As many of you might know, I began my golf club design path in the mid-1990s by focusing on putter performance. I dove into learning all I could about all aspects of putting, starting with studying the techniques of the greatest putters in the game, as I figured putter design starts with putting technique.

What I discovered and deducted from all that discovery is that the evolution of putter design has been one part of a continuing triangular evolution that also includes putting technique and green speeds. But unlike the chicken-or-the-egg, I believe there is no question that green speeds have always driven changes in golfers’ putting techniques, which in turn has driven changes in putter design. Let me explain.

In the early days of golf, greens were not nearly as smooth or fast as they are now. So, the putter was basically a shorter iron club with a little loft and a light head, so the ball could be rapped across a green that might not have been 5-6 on the current-day Stimpmeter. Bobby Jones famous Calamity Jane and other putters of the early golf years were extremely light.
As green speeds began to pick up through the 1950s and 60s, putters got increasingly heavier to better fit the slower stroke pace that was required, and the top sellers were the Wilson 8802 and its copies, the classic Bullseye and mallet putters from Ray Cook, Otey Crisman and others.
But green speeds continued to increase into the late 1960s, causing golfers to learn to quiet the hands and arms and develop a stroke more controlled by the shoulders. Not coincidentally, an engineer named Karsten Solheim changed putter design forever with his Ping Anser at about that same time. It was the first true heel/toe balanced putter, but more importantly, it introduced the “plumber’s neck” hosel design. Very simply, what that design did was introduce the concept of “toe hang” and dramatically reduced that element of putter design. The number of very close copies to that putter design is mind-boggling, and it is said that over 95 percent of all golfers have – at one time or another – putted with that style of putter.

But the golf course agronomists weren’t done yet. Green speeds continued to increase, sending many older professional golfers home with the “yips”, and causing putters to evolve ever heavier to fit the slower, more deliberate stroke that continued to be required. The challenge of keeping a square putter face through impact at those slow stroke speeds led to the development of “face balanced” designs, then to the myriad of putting grip variations, beginning with “left-hand-low”, then evolving to the long putter, belly putter, arm-lock, and variations of the “claw”.

Who knows where it can go from here, but let’s talk about the “other” putting triangle.

Rolling the ball across a green into the hole is also a three-part process. The sides of the triangle are stroke speed, stroke path and putter face angle at impact. Of the three, research seems to prove the latter as the most difficult variable to control consistently.

Throughout history, there have been great putters with all kinds of stroke paths and speed control methods. The early golfers dealt with very slow greens compared to what we have now, and most employed somewhat of a “pop” stroke, as they had to generate some clubhead speed to move the ball suitably. Bobby Locke was said to hook all his putts with a very inside out stroke path . . . some stood very upright, while others crouched a lot.

Into the 60s and 70s, we saw great putters like Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson and Ben Crenshaw employ very different styles, but all made putts like crazy with those differing approaches to the stroke.

But there is one constant in putting; the face angle has to be square to the starting line at impact in order for the ball to start down that line. It has been proven through slow-motion cameras that the ball will react to the face angle. Period. While it might be more efficient to groove a stroke that is also pretty square to the line at impact, there are good putters whose stroke comes into the ball a little from the inside or outside, but in order to make putts, they find a way to keep the putter face square to the intended line at impact.

What makes putting so darned difficult is this:

The majority of putter designs exhibit some degree of “toe hang” as a result of the design of the shaft/head connection and the center of mass of the putter head. When put into motion in the forward stroke, these putter heads “want” to follow the shaft motion to this same “toe hang” degree – it’s simple physics. A face-balanced putter does as well, but to much less of a degree. But with any putter, the difficulty lies in the fact that you have to square the face at impact with a subtle counter-rotational force in your grip on the putter. Since putts of different lengths require different clubhead speeds in the forward stroke, your counter-rotational force must be different for every length putt you face.

Given all this, isn’t it a wonder we make as many as we do?

I hope this generates lots of questions and comments by all of you . . . if you would like to stay on this topic for another post or two, I’m game.