🔴 Correction, 30 August 2026. This piece said PXG fields five zero-torque models and that PING’s “not zero-torque” statement was about its “Scottsdale TR” putters. Both are corrected: PXG’s official Zero Torque collection currently lists six models (it added the center-shafted Hot Rod ZT in February 2026, before this piece’s own publish date), and PING’s statement was made about the Scottsdale TEC line, not “TR.”
Coverage of zero-torque putters has used the phrase “the zero-torque wars” to describe how thoroughly the major brands piled in.
Checking each brand’s official materials, that description holds up for the most part. But one brand doesn’t fit it.
PING states explicitly that its putters are not zero-torque. And it argues its own approach is better.
1. Where it started — L.A.B. Golf
| Item | What L.A.B. Golf states |
|---|---|
| The concept | Lie Angle Balance |
| What it positions | Centre of gravity over the shaft axis |
| Measured how | At the actual address lie angle, not held flat |
| Current flagship | VZN.1i, adding alignment-assist geometry |
Where It Started — A smaller US maker, not one of the majors. A putter sits on the ground when played, so balance at address differs from balance held flat.
The company that introduced this concept was L.A.B. Golf, a smaller US-based maker, not one of the major brands.
The approach, called “Lie Angle Balance,” centers on positioning the center of gravity directly over the shaft axis as measured in the actual address lie angle — not the lie a putter shows when held horizontally.
That distinction matters. A putter sits on the ground when played, so its balance at address is different from its balance held flat. L.A.B. built the design around the address position specifically.
The current flagship model is the VZN.1i, which the company describes as adding alignment-assist geometry on top of the lie-angle-balance concept.
2. The brands that followed
| Brand | Model line | Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Odyssey | Ai-ONE Square-to-Square | Centre shaft, toe lifts rather than sags |
| TaylorMade | Spider ZT and ZT Max | Toe-side bore, 2° lean, 34 mm offset |
| Scotty Cameron | Phantom 5 OC | A centered offset build |
| PXG | Six named models | The widest lineup among these brands |
The Brands That Followed — Same target, reached through different structures. TaylorMade’s centre-shaft profile in the same family uses 1° of lean and 25 mm of offset.
Major brands came next, each reaching the same target through a different structure.
Odyssey — Ai-ONE Square-to-Square Built with a center shaft, placing the center of gravity in the same plane as the shaft. The toe lifts rather than sagging. Three models — Double Wide, #7, and Jailbird — plus a Square-to-Square Ai-Dual variant.
TaylorMade — Spider ZT and ZT Max Routes the shaft through a bore near the center of gravity on the toe side, combined with 2 degrees of shaft lean and 34mm of offset. The center-shaft profile in the same family uses 1 degree of lean and 25mm of offset.
Scotty Cameron — Phantom 5 OC Solves it with a centered offset build. Eight Phantom models launched first, with the OC model added later in the same release window.
PXG — six models The widest lineup among these brands, spanning six named models under its zero-torque design.
3. But PING says otherwise
| Point | What PING states |
|---|---|
| What it sells | Low-torque, not zero-torque |
| On its recent design | Explicitly, “this is not zero-torque” |
| Its position | Its own approach is better |
| How it is built | An offset-shaft design |
| Reported zero-torque model | None officially confirmed |
PING Says Otherwise — General coverage places PING in the trend; its own materials do not. Zero-torque targets zero rotation; low-torque reduces it without aiming for zero.
This is the part worth focusing on most.
General coverage has described PING as part of the zero-torque trend. PING’s own materials say otherwise.
- PING does not sell a zero-torque model. What it sells is low-torque.
- On its Scottsdale TEC putter design, PING states explicitly, “this is not zero-torque.”
- It goes further and argues its own approach is better, built around an offset-shaft design instead.
- A limited-run custom model built through PING’s custom division also uses the same low-torque approach, with a shaft bore drilled directly into the head.
Reports of PING releasing a zero-torque model have circulated, but none has been officially confirmed.
So the accurate picture isn’t “everyone followed” — it’s “some followed, and one brand argues for a different path entirely.”
4. Zero-torque vs. low-torque — what’s the difference
The two terms sound alike, which makes them easy to confuse.
Zero-torque aims to reduce rotational torque to zero, placing the center of gravity directly on the shaft axis.
Low-torque reduces that torque without targeting zero. It typically uses a larger offset or a shifted shaft position to suppress rotation instead.
Which approach performs better isn’t something this piece can settle, because there’s no basis to judge it on. Neither camp publishes numbers backing its claims. No performance data was found behind PING’s “ours is better” position, and none was found behind the zero-torque camp’s claim of staying square through the stroke either.
What can be confirmed is that the structures differ, and that brands are genuinely split on which one is right.
5. How each brand implements it
| Brand | Approach | Numbers published? |
|---|---|---|
| L.A.B. Golf | On-axis at playing lie angle | No |
| Odyssey | Centre shaft, shaft-plane balance | No |
| TaylorMade | Toe-side bore, lean plus offset | Yes |
| Scotty Cameron | Centered offset | No |
| PXG | Zero torque across six models | No |
| PING | Offset shaft, low-torque | No |
Six Brands, Six Implementations — Only one of the six publishes actual figures. Neither camp publishes data, so which approach performs better is not settled here.
Lined up together, the approaches look like this:
- L.A.B. Golf — center of gravity on the shaft axis, measured at actual playing lie angle
- Odyssey — center shaft, center of gravity in the same plane as the shaft
- TaylorMade — bore near center of gravity on the toe side, plus 2 degrees of lean and 34mm of offset
- Scotty Cameron — centered offset build
- PXG — zero-torque balance extended across six models
- PING — does not use zero-torque. Offset shaft for low-torque instead
Of these six, only TaylorMade publishes actual numbers. The rest describe the structure without disclosing figures.
6. How to approach this
Start by knowing there are two camps. Zero-torque can look like the only answer, but one of the world’s largest putter makers explicitly takes a different path.
Don’t judge the category from one putter. As shown above, all six brands implement this differently. If an Odyssey model didn’t work for you, that says nothing about whether an L.A.B. model will.
Check what it looks like at address first. Most zero-torque models are either center-shafted or carry heavy offset. Before performance even enters the picture, visual comfort at setup is often what decides it.
Test it on short putts. Consistency of direction inside 3–5 feet is what this design is aimed at. Longer putts are dominated by distance control, which tends to bury the difference.
Don’t expect numbers. This category has almost nothing published so far. Hitting putts yourself is close to the only way to check.
7. Who this comparison is useful for
Judgment criteria inferred from confirmed facts.
- Golfers considering a zero-torque putter — implementations differ enough by brand that one putter can’t stand in for the whole category.
- PING putter owners — its recent design is low-torque, not zero-torque. It’s a different thing.
- Golfers going by headline coverage alone — “everyone joined in” doesn’t match each brand’s actual official position.
- Golfers who want numbers to compare — TaylorMade is the only brand publishing lean and offset figures; start there.
This is less useful for:
- Golfers wanting a verdict on which is better — neither camp publishes supporting data, so this piece doesn’t settle it.
- Golfers hoping a new putter alone will fix their putting — distance control and green reading aren’t solved by the club.
8. What we could not confirm
- Public data supporting zero-torque’s actual effect — no brand has published any.
- The data behind PING’s claim that low-torque performs better — the claim itself was confirmed; supporting numbers were not.
- Model names and specs for other brands entering the category — only preliminary coverage was confirmed.
- Shaft lean and offset figures for L.A.B., Odyssey, Scotty Cameron, and PXG — not published.
- Pricing — largely unconfirmed.
- Head weight for each model — could not be confirmed.
In one line
Zero-torque is a category a smaller brand opened and the majors mostly followed into. But not everyone followed.
PING says its putters aren’t zero-torque, that they’re low-torque, and that the low-torque approach is better. So the actual landscape is more mixed than “everyone joined in” suggests.
And this category still has no published numbers from either side. Rather than borrowing someone else’s conclusion, testing short putts yourself is the faster path to an answer.
Structural descriptions and brand positions in this piece come only from confirmed manufacturer materials. Where a value could not be confirmed, it was left blank.
Sources
- Each brand’s official materials — checked one by one against the common description of what zero-torque means.
- PXG Zero Torque collection — confirmed six current models: Allan, Bat Attack, Hellcat, Hot Rod ZT, Mustang, One & Done ZT.
- PXG Hot Rod ZT launch announcement — February 12, 2026.
- PING Scottsdale TEC and Golf.com, “Ping Scottsdale TEC Putters aren’t ‘zero torque’” (March 31, 2026) — PING design engineer Tony Serrano’s “not zero-torque” statement was made about the Scottsdale TEC line.
Items the source does not publish are named as unconfirmed rather than estimated.
