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

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

Subscribe now

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

First Impressions

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

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 594g

• Head weight: heavy option

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

• Length: 35”

• Loft: 2° effective loft

• Lie: 71° custom range 65°-74°

• Toe Hang: zero-torque

• Grip: Lamkin Deep Etched

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Old Eden practice green at St Andrews Academy

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

Vertex testing was done indoors on my putting mat.

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

L.A.B. Link 2.1: here

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

Subscribe now

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

First Impressions

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 548g

• Head weight: “standard”

• Swing weight: E2

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 2° effective loft

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

• Toe Hang: Zero-Torque

• Grip: L.A.B. Pistol Rubber Black

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Eden practice green at St Andrews Golf Academy

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

Vertex testing was done indoors on my putting mat.

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

That doesn’t always happen.

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

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

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

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

That was a surprise.

Specification (as tested)

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

• Head weight: undeclared, 2x15g head weights

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3.5° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Minimal 10-15°

• Grip: Scotty Pistolero Plus

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: Practice green at Craigtoun Course

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s an important distinction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

Vertex testing was done indoors on my putting mat.

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

The Scotty Cameron Phantom 5S was another positive surprise.

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

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

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

That was the question behind this test.

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

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

Enter the Yes! Pippi 12.

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

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 542g

• Head weight: 350g

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

• Toe Hang: Around 30°

• Grip: Ping Pingman, thin.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

I’m slightly disappointed overall.

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

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

Final thought

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

Zero-torque putters are everywhere.

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

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

That is the theory.

But golf is rarely that tidy.

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

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

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

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

The tour players who tried it and moved back

Rickie Fowler is one of the most interesting examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different players. Different histories. Same broader lesson.

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

The wrong conclusion

The easy conclusion would be this:

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

I do not think that is right.

The better conclusion is this:

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

It is about aim.

It is about pace.

It is about how the putter sits behind the ball.

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

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

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

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

My own zero-torque experiences

I understand the appeal of zero torque.

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

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

I am looking for visual trust.

That is not quite the same thing.

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

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

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

That last point has become especially important.

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

That is a different fit.

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

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

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

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

The issue of onset

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

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

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

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

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

That is why I keep coming back to this phrase:

Visually central, functionally flowing.

That, for me, might be the sweet spot.

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

That feels relevant.

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

Why this matters for ordinary golfers

Most of us buy putters by category.

Blade or mallet.

Toe hang or face-balanced.

Centre-shafted or heel-shafted.

Insert or milled.

Zero torque or standard.

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

That is the trap I am trying to avoid.

The better questions are more personal:

• Does the face look square quickly?

• Does the shaft look connected to the strike area?

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

• Does the head feel stable without feeling locked?

• Can I feel strike and pace clearly?

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

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

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

Those questions are not as neat as a fitting chart.

But they may be more useful.

Zero torque is a solution, just not the only solution

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

Nor should they.

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

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

A putter can be more stable and less suitable.

A putter can be technically clever and visually wrong.

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

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

The putter has to do more than behave.

It has to persuade you.

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

Where I am now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes that might be zero torque.

Sometimes it might be centre-shafted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Further reading

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

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

Specification (as tested)

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

• Head weight: 358g

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

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

• Grip: Bettinardi branded Lamkin Sink Fit Deep Etched

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

Oh, I wasn’t expecting that!

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

• The shaft provides a reference.

• The leading edge provides a reference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Vertex say?

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

That is an important refinement.

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

Final thought

So, overall, a bit of a surprise.

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

That probably makes this more interesting, not less.

It is in the bag, but not fully settled.

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Impressions

The first thing I liked was the compactness.

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

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

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

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 568g (SL90 shaft)

• Head weight: 360g

• Swing weight: D3

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: standard 70°

• Toe Hang: 36°

• Grip: Ai-One Pistol

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

The biggest surprise was the feel.

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

But I would not game it.

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

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

Fit verdict (for me):

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

That was a surprise.

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

But I was wrong!

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 600g (a heavy putter)

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

• Swing weight: E6

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Zero-torque

• Grip: Midsize Matador - black with red lettering

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

But it surprised me in a good way.

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

Pros and Cons

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

I liked that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

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

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 575g

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: E

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Face-balanced

• Grip: Standard grey full contact pistol

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

Well, that was a shock.

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

But the SeeMore was so much better.

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

But I didn’t.

Fit verdict (for me)

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

• What would I change? The fangs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 580g

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: E2

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

• Toe Hang: Face-balanced

• Grip: Standard grey full contact pistol

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

The Phantom 7 surprised me.

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

But I did.

There was a lot to like here.

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

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

Or was it Batman’s mask?

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

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

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

So why did it feel so different?

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 575g

• Head weight: undeclared

• Swing weight: D9

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3° (+/-1°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-2°)

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

• Grip: Standard grey full contact pistol

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

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

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

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

There was a lot to like here.

Just not quite enough for me.

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

There was plenty I liked.

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

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

That is where it broke down for me.

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

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

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

Will one of them manage to unseat my SeeMore?

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

Subscribe now

First Impressions

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

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

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

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

Specification (as tested)

• Total weight: 590g - heavy

• Head weight: 375g

• Swing weight: F4

• Length: 35”

• Loft: 3° (+3°/-2°)

• Lie: 70° (+/-4°)

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

• Grip: Ping PP58 Midsize

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How Did It Perform?

Notes

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Fit verdict (for me)

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

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

First Impressions

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

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

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

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

That does not make it bad.

But it does change the picture.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 570g (SL120 shaft)

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

• Swing weight: D8

• Length: 33”

• Loft: 3°

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

• Toe Hang: 60°

• Grip: SuperStroke Tour 1.0

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

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

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

But in practice, it was not good enough.

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

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

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

When Scotty Cameron enters a category, it matters.

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

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

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

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

First Impressions

My first impression was positive, but cautious.

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

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

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

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

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

Specs (as tested)

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

• Head weight: not disclosed by SC

• Swing weight: unable to test

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3.5° + 1° shaft lean

• Lie: 70° and no option to adjust

• Toe Hang: Low/Zero Torque

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

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

The biggest surprise was how much I liked the feel.

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

But I would not game it.

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

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

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

• What would I change? Less onset.

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

I have mixed feelings about using HackMotion for putting.

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

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

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

That is the tension at the heart of this review.

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

What HackMotion is

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

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

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

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

In the right hands, that can be useful.

What it is trying to do

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

That is a perfectly sensible training aim.

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

So the theory is sound enough.

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

What I found using it

This is where my experience became more complicated.

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

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

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

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

When useful feedback becomes intrusive

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem, for a naturally arcing stroke

There is another layer to this in my case.

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

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

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

That is a dangerous swap.

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

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

Why I trust real drills more

My preferred feedback for putting is much simpler.

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

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

That is the sort of feedback I trust most.

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

How I would use it now

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

That is the distinction I wish I had made sooner.

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

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

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

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

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

Who it may suit better than it suited me

I can still see why some golfers would enjoy HackMotion.

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

For that golfer, HackMotion may feel clarifying.

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

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

Should you try it?

Possibly, yes.

But I would not recommend it in a blanket way.

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

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

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

It is as an occasional interpreter.

Final verdict

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

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

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

That was my issue with it.

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

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

My own conclusion is fairly simple.

Use it to explain.
Do not let it govern.

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

HackMotion website: here

Hub post for On The Green: here

The Club House welcome page: here

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

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

First Impressions

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

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

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 580g

• Head weight: 360g

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

• Length: 35”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 72°

• Toe Hang: Zero-Torque

• Grip: Odyssey S2S Press

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

• Conditions: A bright, but cold, February day. The green was slow, but it was rolling nicely.

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

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

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

• Benchmark: My SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Fit verdict (for me):

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

• What would I change? The grip.

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here