20160256752 | TRIUNE QUICK RELEASE ASSEMBLY AND CONNECTION GOLF CLUB SYSTEM | September, 2016 | Wilkins J. T. |
20080113832 | BATTING SWING TRAINER AND METHOD | May, 2008 | Ciesar et al. |
20040266566 | Swing-and-hit device for ball games | December, 2004 | Shiang et al. |
20160136497 | REBOUND WALL | May, 2016 | Grou |
20140121039 | BATTING TEE DEVICE | May, 2014 | Robinson et al. |
20130172120 | SOLID GOLF BALL | July, 2013 | Shinohara |
20040185967 | Golf tee | September, 2004 | Mcdonough et al. |
20100184531 | STRUCTURE OF PUTTER HEAD FOR GOLF | July, 2010 | Hwang |
20140162806 | GOLF CLUB AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAME | June, 2014 | Kitagawa et al. |
20160250528 | GOLF CLUB WITH IMPROVED WEIGHTING | September, 2016 | Barksdale et al. |
20120277025 | PRACTICE GOLF BALL | November, 2012 | Higuchi et al. |
[0001] The present application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/471,053 entitled, “GOLF PUTTER WITH ERROR VARIANCE REDUCING INSERT,” filed May 16, 2003, and herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
[0002] The invention relates generally to a golf putter. In particular, the invention relates to a golf putter having an error-variance-reducing hitting surface that is constructed to dampen the impact force of a golf ball by specific proportions over the typical range of forces commonly used in putting the ball.
[0003] Throughout the history of golf, various techniques have been used to enhance and alter the hitting characteristics of golf club heads. There are many different head designs, which are intended to alleviate some of the most common swing problems or are specifically tailored for situations a golfer can encounter on a golf course. In addition, a player's physical characteristics, for example, height, weight, build, stroke mechanics, stance, gender, left-handed or right-handed, along with course conditions such as grass conditions, and moisture content, are also factors in determining how an individual will hit a putter.
[0004] Golf club heads, including inserts for at least a portion of the desired striking area, have been used at least as far back as the 1880s, when leather-faced irons were manufactured in Scotland. Golfers in the 1890s were able to purchase putters with faces composed of gutta percha. More recently, inserts composed of various materials in a variety of shapes have been put forth by the golf industry to provide golfers with purported better feel and control of the golf ball.
[0005] Many putter heads made today have what is commonly referred to as a “face insert,” which is placed in a desired impact area on the club head face to provide a certain feel when striking a golf ball. Face inserts may be formed of polymers such as polyurethane while the remaining portion of the putter head is typically formed of a metal such as steel or bronze. Generally, a cavity having a desired shape and depth is provided in the impact area on the putter head face. The face insert is installed in the cavity by either one of two well-known methods. In one method, synthetic resin in a liquid state is poured into the cavity and is then cured so that the face insert is tightly bonded to the cavity. In another method, the face insert is preformed and glued into the cavity by using a suitable adhesive such as epoxy. In both methods, the putter head may be milled after the face insert has been installed to provide a flat face across the club head. A drawback of both of these methods is that they are time consuming and costly.
[0006] The development of insert materials has lead artisans to try and use such materials to develop putter heads that provide better putting results. In the United States, the only constraint guiding selection of potential insert materials is the United States Golf Association (USGA) rule that the striking surface of a putter insert be fairly hard (90 durometer or more on the Shore A scale). Although one finds many suggestions encompassing a wide variety of materials and constructions to improve the feel and accuracy of ball striking, these ideas have no actual basis in research or derivation from accepted science to support claims of actual improvement in putting performance.
[0007] The material used for face inserts in conventional putters is usually a metal or a polymer. The softer feel attributed to some of these materials is preferred by some golfers for various reasons. Most often, golfers suggest that the softer feel increases comfort and results in less vibration when striking the ball. It has been suggested that the softer feel when putting may increase putting accuracy in some way though there has been no actual basis or research to support such a claim. Alternatively, putters have been designed for a harder feel, with the idea that increased vibration from ball impact may help putting accuracy in some way.
[0008] U.S. Pat. No. 4,793,616, issued to Fernandez describes a club head, which is constructed of a molded lightweight composite material. The design is intended to provide improved weight and mass distribution for better ball striking. As disclosed, the invention does nothing to improve compression or feel.
[0009] U.S. Pat. No. 5,403,281 describes a shock-absorbing casing of a magnesium alloy and an elastic plate of an aluminum alloy, a titanium alloy or a ceramic material. This elastic plate is fastened to an open end of the hollow casing such that the elastic plate forms the ball striking surface of the club head. The shock absorbing elastic plate of this invention does not control compression impact or the feel associated with striking the golf ball.
[0010] U.S. Pat. No. 5,340,107 describes a putter of silicon nitride, and construction technique for the same. The putter does not have a layered hitting area, does not control compression impact and does not control the feel of striking the golf ball.
[0011] U.S. patents by Huggens (U.S. Pat. No. 4,156,526) and Douglass (U.S. Pat. No. 5,083,778) disclose how the shape of the insert response may reduce lateral deflection off the striking face of a putter insert. These inventions both suggest that an elliptical-shaped insert is optimal for controlling the direction of ball-rebound off the face, however, these elliptical inserts do not relate to distance control or improved feel.
[0012] Several patents, such as Webb (U.S. Pat. No. 6,270,423), Delaney (U.S. Pat. No. 6,001,030) and Rohrer (U.S. Pat. No. 6,431,997) describe clubs with interchangeable face pads and face inserts that an individual golfer can change himself to influence the feel of the club. However, these inserts do not address distance control.
[0013] While a variety of prior art references have been discussed and mentioned, there has yet to be introduced a golf putter hitting surface that demonstratably improves the forward distance accuracy problems associated with putting a golf ball. The history of golf putter designs, as well as patents disclosing various golf putter designs, reveals no prior mention or awareness of designing a putter head that demonstratably increases putting accuracy through the application of proportional impact damping to reduce putting distance error variability. As such, there is a present need to provide for a golf putter that applies the physics of proportional impact damping to improve distance accuracy associated with golf putting.
[0014] The golf club of the present invention goes beyond the past and current artisanship of simply trying differing materials for ball striking components to improve the feel of the golf putter. Instead, the present invention provides a demonstratable way of increasing putting accuracy through the use of materials selected to have proportional compression damping characteristics such that the overall error variance associated with putts is reduced.
[0015] The golf club of the present invention reduces forward, line-of-sight distance accuracy problems found in conventional golf putters. Through the use of proportional damping materials under a hard hitting surface, a golf putter provides a damping effect on ball rebound that is proportional to the ball striking force. By varying the construction techniques and selected materials, a proportional damping insert can be configured to have a specific Error Variability Reduction (EVR) profile. The EVR effect is produced by damping hard striking forces more than light striking forces, with the damping effect being proportional to the striking force. The consequence of proportional damping is an increase in forward distance control by reducing the variability of a set of distance measurements around their mean. The proportional damping insert decreases the variability of the distance measures around their mean by the damping proportion of the damping insert, for example EVR proportion=damping proportion. Consequently, missed putts will, on average, end up closer to the hole than is the case with conventional golf putters.
[0016] In one aspect, the present invention comprises a golf putter having an EVR insert. The EVR insert comprises at least one internal proportional damping layer and a hard hitting surface. The internal proportional damping layer can comprise a foam material, such as a vinyl or urethane foam, while the hard hitting surface comprises a material sufficiently hard enough to pass the USGA hardness test. An Ultra High Molecular Weigh (UHMW) polyethylene is one example of a polymer suitable for use as the hard hitting surface. The golf putter further comprises a putter head in which the EVR insert can be fixedly or removably mounted. The golf putter further comprises a shaft attached to the putter head.
[0017] In another aspect, the present invention comprises a putter head having an EVR insert. The putting head includes a cavity for fixedly or removably mounting the EVR insert to the putter head. In an embodiment including a removable EVR insert, a backplate can be used to retain and mount the EVR inset in the putter head.
[0018]
[0019]
[0020]
[0021]
[0022]
[0023]
[0024]
[0025]
[0026]
[0027]
[0028]
[0029]
[0030]
[0031]
[0032]
[0033]
[0034]
[0035]
[0036] Referring to
[0037] As depicted in
[0038] Referring to
[0039] Generally, face
[0040] In use, a golfer grips putter
[0041] Through the use of a multi-layer design including proportional damping layer
[0042] An EVR insert
[0043] In actual use, an EVR insert
[0044] Referring now to
[0045] As illustrated in
[0046] As illustrated in
[0047] To assemble EVR head
[0048] Due to the ability to attach and remove the EVR insert assembly
[0049] In order to illustrate the effect of proportional impact damping on putt length variability, an experiment is conducted in which a golfer hits 10 twelve-foot putts with a standard hard (either metallic or polymer) striking surface. The golfer fails to make any of the putts but instead, the putts are distributed around the hole, half being long and half being short. With respect to the distribution, the average length is twelve feet, the range is 8 feet and the standard deviation is 2.74 feet as shown in Column A of Table 1 below.
[0050] When the same 10 golf balls are putted with a proportional damping putter having a damping proportion of 0.30, the corresponding putt lengths and variability are as indicated in Column B of Table 1. Note that the measures of putt average, putt range and putt deviation are 30% less than the values displayed in Column A.
[0051] The average length of Column B putts is only 8.4 feet, which is 3.6 feet short of the required 12 foot required putt length. However, this is not the expected result of using a proportional damping putter. Instead, golfers quickly adapt and learn to hit an EVR putter harder, just as golfers quickly learn to swing harder on slower greens as opposed to fast greens, to swing harder on wet greens as opposed to dry greens, and to swing harder with a light putter as opposed to a heavy putter.
[0052] Column C shows the results wherein a golfer using a proportional damping putter hits the 10 twelve-foot putts 30% harder, on average, than with the standard metal or polymeric faced putter. The average 30% increase in swing force required to distribute the 30% damped putts around the 12 foot target results in an average of 3.6 feet being added to putt lengths shown in Column B to produced the distribution of putts in Column C. Note that the variability measures of the Column C putts are 30% less than the original putts in Column A. Thus, hitting putts harder as required by an EVR putter, does not reduce the accuracy gained with using the EVR putter.
TABLE 1 Column A Non- Column B Column C Proportionally Proportionally Force-Adjusted Putt Damped Putts Damped Putts Damped Putts 1 8 ft 5.6 ft 9.2 ft 2 9 ft 6.3 ft 9.9 ft 3 10 ft 7.0 ft 10.6 ft 4 10 ft 7.0 ft 10.6 ft 5 11 ft 7.7 ft 11.3 ft 6 13 ft 9.1 ft 12.7 ft 7 14 ft 9.8 ft 13.4 ft 8 14 ft 9.8 ft 13.4 ft 9 15 ft 10.5 ft 14.1 ft 10 16 ft 11.2 ft 14.8 ft Average 12 ft 8.4 ft 12.0 ft Range 8 ft 5.6 ft 5.6 ft Standard Deviation 2.74 ft 1.92 ft 1.92 ft
[0053] Quantitatively, putting accuracy with an EVR putter improves by ρ, on average, over putting accuracy with a comparable non-EVR putter where accuracy is measured by standard deviation, where S
[0054] S
[0055] S
[0056] ρ: The damping proportion.
[0057] A second experiment was conducted as described above with putters having different damping constructions to illustrate that using different damping materials results in EVR putters with differing EVR profiles.
[0058] The experiment was conducted using a putting machine programmed with seven putting force levels. Each of four putters hit eight matching golf balls at each force level. The putters were identical in construction with respect to putter length, head weight and striking surface. The putting machine hit the golf balls on a moderately fast putting green with a green speed stimpmeter reading of 11.3 feet. The only variable between each of the four putters was the insert construction as described below:
[0059] Putter
[0060] Putter
[0061] Putter
[0062] Putter
[0063] The EVR profiles displayed in
[0064] The EVR of each of the EVR inserts was determined at a given impact force level by comparing the average ball distance travel produced by the damping inserts as compared to the average ball distance travel produced by the standard non-EVR insert at that same force level. The procedure was repeated at each of the seven force levels, producing the EVR profiles for each of the four putter as shown in
[0065] The EVR profile for Putter
[0066] The EVR profile for Putter
[0067] The EVR profile of Putter
[0068] The results shown in
[0069] In addition to the EVR profiles demonstrated with Putters
[0070] The present invention has been described above with reference to a preferred embodiment. However, those skilled in the art will recognize that changes and modifications may be made to the preferred embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention.