, a missed short putt or three poor holes in a row.

Golf has a habit of revealing the gap between the person you think you are and the alternative person who appears when things become difficult. It doesn’t care how much you have read or how well you understand the theory. Sooner or later, it asks whether you can actually live it.

Fred Shoemaker, Tim Gallwey, Bob Rotella, Moe Norman, Sydney Banks and many others have become companions on my journey. They all approached golf, psychology and life from different directions, but I kept finding myself drawn back to similar ideas. Banks helped me recognise that a thought could be acknowledged without being treated as an instruction. Shoemaker writes about experiencing the game rather than trying to control it, while Rotella continually returns to commitment and trust. Even Moe Norman’s famous “feeling of greatness” seems to point in much the same direction. Different words perhaps, but a remarkably similar message: stop trying to manufacture the perfect outcome and get out of your own way. Stop trying to control what’s not within your control.

All of these ideas sounded wonderfully simple when I encountered them away from the course. But when I’m standing over a five-footer, with another thought arriving just as I’m ready to putt, they are much harder to live. The golf course has a wonderful habit of exposing the difference between what we think we believe and what we actually believe.

That is probably why AimPoint became more important to me than I expected. When I first wrote about learning AimPoint, I thought I was writing about green reading. More recently, I reviewed the AimPutt training aid, which gave me more confidence in my setup. Neither experience was actually really about putting, or at least not only about putting. They were facilitators for something else.

For years, I would stand over a putt having already made my decision, only to question it again. Was it really that much break? Should I move the line another cup? Had I under-read it? Then came my putter setup. Was I aimed correctly? Did I feel comfortable over the ball? Should I start again? The putt had not changed. Only the conversation in my head had.

AimPoint does not give me perfect reads, and AimPutt does not give me a perfect setup. Golf does not work like that. What they have gradually given me is enough clarity to stop searching for one more answer. I made the read, set up to the ball and hit the putt. Sometimes it goes in, and sometimes it does not, but the important change is that I stopped negotiating with myself before I struck it. The conversation in my head became quieter.

Something else happened that I had not expected. The more comfortable I’ve become on the greens, the less pressure I place on every shot that comes before them. For years, I’ve been asking my long game to compensate for a lack of trust with the putter. Every approach seemed to need to finish close because I was not entirely convinced I could deal with what came next. Without realising it, I had made the target much smaller than it needed to be.

Now the job feels different. Most of the time, I am simply trying to find the green. From there, I trust that I will usually get down in two and, every so often, in one. That changes the way I play. The target becomes bigger, the decisions become simpler, and I stop chasing flags that do not need chasing. Twenty feet no longer feels like failure. It feels like another opportunity. The more I trust the golfer standing over the putt, the less I ask every other shot to be perfect.

That is not really a lesson about putting. It is a lesson about what happens when you finally allow the golfer you have spent years building actually play. Gallwey’s idea now feels much closer to faith than sports psychology. The body knows what to do, if only the conscious mind will let it. The work has already been done through practice, experience, mistakes and reflection. The hardest part is often resisting the urge to add one more instruction just before the club moves.

Neither AimPoint nor AimPutt created that trust. They simply removed enough doubt for it to emerge. They gave me fewer reasons to interfere, and that allowed me to hear something I had perhaps known for a long time: you have done enough. Now let the golfer play.

Nick Faldo gave me another way of thinking about that recently when he asked what you are going to do if your A game does not show up. Do you have a Plan B, a Plan C, or even a Plan D? For years, I think I was waiting for my A game to become my permanent game. Golfers are always talking about having “found it”, usually meaning a swing thought, a feeling or some technical discovery that suddenly makes the game seem easier. Then, inevitably, we lose it again.

But Faldo’s question made me realise that my A, B, C and D games are not different golfers. They are all me. Every one of them has been shaped by the same years of playing, practising, succeeding, failing and learning. Some days my A game arrives on the first tee, and some days it does not. Golf, like life, is different every day. The weather changes, the course changes, the company changes and, whether we like it or not, we change too. Faith cannot depend on which version happens to turn up that morning.

This also changes the way I think about perfection and comparison. Perfection tells me I am not quite ready yet, that there is still something to fix before I can really trust myself. Comparison tempts me to look sideways and wish I had somebody else’s game. Neither is particularly helpful when I am the one who still has to hit the next shot. Faith asks me to accept the golfer who arrived this morning and trust him unequivocally. And perhaps that explains why another song, Have a Little Faith in Me, has joined the others. I used to think it was someone external talking to me. But now I hear one part of me quietly speaking to another and simply asking for trust.

That does not mean the obstacles disappear. I still hit poor shots, miss short putts, make bad decisions and occasionally I allow frustration to get the better of me (I’m still a work in progress, even at 57). Perhaps I need those moments. It is easy to talk about patience when nothing is testing it, acceptance when everything is going well, or trust when my A game has actually turned up. Increasingly, I think the difficult moments are the lesson.

Golfers are perpetually searching for “it”. The magic swing thought, the tip that changes everything, the new club that will revolutionise our game. I’ve certainly done my share of searching. But none of those things lasts. The swing thought disappears, the tip stops working, and sooner or later the new club is replaced by another. Perhaps I’ve spent all these years searching for something permanent in all the wrong places.

Maybe the permanent version of it is faith.

Not faith that my A game will arrive, but faith in whichever game does. Not faith that the putt will go in, but faith in the person hitting it. Not faith that everything will work out as I want it to, but faith that I can meet whatever happens next.

So, after all these years of searching for “it”, have I finally found it?

I’ve gotta have faith.

If you enjoyed this, subscribe to The Club House. There will always be plenty of equipment reviews, but every so often we’ll leave the clubs behind and explore what the game might be teaching us about ourselves.

Subscribe now

The Soundtrack (Spotify):

George Michael, Faith

Bon Jovi, Keep the Faith

John Hiatt, Have A Little Faith In Me

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