SAM PuttLab etc

[cjgolf]

Just wanted to start a discussion on devices like this that give readings on various aspects of putter path etc.

On balance do they really help the player?

Does anyone know of any proper research that tracks this (rather than just anecdotes)?

Of course they provide data/information for the pro/teacher and the player but then what?

One story:

I spoke to a pro in NZ that had the SAM. He measured the best putter in the cliub and his stats were so bad that the pro would not share them with the player.

Bye the way the pro played a major tour and has been prominent in some major Senior events since so he is not your average club pro by a long shot. So no doubt he had his reasons for not giving out the results in this case.

Of course this is but one story. I have also heard others were people got overwhelmed in the stats.

For the record I work in IT and I am for technology in general.

 

[suns11111]

Puttmad I believe has some experience with the SAM.

I am sure there is many pros that would be bad for the SAM Lab, not to pick on BIlly Mayfair....great practice stroke, but time to putt still a some weird action. I believe Brad Faxon (great putter FYI) hits all putts with 1 or2 degrees open face.
Good topic
JeffS

 

[Dan44GT]

CJ,
I am fortunate enough to work at a facility that utilizes SAM Putt Lab and have had great success with it. There are a couple of questions I may be able to answer. One, as far as balance, SAM does have a system for that but it is not the Putt Lab. Next, just like other tracking devices, the system does not teach, it simply gives you information. An experienced instructor should be able to pick and choose what they feel is necessary to work on after the initial evaluation. There are a few ways I've seen teachers utilize the system, one is by using "almost instant feedback". You make a putt and the screen reads out necessary details on the stroke. You can focus on one page, for instance, Face angle at Impact. Make a stroke and get instant feedback on where the face was on that stroke. A more advanced screen would be the side angle readout that measures the putters rise angle, the amount of shaft lean (forward, vertical, or back), and computes the estimated launch angle and predicted spin. Another way to use the system is by doing an initial measurement of the student, go out to the putting green, work on what is necessary, then come back and make another measurement, seeing what has changed from the original. The one drawback that I see from the system is just that it does not measure what the golf ball is doing, only the putter, that being said, it seems to be very accurate with putter readouts. The final thing I'd like to mention, which may or may not have happened with the Kiwi pro and his top playing student is that if he has not used the system a lot, he may have gotten a bad report because of poor calibration. The calibration on SAM needs to be done very precisely and can lead to very very bad numbers if not calibrated correctly, or used in the wind.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Probably the biggest issue with the SAM Puttlab is that the guidelines are subjective to a certain degree and thus the 'stats' of the user are subject to those guidelines. But generally, the guidelines make sense.

Believe it or not, I've seen Loren Roberts' SAM Puttlab report and it wasn't very impressive. His consistency was superb though. And I've heard the same thing from Tiger when he first tried it out and he reportedly now owns 2 SAM Puttlabs for his personal use.

That's what you usually see from a lot of Tour players and good putters. Grade scores of the stroke can be mediocre, but consistency scores are generally very good.

What's this mean to me?

I believe it shows that while the quality of the putting stroke is of importance, it's far more important to be consistent with your putting stroke and to be able to read greens well. High consistency scores I believe probably mean excellent speed and touch on the greens. And of course, if you can read putts well, that's a big thing.

Essentially I believe that if you are poor at reading greens and have a poor touch, even if your 'stroke quality scores' are very high, the little flaws you may have in your stroke are greatly exposed due to the poor green reading and poor touch. On the flip side, I believe if you are great at reading greens and have a great touch, those flaws don't have the impact.

I still highly suggest the SAM Puttlab because there may be a major flaw causing you to struggle or your stroke may be great and then you can realize that working on the stroke isn't the issue.




3JACK

 

[birdie_man]

How is 'quality' defined though Richie? Optimal numbers of some kind? (for roll, or whatever, perhaps)

I am with you on consistency. You could probably manage to putt really good if you did something REALLY goofy but did it every single time.

 

[needham]

You could probably manage to putt really good if you did something really goofy but did it every single time.

IE, THE CLAW! lol

 

[Richie3Jack]

How is 'quality' defined though Richie? Optimal numbers of some kind? (for roll, or whatever, perhaps)

I am with you on consistency. You could probably manage to putt really good if you did something really goofy but did it every single time.

It's based on the metrics of your stroke. Like if you have an arced stroke and your clubface is open say 5.3* at the end of the backstroke and closed say 5.2* at the finish and say 0.2* open at impact, you'd probably get a very good 'quality' score.

Like I said, they have their own subjective parameters. But you don't really need to use their parameters and 'quality' score to have the SAM Puttlab to be a useful tool. At the time I used it I was struggling with my putting poorly. I was 1.0* open at address. Then 9.1* open at the end of the backstroke, then 0.4* open at impact, an then 1.9* closed at finish. Essentially I was mix-matching the components. I had a very arced backstroke, but a very SBST thrustroke. So I had to decide whether I wanted a complete arced stroke or a complete SBST stroke. Also, needed to find out why my putterface was aligned to the right of the target at address.

I wouldn't say it's as great as Trackman in relation to what it does for putting, but it' a FANTASTIC tool and I would have one if I could afford it.



3JACK

 

[westy]

Any metrics are good metrics.
the interpretation however is a new science, and in the years to come we will see improvement in this area due to collaboration etc...

 

[mgranato]

I've used the SAM Puttlab and own a Tomi (pro version). If you like techno tools and don't mind exposing your putting to criticism, these systems are very helpful and fun. Of course, the danger is the temptation to start 'chasing' numbers.

What I've discovered about stroke path/shape is that the two main schools (arc and sbst) don't really exist among good putters. I've yet to see a stroke with a symmetrical arc like the products folks train with (Learning Curve, Putting Arc, etc). I've seen just a couple near perfect straight lines, but very few, and they nearly always have face rotation. The most common path trait that good putters share is that they all have a flat spot (straight line) through impact. An ISDL (inside straight down the line) path is pretty common as well.

My personal use for the system is based off green reading. Like most, I'm a natural left aimer, so I use it to constantly monitor that I'm aiming correctly. If I know (based on the analysis) that I'm aimed correctly and can consistently send the ball straight towards that direction (based on the analysis), I feel I'm getting valuable use from the tool. At the same time, I've got all the metrics of 'my' good putting stroke. When something gets a little off, it is usually easy to spot by comparing with my benchmark numbers.

 

[puttmad]

I would recommend a Puttlab session for every serious golfer.....it tells you in two minutes how your putting stroke is working and shows up any blatamt flaws (which you may miss under "normal" observation)..

It will also show you how overrated it is to concentrate on path, instead of blade angle at impact (hint: blade angle is at least 4x more important)....

 

[curtisj76]

What does it cost?

 

[siksta]

The advanced Sam Putt lab now has a camera on it so your teacher can work on your faults. The basic info can also help the teacher fit you properly a common trend when i taught was most people where using too long of a putter causing a blocking action thru impact. Witnessed a lot of players putted like there golf swing outside takeaway hold on thru impact and never let the putter swing like a putter.

 

[Dan44GT]

Probably the biggest issue with the SAM Puttlab is that the guidelines are subjective to a certain degree and thus the 'stats' of the user are subject to those guidelines. But generally, the guidelines make sense.

From what I understand, those guidelines (gray shaded areas) are a compilation of 150 european tour pros measured at an event. For those of you that use it, notice that they dont have a guideline for length of stroke or speed at impact. I also agree that the better the player the more consistent the numbers, as far as SAM Putt goes. We have over 50 PGA, Champions, and LPGA tour members in our database.

2 Conclusions I have come to,

1) Its better to be consistent than technically sound
2) Face trumps path by a bunch
and a 3rd for the heck of it) Rise angle should be greater than predicted launch.

 

[Richie3Jack]

What does it cost?

$8K.




3JACK

 

[vjsinger]

From what I understand, those guidelines (gray shaded areas) are a compilation of 150 european tour pros measured at an event. For those of you that use it, notice that they dont have a guideline for length of stroke or speed at impact. I also agree that the better the player the more consistent the numbers, as far as SAM Putt goes. We have over 50 PGA, Champions, and LPGA tour members in our database.

2 Conclusions I have come to,

1) Its better to be consistent than technically sound
2) Face trumps path by a bunch
and a 3rd for the heck of it) Rise angle should be greater than predicted launch.

Cool, Thanks.

 

[curtisj76]

$8K.




3JACK

For a session, not the whole thing.

 

[Richie3Jack]

For a session, not the whole thing.

Generally the same price of a regular putting lesson. I paid $40 for my session.





3JACK

 

[Richie3Jack]

2 Conclusions I have come to,

1) Its better to be consistent than technically sound
2) Face trumps path by a bunch
and a 3rd for the heck of it) Rise angle should be greater than predicted launch.

Absolutely.

Loren Roberts is a perfect example. His 'technique' has some concerning flaws and he actually was shown to cut across the ball. Even worse, his clubface was 1.0* closed at address. However, his consistency scores were superb and his face at impact was 0.0*. Combine that with his ability to read greens and develop speed/touch, it's no wonder why he's the Boss of the Moss.

Here's the pdf for Roberts' SAM Puttlab report. It's not bad by any means, but for a guy who is such a historically great putter I was surprised that it didn't meet my expectations.

http://www.samsports.us/PuttLab Data/LorenRoberts.pdf




3JACK

For those

 

[dsmith2296]

Any SAM labs around Louisville?

 

[dsmith2296]

CJ,
I am fortunate enough to work at a facility that utilizes SAM Putt Lab and have had great success with it. There are a couple of questions I may be able to answer. One, as far as balance, SAM does have a system for that but it is not the Putt Lab. Next, just like other tracking devices, the system does not teach, it simply gives you information. An experienced instructor should be able to pick and choose what they feel is necessary to work on after the initial evaluation. There are a few ways I've seen teachers utilize the system, one is by using "almost instant feedback". You make a putt and the screen reads out necessary details on the stroke. You can focus on one page, for instance, Face angle at Impact. Make a stroke and get instant feedback on where the face was on that stroke. A more advanced screen would be the side angle readout that measures the putters rise angle, the amount of shaft lean (forward, vertical, or back), and computes the estimated launch angle and predicted spin. Another way to use the system is by doing an initial measurement of the student, go out to the putting green, work on what is necessary, then come back and make another measurement, seeing what has changed from the original. The one drawback that I see from the system is just that it does not measure what the golf ball is doing, only the putter, that being said, it seems to be very accurate with putter readouts. The final thing I'd like to mention, which may or may not have happened with the Kiwi pro and his top playing student is that if he has not used the system a lot, he may have gotten a bad report because of poor calibration. The calibration on SAM needs to be done very precisely and can lead to very very bad numbers if not calibrated correctly, or used in the wind.

Do you run the lab? Seems like a pretty good business model. Spend $10K on a studio and it would take 200 lessons @ $50 to pay for it.