If you've paid any attention to golf equipment over the past year, you've heard the term "zero torque." L.A.B. Golf putters started showing up in tour bags, J.J. Spaun won the U.S. Open with one, and suddenly every major manufacturer scrambled to release their own version. Now Scotty Cameron — the most iconic name in putters — has entered the space with its new OC (Onset Center) models.
This isn't a passing fad. Zero-torque putters are now recognized as a distinct category alongside blades and mallets, with 11 models included in the latest 72-putter industry test. But the marketing has gotten ahead of the explanation. Let's fix that.
What Torque Actually Does to Your Putter
Pick up your putter and hold it in your putting stance. Now let go with one hand. Does the toe drop? That's torque — the twisting force created when the putter head's center of gravity doesn't line up with the shaft axis.
In a traditional putter, the CG sits behind and below the shaft connection point. When you swing, this offset creates a rotational force that wants to open the face on the backstroke and close it through impact. Your hands and wrists compensate for this constantly, whether you realize it or not.
This compensation is a source of inconsistency. Under pressure — inside 10 feet, with something on the line — your small muscles tighten, your grip pressure changes, and your ability to manage that torque degrades. It's why the yips exist. It's why you can drain 15-footers on the practice green and miss four-footers on the course.
How Zero-Torque Putters Eliminate the Problem
The concept is straightforward: align the center of gravity directly with the shaft axis so there's no twisting force. The putter face doesn't want to open or close — it just stays square to whatever path you swing it on.
The execution is harder than it sounds. L.A.B. Golf, the company that pioneered the modern zero-torque movement, achieves this through precise hand-balancing. A technician at their Oregon headquarters spends 30-40 minutes per putter head, placing high-density steel and tungsten weights until the face stays perfectly square at the lie angle. The shaft enters the head at a specific angle calculated to align with the CG. The result is what founder Bill Presse calls "Lie Angle Balance" — the putter balances with the face square when held at its intended lie angle, rather than the toe dropping or the face pointing skyward.
Other manufacturers take different approaches. Scotty Cameron's new OC technology uses an "Onset Center" shaft position — set back of the leading edge and in line with the head's center of gravity — to minimize torque without boring the shaft directly into the head. This preserves the ability to adjust loft and lie, something most L.A.B. designs sacrifice. PXG aligns the shaft axis through the CG using modified hosel geometry. Odyssey, Evnroll, and TaylorMade each have their own methods.
The physics are the same across all of them. Reduce the offset between shaft axis and CG, reduce the torque.
Who's Using Them on Tour
The adoption has been swift. Adam Scott, one of the best putters of his generation, switched to a L.A.B. MEZZ.1 MAX. Will Zalatoris, Lucas Glover, and Justin Rose are all using zero-torque models. On the DP World Tour, usage sits around 12 percent — a number that would have been essentially zero three years ago.
The watershed moment was Spaun's U.S. Open victory at Oakmont in 2025. He rolled in a 64-footer on the final hole with a L.A.B. DF3, tossed it in the air, and suddenly every golf media outlet was explaining what "zero torque" meant. It was the first major won with a zero-torque putter, and it legitimized the category overnight.
Now even the holdouts are responding. When Scotty Cameron — a brand built on tradition, craftsmanship, and doing things their own way — launches low-torque models, you know the market has shifted permanently.
The Honest Case For Switching
Zero-torque putters genuinely help certain golfers. If you struggle with face control — especially on short putts — the physics are working in your favor. The putter resists opening and closing, so your margin for error on face angle at impact gets wider. For golfers who fight the yips or whose putting falls apart under pressure, this can be transformative.
They also simplify the stroke. You don't need to match your stroke type to your putter's toe hang. A zero-torque putter works with straight-back-straight-through strokes, slight arcs, and everything in between, because the head isn't fighting you regardless of path.
The data backs this up. In MyGolfSpy's testing, zero-torque models showed measurable improvements in face angle consistency at impact across a wide range of handicaps. The effect was most pronounced among mid-to-high handicappers — exactly the golfers who struggle most with face control.
The Honest Case Against
They feel different. Noticeably different. When you first pick up a zero-torque putter, it feels light, almost hollow. That's because torque is perceived as weight — your hands are accustomed to fighting a twisting force, and when it disappears, the putter feels like something is missing.
This isn't a defect. It's an adjustment period. But some golfers never get past it. If you've spent 20 years developing feel and touch with a traditional blade, switching to a putter that behaves fundamentally differently can hurt your distance control before it helps your direction. The feedback loop changes. The way you judge speed changes.
There are also aesthetic concerns that shouldn't be dismissed. Many zero-torque designs require unusual hosel positions or shaft entry points that look unconventional at address. L.A.B.'s forward-press grip and preset shaft lean take getting used to visually. If confidence matters on the greens — and it absolutely does — a putter that looks wrong to your eye can undermine whatever mechanical advantage it provides.
Finally, zero-torque doesn't fix aim. If you consistently aim left or right of your target, a putter that holds the face square to your (mis)aimed path just means you miss more consistently in the same direction. Alignment is still on you.
Should You Make the Switch?
Here's a practical framework:
Strong candidate for zero-torque: You miss short putts despite a decent stroke. You feel your hands getting active or "flippy" through impact. You putt well in practice but fall apart on the course. You've tried multiple traditional putters and none feel stable.
Probably stick with what you have: You putt well already. You have strong feel and distance control with your current putter. You're highly sensitive to putter aesthetics and weight feel. You've never been properly fit for a putter — get fit first before changing categories entirely.
The best advice regardless: Get on a putting green with a zero-torque demo before buying. Roll 20 putts from 6 feet. Roll 20 putts from 20 feet. Pay attention to both make percentage and how the misses feel. The technology either clicks for you or it doesn't, and you'll know within 20 minutes.
The Bigger Picture
What's genuinely interesting about the zero-torque movement isn't just the technology — it's that it proves golf equipment innovation isn't dead. For years, the equipment conversation has been dominated by incremental driver improvements and the distance debate. Meanwhile, a small company in Oregon fundamentally rethought how a putter should work, built a grassroots following among everyday golfers, forced their way onto professional tours through pure performance, and dragged the entire industry along with them.
L.A.B. Golf did it backwards from how equipment usually works. Typically, a tour pro wins with something, and then amateurs buy it. L.A.B. built its audience with recreational golfers first, then the tour adoption followed. That's rare, and it suggests the product works on its own merits rather than on marketing alone.
Whether you switch or not, the zero-torque revolution has made one thing clear: the flatstick hasn't been "figured out." After centuries of putter design, there was still a fundamental physics problem hiding in plain sight. That should make every golfer — and every equipment designer — wonder what else we've been getting wrong.