The performance gap wasn’t subtle. It was seven strokes.
Understanding “PuttView handicap”
PuttView handicap is the number behind every score in our test. Think of it like a round of golf, only for putting.
Each tester hits hundreds of putts from five, 10 and 20 feet. The PuttView system tracks direction, speed and proximity to the hole, then converts that data into a handicap-style number that reflects how many strokes a player would gain or lose using that putter.
A score of –7.6, as we saw from the L.A.B. OZ.1i, means the average player would gain roughly seven strokes over the course of a round compared to their baseline. A score closer to zero means no advantage.
The numbers behind the story
Here is a look at how these numbers stacked up and what they looked like on short, medium and long putts.
Across every distance, the OZ.1i produced smaller misses, truer rolls and better distance control. The images below show the difference in dispersion between these two putters.
Why zero-torque works
Zero-torque putters like the OZ.1iare engineered to keep the face square throughout the stroke. Traditional putters twist open and closed as you move the club, relying on perfect timing to square the face at impact.
Remove that torque and you remove the need for perfect timing. That’s the concept that L.A.B. was built on and it’s been proven in test results like these. Testers who tried the L.A.B. OZ.1i had the following to say about their experience.
“Easy to roll, great distance control, and love the press grip.”
“The angle was perfect at setup—it just rolls end over end every time.”
“It feels different at first, but once you see how straight the ball rolls, it’s hard to go back.”
Why this matters to you
If you’ve played a blade putter your entire life, you know how good it can feel but you also know what happens when timing slips or the face wobbles open under pressure.
The data shows that a zero-torque design removes that variable. Every golfer, regardless of handicap, benefits from a putter that resists twisting through impact.
If you haven’t tested a zero-torque putter yet, it might be time.
For You
For You
News
Jun 24, 2026
The 10 Best Active Players Without A Major
Instruction
Jun 24, 2026
5 Golf Habits That Feel Productive But Don’t Lower Scores
Instruction
Jun 24, 2026
3 Drills To Help You Control The Clubface Through Impact
Brittany Olizarowicz
Brittany Olizarowicz
Britt Olizarowicz is a scratch golfer, former teaching professional and one of MyGolfSpy’s leading voices on equipment testing and golf performance. She has spent more than 15 years working at private clubs in New York and Florida and now specializes in translating test data and swing mechanics into practical advice for everyday golfers. Britt began playing at age 7 and has never left the game. When she’s not writing, you’ll find her on the course, playing pickleball, cooking, running or out on the boat with her family.
Why? Dr tee was right. Why waste out time? ZT vs lowest price putter (Wilson Buckingham) would be much more interesting. Or ZTjailbreak vs non jailbreak
A test we could get into – MOI has helped me, but you can’t take the human element out, confidence, trust the stroke, and starts of course with a good read and getting ball started on line — so to me I wonder what is the purpose – insult to those who know the game, love the game and for sure want to trust MYGOLFSPY
What a complete waste of time. I took up precious breaths of air while I wallowed through this. Seriously, this is all you have to write now? How about you regurgitate another ball test story (again)?
Ok, first, to be clear, I love MGS. Seriously, you guys are the best. That doesn’t mean always perfect, but you’re always the best.
This comparison is not just pointless, it’s misleading, it’s twisted, it’s wrong. I can’t believe this got published.
Why compare the worst blade to the best zt putter? Why not compare the worst blade to the best blade? The worst blade is the worst because…it’s the worst. Why not compare the best zt to the worst zt? That would make more sense. Even the best zt to the best non-zt would be a great comparison. Best zt to the best older “non-zt” Spyder? I’m in!
I’m going to get a little too close to the line here, so I apologize sincerely, but I’m going to have to go to that famous Mark Twain quote: “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.”
Love you guys, really, but this should never have been published.
Some of the comments show me that folks don’t know what MGS is doing here. They didn’t actually run the test. They compared the results of the zero torque testing to the blade testing. You can do the same thing if you want to compare the best blade and mallet to the zero torque since the test protocol is the same for all.
Yes, but that doesn’t really explain why they write these articles comparing the best vs. the worst…a useful article would exerpt the tests to compare two bests…comparing best vs. worst’s only utility is patting themselves on the back, and the original test does that.
All the comments about the best versus the worst are true. It’s really superfluous. What I want to know is: will the popularity of zero torque putters ever bring the price point down to a reasonable amount of money? It’s bad enough that drivers are $600 and over. Do we really need to spend that much money on a putter these days?
Putters are very personal in terms of overall performance and feel. For years I gamed Scotty Newport 2 Beach blade plumbers neck until replacing with fitted EVNroll EV5 mid mallet slant neck, then on to fitted Spider GT also w/slant neck with steadily improving stats. On the basis of reviews in order to improve strokes gained less than 10 feet I tried several of the (IMHO) ungainly first LAB offerings without success until the release of the new heel shafted OZ .1iHS and no question my 4-10 foot stats improved as predicted by MGS data HOWEVER, my distance control on longer putts deteriorated significantly compared with the Spider . So-for me, certainly not sticking my GIR consistently within 10 feet , it makes sense to use a putter which will never leave me with any misses outside of 2-3 feet where I am close to 95% make. Therefore out with the Oz, back with the Spider. I think each player needs to assess their putter/putting individual skills and NEEDS carefully before jumping to a putter or technology just because of published data.
Putters are very personal in terms of overall performance and feel. For years I gamed Scotty Newport 2 Beach blade plumbers neck until replacing with fitted EVNroll EV5 mid mallet slant neck, then on to fitted Spider GT also w/slant neck with steadily improving stats. On the basis of reviews in order to improve strokes gained less than 10 feet I tried several of the (IMHO) ungainly first LAB offerings without success until the release of the new heel shafted OZ .1iHS and no question my 4-10 foot stats improved as predicted by MGS data HOWEVER, my distance control on longer putts deteriorated significantly compared with the Spider . So-for me, certainly not sticking my GIR consistently within 10 feet , it makes sense to use a putter which will never leave me with any misses outside of 2-3 feet where I am close to 95% make. Therefore out with the Oz, back with the Spider. I think each player needs to assess their putter/putting NEEDS carefully before jumping to a putter or technology just because of published data.
Situating a PXG putter as “the worst” just feels petty and unnecessary. I take great value in your reviews because I feel like they’re honest and unbiased. Articles like this make me question that. I’m not sure what your issue with PXG is and I know they’re kind of seen as a “fair game” punching bag for people to hate on because of their marketing style, but let’s get back to the data and leave the childish behavior out of it
Your obsession with “worst vs. best” testing is downright weird. Makes no sense and no matter how many charts and data points you provide, it’s still a flawed comparison and a waste of time to your readers, imo.
Couldn’t agree more with this comment. I don’t see how comparing the best against the worst provides me with any useful information. I come to your site to find the best – period.
I hate to say it. I hate gimmicks but my putting confidence and putting actually improved when I got mine. It just stays on line better. That’s all there is to it.
I agree with the result in general terms, that is Zero Torque being an advantage over blades. I started playing zero torque putters maybe 8 or sobyears ago with an Axis1 putter. I was sold on the theory but reluctantly sold it off to a buddy and went back to the standard shafted putters, in both blades and mallet. Then when the big ZT push came over the past 2 years, I was anxious to get back to it. I tried multiple models from LAB, Bettinardi, and Odyssey. I did not like anybof the LAB or Bettinardi models, and bought in on Odyssey’s Ai-ONE Square 2 Square #7. But I quickly soured on it due to its very pronounced forward shaft lean which affected my sight lines. Then along came Taylormade and their Spider ZT line this year. It was love at first try and after a number of few practice green sessions I put it in the bag. I immediately saw pisitive results. My first two times out with it I had 28 and 30 putt rounds. I also rolled in quite a few 15 footers. So yes, Zero Torque is the way to go. But for me it is TM’s Spider ZT.
NOW CAN YOU DO A FACE BALANCED MALLET vs THE NO TORQUE PUTTERS?
AI ROSSIE FACE BALANCED, SPYDER FACE BALANCED? POSSIBLY THAT WOULD BE APPLES TO APPLES?
I very recently bought a used DF1 that I love to look at. Really cool putter. It is very reliable inside 10’. It is also quite good on long putts. The thing is tho that on moderate to severe breaking putts your alignment must be perfect and you “must” stroke along that line. That might seem obvious but in truth most golfers including Pro’s don’t do that. Long putts and breaking putts are usually given some handsy last second extra off-path stroking assistance. Just watch a pro on a Green. They don’t completely align on path and rely on an adjusted stroke. You can’t do that with the press forward grip. For me the LAB is love hate. I’m more accurate on short putts but have trouble on long putts that have lots of break. My brain won’t allow me to aim the press forward along that line. I’ve spoken to others who have tried and gone back to their old putters. Some others including my son who is a good golfer swear by LAB lowering their average putts per round.
Fake
8 months ago
In defense, sometimes the best vs. worst does not yield a huge difference in results. Of course, the best putter for one person might be bad for another.
I agree 100%. Not only would the worst blade lose to every mallet, it would also lose to every blade. I don’t see the point of this at all. Best vs best is the true test, it seems to me
The difference per round then for medium putts (minus 5.8 to plus 3.4) is 9.2. Ate we.to believe the zero torque putter is 9.2.shots per round better? Something not quite right.
This is cool. It would be even better if you tested the Lab OZ against the best blade and the best regular mallett. That way we could see how much we could gain by switching to a LAB from a good putter.
ditto. The problem is really what is the “best” blade or mallet. these “best” comparisons are stupid. just show the stats and let golfers get fitted and figure out what putter results in the most strokes gained for them as an individual.
Momo
7 months ago
Why? Dr tee was right. Why waste out time? ZT vs lowest price putter (Wilson Buckingham) would be much more interesting. Or ZTjailbreak vs non jailbreak