2015 Most Wanted Putter: Beyond the Numbers

By Dave Wolfe

This year’s putter tests were the most expansive to date and while most of the time we just let the results do the talking, there are some topics and data points that are worth revisiting.

Today we are going to take a look at some of the key aspects of this year’s test while at the same time addressing some of the reader comments from the previous Most Wanted Posts.

Strokes Gained vs. Radial Accuracy

This year’s strokes gained system for measuring accuracy represents an improvement over last year’s radial accuracy. Golf is all about getting the ball into the hole, and that’s what strokes gained measures. It is a simple to assess and comprehend system that actually removes some potential tester impact from the data set.

Here is what I mean by tester impact. Under our previous system, a single tester who putted especially terrible with a given putter could do significant damage to that putter’s ranking. Hypothetically, if a tester misses the 5-foot putts by a combined one hundred inches, then that putter would be in such a hole that even excellent performance from the other testers likely couldn’t remove that blemish. No, this didn’t happen during previous tests, but it could have based upon the radial accuracy system.

Looking at strokes gained, testers had the chance to atone for bad putts without punishment. When we look at the 20-foot data, the vast majority of scores for all putters are twos. This means that it took two putts to make it in the hole. The distance of the first putt’s miss was probably not the same, but that doesn’t really matter if you sink the comebacker.

The long and the short of strokes gained was that one bad putt will not remove a putter from contention.

The Head to Head Data

To reduce the size of the chart our default view shows only those putters with strokes gained values of zero and above. We’ve provided two filters at the bottom of the chart which enable you to select a specific range of strokes gained values, mallets or blades exclusively, or 100% of the data.

*Hover over any column title in the dynamic chart below to enable sort features. If the chart doesn’t load, please click here for a static version.

Before we explore some ideas about what makes a putter Most Wanted, let’s spend a few minutes addressing some reader comments and concerns.

This question was asked a couple of times in reference to various manufacturers. The short answer is that not all manufacturers chose to participate. With the exception of a few small companies that may have been overlooked, we did not leave anyone out. Companies chose not to participate. If you want to know why, then hit them up on Twitter, or call their offices. The companies have the answer for that question.

Some of you also wondered about the models of putters that were chosen for testing. This was at the discretion of the companies. Some companies, like PING, Wilson, and Cleveland, submitted multiple models for testing, while others only submitted single putters. Most of the model contention seemed to come with regards to Scotty Cameron and Odyssey. In these cases, the companies chose not to participate, but we thought it important to have them represented in the testing. Representative models were chosen from both companies. The Newport 2 and 2-Ball designs are classic Cameron and Odyssey designs, representing ideal models for testing.

I’m not totally sure where Joro is going with this one. On one hand, the implication is that we are just here as an outreach of the golf companies’ marketing departments. If that is what you are saying then I would like to say welcome to mygolfspy. Feel free to peruse the site and see what we are really about. If unsure, please ask Tony about how he likes his Hogan irons…

The second part of what Joro is saying is 100% true, and what this test was all about. We are here with our testers to find the putter that is weighted and balanced right, looks good, feels good and has they right grip. Maybe Joro is saying what some of you said along the lines of “I don’t putt well with the Ketsch, so these tests are bullshit.”

We were not testing putters with a single tester, but with a group of ten, looking to see if any putters were best for the cohort. You may not putt well with the Ketsch, but if the other nine testers are amazing with it then it is potentially something special.

Joro, I don’t know if you realize it, but we are doing these putter tests for you, and the rest of our readership. Dozens of new putters hit the shops every year with nothing but company spin to let the consumer know which one to buy. Other putters come from companies so small that their fine flatsticks could fly under the radar of the golfing populous. Should we find some exceptional putters, like the Ringo and the Ketsch, we will promote the hell out of them. Not for any compensation, but because that’s our commitment to our readers.

That’s why we do these tests. We want all golfers, including skeptical Joros, to have some real information about the gear that is out there.

Hi Brute. Thanks for your service. Glad you had the time to comment on our serious and complex test. Just to put your mind at ease, it is probably humanly impossible to have ten testers test fifty-seven putters in a single session. Rough estimate on test time is somewhere in the eighty to one hundred hours to complete the testing. This represents multiple test sessions with each tester. We limited the number of putters in each test batch to about fourteen, in an effort to limit any performance bias due to tester fatigue.

Also, since you test defense systems for the military, you are likely familiar with the concept of standard deviation. While we do publish rankings based upon overall scores, it is worth noting that some of these putters scored one standard deviation from average, and the PING Cadence TR Ketsch Heavy was two deviations from average. Statistically speaking, a value two deviations from average is significant and highly improbable to have occurred by chance.

This type of comment came up a couple of times, and we are in total agreement with you. We are working to expand the ways that the data can be sorted and analyzed. The subsets based upon tester HCP, alignment schemes, head weight, head color, grip size, and so on would all be interesting to look into.
Every year the testing evolves and gets more expansive. You can expect to see more in subsequent years.

You got it in one Jeff. The putters are off the rack putters. Logistically, fitting the whole test cohort would be interesting, but impossible. You are talking about 570 putters if no two testers are the same.

Not too long ago we actually explored putter fitting, or there lack there of in a two-day MGS labs article (Part 1 and Part 2). We are 100% behind the idea that getting fit for a putter likely leads to improved putting. iPING data suggested that fitting can dramatically improve putting consistency.

However, that does not invalidate the test data. In fact, it makes it even more important when you add in the possibility of custom fitting. If you find an off the rack putter that has standout performance, shouldn’t that performance improve even more when you get it custom fit to you? That’s, of course, true for all of the putters in the test, but if the improvement builds on variable baselines, then why not start with the one that performs the best before it was fit?

Truth be told, most golfers do not get fit for putters anyway. They should, but they don’t. They play the off the rack model that they picked up in the shop.

So what makes a putter Most Wanted?

This is probably the most important question that can be asked about the whole Most Wanted testing. It’s the million-dollar question, if you will. Basically, what you/we are asking with this question is what makes a putter more accurate than the others?

Do you see why that’s the million-dollar question? Think about it for a second. How valuable would that information be to a manufacturer? Likely millions. If you could consistently design putters that out perform other putters, you would sell a whole lot of putters.

So what are the key components of a Most Wanted Putter? Again, this question cannot be definitively answered, but we do have some areas that warrant further research.

Blades vs. Mallets

This year’s test data supports the long held belief that mallet putters are more accurate for the amateur golfer than blades. Seven out of ten putters in the overall top ten are mallets. That trend of mallet accuracy continues throughout the data, with the mallets scoring above the blades in the cohort. In fact, when you look at all fifty-seven putters, the bottom nine putters are all blades.

This year, we made sure that blades and mallets were tested on the same green, at the same time of the year, thus allowing for comparison between them. The blades and mallets were not mixed together in the test groups though. We believed that this type of mixing could lead to some tester issues when moving from blade to mallet and back. It would be a bit of a shock to go from a Wilson Staff 8802 to a large mallet like the PING Rustler.

Head-weight/Swing-weight

Both of our winners were at the top end of the head weight scale, immediately suggesting that a heavier head increases accuracy. Remember, we are not talking about a heavier head with a counterweighted grip here, just a heavier than “normal” head.

However, don’t run out and immediately add lead tape to all of your putters. As many of you pointed out, the heavier is better theme did not play out throughout the putter cohort. You just need to scan the other PING Cadence heads to see that in some cases heavy was better; others, standard. I appreciate that you think that we should be able to explain that data, but there is no simple explanation. The speculative answer is that head-weight influence is likely tied into other design factors. I am the first to admit that this answer is not satisfying, or even of much use, but there is a large leap from observing trends in data to being able to accurately explain the origins of those trends.

We will touch on this a bit more below in the discussion of accuracy at the specific distances.

Appearance at Address

Of course how a putter looks at address influences accuracy. This is probably a claim that you wouldn’t even need fifty-seven putters worth of data to make. The thing is, appearance at address may have more of an influence than many people, and even manufacturers realize.

The Edel Golf fitting system focuses on how the address variables influences accuracy. They know that the location, position, and number of sight lines will influence the aiming by the golfer. Those of us who prefer no lines feel uncomfortable aiming the putt when a line is present, and those that usually use a line do not enjoy the naked putting experience.

Appearance at address goes beyond the line or no line thing though. There are lots of other visual components that influence alignment and aiming. Take a look at the winning Ketsch and last place Happy Mallet.

The Ketsch really draws the eye to the horizontal alignment lines, both painted and part of the putter’s morphology. The whole head draws your eye to the left, down the line that you want the ball to roll on. The Happy Mallet lacks this visual consistency.

Keeping with the theme of how head geometry influences accuracy, let’s take a look at a couple of Machine putters. The simple black head on the left finished third in 2014, while the Big Bore on the right was at the bottom of the pack this year. Is it possible that the bulges on the bumpers are the culprits? If I had to make a guess, I’d say yes. The reason why I’d make that guess is tester feedback. More than one tester commented about how their eyes were drawn to the bumpers, thus away from the face that was actually going to hit the ball. With the sleek black head, you don’t have this address distraction, and that could lead to better performance.

I would imagine that many of you, and maybe even the folks at TaylorMade, are confused as to why last year’s Daytona was the Most Wanted Blade of 2014, and this years was essentially average. Again, let’s look at address:

Even if all of the structural components (grip, weight, insert, and so on) of the putters are the same, the severe difference at address can’t be discounted. Could it be that even the color of the head plays a role in accuracy? You bet. Should you all go and paint your putters white? Nope. It’s a factor, but likely not the factor (re: black Carbon Ringo 1/4).

Dominance at Distance

While the overall scores are based upon averages at all distances, there are some interesting data points when we look at the individual distances.

5 Feet

From the five-foot range, the Kronos Mandala was at the top of the cohort. Our ten testers took only 57 putts to make 50 putts from that distance. Right behind that was the Nike Method Matter M5-12 at 60 putts. The Most Wanted title was in reach, had either one of these putters been able to hold this accuracy over the other distances.

10 Feet

The PING Cadence TR Ketsch Heavy was the ten-foot king. While administering the tests, I could quickly see that the ten-foot putt was the distance at which we were going to see some separation in the cohort. There is a twenty-three putt difference here between the most accurate PING Ketsch Heavy and the least accurate Cleveland Smart Square Blade. Compare that to the 17-putt difference at five foot, and ten putt difference from twenty foot.

Testers were consistently one-putting from five foot, and two putting from twenty foot, but variation existed at 10 foot.

For those wondering about the influence of weight on scoring, this may be another data sub-set worth examining. From ten foot, the Ketsch Heavy was the most accurate, but the standard weight Ketsch was right behind it in a tie for fourth most accurate. The heavy version was ten putts better than the standard from five feet, and six putts better from twenty feet, but only four putts better from ten feet. Perhaps the influence of head weight on stroke is not as significant from ten feet as it is from the other distances.

20 Feet

As mentioned before, the data spread at twenty feet was not as wide as at the other distances. Again though, the mallets dominated the blades. The TaylorMade Indy may top the category, but seven of the top ten from twenty feet were mallets. It’s difficult to pin down a “best from distance” design element though. We had the large Bellum Winmore NOLA mallet, the Bputters small mallet, and the Byron Morgan 615 blade all tied for second behind the Indy.

Some of you may have noticed that I didn’t reference the Carbon Ringo 1/4 at any of the distances.  I didn’t mention it because it was not at the top at any of the distances. However, like the Ketsch, it may not have been at the top, but it was near the top from every distance. Of the top ten overall putters, eight of ten had positive values for strokes gained from all distances, with the Carbon Ringo 1/4’s and the PING Cadence TR Ketsch Heavy’s combined scores earning them the Most Wanted titles.

More to Come in 2016

As I mentioned above, the purpose of these tests is to determine if a putting thoroughbred resides amid the hoards of putters in your local corral. Sometimes the companies don’t even really know what they have until we run our tests.

We are not here to sell putters for golf companies, we are here to tell you which putters are worth buying.

In 2016, you can expect to see more. More blades, more mallets, and more unbiased testing for our readers, Again, that’s why we are here.

Support Unbiased Club Testing:

We’re not lying when we say that we refuse to take advertising from the biggest names in golf. We truly believe it’s the only way to remain above the influence, publish real results based on real data, and continue to provide honest opinion and commentary about what’s happening inside the golf equipment industry.

If you found this report useful, meaningful, or just interesting, please consider making a donation to help support MyGolfSpy’s independence.

We accept credit cards through PayPal. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

[donation-can goal_id=’fund-the-revolution’ style_id=’mgs’ show_progress=false show_description=false show_donations=false show_title=false title=”]