Quantum Putters are like nothing the golf world has ever seen before. They are a quantum leap ahead of other putters currently on the market; in fact, so far advanced are Quantum putters, that they make all other golf putters obsolete. They...

Our Story

Quantum Golf Company is based in Phoenix Arizona USA and we are an independent original manufacturer and marketer of USGA conforming golf putters for PGA and LPGA Professionals and Avid Amateurs.

We have been doing research and development on golf putters and putting technology since 2002, and recently our work product made its debut at the Fifth World Scientific Congress of Golf where it raised great interest among scientists and researchers who seriously study all aspects of the game of golf.

Our new technology Quantum Putters are in conformance with USGA Rules of golf (USGA Ruling 2005-1001 on Prototype and 2008-530 on Product), and we have been granted three exclusive utility patents containing an aggregate total of 21 unique claims on our Quantum Technology (these are utility patents on technology, not just design patents on appearance).

And our Quantum Putters are recognized as superior by major golf/putting resources including Perfect Impact, Simply Golf, Putting Zone; and they can be found as a topic of discussing at many golf blogs.

Worldwide recognized authority on the putting, Geoff Mangum, has discovered the merits of Quantum Putters and as a result he featured our putters in his new book entitled Optimal Putting; he also showcased our putters at at the 2008 PGA Merchandise Show; and he demonstrated our putters at his book release press conference. Mangum also features the Quantum Putter on his Putting Zone website resource where he calls it a "Hot Stick".

HISTORY

In 1940, John Reuter came out with his Bulls Eye Putters and back then they were a quantum improvement over the “hockey stick” putters of antiquity.

This once new and revolutionary putter technology was a tool almost perfectly suited for the work it was intended to perform, what a physicist would call an elegant tool (a tool that embodies everything that is necessary for performing the intended job and nothing that is unnecessary). The only suggestions a physicist of today might have made back then would have been to:

But physicists are seldom in put in charge of design; instead form-over-function fashion designers usually make all the final decisions at most of the aggressive marketing oriented companies. The result is that putters over the past sixty plus years have actually regressed in technology instead of progressed. Now golf putters look more like the patrons of the Star Wars Tavern than serious tools that are well suited for the purpose they are intended to perform -- sinking putts.

Physicists will assert that the golf ball knows nothing about the shape, color, styling of the putter that hits it; the ball only knows where and how hard it is being hit along the vector of impact. So it would seem that all the styling that has gone into modern day putters is there to please trendy golfers and abide their desire to be fashionable. That would be okay, but big question is this…

Does superficial styling/flair/fashion cause missed putts?

TREND

Golfer performance on the fairway seems to have improved over the years, while at the same time putting performance on the green seems to have gotten worse. Is it that ball and driver technologies have advanced while the technology of putters has regressed? It seems so.

OPPORTUNITY

Upon critical review of the state-of-the-art putter technology, it becomes obvious there are several opportunities for technology improvement.

1) Perfectly Fitted Putters – For precision putting, it would seem that putters should be perfectly fitted to their users as to shaft length, shaft angle, and head weight. We found that putters currently on the market were available in only a limited number of shaft lengths, and usually in only one shaft angle and only one head weight, and many did not respect lefties enough to make a model for them. Astoundingly, the common solution to any shaft angle problem was to bend the shaft; this any physicist could tell you destroys sweet impact and increases shaft vibration.

2) Sweet Impact Dynamics – It would seem obvious that for any impacting tool, sweet impact dynamics should be a requirement. But we could not find any putters currently on the market that were capable of this fundamental performance requirement -- ironically most putter makers claim their putters have large sweet spots, when in fact a sweet spot on any impacting tool is actually a point and not an area; besides all these putters out of balance and are not even capable of sweet impact in the first place.

3) Topspin Bounceless Launch – It would seem that for precision putting the ball should be launched with a topspin roll that is proportionate to the launch speed and would also seem that the ball should never be lofted up off the surface of the green. Astoundingly, we could not find a single putter currently on the market that was capable of this fundamental performance requirement.

4) Tactile Symmetric Grip – A putter's grip which allows the golfer to make his own alignment would seem preferable to a grip that forced an alignment which in all likelihood is incorrect as is the case with factory installed asymmetric grips. It would also seem important that the grip be made of a material that is unaffected by moisture and has a texture which enables golfers to hold the putters securely in a relaxed way. We were astounded that we couldn’t find even one putter currently on the market that satisfied these seemingly simple requirements.

5) Practice/Play Convertibility – It would seem important that there be effective aids for practicing putting with the purpose of improving performance – after all putting is almost half of the whole game of golf. Yes we found many practice aids, but most were contrivances that violated the concept of having practice conditions mimic play conditions as closely as possible. The real answer to the dilemma would be to have a play putter that converted into a practice putter which embodied all the necessary aids in the most unobtrusive way possible, so the golfer could enjoy the most effective and efficient possible practice. We found no such putters currently on the market.

6) Good Glide – Since putters are impacting tools which must glide over a surface before impacting with the object, it would seem imperative to have good glide. The characteristics of good glide would include: 1) No leading edge bite that would unexpectedly slow or even halt the stroke at the most critical point in the putting process – the point of impact; 2) Minimal friction of the sole of the putter as it glides across the surface of the green; and 3) No trailing edge drag that would bounce the striking surface of the putter up at the most critical point in the putting process – again the point of impact. It would also seem beneficial if; 4) The sole of the putter were to be shaped in such a way that it combs the nap of the green during glide so as to maintain the stroke alignment with the desired line of launch; and 5) It is also geometrically obvious that the front to back measurement of the sole of the putter should be minimized so that a proper pendulum stroke need not be flattened while coming into tangency with the surface of the green. We found no putters currently on the market that took any these factors into consideration.

7) Power Adjustability – Many putting teachers/coaches will tell you that the most likely cause for putts going too long or too short is having to change the well practiced intuitive stroke for the varying conditions of the day – some days the greens are slow or the golfers mood is timid, other days the greens are fast or the golfer’s mood is aggressive -- some will even tell you that this is the fundamental cause of the dreaded putting yips. So it would seem that if the putter were adjustable for putting power, then the golfer would have the benefit of keeping his intuitive stroke constant under variable conditions of the day and that would be beneficial to putting performance. We found no putters currently on the market that had this capability.

So there are seven huge opportunities for making a quantum improvement in current putter technology.

But that’s not all – while we were critically reviewing putters currently on the market we were exposed to feature/benefit claims made by other putter manufacturers that seemed quite ridiculous.

8) Soft Impact Pad – Some manufacturers of putters have embodied a soft impact pad into the striking face of their putters' heads, claiming that this will improve the feel of impact. What they seem not to realize is that annoying shaft vibration is actually caused by a shaft which is not in perfect alignment with the putter's virtual power vector; e.g., the shaft is not straight and/or it does not vector precisely into the center of gravity of the putter's head. Furthermore, any materials expert will tell you that when a soft object impacts with a hard object, the soft object suffers more impact reverberation than the hard object does; so a soft pad on a putter actually causes putter reverberation upon impact -- ironically this causes just exactly what it is claimed to prevent. So upon thoughtful analysis, it would seem that there are three significant unintended consequences of a soft impact pad and each is very detrimental to precision putting:

One can only conclude that soft impact pads are marketing gimmicks that actually tend to reduce putting precision. Our review of putters currently on the market showed about half embodied ridiculous soft impact pads.

9) High Moment of Inertia (MOI) – Other putter manufacturers tout high moment-of-inertia as the solution to the problem of impact torque and it is the competition among these misguided putter makers for who can create the putter with the highest moment of inertia that has led putter designers down the path of creating the most ridiculous mallets one could ever imagine. Impact torque is the offset force exerted upon the head of the putter at impact by the ball’s resting momentum. This offset force tends to open the striking face of heel shafted putters at the worst possible point in time, the instant of impact, launching the ball off the intended line with an adverse lateral spin. Yes, higher moment of inertia reduces this torque, but the best solution to the torque problem is to eliminate it entirely. That could easily be done by designing a putter with “sweet impact dynamics”.

Sweet Impact Dynamics is a simple matter of physics – it happens when the center of gravity of the impacting object impacts upon the center of gravity of the impacted object along the plane defined by the moving virtual power vector.

In our review of putters, we were astounded that not a single putter currently on the market could be found that was capable of sweet impact dynamics.

10) Positive Loft Angle – Here is an example of the old saying, “When you repeat something often enough, it becomes conventional wisdom whether supported by truth or not.” Other putter manufacturers and putting pundits have for many years claimed that it is necessary to have a positive loft angle on the putter's face in order to “lift the ball out of its indentation in the green so it can be launched with topspin and without skid.” Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The truth is a simple matter of physics – topspin is imparted upon the ball by the torque created by the net difference of an offset promotional-force onto the upper hemisphere of the ball (putter impact) and an equally offset contra-force onto the bottom hemisphere (green friction).

In other words, it is the forward promotional force of impact in combination with the backward contra-force of green friction that creates a topspin launch. So to achieve the desired topspin launch, obviously it is necessary that the putter face have a negative loft which causes the impact point on the ball to be above the ball's center of gravity and which also causes the ball to be pushed slightly into the green in order to generate the requisite friction. The concept of Bounceless Topspin Launch requires some intellectual effort to understand, so it is easily overpowered by superficial “conventional wisdom”, nevertheless it is an absolute requirement for precision putting -- besides if bar-room pool shooters can understand this concept, golfers should be able to understand it too. In our review of putters currently on the market, we were could not find a single putter that was capable of this fundamental requirement for precision putting.

So there are actually ten opportunities for making a quantum improvement in current putter technology, all of which are extremely important for precision putting. All ten can be logically argued with the God given Laws of Physics and the first seven are so obvious that we would expect little or no controversy; the remaining three are deeply rooted in firmly held albeit illogical conventional wisdom, so here we would expect more controversy and substantial resistance.

PROTOTYPE

As inventors are wont to do when they are confronted with what they believe is a technology that could be improved upon, we went back to the last best baseline – the now almost 70 year old Bulls Eye Putter by the pioneer, John Reuter, who we greatly respect for his work.

Ping Craz-e The founder of Ping, Karsten Solheim, began here too. But the Solheim was a putter designer and not a putter technologist, so he led his company down the path of prettier and more distinctive putter designs. Now almost 70 years later, Ping offers the widest variety of putter styles ever offered to the golfing market, an astounding 68 models at our last count, and each is more distinctive than the other, but none of them are technologically correct.

Ping Anser We won't go down the Ping path, and neither will we go down path taken by the other big name in the putter business, Scotty Cameron. Cameron is a craftsman and he took the path of customizing putters for the touring professionals. Sure he now markets a line of putters under the Titleist brand, Scotty Cameron Studio but these putters are really nothing more than knockoffs of Ping and other putters except made with better craftsmanship and customized to suit the needs of his demanding clients. Scotty is still working in his shop in Carlsbad California serving the same market sector we hope to serve - the touring professionals, teaching professionals, and avid amateurs. He has style and craftsmanship and custom catering, but none of his putters are technologically correct.

Duane Engdahl is the Quantum Putter designer and he is a technologist. Foremost in Engdahl's mind is designing putters which are technologically correct - this does not mean they lack style or craftsmanship. Quite to the contrary, we assert that putters can be elegantly styled and well crafted and technologically correct and we further assert that this is exactly what the market needs and wants. And when it comes to catering to our clients, we will not be bending any shafts; instead we will refit with perfectly correct shafting whenever a client wishes a change in shafting and that is as it should be.

Starting where Reuter left off, we went about designing a new and improved putter: First we added the much needed mass to the old classic and we corrected the shaft vectoring problem; then we designed corrections and improvements for all ten of the opportunities we discovered in our critical review and analysis of the current state-of-the-art.

Then of course, we had to make sure that our prototype was in conformance with the USGA Rules of Golf. The conformance ruling was very difficult to gain because the USGA is responsible for maintaining the tradition of the game of golf and our putter was a new and startling putter innovation that took them a bit of getting used to. However in the end we did gain conformance ruling 2005-1001 on our new technology prototype putter.

Then we tested it to verify that the theoretical improvements we postulated actually worked as we expected they would in the real world. When we tested our prototype, we were astounded at the improvement in feel and putting precision, but we knew that was not enough; independent scientific testing was needed in order to truly validate our technology advancements.

So we engaged the popular independent tester of golf equipment for this scientific testing and they proceeded as follows:

Method – Twenty-five golfers ranging from duffers to professionals were assembled by the GolfTestUSA Test Director, Wayne Williams, for two full days of rigorous testing at the San Ignacio Country Club in Green Valley, AZ USA. The Prototype Putter was compared to the Personal Putter currently used by each test participant. Each participant made a substantial number of standardized putts of varying lengths with his own familiar Personal Putter; then each made the same number of similar standardized putts with the new unfamiliar Prototype Putter.

Results – Most of the participants (56%) experienced better putting performance with the new unfamiliar Prototype Putter than with their old and very familiar Personal Putter and this is a remarkable testimony to the superiority of the Prototype. Not only did the Prototype overcome the familiarity factor it also gave a significant and immediate performance improvement. By actual measurement to the nearest inch, the Prototype Putter outperformed Personal Putters by an 8% margin.

The Big Question – When asked if given a choice of discarding their own familiar personal putter and playing the rest of their life with the new technology prototype putter, an astounding 48% said that they would not hesitate to do that -- this was almost more than we could believe because usually people don’t discard old friends that easily.

Focus Group Survey – At the end of structured testing, a Focus Group was held among participants with the objective of discovering the relative importance of each of the Opportunity Features/Benefits we embodied into the Prototype Putter. Each participant was asked whether the Prototype’s Opportunity Features were an important benefit to precision putting and the results are tabulated below.

FEATURE/BENEFIT IMPORTANCE

FITTING FOR SHAFT ANGLE............................................ 100%

FITTING FOR SHAFT LENGTH............................................ 92%

FITTING FOR HEAD MASS.................................................. 76%

SWEET IMPACT DYNAMICS................................................ 88%

TOPSPIN BOUNCELESS LAUNCH....................................... 88%

TACTILE SYMMETRICAL GRIP............................................ 78%

PRACTICE/PLAY CONVERTIBILITY...................................... 69%

GOOD GLIDE....................................................................... 60%

POWER ADJUSTABILITY..................................................... 56%

Focus Group survey makes it conclusive that golfers appreciate the technology improvements we made in putter technology with fitting being the first priority of golfers; then comes sweet impact, topspin bounceless launch and tactile symmetrical grip; then practice/play convertibility with unobtrusive practice aids and good glide and power adjustability. All features scored significantly more important than less important, so it seems that we are clearly on the right track with our new technology.

Focus Group Suggestions – At the end of structured testing, the Focus Group was asked what suggestions they would offer to improve the prototype. Only three suggestions were made: 1) increase the toe to heel dimension so the putter would not look so stubby, 2) replace the logos on the top of the putter with alignment lines, and 3) make the process of rotating the head for convertibility and adjustability more convenient. The first two suggestions we said we could do, but the third we said we could not do because USGA Rules require convertibility and adjustability to be so inconvenient that it is not practical to be done during a round of play.

DEVELOPMENT

The results of prototype testing were very encouraging so we embarked upon product development, market analysis, business planning, and production. It has been a long road, but on March 24th 2008, the 68th birthday of our Founder, we presented our new technology product to the worldwide golf market at the Fifth World Scientific Congress of Golf, and so now this amazing new putter is available to you as...

PRECISION PERFORMANCE GOLF PUTTERS

"Quantum Precision Putters gain attention because they succeed"

"Duane Engdahl is known as PutterGeek because of all the technology he put into his Quantum Putters"

"A Do-it-Yourself Approach to Fitting Putters" by Brent Kelly

"Quantum Putter awarded coveted GolfTestUSA Seal of Excellence"

Do you appreciate this information?

You need the best golf putter technology to do your best at golf and our mission is to fill that need.

Introducing the Quantum Putter

Like nothing you've seen before

Our Story

HISTORY

Does superficial styling/flair/fashion cause missed putts?

TREND

OPPORTUNITY

PROTOTYPE

DEVELOPMENT