- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,226,417
- Reaction score
- 59
For decades, golfers faced a simple choice when it came to buying a new putter: blade or mallet. If you were a purist, you gravitated toward a sleek Anser-style blade. If you wanted more forgiveness, you picked a mallet.
Today, the putting corral at your local pro shop looks vastly different. Blades and mallets are still there, but zero-torque putters make up a big percentage of sales, and counterbalanced models remain popular too. There are even arm-locks, broomsticks and center-shafted designs, and none of them are viewed as oddities. Golfers who used to worry about looking out of place or who were self-conscious about what others thought of them using unconventional putters are increasingly concerned with something more important: Will this help me make more putts?
That shift in attitude has created an interesting problem. Many golfers lump zero-torque and counterbalanced putters together because both promise greater consistency. Spend enough time on YouTube or scroll through social media and it is easy to conclude that they are chasing the same thing.
They’re not.
The similarities between zero-torque and counterbalanced putters are real, but the differences are much more important.
Counterbalanced putters emerged from one of the biggest equipment changes in modern golf: the ban on anchored putting.
Before the USGA and R&A prohibited players from anchoring long and belly putters against their bodies starting on January 1, 2016, manufacturers began searching for ways to preserve the stability that had made those designs so appealing. The most popular solution was to make standard-length putters slightly longer, give them a heavier head and add some weight at the top of the grip.
The result was counterbalancing, a style of putter that helped quiet the hands and wrists without violating the rules.
Counterbalanced putters quickly found an audience and, over the years, have been used to win some of golf’s biggest events. Wyndham Clark won the 2023 U.S. Open with a counterbalanced Odyssey Jailbird and Viktor Hovland won that year’s Tour Championship with a counterbalanced Ping PLD DS-72. In June, Clark won his second U.S. Open with a counterbalanced Ping Scottsdale TEC Ally Blue.
Zero-torque putters arrived by a very different route. Designers learned that by having the shaft enter the head directly over the center of gravity (CG) or aligning the shaft axis and CG, they could make putters that would greatly reduce the face’s propensity to either open or close during the stroke. The result is that zero torque putters tend to keep the face square to your stroke path more easily, and for many golfers that results in getting putts started on the intended target line more often.
Much of the credit belongs to L.A.B. Golf, whose Directed Force putters proved that golfers were willing to embrace unconventional shapes if they believed the technology worked. The DF 2.1 looked like a potato masher on a stick, but players who struggled to return the putter face consistently to square discovered that they could make more putts with it. It also had an extremely high moment of inertia (MOI), so it was ultra-stable on mis-hits,
Over the last five to eight years, shapes have refined, alignment aids have improved, and more players who struggled on the greens have tinkered and switched to zero-torque offerings.
Today, there are zero-torque blades or torque-reducing putters that look conventional from brands like Bettinardi, Evnroll, Odyssey, PXG, TaylorMade, Scotty Cameron, Tour Edge, Wilson and nearly every major manufacturer.
According to Luke Williams, Odyssey’s senior director of product and brand management for putters, this is not a fad.
“Zero torque is driving the putter category,” he said. “About 30 percent of sales are now in zero torque.”
So, in less than a decade, zero-torque putters have gone from zero percent of sales to being a legitimate third branch on the putter tree.
The easiest way to understand counterbalanced putters is to think about what happens when nerves creep into your putting stroke.
Maybe your hands get jumpy over a 6-footer. Maybe your takeaway becomes quick and jerky when the match is on the line. When the pressure is on, maybe your stroke gets twitchy. Counterbalanced putters attack that problem with mass.
“So, after the belly putter wasn’t available anymore, it sort of got modified and turned into what we call a Cruiser or others call counterbalanced putters,” Williams explained. “They're generally 36 to 38 inches and heavier overall. For golfers who tend to jerk the putter back, more weight is going to help them. It’s going to quiet their hands and wrists.”
That does not mean they are foolproof. The trade-off, Williams said, is that some players lose touch on longer putts with counterbalanced putters, where distance control becomes more important than stability.
While zero-torque putters also tend to be heavy, trying to solve a different problem.
Rather than calming twitchy hands, they are designed to reduce how much the putter face wants to rotate during the stroke, making it easier for golfers to return the face squarely at impact. That promise has obvious appeal because if you can do that consistently, you will get your putts starting on your intended target line more often.
Williams said zero torque has become the latest “alternative” putting style, aimed at golfers who struggle with conventional putters and believe they should putt better than they do.
Interestingly, he likens zero-torque putters to game-improvement irons.
If that comparison sounds strange, but consider this. Game-improvement irons use larger heads, more offset and a lower CG to help golfers overcome flaws in their swings and get better, more consistent performance. Zero-torque putters, which until recently were mostly mallets, attempt to help golfers overcome their struggles to control the putter face.
They are not gimmicks, but instead are designed to solve a particular problem.
At this point, a simple question seems obvious: If zero-torque putters are so effective and golfers are flocking to them at the recreational level, why are they not everywhere on the PGA Tour?
The answer may lie in a phrase that club fitters use, but recreational golfers rarely think about: face awareness.
Drew Page, a longtime PGA Tour rep for Scotty Cameron, explained that several players he has worked with who experimented with zero-torque putters eventually returned to more traditional designs because they felt they had lost their sense of where the putter face was during their stroke.
That may sound odd to a 15-handicapper in his Thursday night league, but elite players live in a world of microscopic differences. They are extraordinarily sensitive to sound, feel and how the putter head moves through space. If a putter changes those sensations, pros notice.
“When they hit a putt, whether it's a poor swing or a poor strike, they want to know,” Page said. “’Where did I miss? What created that result?’ If there was no feedback given or not enough feedback given for them to say, ‘How can I make the adjustment in real time’ or ‘How can I make the adjustment going forward in my round,’ that’s not what they like.”
Williams made a similar point. Less than 10 percent of Tour players typically use a torque-reducing putter, but if those putters were genuinely better for everyone, that figure would be significantly higher.
It is possible we could see golfers spend time with a zero-torque putter, improve their mechanics and eventually return to a more traditional design. For example, J.J. Spaun won the 2025 U.S. Open at Oakmont using an L.A.B. DF3, but in 2026 he switched into a heel-shafted L.A.B. OZ.1i HS before switching to a non-zero-torque Scotty Cameron Phantom 9.2 at the Travelers Championship. Through last week's 2026 Open Championship at Royal Birkdale, that putter, which has a short slant neck that promotes face rotation, was still in Spaun's bag.
For golfers trying to decide between the two technologies, the question is not which putter is better. The question is do you have one of the problems that these putters are designed to fix?
If you miss a lot of short putts because your hands get twitchy or your stroke loses rhythm, a counterbalanced putter may help by smoothing out the motion and reducing the influence of your fingers, hands and wrists.
If you constantly fight pushes and pulls and struggle to return the face to square, a zero-torque putter may be worth exploring.
And if you are already a good putter, the answer is obvious: stay curious, stay open-minded and test everything, but do not assume that a new style of putter automatically means it will help you.
For all the similarities between them, zero-torque putters and counterbalanced putters are trying to accomplish different things. One is designed to quiet and smooth your stroke, while the other is designed to control the face.
They may occupy the same corner of the pro shop, but understanding which problem you are actually trying to solve matters far more than chasing the latest trend.
David Dusek is a senior writer at Golfweek covering golf equipment.
This article originally appeared on Golfweek: Zero Torque or Counterbalance: Which can help you make more putts?
Continue reading...
Today, the putting corral at your local pro shop looks vastly different. Blades and mallets are still there, but zero-torque putters make up a big percentage of sales, and counterbalanced models remain popular too. There are even arm-locks, broomsticks and center-shafted designs, and none of them are viewed as oddities. Golfers who used to worry about looking out of place or who were self-conscious about what others thought of them using unconventional putters are increasingly concerned with something more important: Will this help me make more putts?
You must be registered for see images attach
That shift in attitude has created an interesting problem. Many golfers lump zero-torque and counterbalanced putters together because both promise greater consistency. Spend enough time on YouTube or scroll through social media and it is easy to conclude that they are chasing the same thing.
They’re not.
The similarities between zero-torque and counterbalanced putters are real, but the differences are much more important.
How we got here
You must be registered for see images attach
Counterbalanced putters emerged from one of the biggest equipment changes in modern golf: the ban on anchored putting.
Before the USGA and R&A prohibited players from anchoring long and belly putters against their bodies starting on January 1, 2016, manufacturers began searching for ways to preserve the stability that had made those designs so appealing. The most popular solution was to make standard-length putters slightly longer, give them a heavier head and add some weight at the top of the grip.
The result was counterbalancing, a style of putter that helped quiet the hands and wrists without violating the rules.
Counterbalanced putters quickly found an audience and, over the years, have been used to win some of golf’s biggest events. Wyndham Clark won the 2023 U.S. Open with a counterbalanced Odyssey Jailbird and Viktor Hovland won that year’s Tour Championship with a counterbalanced Ping PLD DS-72. In June, Clark won his second U.S. Open with a counterbalanced Ping Scottsdale TEC Ally Blue.
Zero-torque putters arrived by a very different route. Designers learned that by having the shaft enter the head directly over the center of gravity (CG) or aligning the shaft axis and CG, they could make putters that would greatly reduce the face’s propensity to either open or close during the stroke. The result is that zero torque putters tend to keep the face square to your stroke path more easily, and for many golfers that results in getting putts started on the intended target line more often.
Much of the credit belongs to L.A.B. Golf, whose Directed Force putters proved that golfers were willing to embrace unconventional shapes if they believed the technology worked. The DF 2.1 looked like a potato masher on a stick, but players who struggled to return the putter face consistently to square discovered that they could make more putts with it. It also had an extremely high moment of inertia (MOI), so it was ultra-stable on mis-hits,
Over the last five to eight years, shapes have refined, alignment aids have improved, and more players who struggled on the greens have tinkered and switched to zero-torque offerings.
Today, there are zero-torque blades or torque-reducing putters that look conventional from brands like Bettinardi, Evnroll, Odyssey, PXG, TaylorMade, Scotty Cameron, Tour Edge, Wilson and nearly every major manufacturer.
According to Luke Williams, Odyssey’s senior director of product and brand management for putters, this is not a fad.
“Zero torque is driving the putter category,” he said. “About 30 percent of sales are now in zero torque.”
So, in less than a decade, zero-torque putters have gone from zero percent of sales to being a legitimate third branch on the putter tree.
What counterbalanced putters actually do
You must be registered for see images
The easiest way to understand counterbalanced putters is to think about what happens when nerves creep into your putting stroke.
Maybe your hands get jumpy over a 6-footer. Maybe your takeaway becomes quick and jerky when the match is on the line. When the pressure is on, maybe your stroke gets twitchy. Counterbalanced putters attack that problem with mass.
“So, after the belly putter wasn’t available anymore, it sort of got modified and turned into what we call a Cruiser or others call counterbalanced putters,” Williams explained. “They're generally 36 to 38 inches and heavier overall. For golfers who tend to jerk the putter back, more weight is going to help them. It’s going to quiet their hands and wrists.”
That does not mean they are foolproof. The trade-off, Williams said, is that some players lose touch on longer putts with counterbalanced putters, where distance control becomes more important than stability.
What zero-torque putters actually do
You must be registered for see images attach
While zero-torque putters also tend to be heavy, trying to solve a different problem.
Rather than calming twitchy hands, they are designed to reduce how much the putter face wants to rotate during the stroke, making it easier for golfers to return the face squarely at impact. That promise has obvious appeal because if you can do that consistently, you will get your putts starting on your intended target line more often.
Williams said zero torque has become the latest “alternative” putting style, aimed at golfers who struggle with conventional putters and believe they should putt better than they do.
Interestingly, he likens zero-torque putters to game-improvement irons.
If that comparison sounds strange, but consider this. Game-improvement irons use larger heads, more offset and a lower CG to help golfers overcome flaws in their swings and get better, more consistent performance. Zero-torque putters, which until recently were mostly mallets, attempt to help golfers overcome their struggles to control the putter face.
They are not gimmicks, but instead are designed to solve a particular problem.
Why Tour players have not rushed to switch
You must be registered for see images
At this point, a simple question seems obvious: If zero-torque putters are so effective and golfers are flocking to them at the recreational level, why are they not everywhere on the PGA Tour?
The answer may lie in a phrase that club fitters use, but recreational golfers rarely think about: face awareness.
Drew Page, a longtime PGA Tour rep for Scotty Cameron, explained that several players he has worked with who experimented with zero-torque putters eventually returned to more traditional designs because they felt they had lost their sense of where the putter face was during their stroke.
That may sound odd to a 15-handicapper in his Thursday night league, but elite players live in a world of microscopic differences. They are extraordinarily sensitive to sound, feel and how the putter head moves through space. If a putter changes those sensations, pros notice.
“When they hit a putt, whether it's a poor swing or a poor strike, they want to know,” Page said. “’Where did I miss? What created that result?’ If there was no feedback given or not enough feedback given for them to say, ‘How can I make the adjustment in real time’ or ‘How can I make the adjustment going forward in my round,’ that’s not what they like.”
You must be registered for see images attach
Williams made a similar point. Less than 10 percent of Tour players typically use a torque-reducing putter, but if those putters were genuinely better for everyone, that figure would be significantly higher.
It is possible we could see golfers spend time with a zero-torque putter, improve their mechanics and eventually return to a more traditional design. For example, J.J. Spaun won the 2025 U.S. Open at Oakmont using an L.A.B. DF3, but in 2026 he switched into a heel-shafted L.A.B. OZ.1i HS before switching to a non-zero-torque Scotty Cameron Phantom 9.2 at the Travelers Championship. Through last week's 2026 Open Championship at Royal Birkdale, that putter, which has a short slant neck that promotes face rotation, was still in Spaun's bag.
Which type of golfer are you?
For golfers trying to decide between the two technologies, the question is not which putter is better. The question is do you have one of the problems that these putters are designed to fix?
If you miss a lot of short putts because your hands get twitchy or your stroke loses rhythm, a counterbalanced putter may help by smoothing out the motion and reducing the influence of your fingers, hands and wrists.
If you constantly fight pushes and pulls and struggle to return the face to square, a zero-torque putter may be worth exploring.
And if you are already a good putter, the answer is obvious: stay curious, stay open-minded and test everything, but do not assume that a new style of putter automatically means it will help you.
For all the similarities between them, zero-torque putters and counterbalanced putters are trying to accomplish different things. One is designed to quiet and smooth your stroke, while the other is designed to control the face.
They may occupy the same corner of the pro shop, but understanding which problem you are actually trying to solve matters far more than chasing the latest trend.
David Dusek is a senior writer at Golfweek covering golf equipment.
This article originally appeared on Golfweek: Zero Torque or Counterbalance: Which can help you make more putts?
Continue reading...
