When Scotty Cameron enters a category, it matters.

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

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

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

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

First Impressions

My first impression was positive, but cautious.

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

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

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

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

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

Specs (as tested)

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

• Head weight: not disclosed by SC

• Swing weight: unable to test

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3.5° + 1° shaft lean

• Lie: 70° and no option to adjust

• Toe Hang: Low/Zero Torque

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

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

The biggest surprise was how much I liked the feel.

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

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

But I would not game it.

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

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

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

• What would I change? Less onset.

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

I have mixed feelings about using HackMotion for putting.

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

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

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

That is the tension at the heart of this review.

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

What HackMotion is

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

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

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

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

In the right hands, that can be useful.

What it is trying to do

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

That is a perfectly sensible training aim.

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

So the theory is sound enough.

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

What I found using it

This is where my experience became more complicated.

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

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

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

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

When useful feedback becomes intrusive

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem, for a naturally arcing stroke

There is another layer to this in my case.

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

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

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

That is a dangerous swap.

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

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

Why I trust real drills more

My preferred feedback for putting is much simpler.

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

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

That is the sort of feedback I trust most.

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

How I would use it now

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

That is the distinction I wish I had made sooner.

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

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

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

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

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

Who it may suit better than it suited me

I can still see why some golfers would enjoy HackMotion.

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

For that golfer, HackMotion may feel clarifying.

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

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

Should you try it?

Possibly, yes.

But I would not recommend it in a blanket way.

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

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

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

It is as an occasional interpreter.

Final verdict

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

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

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

That was my issue with it.

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

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

My own conclusion is fairly simple.

Use it to explain.
Do not let it govern.

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

HackMotion website: here

Hub post for On The Green: here

The Club House welcome page: here

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

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

First Impressions

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

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

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 580g

• Head weight: 360g

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

• Length: 35”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 72°

• Toe Hang: Zero-Torque

• Grip: Odyssey S2S Press

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: My SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Fit verdict (for me):

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

• What would I change? The grip.

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

First Impressions

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

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

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

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 572g

• Head weight: 360g

• Swing weight: D6 (1/2 ball E3)

• Length: 34” (1/2 ball 35”)

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

• Toe Hang: Face balanced

• Grip: Odyssey Pistol

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

• Conditions: A lovely, but chilly, February afternoon. The green was slow, but rolling nicely. The first signs of spring!

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Fit verdict (for me):

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

First Impressions

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

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

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 586g

• Head weight: 360g

• Swing weight: E5

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 72°

• Toe Hang: Zero-Torque

• Grip: Odyssey S2S Press

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

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

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: My SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Fit verdict (for me):

• Would I game it tomorrow? No.

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

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

First impressions

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

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

Specs (as tested)

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

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

• Swing weight: D5.5

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 70°

• Toe Hang: 10°

• Grip: Odyssey Pistol

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: St Andrews Links Academy, Eden Green

• Conditions: Sunny afternoon, but cold. Green was slow but running nicely.

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

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

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

• Benchmark: My current gamer, SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

My fit verdict (for me):

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

Links:

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

First Impressions

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

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

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

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 524g

• Head weight: 335g

• Swing weight: C6

• Length: 34.5”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 71°

• Toe hang: 90° fully toe-down

• Grip: SuperStroke 1.0 Pistol GT

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Location: St Andrews Links Academy practice green

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

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

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

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

• Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP

Full testing framework: here

How did it perform?

Notes

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

My fit verdict (for me):

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

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

Links:

Full testing framework: here

Odyssey Metal-X #8: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

First Impressions

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

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

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

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 514g

• Head weight: 325g

• Swing weight: B7

• Length: 32.5” - shorter than advertised

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 72°

• Toe Hang: 90° (6 on clockface)

• Grip: Lamkin Deep Etched Cord

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

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: St Andrews Academy practice green

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

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

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

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

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

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

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

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

Pros and Cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

My fit verdict (for me):

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

Tiger Woods: here

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

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

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

In practice, it has not been.

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

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

What I want from a putter

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

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

That is the story of the Anser for me.

Why the theory never matched the reality

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

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

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

I am a face aimer, not a rear aimer

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

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

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

The Anser makes me negotiate

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

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

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

Why stance matters more than it should

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

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

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

Right eye dominance can change the picture

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

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

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

Why the SeeMore has changed things

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

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

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

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

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

A final thought

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

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

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

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

Over to you

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

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

Subscribe now

Links:

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

Two recent Anser-style putter reviews

• Toulon Garage Madison

• Yes! Tracy II

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

Pillar Posts

• Putter Testing Framework

• The Case For Second-Hand Putters

• Mallets vs Blades (for me)

• My Problem With Anser Putters

• The 2025 Putter Review Roundup

Putting Practice, Instruction, Fittings

• HackMotion for Putting

• Indoor Practice Setup

• Has AimPoint Helped my Putting

• AimPoint, My Honest Thoughts - Yes or No?

• Quintic Putter Fitting

• Why Did I Sell These Putters

Zero-Torque Putters

2026 Reviews

• Scotty Cameron Phantom 11R OC

• Odyssey Ai-Dual S2S #7

• Odyssey Ai-Dual S2S Jailbird

2025 Reviews

• Odyssey Tri-Hot S2S Rossie

• L.A.B OZ1i HS

• Toulon Formula 90

• Axis1 Rose

• L.A.B. Link1

• BGT Paradox - Blade and Mallet

• Taylormade Spider 5K ZT

• L.A.B. DF3 Fitting

• L.A.B. DF3 Update - Theory vs Practice

Standard Putters

2026 Reviews

• Odyssey Ai-Dual Jailbird Mini - standard and 1/2 ball

• Odyssey Ai-Dual DW

• Wilson Staff Model 8802

• Odyssey Metal-X #8

• Yes! Tracy II

• Toulon “Garage” Madison

2025 Reviews

• SeeMore Nashville mFGP

• Scotty Cameron Monoblok 6.5

• Bettinardi BB48

• Kari Lajosi LP7JS

• SeeMore Mini Giant FGP Stealth

• 2025 Scotty Cameron Studio Style Catalina and Fastback 1.5

• SeeMore M7 Tour Platinum

Yes! putters are cult classics, best known for their immediately recognisable C-Groove face. It was invented and patented by European Tour coach and “putting guru” Harold Swash in 1995. He went on to form a joint venture with Denver-based Yes! Golf in 1996, and the putters were born. The C-Groove face was the secret sauce, promising an earlier, truer roll than smooth-faced putters. Interestingly, today’s hottest putting coach, Phil Kenyon, trained under Swash at Formby Hall.

Yes! enjoyed real tour success, most famously with Retief Goosen winning two US Opens, in 2001 and 2004, using a Tracy. Throughout the 2000s, they were used by other recognisable names, including Henrik Stenson and Edoardo Molinari. Unfortunately, the putter market is brutally competitive, and in 2010, Yes! filed for bankruptcy. They were acquired by Adams Golf in 2011, which was subsequently acquired by TaylorMade, and then Yes! quietly disappeared.

Around the same time the company went bust, an aspiring 16-year-old amateur named Matt Fitzpatrick put a Tracy II in his bag. He used it to win the US Amateur in 2013 and then, as a professional, the British Masters in 2015. He liked the putter so much that he bought as many as he could find to keep plenty of spares.

In 2020, Fitzpatrick agreed to a deal with Bettinardi. They made an exact copy of the Tracy II, and the DASS BB1 Fitz Proto was born. He used that putter to win the US Open in 2022, and while he has since switched to a BB48 Proto, he has kept the C-Groove face concept in that newer club.

Fitzpatrick is regarded as one of the best putters in the world, and he built that reputation with this shape in his hands. That’s the reason I bought this putter. I wanted to see what he saw.

First Impressions

For £75, this putter is a great example of what you can find second-hand and an absolute bargain find. For a relatively old putter, it is in superb condition. There’s only one small mark on the trailing edge, and it’s almost invisible in play.

My first impression was simple: wow, this is a really nice putter. The offset is spot on, the contrasting colours are excellent, with a lighter leading edge and a darker rear section, and it sits beautifully behind the ball. It even came with a headcover that’s also in excellent condition, but it’s a bit quirky, so more on that later.

I think this particular putter has had a shaft replacement at some point, as I don’t believe it came with a black shaft as standard.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 544g

• Head weight: 340g

• Swing weight: C5

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 2.5°

• Lie: 71° (standard)

• Toe Hang: 60° (5 on clockface)

• Grip: Iomic classic mid (aftermarket)

Despite being the same head shape as the recently reviewed Toulon Madison, the weights are quite different. It weighed 558g, with a 352g head and a D2 swing weight.

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: St Andrews Academy practice green

• Conditions: A lovely day, but cold (4°C) and light wind.

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

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

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

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

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

Despite the continued cold weather, it was another lovely day for testing. I pretty much had the green to myself, so I was able to take my time setting up the tests and also had my pick of hole locations.

This was a pretty good performance overall from the old Tracy 2, and highlights that older putters are still very worthy of consideration. There are some nuances that I will discuss below, but I was pleasantly surprised by this putter.

Pros and Cons

Looks and Feel (+ve): This is one of the nicest feeling and sounding putters I have tested. It’s made from 304 Stainless Steel, and the sound at impact is everything I like from a putter. It has that Goldilocks pitch where it’s not too tingy and not too muted. For what was a relatively affordable putter when new (around £150), the finish is superb. I’ve seen a lot of very tatty examples on the second-hand market, though, so I may just have been lucky to find one in such good condition. I’ll not bore you here with the differences between 303 and 304 stainless steel, but they’re worth a quick web search if you’re as much of a golf nerd as I am.

Pace control (+ve): I found the C-Groove face fantastic for pace control, and I was able to trust it really quickly. Even just warming up and hitting a few putts around the green, it performed extremely well. The face feels very similar to my SeeMore Nashville mFGP, which is also a stainless steel head with shallow milling.

Aim/Alignment (-ve): Hmm, a bit like the Toulon Madison, I felt there was a degree of right aim bias. I struggled to gain confidence with aim, which was a shame given how much I liked it for pace and feel. The issue became more apparent as the distance increased. With the lag tests, front-to-back dispersion was good, but left-to-right dispersion was poor. After testing, while researching Yes for this review, I found a comment from Matt Fitzpatrick, “I’d bought numerous Yes! putters online, but my putting coach Phil Kenyon noticed the backline actually pointed slightly to the right. I would line the putter up, and the face would aim left, so I would hit good putts, but they would miss left.” Could this one be the same? If it is, it’s really subtle, but that’s the sort of thing your eyes and brain can pick up on unconsciously.

Headcover (+ve): At first glance, it looks like any normal blade putter cover, but the opening is at the front rather than the back. This makes for an exceptionally secure fit when it’s on the club, but it’s awkward to get on and off as the magnets tend to attach to the shaft, making it tricky to get the head into the cover.

Grip (+ve): This is the first Iomic grip I’ve used. On first glance, it reminded me of the P2P grip that I didn’t like on the Bettinardi BB48 I tried last year. However, the Iomic feels much nicer. It’s a similar size to the Lamkin Deep Etched, but more rectangular in shape. However, if I were keeping the putter, I’d change the grip.

Price (+ve): Relatively inexpensive when new, at around £150 and available second-hand from £40 upwards (although it will likely be a bit battered). I paid £75 for this one, and it was worth every penny in my opinion. I shouldn’t lose too much on resale.

Conclusion

This is another lovely Anser-style putter, and I much preferred it to the Toulon Madison from my previous review. The C-Groove face feels brilliant, and I would be keen to try some other models after this experience. However, as with the Madison, my biggest problem with this putter was aim, and that keeps it out of my bag.

I’m sorry, Matt, but this putter just wasn’t for me. I know you’ve moved on to the BB48, but if you want to buy this Tracy 2 to add to your collection, then drop me an email! (Now, that would be funny!)

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:

Phil Kenyon Interview: here

Full testing framework: here

All my other putter reviews: here

I have this conversation with myself more often than I’d like to admit.

Me: “You know loads of the best players in the world are using mallets now, right?”
Also me: “Yep.”
Me: “So… why aren’t you?”
Also me: “Good question. Let’s talk about it.”

This isn’t me trying to explain what Tour pros are doing or why the market has moved the way it has. I’m not a putting coach. I’m not an expert. I’m just someone who’s tested a lot of putters and noticed something consistent about my own putting: when a putter makes aiming feel obvious, my pace gets better, and my stroke gets quieter. When it doesn’t, I start negotiating with it, and that’s usually the beginning of the end.

First, a confession: I’m not anti-mallet

Me: “Be honest. Have mallets worked for you?”
Also me: “Some have.”

My original benchmark gamer was a Toulon Atlanta. In 2025, I nearly put a Scotty Cameron Monoblok 6.5 in the bag. I also tested the 2025 Scotty Cameron Fastback 1.5 with the new vertical alignment system and found it genuinely interesting.

So no, this isn’t “mallets are bad” or “mallets are for someone else.” Mid-mallets have been perfectly workable for me.

Where I’ve struggled more consistently is with bigger, full-mallet shapes. I’ve tried a handful over time, including an Odyssey 7S (slant neck), Ping Craz-E, an all-black Odyssey #11, a Scotty Cameron 9.5 (short slant neck), and a TaylorMade Spider slant neck that I tried in a fitting studio (indoors rather than on a putting green, so I’m careful not to overstate that one).

And just to head off the obvious follow-up: I have explored zero-torque options too. I even summarised my 2025 testing in a separate post and listed my top three zero-torque putters from the year. So this isn’t me dismissing the concept. It’s me trying to explain why, despite trying several different approaches, full mallets still tend not to be my answer.

So the question isn’t “do mallets work?” They clearly do. The question is: why do some mallet-ish shapes work for me (mid-mallets), while full mallets so often don’t?

The main thing: I’m a face-aligner, not a rear-aligner

Me: “Mallets are supposed to help you aim.”
Also me: “Right. But what am I aiming with?”

Some golfers aim primarily with what’s happening behind the face: long lines, tracks, rails, high-contrast shapes. They stand over it and think, that looks online. For those golfers, full mallets can be a cheat code.

I tend to aim with the face: the leading edge and topline, the way the face sits relative to the target, and whether it looks square the moment I set it down.

If the face looks square, my stroke tends to just happen.
If it looks even slightly open or slightly closed, the stroke becomes a negotiation.

And here’s where it gets awkward: sometimes a big rear “alignment story” can make me feel aimed while the face is doing something subtly different. When my attention gets pulled away from the face, I’m not really aiming anymore. I’m hoping.

Why mid-mallets have often worked better than full mallets (for me)

Me: “So why did the Atlanta work?”
Also me: “Because it still lets the face lead the conversation.”

With the Toulon Atlanta, the head gives me stability and a clear reference without drowning out what I care about most: where the face is pointing. It became my benchmark for a reason. It didn’t ask me to think much.

Same story with the Monoblok 6.5. It’s mallet-ish, but I didn’t feel like it was trying to “aim for me” from ten different places. The front of the club still felt like the reference, not the back.

And the Fastback 1.5 was interesting because the vertical alignment felt closer to how my brain wants to aim. More “square the face” than “follow the runway”. That’s likely why it performed so well on the SAM Puttlab.

So mid-mallets can be a workable middle ground: some help, without overwhelming my primary reference.

Why full mallets tend to break down for me

Now compare that to the full mallets I’ve tried recently.

• Scotty Cameron 9.5 (short slant neck): The double alignment line on top drove me to distraction. It was almost like blurred vision, and I never felt settled.

• Odyssey #11 (all black): Visually, this was an improvement. I liked the cleaner, blank back, but the overall rear shape still pulled my attention away from the face. Better, but still not my answer.

• Spider (slant neck, studio only): Cautious caveat, indoor session only. It didn’t perform well for me there. More importantly, it didn’t give me that instant “this is square” feeling that stops the fiddling.

Me: “So what’s the verdict?”
Also me: “Not ‘bad putters’. Just not a visual match for me.”

The stroke piece: arc, timing, and the feel of closure

There’s also a stroke component I can’t ignore.

I have a strong arc, and I tend to putt best when the head can release naturally. Higher MOI can be brilliant, but for me, it can also change the feel and timing of how the face wants to rotate. If the head feels like it resists rotation, one of two things can happen:

• I hold it off and start it right because I don’t quite let it go.

• Or I try to “help” it release, and the strike/timing gets messy.

That’s not a universal truth. It’s just how it shows up for me when the head shape and my aim preferences aren’t aligned.

What I’m learning (and the questions I’m asking)

The primary lesson:

I don’t need more alignment information. I need the right alignment information.

When a putter should suit me on paper but doesn’t, I try not to overthink mechanics. I just ask myself, quickly:

• Am I aiming with the face/topline, or am I being drawn to the shape behind it?

• Do I feel settled straight away, or do I start fiddling?

• Does it look square immediately?

• When I miss, is it usually the start line or the pace that breaks first?

I’m not writing mallets off. I’m just being more specific about what I’m actually looking for:

• options that keep the face/topline as the primary reference,

• alignment systems that feel face-relevant (vertical cues, simple flange lines),

• neck/CG setups that let the head release naturally with my arc.

If you’re someone who naturally aims with the back of the head, a full mallet could be a great fit. If you’re like me and need face clarity, too much rear “story” can become conflicting noise.

Closing thought

Me: “So why don’t you use a mallet?”
Also me: “Because the best putter for me is the one that makes aiming effortless.”

Mallets are popular for very good reasons. But “popular” doesn’t automatically mean “better for me”. My putting improves most when the putter helps me do two things: aim the face with confidence, and release the head naturally with my arc.

If you’ve ever stood over a putt thinking, this putter should work… why doesn’t it? It might not be your stroke. It might be your eyes.

Do you aim with the face or the shape behind it? Have you tried mallets and returned to a blade? Reply in the comments, because I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Next post teaser:
Next up is my Yes! Tracy II review. After that, I’ll examine the question this post hints at: why some blades look square to me instantly, while others look open.

Subscribe if you want the next one direct to your inbox.

Subscribe now

Links:

All my thoughts about putters and putting can be found here: On the Green

My 2025 review roundup is here: The 2025 Putter Review Roundup

How I test putters is here: Putter Testing Framework

I’ve long had a soft spot for Toulon putters, and I’ve also long admired this particular head shape. It’s a classic Anser style that many manufacturers have copied. But with Toulon (and Odyssey), they generally only offer it with a plumber’s neck. So when I found this custom “Garage” model available with a flow neck, it immediately went on my eBay watch list.

Subscribe now

Toulon have gone through a lot of changes over the years. From being independent, to being part of Odyssey and now being independent again. This is an Odyssey era model. For those in the know, it is fairly easy to tell different generations apart. Early models had only part-milled faces (it almost looked like an insert) before they went fully milled. There have also been several colour changes and alterations to the sole weight system. The Odyssey relationship makes the branding on this particular putter look confused, with Odyssey in the cavity, but Toulon on the sole and grip. Most putters of this generation would also have had a Strokelab shaft installed.

First Impressions

Listed on eBay by GolfClubs4Cash at £250, I received a discount offer and bought it for just £123. Too cheap not to! Like many GC4C putters, it didn’t come with a head cover, which is a shame as the Toulon Garage cover is particularly nice (and expensive to replace). That lack of cover may be the cause of the small ding on the leading edge, something to be alert to when buying second-hand online. In this case, it was visible in the original listing and has no impact on performance. It looks worse in the photo than it does in reality.

Otherwise, the putter is in great shape. The quality and finish of Toulon putters are always excellent. The gunmetal grey finish is particularly nice and eliminates any potential sun reflection. A key Toulon differentiator is their deep diamond face milling. It produces a unique feel, which we will return to later. This putter is fitted with a nice orange Toulon-branded Lamkin Deep Etched grip, which is a shape and size I like and have used extensively.

The putter sits beautifully at address. To my eye, the proportions are perfect, with a nice thin topline and lovely, rounded bumpers. The half shaft offset also suits my eye, and the only thing I would change would be to have a top alignment line (like my SeeMore) rather than a flange line.

Specs (as tested)

• Total weight: 558g

• Head weight: 352g with standard A7 sole weight

• Swing weight: D2

• Length: 34”

• Loft: 3°

• Lie: 71°

• Toe Hang: 60° (5 on a clock face)

• Grip: Lamkin Deep Etched

Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)

• Surface: St Andrews Academy practice green

• Conditions: A lovely day, but very cold (2°C). The green was frozen, but rolling nicely. In fact, it was nicer frozen than when it thawed!

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

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

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

• Benchmark: Compared to my current gamer, a SeeMore Nashville FGP (run once)

Full testing framework: HERE

How did it perform?

Notes

Despite the cold weather, it was a lovely day for testing. The ground was so hard that I struggled to get my marker tees into the ground.

The SeeMore put in a very good performance again and quickly pulled away from the Toulon as testing progressed. The Broadie data shows that the Toulon was a decent performer, but the SeeMore was considerably better.

Pros and Cons

Looks and Feel (neutral): This is a very attractive putter that sits beautifully behind the ball. The gunmetal colour is fantastic in the sun. However, the way it felt on impact was disappointing. I’m genuinely puzzled by that, as I enjoyed the feel of the Atlanta heads I’ve owned. Maybe it’s due to the different shape and weight. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not unpleasant, but I struggled with it. The head is made from 303 stainless steel, so you expect a firm feel, but it was considerably softer than expected. The deep diamond milling definitely produces a muted impact sound. Looking back at my review of the Toulon Formula 90, I noted that the milling was noticeably shallower than that of my Atlanta, so this might be an area where they have received other negative customer feedback.

Pace control (-ve): This follows from feel. As distance increased, my performance deteriorated, and my confidence started to falter. I struggled with pace, as you can see with the lag tests. The misses were also inconsistent, both long and short. With longer putts, I felt that I really needed to hit them hard, which is bad for my stroke. There really was no contest, and the SeeMore pulled away. Given how well I putted with my old Atlanta, this result really surprised me. I wonder if the heavier head and different shape of the Atlanta are behind the different feel and pace control.

Aim/Alignment (-ve): I struggled to aim this as well as the SeeMore. At address, I felt like it was aiming slightly to the right of my target line. I wonder if that is down to the alignment line being in the flange, rather than on top? Strangely, I didn’t have that problem with the Monoblok 6.5. This deserves further investigation, and I will try another Anser-style putter soon, but whatever the reason, it didn’t inspire confidence, and that was key.

Headcover (neutral): It didn’t come with one, but I know Toulon make good covers with a magnetic closure. If you haven’t gathered from other reviews, I don’t like covers that use Velcro! My Nashville cover is a good example. It is a lovely cover, but the Velcro has lost its stickiness, and it won’t stay closed.

Grip (+ve): The Lamkin Deep Etched is a great pistol-style putter grip. Having played it for years before switching to the SuperStroke 1.0, I’m very comfortable with it.

Price (neutral): Since the split from Odyssey, new Toulon putters have become very expensive at over £600. In the UK, they remain a niche brand, without the same cache as the likes of Scotty Cameron (despite their quality being every bit as good). Used models, therefore, don’t hold their value well, and picking this one up for under £125 is a good example of that. Difficult to justify new, excellent value used.

Conclusion

If you like Anser-style putters, then Toulon options are well worth consideration. The quality and finish are excellent, and there are some real bargains out there. I have always loved this head shape, but the review has made me think about why I struggled with aim and alignment, which is something I will investigate further. Is it the shape? Is it the alignment line? Is it something else?

Needless to say, my SeeMore will be staying in the bag!

If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe.

Subscribe now

All of my other putter reviews can be found here: On the Green

Introduction

I spent a lot of 2025 doing one of my favourite things in golf: testing putters.

Subscribe now

There were 16 reviews last year. Some were new, some were second-hand. Some were deliberate experiments, some were impulse purchases. A few were me trying to understand what actually suits my stroke on the green, rather than what works in theory in a fitting studio. I also wanted to challenge any biases I may have, as that’s part of the learning process.

If you are new here, my reviews all follow the same baseline process set out in the Putter Testing Framework. It evolved slightly through the year, but the core remained the same, ensuring the comparisons are fair.

This is not a definitive ranking for all golfers. It is the honest version of what worked for me, what surprised me, and what I would happily put in the bag.

And yes, 2026 will be even busier, so watch this space.

A quick note on zero torque

Having tried the L.A.B. DF3 in 2024 and deciding it was not for me, I went into 2025 keen to challenge my prejudices. Zero torque was gathering momentum, and this felt like the year the category moved from niche to mainstream, with multiple models being launched and almost every major manufacturer now offering one or more options in their range. I tried enough of them in 2025 to earn their own ranking.

L.A.B. deserves real credit here. Whatever you think of the look, they have done a brilliant job of proving the concept, building a following, extoling the virtues of being properly fitted for length and lie, and pushing the wider market to take it seriously. I would argue that Axis1 were there before them, alongside a few more obscure manufacturers, but they’ve never captured the market’s imagination the same way, despite their collaboration with Justin Rose.

How have I judged the 2025 cohort?

I am not scoring these on marketing claims or tour adoption.

I care about three things.

1. Can I aim it easily? If I cannot start it where I intend, nothing else matters.

2. Can I control pace under pressure? A putter can feel great on a mat and still be useless on real greens.

3. Does it earn trust quickly? If I need to manufacture a stroke to suit the putter, it is not for me.

With that in mind, here are the highlights.

My Favourite 3 zero torque putters

1. BGT Paradox Blade

The surprise of the year, and the putter I liked most in the zero torque category.

I went into the Paradox review sceptical, and came out thinking there might be something in this blade-style approach for my stroke. It felt comfortable to set up with, and the blade was easier to aim than the larger mallets, where I struggled to get comfortable with onset and forward press.

It also reinforced a theme that came up repeatedly in my testing: when I like a putter, it is usually because it helps me aim it.

2. TaylorMade Spider 5K ZT

If you saw this putter for the first time, you would immediately identify it as a TaylorMade Spider. It is one of the best-looking putters in the category and, crucially, one I could actually live with, especially the recently released all-black model.

The shape is familiar, it sits nicely behind the ball, and while I would not call it love at first putt, the more I used it, the more I liked it. It is a strong recommendation if you want a mallet shape without going full sci-fi.

3. Axis1 Rose

The best way to describe this one is that it made the concept feel more normal.

It has a funky-looking neck, but it’s not trying to be futuristic. With a classic fang shape and a lovely feeling milled face, it is built around a clear engineering idea: counterweighting in the heel to make the putter zero torque.

It is the only putter where the centre of gravity is exactly in the middle of the face and aligned with the shaft and grip axis, hence the Axis1 name. No offset or onset.

Axis1 have had a new, more conventionally styled model in prototype for some time, and I hope they get it to market soon. I would love to test it and compare it to the Rose.

My Favourite 3 “standard” putters

1. SeeMore Mini Giant FGP Stealth

This was the putter that did the thing we are all secretly hoping for.

It exceeded my expectations, felt beautifully balanced, and I felt the roll was better than that from my previous gamer. Playing partners also commented that I was getting the ball too and past the hole more frequently with it. I don’t know if it is the minimal alignment line on top or the straight shaft and no offset design, but something about this putter just seems to work for me.

At the end of the year, the Mini Giant just got pipped by the Nashville FGP. Both putters share the same design, but the Nashville is a more traditional size. Being made from stainless steel, rather than aluminium, gives it a different feel that I slightly preferred. The Nashville has now become the benchmark putter for my reviews, but it would never have been tested had I not had such success with the Mini Giant.

2. Scotty Cameron Monoblok / Golo 6.5

A mid-mallet shape that just looks “right” when I sit it behind the ball. Given my move towards blade designs and success with the SeeMore, I was really surprised how much I enjoyed testing the Monoblok.

It felt reassuringly solid at impact, was easy to align, perfectly proportioned, and made me want to keep putting. I came very close to buying it and may yet regret not doing that. Looking at this photo again, I really wonder if I made a mistake!

I’m not a fan of Scotty Cameron headcovers and thought it was a shame how poor it was for this putter given how expensive it was when new. If Scotty ditched the velcro in favour of a magnetic cover, I for one would be delighted.

3. Scotty Cameron Studio Style Catalina

I went into the Studio Style testing weekend expecting to fall for the Fastback 1.5.

Instead, the Catalina quietly won me over.

It felt smooth and stable in the stroke, and during testing, my confidence with it continued to grow throughout the session. It is a good reminder that the putter you want to love is not always the one that wins you over.

It is a shame I disliked the face insert so much. Please, Scotty Cameron, go back to a fully milled face (not to mention ditching the velcro).

Most surprising

SeeMore, specifically the two FGP models. I was particularly surprised at how quickly the SeeMore Mini Giant earned my trust. It was the most immediate example of a putter outperforming my expectations, which is why it went straight in the bag. The BGT Blade was a close second, and if it hadn’t been for the ridiculous price tag, it might have made the bag, and then the SeeMore might never have been tested!

The other surprise was not a single model, but a move back towards blades, having gamed and loved compact mallets for several years. If I hadn’t tried the zero torque putters and discovered I liked the blade models, I might never have tried the SeeMore. It’s a good example of always challenging your views.

Most disappointing

The Scotty Cameron Fastback 1.5. Maybe my expectations were just too high? I wanted it to be brilliant. I loved the look. I loved the alignment concept. I expected it to be a contender. I wanted to buy it before I’d even hit it! It was great on SAM PuttLab and on the studio mat. But the more I used it, the less I liked it. It felt unstable in my stroke, and that destroyed my confidence. And as with the Catalina, I really disliked the new face insert and would have preferred it to be fully milled.

What I learned from 2025

1. Aim and pace control beat everything. If I cannot start it on my line and control the speed, I will never trust it.

2. I am better with cleaner, simpler looks. Blades and compact shapes.

3. Zero torque is not a magic bullet. It can help, but only if the design fits how you see the target and swing the putter.

4. Keep an open mind. I’d never have tried the SeeMore putters again if I hadn’t tried the zero torque blades.

What is next

I plan to bring many more putter reviews to the blog in 2026, both new and second-hand. If there is anything you want me to test, please let me know in the comments, and I will do my best to source it.

On the Green is the heart of the site, and home to all of my putter reviews.

Subscribe for thoughtful golf writing from an average golfer in St Andrews that’s mostly about putting, scoring, and what actually helps.

Subscribe now

This post is not an argument against buying new. I love trying new putters and doubt I’ll ever get bored with testing new designs. A new putter can be brilliant, especially when you find one that fits, and you commit to it. I’ve reviewed plenty of new putters here on TheClubHouse, but I rely heavily on borrowing demo models from Adam at Auchterlonies. When I want to try something specific, I still have to make the occasional speculative purchase, and the most affordable way to do that is usually second-hand.

Subscribe now

A change of putter often brings high expectations. The kind that whispers, “For what I paid for this putter, it better fix things.” That voice can tighten your hands, shorten your stroke, and turn a simple missed putt into instant buyer’s remorse. You are not just rolling a ball anymore. You are assessing whether the purchase made sense.

“For what I paid for this putter, it better fix things.”

A cheaper, second-hand putter can help to quieten that voice, soften expectations, and let the stroke flow with less tension. You stand over the ball with fewer thoughts about the outcome and more attention on pace and start line. Sometimes the biggest upgrade is simply removing the pressure of high expectations.

Early in my golfing journey, someone told me never to buy a second-hand putter because the previous owner had used up all its magic, like a wand with only a limited number of good spells. I smiled at the idea, and also felt that strange pull of superstition. Golf has a way of doing that. The longer I play, the more I suspect the only magic is confidence, and confidence tends to come from clarity, not novelty.

A practical advantage of buying second-hand is that you can experiment and learn without breaking the bank. You can try different head shapes, necks, toe hang, lengths, and grips without feeling locked in. Some you will discard almost immediately. Others may surprise you. But they will all teach you something about your eye, your tendencies, your preferences, and what helps you return the face to where you think it is aimed.

Some of the truth about putting can only be discovered out on the green. A new purchase can perform brilliantly in the studio, then behave very differently on grass. If you are buying new, try to borrow a demo club so you can try it properly on a variety of putts before committing.

Buying second-hand lets you experiment and learn without breaking the bank.

If you get the chance, useful information can be gathered from a putting lesson or fitting, especially with technology such as SAM PuttLab or Quintic. In addition to basics like length and lie, you can also learn what your stroke is actually doing, rather than what it feels like it’s doing. While you may think you have a “straight-back, straight-through” stroke, you might actually find you have a strong arc. Armed with that extra knowledge, you can shop the market (new and second-hand) with a clearer brief.

Price plays a role here. A second-hand putter has already taken a hit from the price paid new, which can make it easier to sell on again without taking much of a hit if it doesn’t work for you. That flexibility changes behaviour. You are more likely to treat the putter as a tool rather than a trophy, and be more open to changing a grip, tweaking length, or simply admitting it is not for you.

Don’t rule a putter out simply because it’s a few years old. There have been real improvements in things like alignment, face design, and materials, but unlike drivers or hybrids, older putters don’t become obsolete overnight. You’re not chasing speed and distance, you’re looking for comfort and confidence.

There is, however, a downside worth acknowledging. The ease of buying and selling second-hand can make commitment harder. It can encourage a flirtatious relationship with putters, where the moment things feel uncomfortable, the club gets the blame. The miss becomes a reason to browse rather than a prompt to look at your tempo, routine, or decision-making. Used poorly, this approach can turn into constant tinkering and a quiet refusal to take responsibility. Used well, it’s a great way to learn what actually suits you.

Alongside the odd fitting and new purchase, this is largely the approach I have taken. Experimenting has taught me more about what suits my eye and my stroke than any amount of theory. Many of my experiments are reviewed here on TheClubHouse, where they hopefully help readers make better-informed decisions.

For me, second-hand putters continue to be a big part of my putting journey, helping me find out what does and doesn’t work. There is no perfect answer, but it is a low-risk way to try things out for yourself.

If you have enjoyed this post and value independent reviews delivered directly to your inbox for free, then please subscribe below. If you have followed a similar putter journey, especially if it led you to find the one, I would love to hear from you in the comments below.

Subscribe now

My full putter testing protocol can be found here

Sometimes it’s not a preference. It’s the only option. In St Andrews, it’s been such a wet start to the year that even a quick practice session has felt almost impossible. And in my case, I’ve also been recovering from hernia surgery, which puts a fairly obvious limit on what counts as training.

Subscribe now

The good news is that all is not lost. If you’ve got space for a putting mat, you can still make real progress. Indoor practice strips putting back to what matters most: a repeatable setup, a face that behaves at impact, and a start line you can trust.

This is my little indoor lab: a PuttOut mat, a mirror, a ruler, and a couple of gates that don’t let you pretend.

The objective: test vision, path and impact

Putting isn’t one thing. Indoors, I’m mostly testing three: what I see, where the putter travels, and what the face is doing at impact.

If you don’t see the line correctly, your brain does clever things to compensate. You aim somewhere, then subconsciously steer the face. Or you set up square but feel like you’re aimed left, so you “fix” it with your hands.

My indoor practice is mostly about removing that confusion.

Test 1: The ruler and mirror setup check

It’s easy to see a straight line when you’re standing behind the ball. Side on, in your putting posture, it can be much harder. This is where the ruler test is really effective. It’s also a very good test to check if your putter fits you correctly.

I place the ruler on the ground between the ball and the target, but it shouldn’t run all the way. It’s simply a straight reference that my eyes can line up against.

Using a putting mirror for reference, I get into position without a club and adjust my head and body until I see the ruler pointing directly at the target. When it does, I know I’m seeing the line properly. Then I use the mirror to check where the ball sits relative to my eyes. For me, the ball is slightly above my lead eye. That becomes the reference point I try to return to in every practice session.

Once I’m happy, I add the putter into the equation. If you have to adjust position and posture to suit the club, there is a high likelihood that it’s not a good fit. Having done this test in fittings, I know my putter needs to be 33 inches long (or grip down with a 34-inch club) with a lie angle of 72 degrees. I mention gripping down here as the majority of putters I get to test are 34 inches long.

This is a test used by Bruce Rearick, and it’s a variation on one I did at an Odyssey fitting where they laid out several balls in a line towards the target. When I first used the line of balls, it actually looked curved! Different props, same point: your eyes need to agree with the line before you can trust what your stroke is doing.

Test 2: The head gate path check

My PuttOut mirror has gates for the putter head, and I set them just wide enough to fit the putter.

This is one of my favourite bits of kit because it’s immediate feedback.

If my path is too far inside or too far outside, I’ll hit the gates. And I don’t need an app, a camera, or a 20-minute debate with myself about whether it was “a good one”.

If I had one issue with the design of the PuttOut gates, it would be that they don’t work quite as well with a heel-shafted putter like a Wilson 8802, as the hosel can catch despite the head being fine. You have to move the gate slightly wider on the hosel side. I’d make the gates slightly less tall, as I’m sure they’d still work just as well.

Test 3: The ball gate face check

The ball gate is the face test. For indoor practice, I’ll start with the gate at 18 inches, then move it out to 3 feet, 4 feet and 5 feet, which makes any face issues show up even more quickly. This 18 inch test is also part of my putter-review protocol.

Again, immediate feedback. If the face is open, I’ll clip the right side of the gate. If it’s closed, I’ll clip the left. If it’s really bad, I might miss the gate (especially when further away).

Test 4: The ruler roll start-line check

Putting along a ruler is a simple but revealing test that quickly exposes both path and face angle.

If the face isn’t square at impact, the ball will fall off. If the path isn’t stable, it won’t stay on for long either.

It’s not subtle. It’s either on the ruler or it isn’t.

This drill has a nice side effect too: it pulls your focus away from “making a stroke” and towards “starting the ball on line”. That’s the job.

Test 5: Strike and face check with the Devil Ball

The PuttOut Devil Ball is another tool for assessing face at impact, but with a twist.

You can see it in the first image above. It has a round/easy side and a flat/difficult side. The flat side exaggerates any face issues and makes mishits obvious.

Truth be told, I don’t use this much, or for long sessions, because the difficult side feels overly harsh. I use it more like a spot check. A reminder that when I get lazy with setup or face control, the ball will tell on me instantly.

Test 6: Pace control with the PuttOut Pressure Putt Trainer

Once I’ve done enough start line work, I move to speed.

The PuttOut Pressure Putt Trainer is a great tool because it gives you a clear goal: get the ball to stop in the small hole.

It’s a useful proxy for real putting because pace changes the hole’s “capture” size. Too firm and you’ve made the hole smaller. Too gentle, and the ball never arrives.

What indoor practice is good for, and what it isn’t

Indoor putting practice is good for:

• Building a repeatable setup

• Training your eyes to see the line consistently

• Start line control

• Face awareness

• Basic pace control

• Experimenting without expectations

It’s not great for:

• Green reading

• Breaking putts (although PuttOut now have their “AirBreak” product that offers this)

• Variable pace across different green speeds

• The pressure of a four-footer that actually matters (games can never truly replicate the on-course pressure)

But that’s fine. This isn’t meant to replace putting on real greens.

It’s meant to drill a better baseline, so you’re not turning up outdoors with a setup that changes depending on mood, confidence, or how your back feels that day.

What I like most about my indoor lab

When I’m putting badly, I can stop and rebuild quickly. Ruler. Mirror. Ball position. Eye line. Back to square one, but in a good way.

And when I’m putting well, I’m not tempted to “tweak” anything. I just keep returning to the same picture.

Final thoughts

If you’re stuck indoors because the weather is relentless, or because life has temporarily taken proper practice off the table, this is one of the simplest ways I know to keep moving forward. A mat, a few alignment tools, and a bit of patience will get you a lot further than you’d think.

If you do any indoor putting practice, I’d love to hear what your go-to drill is, and what tools (if any) actually made a difference for you. Comments are open.

And if you’re new here, consider subscribing. Most of my writing sits at the intersection of putting, equipment testing, and the mental game, from the perspective of a normal golfer who likes trying new ideas and keeping what works.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The goal is a consistent format you can trust. You should be able to compare reviews, understand why something worked (for me) or did not, and decide whether it fits your eye and your stroke.

This post is pinned to the top of On The Green so you can find it again easily.

What this framework is, and isn’t

It is

• A repeatable routine used across my putter reviews

• A blend of performance data and transparent subjectivity: looks, feel, confidence

• A way to compare each putter against my current gamer, in the same session, on the same greens, rather than reviewing it in isolation

It isn’t

• A promise that my best putter is your best putter

• A lab-style test that ignores how putting works in practice, because comfort matters and performance shifts under pressure

The core idea

My reviews follow the same structure, so you can skim or go deep.

1. Context and first impressions (shape, setup, weight, alignment cues)

2. Standard protocol results (make rate, pace control, start line)

3. Pros and cons (separating performance from everything else)

4. Conclusion (fit, trade-offs, who it suits)

The standard protocol

1) The Make Test, plus pace control

This is the backbone.

• Six putts

• Repeated three times

• From five distances, typically 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 feet (my makeable range)

I also include a 30-foot lag test, focused on pace control and leave quality.

EDIT: Feb ’26: The lag test has changed to a 40-foot test and is conducted with both an uphill and a downhill putt. The aim is the same: try to leave within a 3-foot radius.

Expectation management: I include PGA Tour make rates (Mark Broadie, Every Shot Counts) at similar distances to anchor what “good” looks like. One limitation is that Broadie’s published splits jump in five-foot increments from ten feet, so twelve feet is not a perfect match.

2) The Start Line Test, face control

This is a classic Dave Pelz drill. If a putter cannot start the ball where you are aiming, nothing else matters.

Simple setup

1. Find a short, straight putt

2. Around 18 inches in front of the ball, insert two tees into the ground to create a gate that is only just wider than a ball

3. Putt through the gate

It is a simple test that quickly shows whether the ball is starting where you think you aimed it. If the ball hits the right-hand tee, the face is open. If the ball hits the left-hand tee, the face is closed.

The benchmark rule

My current gamer is always the benchmark. It is in the bag because, today, I believe it is the best putter for me.

In 2025, the benchmark started as a Toulon Garage Atlanta. Later that year, I put a SeeMore MiniGiant FGP through the protocol, and it did enough to displace the Toulon. It’s a bit like “winner stays on” when playing pool.

The putter under test completes the full protocol, while the benchmark putter (usually) runs the protocol once. Is that biased in favour of the gamer? Possibly. It also reflects reality, where familiarity is an advantage.

Testing environment

Every review is conducted on a real putting green. I describe conditions, including green quality, weather, and anything quirky about the location, because those details shape the results.

Historic testing has taken place on either St Andrews Links practice greens or at The Craigtoun Course (formerly The Duke’s), although a new green may be added.

What I’m evaluating

Performance

• Make rate at short and mid-range distances

• Pace control on lags

• Start line consistency through the gate

Aim and alignment

Whether the head shape, alignment lines, and visual framing help or hinder.

Feel and sound

Subjective, but I try to describe it consistently. Feel matters because it influences pace control and confidence. I often prefer a milled face, but I still want the results to earn the verdict.

Weight and balance

Anything that forces me to change how I putt, or makes me manufacture a stroke to suit the putter. This became clearer when testing some zero-torque models.

Practicalities

Often captured in pros and cons.

• Grip comfort

• Headcover usability

• Adjustability and customisation

• Price and resale, especially in the UK second-hand market

How to interpret my conclusions

When I say a putter is good, I usually mean one of two things.

1. It performs well in the protocol and could replace my gamer

2. It is a strong product, but it does not match my stroke, preferences, or eye

I also flag when a putter improves as I adapt, and whether that adaptation feels reasonable or like I am forcing a relationship. Traits tend to reassert themselves under pressure. Not ideal on a downhill, left-to-right five-footer for par.

This framework is my way of staying honest. Same routine, same benchmark, and a clear record of what happened. If you have ideas for improving it, I’d like to hear them in the comments. And if you want new reviews when they land, you can subscribe.

All putter reviews can be found within the On The Green section of the website

Subscribe now

Which is exactly the point of this post.

I think we’re all guilty of seller’s remorse from time to time — but these two still sting.

Subscribe now

Back in 2016, when I first started working with Bruce Rearick of Burnt Edges Consulting, he recommended that I move away from the face-balanced mallet I was using at the time (an Odyssey White Hot Pro #7) and into a heel-shafted blade with much more toe hang, as it would be a better match for my profile from his fitting methodology.

So I did the sensible thing…

…then immediately made it complicated.

The £99 bargain that actually worked

I bought an Odyssey White Hot Pro #3 because it ticked the brief perfectly — and I’m almost certain it was on sale at the time for only £99.

And annoyingly, it was pretty much perfect.

The more I leaned into what I was learning, the more I saw my putting start to settle down. But because it was “just an experiment” (and because it was “only” £99), I never truly committed to it. My attention drifted to shinier, milled-face alternatives.

So I sold it.

It’s taken me years and a procession of other putters to get comfortable again — and the maddening thing is that one bloody worked.

And yes, I’ll admit it: I prefer the feel of a milled face over an insert. Maybe I’d feel differently if I played faster greens. But even if that’s true…

…it was still a stupid decision for three reasons:

1. It worked.

2. It’s taken years, but I’ve come full circle back to blade putters.

3. Thanks to Tommy Fleetwood and Patrick Reed playing this model, prices went up after I sold.

Maybe one day I’ll buy another from eBay, but all the examples I’ve seen since have been a bit battered and bruised (or much too expensive).

The unicorn I practically gave away

The second one hurts for different reasons: it wasn’t just good — it was weirdly rare.

It was a Nike Method 001 “Oven” model with a flow neck. For those in the know, “Oven” is the name Nike gave to their Tour Issue or “prototype” products.

I’d never seen one before, and I haven't seen another since. The retail model can still be found occasionally, but not this version.

I sold it for something like £120, and I’m fairly sure whoever bought it is still quietly chuckling into their morning coffee. The 001 was only ever sold at retail with a plumber’s neck and not a flow neck. I loved the shape, and I putted well with it too.

But (there’s always a “but”)… I never loved the feel of the face with its odd insert. If that had been a fully milled face, I might still have it.

This is my pattern: the moment something new arrives, I’m possibly too quick to sell what it replaced. I don’t like old putters sitting around, tempting me to use them again!

What I think was really going on

If I’m honest, this post isn’t really about two putters.

It’s about how easy it is to treat golf equipment like a series of short-term relationships.

When something is bought as an “experiment”, I don’t fully trust it — even when it earns trust on the course. Then something prettier comes along, I convince myself I’m being rational, and I hit “sell”.

And then… years later… I’m still thinking about that £99 Odyssey.

There’s truth in the old line:

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

If you’re enjoying The Club House…

If you like honest gear stories that sit somewhere between testing, tinkering, and therapy via golf, consider subscribing and sticking around.

And if you’ve got your own “why did I sell that?” club… I really want to hear about it in the confessional comments section below.

Subscribe now

Ever since I reviewed the SeeMore Mini Giant FGP putter (review) earlier this year, it has been firmly in my bag. Given that I had already tried and ruled out another SeeMore option in the M7 Tour Platinum (review), I was surprised at how much I liked the Mini Giant. There is no getting away from the fact that the Mini Giant is a large putter, though, so when I saw the conventionally sized Nashville model for sale, I just had to buy it and compare the two.

Subscribe now

Or is it David vs Goliath?

On paper, these putters are very closely matched in terms of specification. The big differences are size and materials. To achieve a larger size with a reasonable weight, the MiniGiant is made from Aluminium and weighted with copper inserts. The Nashville is milled from 303 stainless steel and has no weight inserts. Both putters use a 10g hosel, which brings the total head weight to 360g.

I’m not sure where the Nashville’s additional weight comes from. The Nashille has a Pure Classic grip that I believe weighs 68.5g, while the MiniGiant has a SuperStroke Tour 1.0 that weighs 71g. With both heads weighing the same, the difference must be in the shaft, but that seems a bit odd. The difference in the swing weights could also suggest that the Nashville has a counter-balance weight in the shaft. From swinging both of them, I think I’m more aware of the difference in the total weight rather than the swing weight. If anyone from SeeMore ever reads this review, maybe they can comment below and shed some light on this.

The Mini Giant is a high MOI design that should be more forgiving than the Nashville. Both putters are what SeeMore calls “face-balanced at impact” designs. That is a bit tricky to describe, so here is a link to a video that explains it better than I can. SeeMore were way ahead of the current market with this concept, having introduced it with their original FGP design back in 1998.

First Impressions

Very positive. I really like the more compact head of the Nashville, and it is definitely easier on the eye. As mentioned above, the extra weight is noticeable too. It certainly feels different to swing. Despite the heavier swingweight of the Mini Giant, I think I’ve got more awareness of the putter head with the Nashville. The face milling of both putters is the same, and hopefully this will result in a similar roll from both.

This putter was purchased second-hand, and there is evidence of paint wear from taking the headcover on and off, but there is nothing concerning, and the putter is otherwise in excellent condition. The head cover was a little tatty and uses a velcro fastening rather than the magnetic closure on the Mini Giant, but that’s a personal preference thing.

How Did It Perform?

It was a fantastic December day for putting. The St Andrews Academy green had been freshly mown and rolled, and was lovely to putt on today.

The Nashville went through the standard testing protocol of 6 putts, repeated 3 times from 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 feet, followed by a lag test from 30 feet and a start line drill using a putting gate. The Mini Giant, as my gamer putter, only does the test once, as it should be more familiar and therefore require fewer attempts.

This was a good putting day with both options, resulting in a very close fight. To put today’s putting into context, I’ve included the extract from Every Shot Counts by Mark Broadie that I’ve used in other reviews. From 15 feet and in, both putters were excellent.

Pros and Cons

Looks (+ve): Neither of these will ever look as nice as a classic Scotty Cameron 009 (as used by Cameron Smith and Jordan Speith), but I prefer the look of the Nashville over the Mini Giant. It just inspired more confidence at address, and made me believe I would make a better stroke.

Feel (+ve): The stainless steel head of the Nashville feels very different to the aluminium head of the Mini Giant. I like the feel of the Mini Giant a lot, but I prefer the more solid feel of the Nashville. Feel and sound are interlinked (some would say they are the same thing), and I prefer the sound of the Nashville.

Performance (draw): As you may have expected, given the similarity of design, there was almost nothing to tell between the two. The only comment I’ll make is that the more I used the Nashville, the more I wanted to keep using it. It felt easier to aim and just inspired a bit more confidence.

Cost (-ve): Both putters are quite expensive for a brand with very little exposure in the UK. Over on the UK website (here) the Mini Giant FGP is £399, and the Nashville is £449. SeeMore putters do not appear to hold their value well in the UK either, evidenced by the fact that I paid £198 for the Mini Giant and £115 for the (slightly older) Nashville.

Headcover (neutral): The cover that came with this Nashville was showing real signs of wear and tear. It’s a nice design, but the Velcro has lost its stick, highlighting why I prefer magnetic closures. I don’t know if it’s just old, and they all now use magnets like the Mini Giant cover, so it would be unfair to mark it down for this.

I’d likely head over to Scott Readman Concepts (here) and find an alternative cover. Scott really does make some awesome covers.

Fashion (-ve): Blade putters appear to be out of fashion at the moment, and within blade putters, I can’t see the FGP design winning any fashion contests either. But that makes these great second-hand buys, if you can find them. This is a fully milled, stainless steel head that currently costs £449, but I found on eBay for £115. The current trend to zero-torque doesn’t suit every golfer, and many of us need putters with toe hang that work better with arcing strokes. I know I do!

Conclusion

So did David defeat Goliath? Based simply on performance, there was nothing to separate the two, and I could happily have either in the bag. The Mini Giant has the advantage of many memories of putts holed since gaming it. However, when I add in the subjective aspects of looks and feel, then the Nashville pips the Mini Giant at the finish line. It’s totally personal and highly subjective, but the Nashville will remain in the bag, and the Mini Giant will retire to the spares bag.

Finally, if you’ve liked this post or my other recent post, then please feel free to re-post, subscribe to the blog and take part in the comments section below.

The Scotty Cameron Golo 6.5 is a putter that I have often picked up and admired when I’ve seen it in stores. I’ve always liked the way it sits behind the ball, finding it just inspires confidence. When I bought my original Toulon Atlanta, I was actually looking for a GoLo 6.5, but couldn’t find one at the time. The Monoblok 6.5 has slightly more offset than the Golo, at a full shaft vs 3/4 shaft, but has similar toe hang at around 45°. When I saw this one for sale, I had to buy it for testing. Will it make the bag, or will it go back?

Subscribe now

First Impressions

I’ve said it already, but I really like the way this putter looks. It’s actually the first Monoblock I’ve seen, and getting it in-hand didn’t disappoint. For more details on the Monoblok, please visit HERE. Rolling some putts on my garage mat, I was immediately impressed with how it felt. Scotty Cameron has “double milled” the face of the Monoblock. The first pass is a deep mill, and the second pass removes all of the sharp edges created by the first pass. I’ve not been impressed with the feel of some other Scotty Cameron putters I’ve tried, but this one is exceptional. If you read my L.A.B. OZ.1i HS review (HERE), then you’ll know that L.A.B. should take note of how to mill a face. It was also interesting to compare the feel with the Bettinardi BB48, which is a very similar design.

There are very few Golo 6.5 and even fewer Monoblok 6.5 reviews available, so I was really excited to try this one out.

I love the way this putter sits behind the ball. Of all the mid-mallets I’ve used, this is definitely one of my favourite shapes. The cavity frames the ball nicely, I like the alignment line (many dislike the way it stops short, but I like that), and I particularly like the perpendicular milling. The smooth progression from front to back is particularly appealing to my eye. The head gives the impression of melting into the putting surface. I find it much more appealing than the squarer look of my Atlanta.

This is a 34” putter, with two 15g weights in the sole, and I found the weight and balance to be perfect for me. The Scotty Cameron website doesn’t actually state the weight of the head anywhere, but I suspect it might be a touch lighter than the Fastback 1.5 I tried earlier in the year (HERE). This is subjective, but it felt easier to swing and was more stable than the Fastback 1.5, which tended to wobble.

Differences to the Golo 6.5

Other than the shaft offset mentioned above, the main differences appear to be cosmetic and purely down to different milling in the rear and the cavity plate. The alignment line is slightly lighter in colour too. With a name like Monoblok, you’d be forgiven for assuming that the head is one solid piece of stainless steel, but you would be wrong. The head has a cavity milled into the base to influence weight, CoG and MOI, which is then covered with an aluminium plate.

In reality, there is not much difference between the putters, other than the Monoblock being a limited release and therefore commanding a much higher price.

How Did It Perform?

Testing was conducted at the St Andrews Golf Academy putting green, next to the Eden Course. This is a fantastic green with a wide variety of hole locations. It was a cracking December day for testing. Dry, bright and warmer than recent days. The green appeared to have been cut and rolled, and was playing nicely.

The Monoblock 6.5 underwent my usual testing protocol of 6 putts from 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 feet, followed by a 30-foot lag test, then a start line drill. The benchmark putter was my SeeMore MiniGiant FGP. As it’s my current putter, it only does the drills once (possibly not fair on the SeeMore, but it saves a lot of time!)

Pros and Cons

Look and Feel (+ve): No surprises here, given my previous comments. This putter ticks all my boxes when it comes to looks and feel. I’ve genuinely tried a lot of Scotty Cameron putters, and this is the one that I would always come back to. There is a solidity to the strike that I’ve not experienced with other heads, other than perhaps the previous generation of Fastback. That must be down to a combination of head style and face milling.

Grip (+ve): The Monoblock has my favourite Scotty Cameron grip as standard, the Pistolero Plus. Saying that, I prefer the rounder shape of the SuperStroke Tour 1.0 that is on my SeeMore.

Headcover (-ve): The limited edition cover itself is nice, but why use a blade cover with a mallet head and why stick with velcro fastening?

I know it comes down to personal preference, but I find this style of cover to be less secure on a mallet.

Alignment (+ve): I found this putter very easy to align, and that added to my confidence when testing. I like the perpendicular milling on the back of the putter and actually think that helped me with alignment.

Performance 1 (+ve): The results above speak for themselves, and the Monoblock 6.5 pipped the SeeMore on the day. It was a close-run fight, and it would have been interesting to run the SeeMore through the protocol twice more to see if it caught up.

Performance 2 (neutral): Thanks to Adam Legg at Auchterlonies, I was fortunate enough to test the Monoblok on SAM Puttlab. Its results were decent, but not as good as the SeeMore. As with the Bettinardi BB48, it would have been fairer if I could have tested both putters with the same grip installed to remove variables.

Fashion (neutral): This style of head is simply out of fashion right now and isn’t even in the current lineup of Scotty Cameron putters. The market has swung towards “high MOI” and “Zero-Torque”, and away from more traditional mid-mallets, such as this. You still see some Golo’s on tour, but not as many as you used to. It doesn’t mean this is a bad putter; it just means it’s going to be difficult to find one to try.

Price (-ve): As this was a limited-release putter, your only chance of finding one is going to be second-hand, where they still command a premium price. Back in Sept ’22 when they were released, the price was around £650. The Golo 6.5 can currently be bought new for around £300 (if you can find a retailer that still has one). Was it worth the premium for what is essentially just cosmetic differences? If you need the extra offset, then maybe, but I’m not so sure and would probably go with a Golo 6.5.

Conclusion

This is a lovely putter. If you can find one for a good price and it suits your stroke, then you will not be disappointed. Premium looks and a premium feel in a limited edition (premium-priced) package. It might not be to everyone’s taste, but it certainly suits my eye, and I was sorely tempted to keep it. What swung me against buying it was the SAM data and the history with my SeeMore, which has been an excellent putter since I put it in my bag. Will I live to regret this?

Finally, if you’ve liked this post or my other recent post, then please feel free to re-post, subscribe to the blog and take part in the comments section below.