|
THE WORLD SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS OF GOLF V MARCH 24-28, 2008 PHOENIX ARIZONA USA |
 |
|
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF PUTTER DESIGN FEATURES WHICH CAUSE MISSED PUTTS Presentation on March 25th from 4:00 to 5:00 pm by Duane Engdahl, Principal Investigator and Inventor, Phoenix Arizona and Dr. Edgar Dutra Zanotto, Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, Federal University of Sao Carlos Brazil. Sponsored by Quantum Golf Company |
|
This event was the official debut of the new technology Quantum Putters. If you want a printable transcript of this presentation plus ten other topics we addressed during Q&A, contact us and we will be pleased to send you a PDF file by return email. |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING EVENT
|
|
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING DISCUSSION
|
"In my 40 plus years of golfing having achieved Golf Digest Teacher of the Year, PGA Professional of the Year, and Horton Smith Award winner in my home state of Connecticut, I have seen a lot of putters - from its beautiful head to its awesome grip, you can't find a better putter than the Quantum." Ken Doyle, West Simsbury CT USA |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIAL
|
|
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING PATENT
|
"I am a lefty so my choices are always limited and I appreciate Quantum's L/R convertibility so I can not only use it for myself but let my right handed friends give it a go also." David Service, Upper Hutt Wellington, New Zealand |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIAL
|
TEST YOUR PUTTER FOR SWEET IMPACT CAPABILITY |
|
TAP
TEST |
|
SPIN
TEST |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TIP
|
"I came across your website and have been reading it for over an hour and I am blown away! You give the best explanation about putters and putting I have ever read and that's saying something because I have been a PGA member for over 50 years and active in teaching putting almost that entire time. Quantum is the only putter that has it right." Later he writes, "There is no question in my mind that the science that has gone into this putter is of the highest order. High on the list are the training alignment aids that go with this putter, they are extremely valuable, plus you have the opportunity to change the weights in the head, if you so desire. To say the least, I am very impressed with my new Quantum Putter. John Hardy, Murrieta CA USA |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIAL
|
"I searched GOOGLE.COM for 'PUTTING PUTTERS" and Quantum was #1 of about 750,000 listings. Then I purchased a Quantum Putter on that very first visit because everything you said about it made sense." Thomas Spinelli, Navarre FL USA |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIAL
|
"I searched YAHOO.COM for 'PUTTERS PUTTING' and Quantum was #1 of about 750,000 listings. For over 30 years I have been golfing and buying golf equipment and this is the first time I ever bought a golf club that actually did everything the manufacturer said it would do." Mike HIll, Goodyear AZ USA |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMOONIAL
|
SWEET IMPACT FOR DUMMYS Yes we know it should be "Dummies", but let's not complicate things here. Here we want to convey the very technical concept of Sweet Impact to those who don't want to bother thinking too hard about it. |
|
 |
If you wouldn't play tennis with a racquet that looked like this... |
| ... then why would you play golf with a putter that looked like this? |
 |
 |
If you wouldn't play baseball with a bat like this... |
| ...then why would you play golf with a putter that looked like this? |
 |
 |
If you wouldn't play billiards with a cue that looked like this... |
| ... then why would you play golf with a putter that looked like this? |
 |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TIP
|
"Quantum solved the backspin bouncy launch problem and I consider that a very important breakthrough." David Low, Swadlincote, England |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIAL
|
"I have no doubt the golf balls roll much smoother than they did with any of my former putters (Ping, Ping G5i Anser, Nike Oz, Taylormade Rossa Monza). My overall feeling is very positive - the Quantum Putter is very efficient and I really enjoy having it." Edgar Zanotto, San Carlos Brazil |
QUANTUM GOLF PUTTING PUTTERS TESTIMONIAL
|
"The Quantum is so different than anything else that comparing it to other putters is like trying to compare apples and oranges. My major concern about the Quantum was its negative loft because so many were telling me that a loft was needed to lift the ball up out of a turf indent; but that was quickly dispelled and to prove the point to myself, I actually stepped on a few balls to push them further down into the green and I found that the rolling launch still always occurred." Brett Partridge, Robina QL Australia |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIAL
|
USGA DECISION #2005-1001, DATED 1/11/2006. "Iin reference to the Quantum Putter, received on December 14, 2005, which you submitted for an Official Ruling. Please be advised that the putter as submitted, has been evaluated and it has been determined that it conforms to the Rules of Golf. In advertisements of the Quantum Putter, you are authorized to make the statement... |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING CONFORMANCE
|
Grant Westthorp, Albany WA Australia "The most used club in your bag has just become your best friend - your Quantum Putter" |
"Duane,
you are a genius because you have designed the sweetest putter on the
planet. I have been around the golfing market for a long time and before
that my father was around the golfing market even longer. I expect that your
Quantum Putter will soon become the 'numero uno' putter in the world."GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIAL
|
"I was the inventor of MetalWoods and ever since I sold my company to TaylorMade, I have always said that if I were to go back into the business it would be with a putter rather than the other clubs in a full set. I understand perfectly what you said about bending/breaking the shaft, and your analogy about heel shafting tennis racquets made the point about how ridiculous it is to heel shaft putters. I look forward to using my new Quantum Putter and I'll be happy to give you whatever help and advise I can from my experience as a golf club entrepreneur." James Cole, Brookings OR USA |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIA
|
George Hibbard, Palm Coast FL USA. Author of "Golf is not that Hard", "Golf's Critical Details", and "Even Great Golf is not that Hard"; also the Director of Perfect Impact Golf Academy, where we say, "The Quantum Putter is the only putter anywhere engineered with perfection." |
"Wow!
I have been taken by your putter. There simply does not exist anywhere else
in the golf universe a putter that is designed in this comprehensive way -
it is the perfect tool for the job of putting. No other putter I have ever
used gives me this quantum improvement in my putting precision."GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIAL
|
Geoff Mangum, Greensboro NC USA; Author of the definitive guide to golf putting, "Optimal Putting"; also Director of Putting Zone Academy which has putting instruction centers worldwide and which has the honor of being the highest ranking website on the subject of golf putting and putters; and where the Quantum Putter is featured as their, "Hot Stick" |
"Duane,
you are my new teacher!"GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTIMONIAL
|
"Quantum Precision Putters gain attention because they succeed" |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING MEDIA
|
DIGITAL GOLF TV "Duane Engdahl is known as PutterGeek because of all the technology he put into his Quantum Putters" |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING MEDIA
|
GOLF PUTTER FITTING "A Do-it-Yourself Approach to Fitting Putters" by Brent Kelly |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING MEDIA
|
"Quantum Putter awarded coveted GolfTestUSA Seal of Excellence"
|
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING TESTING
Do you appreciate this information?We give you this golf putting putters information freely; and, if you find it helpful, all we ask in return is that you please tell the world that you "digg" it. Quantum is a small company among giants; so, if you believe in what we are doing...
improving golf putter technology ...then please click here and submit a comment. Thank you so much! |
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING OPINION LINK
|
This website was
last updated on
|
GOLF PUTTERS GOLF PUTTING VISITORS
Physicists deal in facts and, with the aid of
their Mathematicians, they seek truth regarding the design and operation of the
universe and everything in it; they deal in the "black and white of truth". On the other hand, Scientists
survey and study intentionally restricted aspects of the things in the universe and, with the aid of their Statisticians, they seek consensus
of opinion; they deal in the superficial measurable "gray area of what
seems to be truth". For example:
-
If you ever asked a Scientist how many teeth a horse has, he would commission a study to count the teeth of a suitable sample of horses; then, with the aid of his statistician, he would give you an answer which by statistical consensus seemed to be the truth (but this method does not account for colts that do not have all their teeth yet or for the old nags who have begun to loose their teeth).
-
If you ever asked a Physicist how many teeth a horse has, he would simply fine an old horse skull and count the number of tooth sockets it had and then give you the answer (he would not even need his trusty mathematician for this simple inquiry). He might ask a Horse Doctor to verify that all horses have the same number of tooth sockets, but that would be it - the truth is fact and facts are truth to a physicist.
-
If you ever asked a Physicist if the universe had design, he would surely respond that yes it did. Why? because the job of a physicist is to study the design of the universe and try to make further discoveries about how it functions. If you were to privately probe a physicist about the likelihood of the existence of a universe designer, he would no doubt tell you that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics discovered back in 1850 by the German Physicist Rudolf Clausius indicates that it is impossible that anything as vast and complex and elegant as the universe could have ever invented itself (this law of physics says in a nutshell that the disorder of any system increases over time -- a concept that every housewife already knows). But you would have to privately probe physicists on this subject because nowadays when any academic publicly admits to believing that the universe was created, they are at risk of severe sanctions by radically intolerant academia (if you don't believe this see the recent documentary Expelled).
-
If you ever asked a Scientist if the universe had design and a designer, he would commission a study to survey the opinions of a suitable sample of "experts" to arrive at the answer by consensus. But, since no human has the capability of comprehending anything about origin of this vast and complex and elegant subject, there are no experts to survey. So scientists had to resort to surveying each other on this question and the eventual consensus was that it was more plausible to believe that the universe created itself than it was to believe that it was created by some power which is beyond human comprehension. This choice of two seemingly impossible conclusions put Scientists into a tizzy, so instead of admitting that they were humans incapable of answering this question, they arbitrarily chose a conclusion and now they are defending that conclusion vigorously (if they would have concluded the other choice, they'd have defended it just as vigorously). Scientists cannot tolerate being wrong and so this explains why they defend their conclusion on this subject so vigorously (it make you think of the old saying, "he doth protest too much", doesn't it?).
Mathematics is a tool of physicists who seek truth; Statistics is a tool of Scientists who want you to believe what they deem to be the truth. For example:
Let's say someone asked a physicist and also a scientist whether Albert Einstein believed in God or not - there might very well be two different answers. The physicists would go directly to Einstein and ask him (Einstein is deceased so now the physicist would have to go to Einstein's writings for the truth); even without the aid of his trusty mathematician, the physicist would conclude from the primary source of facts exactly what Einstein believed about the existence of God (I'm not going to give you the answer to this because that is not the point of this discussion and you can easily find this it out for yourself if you wish).
The scientist on the other hand would probably survey everything ever written about Einstein to see what was said about Einstein's belief in God; then with the aid of his trusty statistician, the results of these secondary source surveys would be compiled to make a conclusion, such conclusion would then be the basis for the scientist's answer to the question. If the statistical consensus did not jib with the conclusion the scientist wanted, then the sample can be changed and the test can be run again, and again, and again until the "right" answer comes. The physicist's answer on the other hand is based upon fact, not statistical polling; which would you rather believe?
Statistics, it should be understood, is a good tool; it is just that this good tool is all too often put into the hands of unscrupulous pollsters who have an a-priory agenda in mind. For example, when I (Duane Engdahl) was presenting at the Fifth World Scientific Congress of Golf recently, I had the opportunity to sit in on several other presentations.
One presenter there actually put a credit card sized amulet in my shirt pocket and then sprayed the top of my head with a cologne that he assuring me by his scientific statistical studies would not only improve my golf game, but also improve my love making. If you ask me, this was all BS (at 68 years old I am resigned to the fact that my golf game is deteriorating, but I am always looking for improvements in my love-making). But no matter how supremely ridiculous this was, he did have scientific survey statistics back up his assertion. It goes to show you how statistics in the hands of the unscrupulous can be made to assert anything.
Another presenter debunked by scientific study, the effectiveness of groves either milled or otherwise embodied into the face of the putter for the purpose of imparting a bounceless topspin roll launch upon the ball. But when his statistics were examined, all he showed was that putters having grooves perform about the same as putters not having grooves, when it comes to bounceless topspin launch - this was not a very satisfying revelation to a physicist, in fact it was what any physicist would have expected. When I queried this scientist about the mechanics of bounceless topspin launch, his response showed that his mind was closed to the physics of the issue when he responded with the usual ridiculous and erroneous conventional wisdom.
Many other presenters came and went, many of which were promoting their sacredly held positions, some of which seemed to have merit and many others of which did not.
This discussion has been fun, at least for me and I hope it was for you. But let's pull ourselves back to the subject of golf putters now. The Quantum Putter is designed by a physicist based upon the physics of putting and this tool is what a physicist would say is "elegant"; in other words, it is a tool which is...
perfectly designed for the function it is to perform
...nothing more and nothing less.
When you are ready to make a Quantum Improvement in your golf game, click here, otherwise please continue browsing the following topics...
Thanks,
Duane Engdahl, Managing Partner.
Quantum Golf Company