(by Dave Wolfe)
Welcome to the third day of the 2014 MyGolfSpy’s Golf’s Most Wanted Test.
On Day 1, we introduced the 2014 competitors, and Day 2 saw the crowning of the Ping Ketsch as the 2014 Golf’s Most Wanted Mallet.
Today, we are going to break down the data a bit more to see if we can’t identify some of the factors that played a role in this year’s testing. Naturally, we will be looking into the massive dominance of the Ketsch, but we will also take some time to explore the other contestants, hopefully shedding some light on the underlying factors that affected their performances relative to the others in the field.
We have a bunch of numbers to look at, and a bunch of conclusions to discuss, but first let’s reset the testing conditions.
How We Tested
SCORING SYSTEM RECAP
To assess accuracy, we had each tester take five putts at distances of 5, 10, and 20 feet, recording the distance that each putt ended up from the edge of the cup. That means measurements were taken for 15 putts per putter with each tester, totaling 150 putts per putter!Once the distances from the edge of the cup were adjusted for the five and ten foot putts, the scores from all of the testers were combined to generate a total accuracy score for each putter. Accuracy was assessed for the group of testers, not the individual testers.
“Golf’s Most Wanted!” Mallet Putter, should be the most accurate, regardless of the person swinging the stick.
Based upon our years of testing & data, we selected a total miss distance of 127.5 inches from the cup as the ideal accuracy value that a putter could achieve for a given tester. This number represents the total adjusted miss score for all fifteen putts for a given tester and equates to an average miss of 8.5 inches per putt. Individual putters were then scored against this ideal accuracy value, with the final score representing a percentage of that ideal. All numbers were rounded off to the nearest whole number. Here is an example of how the final accuracy score is calculated:
EXAMPLE: Accuracy Score Calculation
:: Total Miss Distance (all testers, adjusted for distance)= 1686 inches
:: Average Miss Distance Per Tester (Total/10)= 168.6 inches
:: Percentage of Accuracy Ideal Value (127.5/Average Miss Per Tester x 100)= 76%
Average Accuracy Values
After all of the data was crunched and adjusted, the above breakdown was calculated on a per putt basis. What that means is that, on average, each 5-foot putt was missed by 5.8 inches, each 10-foot putt by 10.8 inches, and each 20-foot putt by 13.4. Were some putts closer to the hole than the average value, and some more distant? Of course, that’s how averages work.
What that average value gives us though is a baseline for comparison. By setting a reference point for average accuracy performance, we now have a point to which we can compare the performance of each individual putter.
We have also broken the total accuracy data out for the three putt distances so that we can further analyze where a given putter excelled, or struggled versus the rest of the pack. Overall, this will tell a more complete story for each individual putter and for the test in its entirety.
Close Is Not In!
We all understand the game of golf enough to know that a 3″ putt after a close miss still counts as a full stroke on the card. With this in mind, total putts made for each putter from each distance was also recorded. When we look at the combination of putts made and the accuracy values, we can get an even more complete picture about putter performance, and a very clear picture regarding the Ping Ketsch’s total domination of the field.
Here are the Made Putt Percentages for our test cohort broken down by distance:
For context, let’s take a look at some 2013 PGA Tour make percentages:
Now I’m not going to sit here and tell you that my testers are putting under the same conditions at the PGA guys. Last time I checked, there was no huge dollar loss or gain associated with our test putts, and that probably reduces putting stress a touch. Our test green was definitely flatter, and not as fast as the tour greens, but I think that the testers’ make percentages are pretty darn good for a group of amateur golfers.
Our testers ran the range of handicaps, and overall, I feel like they represent the caliber of guys that many of you probably play with at your home course each week. The testers’ putting abilities definitely varied, but as a group, they had some skill on the green. Our data comes from real golfers who take the game seriously.
Let’s Dig Deeper into Data
Keeping the above averages in mind, let’s look at the performances of the individual putters. For sake of comparison, we have calculated the average accuracy for each putter, from each distance, relative to the overall accuracy of the putter field. We have also included the relative make percentage versus the make percentage of the field.
Here are our twenty-four mallets in order of finish:
1st: Ping Ketsch
Ping Ketsch |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+352% |
+38% |
+57% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
+19% |
+11% |
+4% |
The Ping Ketsch didn’t just beat the competition, it slaughtered them. The runner-up Wilson Vizor Level 2 M3 carded a score that would have won the 2013 competition going away. But this is 2014, and the Ketsch was a force to be reckoned with.
How amazing was the Ketsch’s accuracy?
From 5-feet, the Ketsch was 352% more accurate than the field average. No, I didn’t forget a decimal there. It is three hundred and fifty-two percent more accurate!
That’s a crazy number. When we look at the 5-foot make percentage, it gets even scarier. If the field average was 77%, and the Ketsch was 19% above that, that means that it’s overall make percentage was 96%. Ten testers, five putts each for a total of fifty putts. To score 96% that means…
Only two of the five foot putts were missed by our testers with the Ping Ketsch.
No other putter could top that. It was as close to automatic from up close as I have seen during testing. Numbers from 10-feet and 20-feet were also well above average, but that 5-foot mark was astounding. If you want a putter that takes the knock out of the short knee-knocker, the Ping Ketsch is it.
Don’t be surprised if gaming the Ketsch causes your buddies to extend your gimmie range by a few feet, or if they are all bagging one after the Ketsch hits the market in April.
We will dissect this putter at great length in an upcoming article. It really deserves a spotlight of its own.
2nd: Wilson Staff Vizor Level 2 #3
Wilson Staff Vizor Level 2 M3 |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+126% |
+43% |
-3% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-6% |
+52% |
-4% |
As I mentioned above, were it not for the inhuman numbers of the Ketsch, the Wilson Staff Vizor Level2 M3 would have snatched the top honors. When I wrote the Club Report article on the Wilson Staff Vizor Level 2 putters a few months back, I knew that Wilson had definitely improved on the pervious incarnation of the Vizor, but I had no idea that those improvements would translate to this level of performance.
Multiple testers commented on how easy it was to line up the putts using the I-Lock technology, and also how they liked the feel of the new insert. The Wilson M3 put the ball close from all distances, and also made more than the field, including the winning Ketsch, by a bunch at 10-feet.
If the new equipment from Wilson Staff is not on your golf gear radar for 2014, it really should be.
2nd: Ping Nome TR
Ping Nome TR
|
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+22% |
+25% |
+25% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-14% |
0% |
+4% |
The first version of the Ping Nome was a tour-tested winner. Remember that Hunter Mahan won the Accenture Matchplay Tournament with the original Nome. The Nome TR definitely upholds the accuracy pedigree of the original, surpassing it when we compare the finish of the Nome TR to the finish of the aluminum Nome in the 2013 Most Wanted Mallet competition.
This year, the Nome TR’s tie-for-second finish comes from being accurate from all distances, perhaps only faltering a bit when we look at the 5-foot makes. If the Nome TR missed the hole, it didn’t miss by much.
Overall, testers had very positive comments about the alignment and feel of the Nome TR, though none were inspired enough to write a poem about it.
4th: Ping Scottsdale TR Senita B
Ping Senita B |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+17% |
+50% |
+11% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-8% |
+4% |
+4% |
Did you notice that the Scottsdale TR Senita B is the third Ping putter that placed in the Top 5? Could there be something going on down there in Arizona these days? It would seem so.
This Senita B was interesting for a couple of reasons. First the “B” in Senita B indicates that it is the counterbalanced version of the Scottsdale TR Senita. We have had discussions before about the impact of counterbalanced putters in the golf market once the anchoring ban goes into place. The high placing of the Senita B, and the BB55-CB right behind it, gives some credence to the anchoring replacement hypothesis.
The other interesting feature about this Senita B is that it has the Slight-Arc shaft option. Ping has always been known for their colored dot fitting/customization program. What they have done for mallets with the fitted shaft options, as well as adjustable length shafts just adds to the depth of customization. There was a time when Ping was the name in putters. Maybe that time is here again.
5th: Bettinardi BB55-CB
Bettinardi BB55-CB |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+49% |
+27% |
+8% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-2% |
0% |
-2% |
Most of the testers made what I would call “broccoli face” when they looked at the BB55-CB. The vast majority of the testers were not fans of how the putter looked, and had real doubts about its performance until they rolled a ball with it.
Truth be told, the testers never really warmed to the looks of the BB55-CB, or to it’s shorter-shafted brother the BB-55, but they loved the feel and the alignment. Their opinions on the looks warmed after making lots of solid putts.
Looking at the accuracy, the liking of feel and alignment probably matters more than not liking the looks when it comes to making putts. We will have more on the aesthetic to performance correlation in a bit, but the Bettinardi B55-CB scored 5th for accuracy, with an aesthetic ranking of 16th.
You can make putts with an “ugly” putter.
6th: Odyssey Tank 2-Ball
Odyssey Tank 2-Ball |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+70% |
+30% |
-1% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
+8% |
+4% |
-4% |
If any putter had an unfair advantage in the competition, it was probably this 2-Ball. I would estimate that seven or eight of the testers told me a story about how they used to game a Odyssey 2-ball at some point in the past. Lining up the two balls with the ball to be putted was not a new concept.
The TANK 2-Ball did very well from in close, but its heavy weight got a bit more unruly at distance. Most testers thought that it would take some time to get the feel for it at long range.
This TANK 2-Ball is, of course, another counterbalanced putter. That makes 4th, 5th, and 6th place so far going to counterbalanced putters. Hmmmm.
7th: Nike MOD-00
Nike MOD-00 |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+35% |
-6% |
+17% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
+14% |
+6% |
+2% |
The Nike MOD-00 was right there with the pack leaders, putting up solid numbers, just not ones epic enough to crack the Top 5.
Testers liked the alignment scheme, and the feel. The consensus was definitely “I’ll be taking this home” with many of them.
I know that I just made a little commercial for Wilson Staff above, but Nike Golf’s equipment improvements definitely warrant further consumer investigation as well. Their putters have been exceptional for the past few years now. Remember that it was a Nike putter that won Golf’s Most Wanted Blade Putter last year.
7th: Bettinardi BB55
Bettinardi BB55 |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+98% |
0% |
0% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
+8% |
-6% |
-2% |
The short-shafted sibling of the BB55-CB also cracks the Top 10. While watching the testers putt, I knew that both BB55 versions were scoring well, but I would have though that this standard length version was scoring higher than the counterbalanced one.
This BB55 was definitely stronger in close than the BB55-CB, but the data suggests that the counterbalance provides an edge from distance.
Look for a further dissection of the counterbalanced versus standard performance in a future MyGolfSpy article.
9th: Ping Craz-E
PING CRAZ-E TR |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+81% |
-9% |
+2% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
+14% |
-2% |
-4% |
The Ping Craz-E TR brings our Pings in the Top 10 count up to four. The Craz-E did not score as well as the other three from mid-distance, but as you can see, it was exceptional in close.
The fact that there are four putters in the top ten that share the same insert is definitely worth looking into. While Ping may not have invented the concept of the off-center correcting insert, it does seem that with these mallets, they have developed that insert concept to a new level.
I’ve sent some inquires to Ping about the TR insert and its design process. Hopefully I can sit down with their putter people and get a more complete story on it to share with you soon.
10th: Odyssey Jailbird
Odyssey Jailbird |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+17% |
+1% |
+3% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-4% |
-8% |
+2% |
I’ll hand it to the Odyssey guys, when they come up with a concept, they push it to its boundaries. The Odyssey Versa Jailbird takes the black-white-black, perpendicular to the target line, alignment system and adds a more common siteline. Visually, the Jailbird is very distinct.
The familiarity of the White Hot insert in the Jailbird provided the testers with decent distance control, but they generally were not fans of the alignment system. Even from 5-feet, our testers were not confident that they were on the right line. The insert got it close, but knocking it in the cup consistently was another story.
10th: SeeMore PTM3
SeeMore PTM3 |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+17 |
-4% |
+5% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
+12% |
-6% |
+2% |
Tied for 10th is the highest placement for a SeeMore putter in any of the Golf’s Most Wanted competitions. I have always thought that SeeMore’s greatest weapon, the Riflescope Technology alignment system, could also be their greatest liability if the person using the putter does not understand how it works.
Regardless, the SeeMore PTM3 put up very respectable scores, especially when you compare them to the other compact, round mallets coming later down the list. Maybe the testers were a little more clued in to the RST workings this time, or maybe the PTM3 was more forgiving for the SeeMore uninitiated.
Regardless, the performance of the PTM3 shows that SeeMore can be right there with the big companies.
12th: Odyssey Havoc
Odyssey Havok |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-24% |
+13% |
+11% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-8% |
+12% |
+12% |
The Odyssey White Hot Pro Havok was a “cold dead hand” putter for one of our testers. I am sure that he will ask me about it when we are testing blades. He should want the Havok, because he just ruled the green with it. However, others did not find it so welcoming.
Testers commented about alignment issues when in close with the Havok, and the numbers show this confusion. One tester said that the straight alignment lines made for confusing optics when coupled with the curved body. Compare the Havok shape and scoring to the everything is straight BB55 and maybe we can see the impact.
Accuracy and makes may have improved from distance because the testers were not as worried about pointing the face of the Havok at the cup.
13th: TaylorMade Daddy Long Legs
TaylorMade Daddy Long Legs |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+29 |
+22% |
-17% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
+8% |
-2% |
-8% |
The TaylorMade Daddy Long Legs was similar to the TANK 2-Ball in performance. Testers loved it in close, but felt that the swing was a bit more unreliable at twenty feet. Like the TANK, the DLL is also counterbalanced, though this one was the short version of the counterbalanced models, measuring 35″.
More than one of our testers commented that they liked this length, as opposed to the longer counterbalanced putters, because it was easier to keep the grip end clear of the belly. If you played a belly putter at 38″ and now you have a not-to-be-anchored 38″ counterbalanced putter, you are in for some adjustment.
One tester suggested sit-ups to increase belly to putter grip clearance.
14th: Mantis Mallet
Mantis Mallet |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-14% |
-16% |
+4% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-4% |
+6% |
-4% |
Mantis Golf emerging into the golf market was one of the feel good putter stories of 2013. I’m definitely a fan of this green alien ship-esq design, but this test is all about the numbers.
Testers liked the feel, liked the looks more than I expected them too, but just didn’t really put up stellar numbers with the Mantis Mallet. Most of the testers were even familiar with the Mantis putter, having rolled it at the huge local demo day last year.
Some were put off by the looks of the Mantis Mallet. It is different. Just wait until you see the Mantis B blade. That new Mantis will take its shot at being Golf’s Most Wanted in the coming months.
15th: Cleveland Smart Square
Cleveland Smart Square |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-37% |
-3% |
+8% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-8% |
-6% |
-2% |
Let’s start with a big high five to Cleveland Golf for their participation. At the time the invitations went out, Cleveland was not that happy with MyGolfSpy’s views on the Smart Square. However, rather than deciding not to participate, they believed in this putter and sent the stick to do the talking. Regardless of where the Smart Square placed, I tip my hat to Cleveland Golf and I wish that all of our non-participating companies shared your product confidence.
Unfortunately, the dual squares did not seem to assist our testers, especially in close. A couple of guys suggested independently that the alignment would improve if the lines parallel to the face were blacked out, leaving two long lines down the length of the putter. I may give that a shot and see what happens, I’ll let you know.
15th: Tour Edge v3.2
Tour Edge DG Proto v3.2 |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
+27% |
-20% |
-10% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
+8% |
-24% |
+4% |
The Tour Edge Exotics DG Tour Proto v3.2 did very well in close, but accuracy fell off dramatically outside of five feet. I would be willing to bet that this represents the influence of design on the required stroke at these distances.
At 5 feet, you can overpower the natural flow of the putter, driving the ball into the hole almost by sheer force of will. However, this gets less likely when the putt is longer. The heel shaft and deep toe hang of this putter really suits a strong arcing stroke, one very different from the other mallets in the test. Maybe the testers were really grooved in on a shallower arc swing by the testing, and this one suffered as a result, but that’s just speculation.
The DG Proto v3.2 was well received for looks by the cohort, scoring 7th overall, but they just couldn’t putt well from distance with it.
17th: Bellum Winmore Midi Proto
Bellum Winmore Midi Pro |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-28% |
-5% |
-2% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
+2% |
-2% |
+2% |
I am sure that the guys at Bellum Winmore wanted their putter to place a bit better than it did, and maybe that’s true for most of the putters outside of the top slots. Personally, I see their middle of the pack finish as a strong one.
You may not realize it, but this Midi is the first mallet, ok maybe mallet-ish, putter from Bellum Winmore. I don’t mean first mallet design, I mean first mallet produced. Maybe it did struggle versus the pack from 5 feet, but it held its own at distance.
If Bellum Winmore can come out the gate with a competitive putter, just imagine what the Bellum Winmore guys will be producing down the road. I’ll be keeping a close eye on them.
17th: Wilson Staff Vizor 2 M4
Wilson Staff Vizor Level 2 M4 |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-15% |
+2% |
-15% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-4% |
-6% |
-2% |
The Wilson Staff Vizor Level 2 M4 did not live up to the standard set by the M3. What can we pin this on? Maybe it’s the traditional versus atypical head shape. Could be the center-shaft versus heel-shaft design. The M3’s and M4’s DNA are definitely similar, but I think that the M4’s design fits a narrower subset of golfers and as such, just won’t perform as well in the hands of a broad test pool.
If this design looks like something you would normally play, I would bet that your numbers would be higher. I have confidence in the performance of the I-Lock alignment system and the playability of the Vizor 2 insert, but this design may just be too out there for our test pool.
19th: TaylorMade Spider Mallet
TaylorMade Spider Mallet |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-30% |
-16% |
-2% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-2% |
+2% |
-2% |
When one looks at the bottom ranking end of this year’s Golf’s Most Wanted field, it is easy to spot a design trend. The small, round mallets did not do very well. With the exception of the Odyssey Metal X MIlled #7, all of the other low scoring mallets are small, round mallets.
The TaylorMade Spider Mallet scored the best of these maligned mallets, but nobody at TaylorMade is throwing high fives for a tied-for-19th finish. Testers really liked the looks of the Spider Mallet, but that, once again, demonstrates the disconnect between looks and performance. Were opinions on looks as important as we all once thought, the Spider Mallet placing 3rd in aesthetics should have produced something better than 19th.
19th: Piretti Bosa
Piretti Bosa |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-25% |
-6% |
-14% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-4% |
+2% |
+4% |
I was very excited when we added Piretti to our testing pool this year. What a great year they had with Stenson on tour last year, except for the part when he took the big paycheck at Callaway. Stenson rocking a Piretti Cottonwood II to the PGA Championship gave small putter companies everywhere hope, and something to shoot for.
Unfortunately, Piretti is welcomed to the Golf’s Most Wanted mallet competition with a tie for 19th. That’s not a nice way to treat a new friend, but when data dictates decisions, we need to go with what the data says.
Based on our data, the only thing that hurt tester performance than being a small mallet was being a small mallet with a plumbers neck. Our testers just didn’t sync with that design.
21st: Bettinardi BB32
Bettinardi BB32 |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-40% |
-2% |
-9% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-6% |
-6% |
+2% |
As I just mentioned for the Piretti Bosa, the compact, round mallets had a rough time in the competition. With the BB32, the majority of the problem from 5 feet was a combination of distance and line. Misses were typically long, both to the left and the right.
I actually found this data very interesting as it was opposite to what we saw with some of the other putters that were muscled into the hole up close, but veered off at distance. The BB32 also reenforces the disconnect between looks and performance as it was ranked aesthetically highest among the four Bettinardi entrants, but finished well behind both of the BB55s in performance.
22nd: SeeMore X3
SeeMore X3 |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-27% |
-21% |
-9% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-2% |
-6% |
+4% |
While the PTM3 suggested that the testers were becoming clued in to the SeeMore system, the X3 results suggest otherwise. In light of the PTM3’s performance though, it is tough to blame the X3’s score on tester ignorance of the SeeMore system. Like the others down at this end, alignment and distance were the culprits.
The insert was in the X3 was not a tester favorite. They felt that the feedback from the insert was sub-par, and more than one wished that it was an insert-free milled head.
23rd: Bettinardi BB32-CB
Bettinardi BB32-CB |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-24% |
-17% |
-17% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-6% |
+2% |
-6% |
Most of what I said above for the BB32 holds true for the BB32-CB. The extra bit of story on this one is that it seems to put a wrench in the counterbalanced is better theory. The admittedly small sample size of the putters in this test suggests that counterbalancing is worth pursuing for those looking for a bit of putting assistance, but benefits of counterbalancing may be on a per model basis.
Just because a putter is counterbalanced, it may not always be more accurate compared to a non-counterbalanced version. As I said before, the counterbalanced discussion is far from finished.
24th: Odyssey Metal X Milled #7
Odyssey Metal X Milled #7 |
5
|
10
|
20
|
Accuracy vs. Ave |
-36% |
-29% |
-4% |
Putts Made vs. Ave |
-2% |
-2% |
+2% |
For many of you out there, the last in class performance of the first fully milled Odyssey #7 is tough to swallow. How could this mallet, with its tour presence and overall player love finish in the cellar? One of you even commented about how different the results were for the Metal X Milled #7 compared to the Metal X #7 from last year’s competition. Great observation and question there.
The simple answer is that this #7 is not the same as the other #7 models. While year to year versions of the Odyssey “Fang” share the same #7 denotation, they are not the same in construction. Some are physically larger or smaller, and obviously, there are different inserts in the equation.
For this #7, the milled Metal X face and the larger size proved a fatal combination. While I personally do not participate as a tester in the Most Wanted Mallet process, I did spend some time with this #7. I like the #7, gaming a Versa 90° BWB #7 for a good portion of last season. I enjoy playing with that putter, and based on my love of milled putters, I was excited to roll the MXM #7.
To put it simply, the two #7’s didn’t feel the same at all. Something just felt off with the Metal X Milled version. Maybe it’s the weight, maybe it’s the way that the size effects the optics and stroke. Whatever it is, it was off for me, and for the testers as well.
I’ve read that some have had increased success with the MXM #7 after adjusting the weights, even trying different mass weights in the heel and toe positions. I’m going to experiment with the weights before dismissing this one outright. As with the entire test though, data is data and I can only report to you the numbers that the testers generate.
Support MyGolfSpy’s Datacratic Testing
It’s true; we absolutely 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 review and/or our other content 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=”]
And We Are Just Getting Started
You may be finishing this read, longing for more. Rest assured, more is definitely on the way. In this article, I have mentioned a couple of the putter things that we have cooking, but the most significant thing on the horizon is the 2014 MyGolfSpy Golf’s Most Wanted Blade Putter Competition. For that one, we have 32 blade putters from a variety of companies competing to be Golf’s Most Wanted.
Is there one in that batch that can touch the performance of the Ping Ketsch? I doubt it, but I also would have doubted that what the Ketsch did was even possible. Stay tuned flatstick fans, stay tuned.
More Most Wanted Mallet Coverage
2014 Most Wanted Mallet: The Contenders
2014 Golfs Most Wanted Mallet – The Results
2014 Golf’s Most Wanted Mallet – Beyond the Data (This Post)
Allen PGATSS
10 years ago
To bad you did not include the Bobby Grace line of putters – they would blow away the field!!!!