| |
Main
Date: 23 Apr 2007 21:01:57
From: Duffer
Subject: Offset Irons
|
I have been looking at getting a set of new irons.
Specs: senior, 8hcp, 85-95mph driver swing speed, tend to draw ball more
than slice.
Current irons are Titleist 981SL.
During the winter, I attended a large demo day where I could try every make
including most of latest models. Found that the new cavity back irons are
easier to hit. Hit, Wilson Staffs, Pings, Taylormade R7s plus non cavity
back Titleists. Problem is to remember which was which! But, in the end, I
think I liked the look of the R7s best (other than the Titleists, that were
not cavity backs)
I don't like large offsets - I can't see what they do for me, or for anyone
else - Can someone explain just how the offset helps? I just see the hosel
amd think about the S-shot :(
The R7 TPs are a bit more expensive, but have less offset.
Before I fork over my cash, does anyone have any advice as to what a senior
with my swingspeed should be looking at, especially if I don't like the look
of the offsets that most clubs claiming playability have.
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:37:39
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Apr 27, 1:08 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> <zipper40hDIESPAMM...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:t3e433hduf4eknfopnlgli5kvcqlhsbq6i@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > I've been reading this group (occasionally posting) for a number of
> > years. Your posts became so annoying, with your arrogance and
> > professions of expertise on everything golf-related, I eventually
> > killfiled you. Any abuse you receive from others in this group is
> > well-deserved IMHO.
>
> I always love it when people announce they have someone in a kill file and
> then reply to that person.
>
> Larry is a guy we love to hate and has certainly earned the title of KING OF
> RSG. After all he has been Bobby Knighted more times than anyone else.
Knighted.....good one. Certainly, Larry has knetted him more than
anyone else.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 10:48:37
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Apr 27, 10:25 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:01:47 -0700, larry <l...@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> > They created a monster who feeds on them-- and now I
> >am proud to take the entire group on every time I bother to check in
> >here for a few minutes.
>
> >Larry (KING of RSG)
>
> Dear Clown of RSG:
> Nope. You were a pompous monster from day one. You're proud of being
> made a fool of by dozens of people?
Fish like you are the fools.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 04:42:51
From: Tom Reese
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Apr 26, 3:09 pm, "Duffer" <none2spea...@network.com > wrote:
> <zipper40hDIESPAMM...@netscape.net> wrote
>
> Here is a good explanation by Tom Wishon:
>
>
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2ygete
>
> He says that offset clubs arrive at impact a split second later than
> conventional clubs.
>
> How can that be ? Inpact occurs when the clubface contacts the ball. It
> should not matter what shape the club is.
To be more precise, he could have said that "offset clubs makes
contact with the ball a split second later in the swing." The offset
would seemingly cause the club to connect with the ball a little later
in the swing arc. I don't know how much difference that makes in the
real world and how much is just trying to make golfers think the
offset will make a difference. There is also the argument that a more
confident golfer will hit the ball better. The offset could possibly
help just by making the golfer believe it will help.
>
> I have never seen an axe or a hammer with an offset head :)
you might be onto something there. Maybe they need to come out with an
offset hammer for the do it yourselfers:
"No more mashed thumbs, bent nails and embarassing misses with the new
graphite handle offset extra large head Nailpounder. Watch as this do
it yourselfer drives a 10 penny nail into this solid oak board with
only one stroke. Shave hours of labor off of your next home
improvement project. Call now!"
Tom Reese
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 09:45:20
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Tom Reese" <tomreese@comcast.net > wrote > you might be onto something
there. Maybe they need to come out with an
> offset hammer for the do it yourselfers:
>
> "No more mashed thumbs, bent nails and embarassing misses with the new
> graphite handle offset extra large head Nailpounder. Watch as this do
> it yourselfer drives a 10 penny nail into this solid oak board with
> only one stroke. Shave hours of labor off of your next home
> improvement project. Call now!"
>
Hey Tom,
I like it!
I'm off to Home depot to see if they have one of those.
But before I use it, I may have to enroll in the HDPI Fitness institute.
Duffer
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 03:04:35
From: Tom Reese
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Apr 26, 1:10 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2007 06:10:26 -0700, Tom Reese <tomre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 24, 10:16 pm, "Duffer" <none2spea...@network.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks for the input.
>
> >> So, we have no real proof that the offsets make any difference? Yet club
> >> manufacturers insist of making most of their irons that way!
>
> >Offset clubs supposedly tend to hit the ball a little higher. My X-18
> >irons definitely hit the ball higher than my older straight irons. I
> >don't know if it's due to the offset or some other variable between
> >the two sets.
>
> >The offset would seemingly make the clubhead reach the ball a little
> >later in the swing. That could cause the club to catch the ball at the
> >start of the upswing and make it fly higher. I guess it could also
> >increase the likelihood of a topped ball.
>
> >Tom Reese
>
> This is all crap, the blind leading the blind. Just take a dozen
> loaner 6is to the range, offset, forged blades, graphite shafts, metal
> shafts, different brands, and hit a few dozen balls. You will
> quickly realize that the only real difference is your own swing. When
> you make a good pass through the ball with any club, the ball flies
> straight and long. When you flub it, decelerate, swing from out-to-in
> across the ball, NO club will propel the ball straight. The fault is
> nearly always the swing, almost NEVER the clubs. You will discover
> what I (and Hale Irwin) did, that graphite shaft OS cavity back irons
> require less energy for the same distance and accuracy. Unless you
> never tire during a round-- the choice is easy. Buy what you can
> swing with the least effort.
>
> It is not the clubs. Which is what Lee Trevino proved when he broke
> 90 playing with a Coke bottle taped to a stick.
>
> Instead of buying clubs, spend the money learning to repeat a good
> golf swing. If you are serious, enroll in TPI. (http://www.mytpi.com
>
I am hitting the ball a LOT higher with the new sticks. My other
clubs are 15 years old and the technology has changed a lot. I don't
know
how much of the change is due to the offset and how much is due to the
other
changes.
I appreciate your skepticism. I'm well aware of all the snakeoil
that's being
foisted on the golfing public. With that said, you might want to try a
little less
(a lot less would be even better) arrogance in your next reply. You
don't know
a thing about me or my golf swing and your "This is all crap" based on
the few sentences I wrote is dripping with arrogance.
A reasoned reply written with skepticism but leaving room for doubt
might have
led to an interesting discussion.
Tom Reese
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 10:01:47
From: larry
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On 27 Apr 2007 03:04:35 -0700, Tom Reese <tomreese@comcast.net > wrote:
>On Apr 26, 1:10 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2007 06:10:26 -0700, Tom Reese <tomre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 24, 10:16 pm, "Duffer" <none2spea...@network.com> wrote:
>> >> Thanks for the input.
>>
>> >> So, we have no real proof that the offsets make any difference? Yet club
>> >> manufacturers insist of making most of their irons that way!
>>
>> >Offset clubs supposedly tend to hit the ball a little higher. My X-18
>> >irons definitely hit the ball higher than my older straight irons. I
>> >don't know if it's due to the offset or some other variable between
>> >the two sets.
>>
>> >The offset would seemingly make the clubhead reach the ball a little
>> >later in the swing. That could cause the club to catch the ball at the
>> >start of the upswing and make it fly higher. I guess it could also
>> >increase the likelihood of a topped ball.
>>
>> >Tom Reese
>>
>> This is all crap, the blind leading the blind. Just take a dozen
>> loaner 6is to the range, offset, forged blades, graphite shafts, metal
>> shafts, different brands, and hit a few dozen balls. You will
>> quickly realize that the only real difference is your own swing. When
>> you make a good pass through the ball with any club, the ball flies
>> straight and long. When you flub it, decelerate, swing from out-to-in
>> across the ball, NO club will propel the ball straight. The fault is
>> nearly always the swing, almost NEVER the clubs. You will discover
>> what I (and Hale Irwin) did, that graphite shaft OS cavity back irons
>> require less energy for the same distance and accuracy. Unless you
>> never tire during a round-- the choice is easy. Buy what you can
>> swing with the least effort.
>>
>> It is not the clubs. Which is what Lee Trevino proved when he broke
>> 90 playing with a Coke bottle taped to a stick.
>>
>> Instead of buying clubs, spend the money learning to repeat a good
>> golf swing. If you are serious, enroll in TPI. (http://www.mytpi.com
>>
>
>I am hitting the ball a LOT higher with the new sticks. My other
>clubs are 15 years old and the technology has changed a lot. I don't
>know
>how much of the change is due to the offset and how much is due to the
>other
>changes.
>
>I appreciate your skepticism. I'm well aware of all the snakeoil
>that's being
>foisted on the golfing public. With that said, you might want to try a
>little less
>(a lot less would be even better) arrogance in your next reply. You
>don't know
>a thing about me or my golf swing and your "This is all crap" based on
>the few sentences I wrote is dripping with arrogance.
>
>A reasoned reply written with skepticism but leaving room for doubt
>might have
>led to an interesting discussion.
>
>Tom Reese
This is the Usenet. NOBODY is polite, sincere, and reasonable. Years
ago when I was a naive beginner, I posted like that and some of the
regulars here ate my lunch--ridiculed me endlessly. Instead of
running me off as they have done dozens and dozens of others, they
pissed me off. They created a monster who feeds on them-- and now I
am proud to take the entire group on every time I bother to check in
here for a few minutes.
Larry (KING of RSG)
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:42:36
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:01:47 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>This is the Usenet. NOBODY is polite, sincere, and reasonable. Years
>ago when I was a naive beginner, I posted like that and some of the
>regulars here ate my lunch--ridiculed me endlessly. Instead of
>running me off as they have done dozens and dozens of others, they
>pissed me off. They created a monster who feeds on them-- and now I
>am proud to take the entire group on every time I bother to check in
>here for a few minutes.
If you value class, it doesn't matter what other people say or do -
you are what you are.
But don't be proud of being a monster - when you can be something
better.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 18:33:02
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
In article <usa4331md28v5ub808n6b9qf24vtb954u2@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2007 03:04:35 -0700, Tom Reese <tomreese@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 26, 1:10 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >> On 26 Apr 2007 06:10:26 -0700, Tom Reese <tomre...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >On Apr 24, 10:16 pm, "Duffer" <none2spea...@network.com> wrote:
> >> >> Thanks for the input.
> >>
> >> >> So, we have no real proof that the offsets make any difference? Yet club
> >> >> manufacturers insist of making most of their irons that way!
> >>
> >> >Offset clubs supposedly tend to hit the ball a little higher. My X-18
> >> >irons definitely hit the ball higher than my older straight irons. I
> >> >don't know if it's due to the offset or some other variable between
> >> >the two sets.
> >>
> >> >The offset would seemingly make the clubhead reach the ball a little
> >> >later in the swing. That could cause the club to catch the ball at the
> >> >start of the upswing and make it fly higher. I guess it could also
> >> >increase the likelihood of a topped ball.
> >>
> >> >Tom Reese
> >>
> >> This is all crap, the blind leading the blind. Just take a dozen
> >> loaner 6is to the range, offset, forged blades, graphite shafts, metal
> >> shafts, different brands, and hit a few dozen balls. You will
> >> quickly realize that the only real difference is your own swing. When
> >> you make a good pass through the ball with any club, the ball flies
> >> straight and long. When you flub it, decelerate, swing from out-to-in
> >> across the ball, NO club will propel the ball straight. The fault is
> >> nearly always the swing, almost NEVER the clubs. You will discover
> >> what I (and Hale Irwin) did, that graphite shaft OS cavity back irons
> >> require less energy for the same distance and accuracy. Unless you
> >> never tire during a round-- the choice is easy. Buy what you can
> >> swing with the least effort.
> >>
> >> It is not the clubs. Which is what Lee Trevino proved when he broke
> >> 90 playing with a Coke bottle taped to a stick.
> >>
> >> Instead of buying clubs, spend the money learning to repeat a good
> >> golf swing. If you are serious, enroll in TPI. (http://www.mytpi.com
> >>
> >
> >I am hitting the ball a LOT higher with the new sticks. My other
> >clubs are 15 years old and the technology has changed a lot. I don't
> >know
> >how much of the change is due to the offset and how much is due to the
> >other
> >changes.
> >
> >I appreciate your skepticism. I'm well aware of all the snakeoil
> >that's being
> >foisted on the golfing public. With that said, you might want to try a
> >little less
> >(a lot less would be even better) arrogance in your next reply. You
> >don't know
> >a thing about me or my golf swing and your "This is all crap" based on
> >the few sentences I wrote is dripping with arrogance.
> >
> >A reasoned reply written with skepticism but leaving room for doubt
> >might have
> >led to an interesting discussion.
> >
> >Tom Reese
>
> This is the Usenet. NOBODY is polite, sincere, and reasonable. Years
> ago when I was a naive beginner, I posted like that and some of the
> regulars here ate my lunch--ridiculed me endlessly. Instead of
> running me off as they have done dozens and dozens of others, they
> pissed me off. They created a monster who feeds on them-- and now I
> am proud to take the entire group on every time I bother to check in
> here for a few minutes.
>
> Larry (KING of RSG)
You have never once post like you were polite, sincere or reasonable.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:04:31
From:
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:01:47 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>On 27 Apr 2007 03:04:35 -0700, Tom Reese <tomreese@comcast.net> wrote:
>
<snip >
>>I am hitting the ball a LOT higher with the new sticks. My other
>>clubs are 15 years old and the technology has changed a lot. I don't
>>know
>>how much of the change is due to the offset and how much is due to the
>>other
>>changes.
>>
>>I appreciate your skepticism. I'm well aware of all the snakeoil
>>that's being
>>foisted on the golfing public. With that said, you might want to try a
>>little less
>>(a lot less would be even better) arrogance in your next reply. You
>>don't know
>>a thing about me or my golf swing and your "This is all crap" based on
>>the few sentences I wrote is dripping with arrogance.
>>
>>A reasoned reply written with skepticism but leaving room for doubt
>>might have
>>led to an interesting discussion.
>>
>>Tom Reese
>
>This is the Usenet.
Do you also use the Google? How about the Internet Explorer? Or the
Firefox? What's your opinion of the Outlook Express?
> NOBODY is polite, sincere, and reasonable.
Wrong.There are plenty of decent folks posting in here. They just
don't put up with your crap.
> Years ago when I was a naive beginner, I posted like that and some of the
>regulars here ate my lunch--ridiculed me endlessly.
I've been reading this group (occasionally posting) for a number of
years. Your posts became so annoying, with your arrogance and
professions of expertise on everything golf-related, I eventually
killfiled you. Any abuse you receive from others in this group is
well-deserved IMHO.
>Instead of running me off as they have done dozens and dozens of others, they
>pissed me off. They created a monster who feeds on them-- and now I
>am proud to take the entire group on every time I bother to check in
>here for a few minutes.
1. No one tried to run you off. They simply responded to your posts
appropriately.
2. Monsters are scary. You're not a monster. More like an annoying
child.
3. "Check in for a few minutes"? You *live* in this group. I think
you get off on the abuse.
>
>Larry (KING of RSG)
What colour is the sky in your world?
Craig
"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:08:41
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
<zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:t3e433hduf4eknfopnlgli5kvcqlhsbq6i@4ax.com...
>
> I've been reading this group (occasionally posting) for a number of
> years. Your posts became so annoying, with your arrogance and
> professions of expertise on everything golf-related, I eventually
> killfiled you. Any abuse you receive from others in this group is
> well-deserved IMHO.
I always love it when people announce they have someone in a kill file and
then reply to that person.
Larry is a guy we love to hate and has certainly earned the title of KING OF
RSG. After all he has been Bobby Knighted more times than anyone else.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 17:01:35
From:
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:08:41 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
><zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:t3e433hduf4eknfopnlgli5kvcqlhsbq6i@4ax.com...
>>
>> I've been reading this group (occasionally posting) for a number of
>> years. Your posts became so annoying, with your arrogance and
>> professions of expertise on everything golf-related, I eventually
>> killfiled you. Any abuse you receive from others in this group is
>> well-deserved IMHO.
>
>I always love it when people announce they have someone in a kill file and
>then reply to that person.
Me too. Unfortunately, killfiling someone does not prevent their posts
from being quoted by others. But you knew that, didn't you?
Craig
"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 17:25:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:01:47 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
> They created a monster who feeds on them-- and now I
>am proud to take the entire group on every time I bother to check in
>here for a few minutes.
>
>Larry (KING of RSG)
Dear Clown of RSG:
Nope. You were a pompous monster from day one. You're proud of being
made a fool of by dozens of people?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 09:32:56
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Tom Reese" <tomreese@comcast.net > wrote
>>> Instead of buying clubs, spend the money learning to repeat a good
>>> golf swing. If you are serious, enroll in TPI. (http://www.mytpi.com
>
> I appreciate your skepticism. I'm well aware of all the snakeoil
> that's being
> foisted on the golfing public. With that said, you might want to try a
> little less
> (a lot less would be even better) arrogance in your next reply. You
> don't know
> a thing about me or my golf swing and your "This is all crap" based on
> the few sentences I wrote is dripping with arrogance.
>
> A reasoned reply written with skepticism but leaving room for doubt
> might have
> led to an interesting discussion.
>
Tom,
When I read the post you are referring to, I thought he was referring to me!
:)
But, I decided to let it pass - You find all types on the net!! The poster
you refer to seems to have some desire to promote the fitness site he
referred to. His posts were dripping with "something", but that is common
when usenet users are shielded by anonymity.
But, as you say, he has no knowledge of our present state of fitness or our
games. In my own case, I play about 120 rounds a year and walk 100 of them.
I shoot under 80 at least 50% of the time and can shoot par or below on
occasion. My backswing is short, but that is by design - I get reasonable
clubhead speed for my age and hit as far as many of the younger players (I
am 68).
Thrust of my original post, was not how to play better by changing my swing
or level of fitness - It was how to obtain the benefit of the newer
technology (oversize cavity back irons) without having to look at large
offsets that I cannot see the benefit of.
I would have liked to find a reference to a scientific study that proves
that offset helps in real life. Perhaps the club manufactureres have this.
But, as someone said, if I don't like the look of the offsets, I just won't
buy them. Jury is still out on graphite - I have graphite on my hybrids, but
find distance more variable than with long irons (But they are easier to
hit!)
Have we killed this topic yet!! :)
Thanks to ALL for the input
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:44:43
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:32:56 -0400, "Duffer"
<none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
>When I read the post you are referring to, I thought he was referring to me!
>:)
>
>But, I decided to let it pass - You find all types on the net!! The poster
>you refer to seems to have some desire to promote the fitness site he
>referred to. His posts were dripping with "something", but that is common
>when usenet users are shielded by anonymity.
>
>
The poster to whom he referred is Larry Whitaker, not anonymous.
LLLLarrrry has all of the answers to every topic here. (Not).
--
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 06:15:54
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
Tom Reese wrote:
> On Apr 26, 1:10 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> A reasoned reply written with skepticism but leaving room for doubt
> might have
> led to an interesting discussion.
>
> Tom Reese
Good luck with that. You'll have better luck coaxing ballet from a 3
legged elephant.
Dave
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 06:10:26
From: Tom Reese
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Apr 24, 10:16 pm, "Duffer" <none2spea...@network.com > wrote:
> Thanks for the input.
>
> So, we have no real proof that the offsets make any difference? Yet club
> manufacturers insist of making most of their irons that way!
Offset clubs supposedly tend to hit the ball a little higher. My X-18
irons definitely hit the ball higher than my older straight irons. I
don't know if it's due to the offset or some other variable between
the two sets.
The offset would seemingly make the clubhead reach the ball a little
later in the swing. That could cause the club to catch the ball at the
start of the upswing and make it fly higher. I guess it could also
increase the likelihood of a topped ball.
Tom Reese
|
| | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:10:34
From: larry
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On 26 Apr 2007 06:10:26 -0700, Tom Reese <tomreese@comcast.net > wrote:
>On Apr 24, 10:16 pm, "Duffer" <none2spea...@network.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the input.
>>
>> So, we have no real proof that the offsets make any difference? Yet club
>> manufacturers insist of making most of their irons that way!
>
>Offset clubs supposedly tend to hit the ball a little higher. My X-18
>irons definitely hit the ball higher than my older straight irons. I
>don't know if it's due to the offset or some other variable between
>the two sets.
>
>The offset would seemingly make the clubhead reach the ball a little
>later in the swing. That could cause the club to catch the ball at the
>start of the upswing and make it fly higher. I guess it could also
>increase the likelihood of a topped ball.
>
>Tom Reese
This is all crap, the blind leading the blind. Just take a dozen
loaner 6is to the range, offset, forged blades, graphite shafts, metal
shafts, different brands, and hit a few dozen balls. You will
quickly realize that the only real difference is your own swing. When
you make a good pass through the ball with any club, the ball flies
straight and long. When you flub it, decelerate, swing from out-to-in
across the ball, NO club will propel the ball straight. The fault is
nearly always the swing, almost NEVER the clubs. You will discover
what I (and Hale Irwin) did, that graphite shaft OS cavity back irons
require less energy for the same distance and accuracy. Unless you
never tire during a round-- the choice is easy. Buy what you can
swing with the least effort.
It is not the clubs. Which is what Lee Trevino proved when he broke
90 playing with a Coke bottle taped to a stick.
Instead of buying clubs, spend the money learning to repeat a good
golf swing. If you are serious, enroll in TPI. (http://www.mytpi.com
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 15:04:22
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote
> This is all crap, the blind leading the blind. Just take a dozen
> loaner 6is to the range, offset, forged blades, graphite shafts, metal
> shafts, different brands, and hit a few dozen balls. You will
> quickly realize that the only real difference is your own swing. When
> you make a good pass through the ball with any club, the ball flies
> straight and long. When you flub it, decelerate, swing from out-to-in
> across the ball, NO club will propel the ball straight.
To some degree, this is true.
I would think you are right if all of the clubs use modern technology and
are more or less of the same type. But, for example, if I took out a tour
type forged blade with stiff shaft, I know that I could not hit that as well
as an oversize head with large sweet spot and regular shaft. Even worse,
would be to take out my 1960 vintage irons that I used to hit as a teenager!
The newer clubs ARE a lot more forgiving, especially those designed to be
so. This has until recently, shown up more in the development of the
titanium woods, but I believe that there has also been a step change in iron
designs in the past year.
Duffer
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 15:49:22
From: larry
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:04:22 -0400, "Duffer"
<none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
>
>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote
>> This is all crap, the blind leading the blind. Just take a dozen
>> loaner 6is to the range, offset, forged blades, graphite shafts, metal
>> shafts, different brands, and hit a few dozen balls. You will
>> quickly realize that the only real difference is your own swing. When
>> you make a good pass through the ball with any club, the ball flies
>> straight and long. When you flub it, decelerate, swing from out-to-in
>> across the ball, NO club will propel the ball straight.
>
>To some degree, this is true.
>
>I would think you are right if all of the clubs use modern technology and
>are more or less of the same type. But, for example, if I took out a tour
>type forged blade with stiff shaft, I know that I could not hit that as well
>as an oversize head with large sweet spot and regular shaft. Even worse,
>would be to take out my 1960 vintage irons that I used to hit as a teenager!
>
>The newer clubs ARE a lot more forgiving, especially those designed to be
>so. This has until recently, shown up more in the development of the
>titanium woods, but I believe that there has also been a step change in iron
>designs in the past year.
>
>Duffer
Absolutely right. Most honest amateurs who did that side-by-side
evaluation would find that they hit graphite OS Cavity backs best--by
quite a margin over blades, etc. Like at my club and most clubs I
presume, the smart amateurs play Callaway or Taylormade OS Cavity
backs --with regular graphite shafts. No brainer. Buy them used and
then work on your golf swing.
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:14:25
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote :
> Buy them used and
> then work on your golf swing.
>
Larry,
My swing is cast in stone but getting a little shorter each year!
But, I agree with your advice, but may have to go the new route because some
of these clubs have not been around long enough to be available used.
But, I still have to find ones with minimum offset.
Duffer
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 18:29:22
From: larry
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:14:25 -0400, "Duffer"
<none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
>
>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote :
>> Buy them used and
>> then work on your golf swing.
>>
>
>Larry,
>
>My swing is cast in stone but getting a little shorter each year!
I am 66. After doing a few weeks of TPI stretching and flexibilty
exercises, I can backswing, stand on my back foot heel and turn my
front shoulder under my chin, then nail that sucker!
But before I can do that must do 30 minutes of stretching and warmup.
You can do it too. See http://www.mytpi.com Find the TPI
instructor near you and enroll. It is NOT easy. These exercises are
seriously difficult. But they work. Zack Johnson credits TPI for
his Masters win.
Because I knew I didn't have the will power to punish myself and do
them rigorously, I hired a personal trainer to MAKE me do them. I
hate that strong young guy during that hour twice a week-- but it has
me in pretty buff shape already. Lets do it!
>
>But, I agree with your advice, but may have to go the new route because some
>of these clubs have not been around long enough to be available used.
>
>But, I still have to find ones with minimum offset.
When you get buffed up, you can swing any club, even a blade on a
heavy steel shaft.
Actually, I strongly suggest everyone use graphite shafts and OS
Cavity backs.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 18:07:49
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
In article <kqm133913k11gidvuqc6eth4vvv1pcna4d@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2007 06:10:26 -0700, Tom Reese <tomreese@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 24, 10:16 pm, "Duffer" <none2spea...@network.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks for the input.
> >>
> >> So, we have no real proof that the offsets make any difference? Yet club
> >> manufacturers insist of making most of their irons that way!
> >
> >Offset clubs supposedly tend to hit the ball a little higher. My X-18
> >irons definitely hit the ball higher than my older straight irons. I
> >don't know if it's due to the offset or some other variable between
> >the two sets.
> >
> >The offset would seemingly make the clubhead reach the ball a little
> >later in the swing. That could cause the club to catch the ball at the
> >start of the upswing and make it fly higher. I guess it could also
> >increase the likelihood of a topped ball.
> >
> >Tom Reese
>
> This is all crap, the blind leading the blind. Just take a dozen
> loaner 6is to the range, offset, forged blades, graphite shafts, metal
> shafts, different brands, and hit a few dozen balls. You will
> quickly realize that the only real difference is your own swing. When
> you make a good pass through the ball with any club, the ball flies
> straight and long. When you flub it, decelerate, swing from out-to-in
> across the ball, NO club will propel the ball straight. The fault is
> nearly always the swing, almost NEVER the clubs. You will discover
> what I (and Hale Irwin) did, that graphite shaft OS cavity back irons
> require less energy for the same distance and accuracy. Unless you
> never tire during a round-- the choice is easy. Buy what you can
> swing with the least effort.
>
> It is not the clubs. Which is what Lee Trevino proved when he broke
> 90 playing with a Coke bottle taped to a stick.
Trevino never did that.
>
> Instead of buying clubs, spend the money learning to repeat a good
> golf swing. If you are serious, enroll in TPI. (http://www.mytpi.com
>
> Larry
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:40:22
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Tom Reese" <tomreese@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:1177593026.088399.188470@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 10:16 pm, "Duffer" <none2spea...@network.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the input.
>>
>> So, we have no real proof that the offsets make any difference? Yet club
>> manufacturers insist of making most of their irons that way!
>
> Offset clubs supposedly tend to hit the ball a little higher. My X-18
> irons definitely hit the ball higher than my older straight irons. I
> don't know if it's due to the offset or some other variable between
> the two sets.
>
> The offset would seemingly make the clubhead reach the ball a little
> later in the swing. That could cause the club to catch the ball at the
> start of the upswing and make it fly higher. I guess it could also
> increase the likelihood of a topped ball.
>
> Tom Reese
>
The subtleties of changed loft, flex, offset, etc. are extremely varied..
All interrelated... Fascinating, this adventure into club-building and
dealing with flex, swing weight, MOI, grip weight, backweighting, lie
adjustment and its effect ON loft, etc.
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 13:43:28
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Duffer" <none2speakof@network.com > wrote in message
news:tJcXh.17488$Uq.12896@read2.cgocable.net...
> I have been looking at getting a set of new irons.
>
> Specs: senior, 8hcp, 85-95mph driver swing speed, tend to draw ball more
> than slice.
>
> Current irons are Titleist 981SL.
>
> During the winter, I attended a large demo day where I could try every
make
> including most of latest models. Found that the new cavity back irons are
> easier to hit. Hit, Wilson Staffs, Pings, Taylormade R7s plus non cavity
> back Titleists. Problem is to remember which was which! But, in the end, I
> think I liked the look of the R7s best (other than the Titleists, that
were
> not cavity backs)
>
> I don't like large offsets - I can't see what they do for me, or for
anyone
> else - Can someone explain just how the offset helps? I just see the hosel
> amd think about the S-shot :(
>
> The R7 TPs are a bit more expensive, but have less offset.
>
> Before I fork over my cash, does anyone have any advice as to what a
senior
> with my swingspeed should be looking at, especially if I don't like the
look
> of the offsets that most clubs claiming playability have.
>
In principle this gives you more time to square up the clubhead. Imagine a
6i with a foot of offset. When the shaft is pointing at the ball, you've
still got a foot of clubhead motion before you actually make impact.
I tend to draw the ball and also try to avoid offset clubs. However, my
backup set of irons has significant offset and I find it takes about two
swings to make the adjustment.
I'd suggest avoiding big offsets.
dave
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 12:02:10
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote>
> In principle this gives you more time to square up the clubhead. Imagine a
> 6i with a foot of offset. When the shaft is pointing at the ball, you've
> still got a foot of clubhead motion before you actually make impact.
>
> I tend to draw the ball and also try to avoid offset clubs. However, my
> backup set of irons has significant offset and I find it takes about two
> swings to make the adjustment.
>
> I'd suggest avoiding big offsets.
>
Thanks for the input Dave,
I have a short backswing and tend to keep the clubface square throughout
swing, so probably no need to have more time to "square" the clubhead.
I would like to avoid large offsets, but would like weight low. Cavity backs
provide this, but most have large offsets. So far, R7 TP seems to match my
needs, but are there others to consider?
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 17:25:10
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
Duffer wrote:
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote>
>> In principle this gives you more time to square up the clubhead. Imagine a
>> 6i with a foot of offset. When the shaft is pointing at the ball, you've
>> still got a foot of clubhead motion before you actually make impact.
>>
>> I tend to draw the ball and also try to avoid offset clubs. However, my
>> backup set of irons has significant offset and I find it takes about two
>> swings to make the adjustment.
>>
>> I'd suggest avoiding big offsets.
>>
>
> Thanks for the input Dave,
>
> I have a short backswing and tend to keep the clubface square throughout
> swing, so probably no need to have more time to "square" the clubhead.
>
> I would like to avoid large offsets, but would like weight low. Cavity backs
> provide this, but most have large offsets. So far, R7 TP seems to match my
> needs, but are there others to consider?
>
I don't want to dispute or undercut what Dave's said, but here is my take:
Offset does hardly anything. Too much makes the club harder to handle
in bad lies, but some offset will not have a substantial effect.
Consider that the clubhead moves several feet (probably 10 feet) on the
downswing - I'm not buying the argument that if your clubhead isn't
square, another 1/4" is going to solve the problem even slightly.
What offset can do is make the golfer look at the club a little
different and swing it differently (better).
So if you want a very low cg iron, don't be afraid of seeing some
offset. But then don't let the salesperson blow smoke up your ass about
it either.
Dave
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:36:28
From:
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:25:10 -0400, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Duffer wrote:
>> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote>
>>> In principle this gives you more time to square up the clubhead. Imagine a
>>> 6i with a foot of offset. When the shaft is pointing at the ball, you've
>>> still got a foot of clubhead motion before you actually make impact.
>>>
>>> I tend to draw the ball and also try to avoid offset clubs. However, my
>>> backup set of irons has significant offset and I find it takes about two
>>> swings to make the adjustment.
>>>
>>> I'd suggest avoiding big offsets.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the input Dave,
>>
>> I have a short backswing and tend to keep the clubface square throughout
>> swing, so probably no need to have more time to "square" the clubhead.
>>
>> I would like to avoid large offsets, but would like weight low. Cavity backs
>> provide this, but most have large offsets. So far, R7 TP seems to match my
>> needs, but are there others to consider?
>>
>
>I don't want to dispute or undercut what Dave's said, but here is my take:
>
>Offset does hardly anything. Too much makes the club harder to handle
>in bad lies, but some offset will not have a substantial effect.
>Consider that the clubhead moves several feet (probably 10 feet) on the
>downswing - I'm not buying the argument that if your clubhead isn't
>square, another 1/4" is going to solve the problem even slightly.
Just because you don't "buy the argument" does not mean offset does
not help someone square the face at impact.
Craig
"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 05:23:08
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:25:10 -0400, David Geesaman
> <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Offset does hardly anything. Too much makes the club harder to handle
>> in bad lies, but some offset will not have a substantial effect.
>> Consider that the clubhead moves several feet (probably 10 feet) on the
>> downswing - I'm not buying the argument that if your clubhead isn't
>> square, another 1/4" is going to solve the problem even slightly.
>
> Just because you don't "buy the argument" does not mean offset does
> not help someone square the face at impact.
>
> Craig
1) The OP wasn't asking for help squaring the face at impact.
2) I did say that some golfers swing the club differently. But it's
because the shape triggers something in their mind that changes their
swing. The clubhead or any shape feature of it cannot square itself
when it's being held by a golfer. So in a sense offset can work, but
not for the pseudo-physics garbage that every salesperson I've ever
heard tends to spout off.
Dave
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 22:15:25
From:
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:23:08 -0400, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote:
>zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:25:10 -0400, David Geesaman
>> <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Offset does hardly anything. Too much makes the club harder to handle
>>> in bad lies, but some offset will not have a substantial effect.
>>> Consider that the clubhead moves several feet (probably 10 feet) on the
>>> downswing - I'm not buying the argument that if your clubhead isn't
>>> square, another 1/4" is going to solve the problem even slightly.
>>
>> Just because you don't "buy the argument" does not mean offset does
>> not help someone square the face at impact.
>>
>> Craig
>
>1) The OP wasn't asking for help squaring the face at impact.
True. I was simply responding to your assertion that offset does not
help square the face.
>2) I did say that some golfers swing the club differently. But it's
>because the shape triggers something in their mind that changes their
>swing.
I suppose psychology may have something to do with it.
> The clubhead or any shape feature of it cannot square itself when it's being held by a golfer.
The offset provides an extra split second for the golfer to square the
clubface at impact. Here is a good explanation by Tom Wishon:
http://tinyurl.com/2ygete
> So in a sense offset can work, but not for the pseudo-physics garbage that every salesperson I've ever
>heard tends to spout off.
Sounds like you have some issues with golf club sales people, but that
doesn't mean that offset does not work.
>
>Dave
Craig
"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 15:09:50
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
<zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net > wrote
Here is a good explanation by Tom Wishon:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ygete
>
He says that offset clubs arrive at impact a split second later than
conventional clubs.
How can that be ? Inpact occurs when the clubface contacts the ball. It
should not matter what shape the club is.
I have never seen an axe or a hammer with an offset head :)
Duffer
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 17:23:50
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
Duffer wrote:
> <zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net> wrote
>
> Here is a good explanation by Tom Wishon:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2ygete
>>
>
> He says that offset clubs arrive at impact a split second later than
> conventional clubs.
>
> How can that be ? Inpact occurs when the clubface contacts the ball. It
> should not matter what shape the club is.
>
> I have never seen an axe or a hammer with an offset head :)
>
> Duffer
>
If it's based on physics, and if I ask further questions, then answering
those questions should be trivial. But every time I pose a further
question to a person whose explanation is supposedly based on sound
principles of physics, they just shrug or change the subject. Hence my
term 'pseudo physics'. I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything,
just trying to understand their explanations. I'm not picking on this
offset issue, but it seems everyone thinks they have a true grasp on
these things.
Ironic, how a person can mimic the words used my engineers and
scientists and it's considered a valid explanation. If I tried to mimic
a gang member's appearance and language I'd probably get shot. Maybe
they're on to something.
Me, I've given up. Golf is about the skill of the golfer at hitting a
ball - people who think they've got it all figured out down to the
minutiae show their ignorance by taking that position. Those who have
studied it seriously to look for understanding I think realize it's a
very inexact science once the player is brought into the equation.
Dave
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 15:59:12
From: larry
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:23:50 -0400, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Duffer wrote:
>> <zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net> wrote
>>
>> Here is a good explanation by Tom Wishon:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2ygete
>>>
>>
>> He says that offset clubs arrive at impact a split second later than
>> conventional clubs.
>>
>> How can that be ? Inpact occurs when the clubface contacts the ball. It
>> should not matter what shape the club is.
>>
>> I have never seen an axe or a hammer with an offset head :)
>>
>> Duffer
>>
>
>If it's based on physics, and if I ask further questions, then answering
>those questions should be trivial. But every time I pose a further
>question to a person whose explanation is supposedly based on sound
>principles of physics, they just shrug or change the subject. Hence my
>term 'pseudo physics'. I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything,
>just trying to understand their explanations. I'm not picking on this
>offset issue, but it seems everyone thinks they have a true grasp on
>these things.
>
>Ironic, how a person can mimic the words used my engineers and
>scientists and it's considered a valid explanation. If I tried to mimic
>a gang member's appearance and language I'd probably get shot. Maybe
>they're on to something.
>
>Me, I've given up. Golf is about the skill of the golfer at hitting a
>ball - people who think they've got it all figured out down to the
>minutiae show their ignorance by taking that position. Those who have
>studied it seriously to look for understanding I think realize it's a
>very inexact science once the player is brought into the equation.
>
>Dave
Ask any teaching pro whether different golf clubs will make any
significant difference in most Amateur's swings. If they are honest,
they will tell you that MOST (99%+) amateurs stay on their back foot
and throw their arms in a motion that only vaguely resembles a golf
swing. Teaching pros will tell you that amateurs are lucky every
time the make crisp contact and even luckier when the ball goes
straight.
The golf club used for such a swing makes NO difference.
Larry
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 10:19:22
From: larry
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:23:08 -0400, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote:
>zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:25:10 -0400, David Geesaman
>> <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Offset does hardly anything. Too much makes the club harder to handle
>>> in bad lies, but some offset will not have a substantial effect.
>>> Consider that the clubhead moves several feet (probably 10 feet) on the
>>> downswing - I'm not buying the argument that if your clubhead isn't
>>> square, another 1/4" is going to solve the problem even slightly.
>>
>> Just because you don't "buy the argument" does not mean offset does
>> not help someone square the face at impact.
>>
>> Craig
>
>1) The OP wasn't asking for help squaring the face at impact.
>2) I did say that some golfers swing the club differently. But it's
>because the shape triggers something in their mind that changes their
>swing. The clubhead or any shape feature of it cannot square itself
>when it's being held by a golfer. So in a sense offset can work, but
>not for the pseudo-physics garbage that every salesperson I've ever
>heard tends to spout off.
>
>Dave
Well, MOST amateurs swing the clubhead from out-to-in at impact,
decelerating because they are late getting their weight off their back
foot. About 99.99% do that. Ask any teaching pro.
So manufacturers build clubs that tend to compensate for the
ubiquitous golf swing of most amateurs. Ofset doesn't make any
difference, but hook bias in fairway metals does help to prevent
slice.
Larry
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 02:02:34
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
In article <g63v23tlm7cubkb9lv4hvriu3gk07bs7iq@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:23:08 -0400, David Geesaman
> <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:25:10 -0400, David Geesaman
> >> <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Offset does hardly anything. Too much makes the club harder to handle
> >>> in bad lies, but some offset will not have a substantial effect.
> >>> Consider that the clubhead moves several feet (probably 10 feet) on the
> >>> downswing - I'm not buying the argument that if your clubhead isn't
> >>> square, another 1/4" is going to solve the problem even slightly.
> >>
> >> Just because you don't "buy the argument" does not mean offset does
> >> not help someone square the face at impact.
> >>
> >> Craig
> >
> >1) The OP wasn't asking for help squaring the face at impact.
> >2) I did say that some golfers swing the club differently. But it's
> >because the shape triggers something in their mind that changes their
> >swing. The clubhead or any shape feature of it cannot square itself
> >when it's being held by a golfer. So in a sense offset can work, but
> >not for the pseudo-physics garbage that every salesperson I've ever
> >heard tends to spout off.
> >
> >Dave
>
> Well, MOST amateurs swing the clubhead from out-to-in at impact,
> decelerating because they are late getting their weight off their back
> foot. About 99.99% do that. Ask any teaching pro.
Actually, staying on one's back foot tends to promote a hook, not a
slice.
>
> So manufacturers build clubs that tend to compensate for the
> ubiquitous golf swing of most amateurs. Ofset doesn't make any
> difference, but hook bias in fairway metals does help to prevent
> slice.
How is a club "hook biased", Larry?
>
> Larry
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 22:43:32
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote
> > Well, MOST amateurs swing the clubhead from out-to-in at impact,
> > decelerating because they are late getting their weight off their back
> > foot. About 99.99% do that. Ask any teaching pro.
>
> Actually, staying on one's back foot tends to promote a hook, not a
> slice.
I doubt that is true - Staying on back foot may promote a pull (but not a
hook), but many slicers also do so by not gettting their weight transferred
to the front foot.
> >
> > So manufacturers build clubs that tend to compensate for the
> > ubiquitous golf swing of most amateurs. Ofset doesn't make any
> > difference, but hook bias in fairway metals does help to prevent
> > slice.
>
> How is a club "hook biased", Larry?
Not wanting answer for Larry, but the newer lines of Taylormade "Draw"
clubs have a weight near the hosel to promote a draw (hook?). Some other
clubs are just built with more weight near the hosel. My 3-wood could stand
to be draw biased and I may just try adding some weight.
Duffer
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 18:06:13
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
In article <KoUXh.2123$WE.229@read1.cgocable.net >,
"Duffer" <none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote
> > > Well, MOST amateurs swing the clubhead from out-to-in at impact,
> > > decelerating because they are late getting their weight off their back
> > > foot. About 99.99% do that. Ask any teaching pro.
> >
> > Actually, staying on one's back foot tends to promote a hook, not a
> > slice.
>
> I doubt that is true - Staying on back foot may promote a pull (but not a
> hook), but many slicers also do so by not gettting their weight transferred
> to the front foot.
>
> > >
> > > So manufacturers build clubs that tend to compensate for the
> > > ubiquitous golf swing of most amateurs. Ofset doesn't make any
> > > difference, but hook bias in fairway metals does help to prevent
> > > slice.
> >
> > How is a club "hook biased", Larry?
>
> Not wanting answer for Larry, but the newer lines of Taylormade "Draw"
> clubs have a weight near the hosel to promote a draw (hook?). Some other
> clubs are just built with more weight near the hosel. My 3-wood could stand
> to be draw biased and I may just try adding some weight.
>
> Duffer
So, changing the position of the centre of mass can affect a clubs
tendency to draw or fade?
Seems you've answered your own original question, haven't you?
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 14:54:41
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote
>
> So, changing the position of the centre of mass can affect a clubs
> tendency to draw or fade?
>
> Seems you've answered your own original question, haven't you?
>
No, not at all. Perhaps you did not understand?
In the one case, we are talking about offset moving the centre of mass of
the clubhead behind the shaft axis.
In the case of draw biased clubs, weight is moved out of the toe, toward the
heel of the clubhead. The weight movements are in planes that are at 90
degrees to each other.
In the case of the new R7 Draw irons, they have done both - the clubheads
are offset AND they have a weight near the hosel.
I can buy the theory that the heel weighted clubhead makes it easier to
close the clubface (although I doubt that will help slicers with an over the
top outside-in swing). I have more trouble buying the fact that offset helps
at all and feel that it may even make it harder to hit the ball - but if a
controlled scientific test using real golfers has been done and proves
otherwise, I am prepared to change my mind :)
PS: From Taylormade:
"The r7® Draw iron incorporates two key draw-enhancing features. First of
those is a maximum degree of offset, which positions the leading edge of the
clubface behind the front of the hosel, providing an extra fraction of a
second to square the clubface. Second is TaylorMade's Draw-Weighted
Technology. To apply it to an iron, TaylorMade engineers removed significant
weight from the toe and repositioned it in the heel, which moved the CG
closer to the shaft. This was made possible by the ultra-deep, toe-biased
cavity design. The dynamics of this CG relocation makes it easier to rotate
the clubface back to square during the forwardswing."
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 15:46:09
From: larry
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:54:41 -0400, "Duffer"
<none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
>
>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote
>>
>> So, changing the position of the centre of mass can affect a clubs
>> tendency to draw or fade?
>>
>> Seems you've answered your own original question, haven't you?
>>
>
>No, not at all. Perhaps you did not understand?
>
>In the one case, we are talking about offset moving the centre of mass of
>the clubhead behind the shaft axis.
>In the case of draw biased clubs, weight is moved out of the toe, toward the
>heel of the clubhead. The weight movements are in planes that are at 90
>degrees to each other.
>
>In the case of the new R7 Draw irons, they have done both - the clubheads
>are offset AND they have a weight near the hosel.
>
>I can buy the theory that the heel weighted clubhead makes it easier to
>close the clubface (although I doubt that will help slicers with an over the
>top outside-in swing). I have more trouble buying the fact that offset helps
>at all and feel that it may even make it harder to hit the ball - but if a
>controlled scientific test using real golfers has been done and proves
>otherwise, I am prepared to change my mind :)
>
>PS: From Taylormade:
>"The r7® Draw iron incorporates two key draw-enhancing features. First of
>those is a maximum degree of offset, which positions the leading edge of the
>clubface behind the front of the hosel, providing an extra fraction of a
>second to square the clubface. Second is TaylorMade's Draw-Weighted
>Technology. To apply it to an iron, TaylorMade engineers removed significant
>weight from the toe and repositioned it in the heel, which moved the CG
>closer to the shaft. This was made possible by the ultra-deep, toe-biased
>cavity design. The dynamics of this CG relocation makes it easier to rotate
>the clubface back to square during the forwardswing."
What they are saying is: "we know you amateurs have an out-to-in
clubhead path, swiping across the ball as you decelerate. You would
slice every ball unless we help you. Since we know you will never
fix that fault, here are some irons you can use to scrape it toward
the greens."
Larry
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:56:41
From: larry
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:43:32 -0400, "Duffer"
<none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
>
>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote
>> > Well, MOST amateurs swing the clubhead from out-to-in at impact,
>> > decelerating because they are late getting their weight off their back
>> > foot. About 99.99% do that. Ask any teaching pro.
>>
>> Actually, staying on one's back foot tends to promote a hook, not a
>> slice.
>
>I doubt that is true - Staying on back foot may promote a pull (but not a
>hook), but many slicers also do so by not gettting their weight transferred
>to the front foot.
>
>> >
>> > So manufacturers build clubs that tend to compensate for the
>> > ubiquitous golf swing of most amateurs. Ofset doesn't make any
>> > difference, but hook bias in fairway metals does help to prevent
>> > slice.
>>
>> How is a club "hook biased", Larry?
>
>Not wanting answer for Larry, but the newer lines of Taylormade "Draw"
>clubs have a weight near the hosel to promote a draw (hook?). Some other
>clubs are just built with more weight near the hosel. My 3-wood could stand
>to be draw biased and I may just try adding some weight.
"Off the shelf" clubs are biased to compensate for the ubiquitious
slice swing of amateurs. Pros use clubs that do not have that
bias--because a correct golf swing propels the clubhead along the
target line or from the inside.
Larry
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 12:46:07
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:56:41 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>"Off the shelf" clubs are biased to compensate for the ubiquitious
>slice swing of amateurs. Pros use clubs that do not have that
>bias--because a correct golf swing propels the clubhead along the
>target line or from the inside.
But I'm often reading about pros adjusting the weights and balance of
their club heads depending on how they are playing. Or in Phil's
case, using two drivers depending on whether he wanted a draw or a
fade.
Maybe they didn't get the memo.
But I do agree with your basic point - for me to improve my game,
buying clubs that correct for my flaws may delay my long term
improvement.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 18:07:03
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
In article <5bm1339ebogrgq2ur339qm0mnq1efr85vg@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:43:32 -0400, "Duffer"
> <none2speakof@network.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote
> >> > Well, MOST amateurs swing the clubhead from out-to-in at impact,
> >> > decelerating because they are late getting their weight off their back
> >> > foot. About 99.99% do that. Ask any teaching pro.
> >>
> >> Actually, staying on one's back foot tends to promote a hook, not a
> >> slice.
> >
> >I doubt that is true - Staying on back foot may promote a pull (but not a
> >hook), but many slicers also do so by not gettting their weight transferred
> >to the front foot.
> >
> >> >
> >> > So manufacturers build clubs that tend to compensate for the
> >> > ubiquitous golf swing of most amateurs. Ofset doesn't make any
> >> > difference, but hook bias in fairway metals does help to prevent
> >> > slice.
> >>
> >> How is a club "hook biased", Larry?
> >
> >Not wanting answer for Larry, but the newer lines of Taylormade "Draw"
> >clubs have a weight near the hosel to promote a draw (hook?). Some other
> >clubs are just built with more weight near the hosel. My 3-wood could stand
> >to be draw biased and I may just try adding some weight.
>
> "Off the shelf" clubs are biased to compensate for the ubiquitious
> slice swing of amateurs. Pros use clubs that do not have that
> bias--because a correct golf swing propels the clubhead along the
> target line or from the inside.
A. Utter nonsense. *Some* clubs may be biased but most are not.
B. How does this bias work?
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:03:31
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:f0lsjk01stv@news2.newsguy.com...
> Duffer wrote:
> > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote>
> >> In principle this gives you more time to square up the clubhead.
Imagine a
> >> 6i with a foot of offset. When the shaft is pointing at the ball,
you've
> >> still got a foot of clubhead motion before you actually make impact.
> >>
> >> I tend to draw the ball and also try to avoid offset clubs. However, my
> >> backup set of irons has significant offset and I find it takes about
two
> >> swings to make the adjustment.
> >>
> >> I'd suggest avoiding big offsets.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the input Dave,
> >
> > I have a short backswing and tend to keep the clubface square throughout
> > swing, so probably no need to have more time to "square" the clubhead.
> >
> > I would like to avoid large offsets, but would like weight low. Cavity
backs
> > provide this, but most have large offsets. So far, R7 TP seems to match
my
> > needs, but are there others to consider?
> >
>
> I don't want to dispute or undercut what Dave's said, but here is my take:
>
> Offset does hardly anything. Too much makes the club harder to handle
> in bad lies, but some offset will not have a substantial effect.
> Consider that the clubhead moves several feet (probably 10 feet) on the
> downswing - I'm not buying the argument that if your clubhead isn't
> square, another 1/4" is going to solve the problem even slightly.
>
> What offset can do is make the golfer look at the club a little
> different and swing it differently (better).
>
> So if you want a very low cg iron, don't be afraid of seeing some
> offset. But then don't let the salesperson blow smoke up your ass about
> it either.
>
> Dave
I agree with what "the other Dave" said, which is why I used the term "in
principle".
I avoid offset because it just seems like an avoidable variable - but don't
feel strongly enough about this to come up with a different set of backup
irons (Tommy Armour Silver Scot's).
For a quickie analysis, the clubface is basically 90 degrees open in "the
slot position". Let's take a 37" 7i. Assume a 1/4 circle rotation plus a
foot for hand motion as the total distance that the club moves in going from
90* open to square (and assume a constant closing rate - a big assumption).
If I did the math right that 1/4" yields less than 0.4*. That ain't much.
A good golfer probably delays the "closing" much later in the swing. But the
golfer who needs help might well "close' things earlier (even less 'help'
from the offset). Surely someone has looked at this in some detail - I
guess.
dave
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 00:56:22
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
Dave Lee wrote:
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0lsjk01stv@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Duffer wrote:
>>> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote>
>>>> In principle this gives you more time to square up the clubhead.
> Imagine a
>>>> 6i with a foot of offset. When the shaft is pointing at the ball,
> you've
>>>> still got a foot of clubhead motion before you actually make impact.
>>>>
>>>> I tend to draw the ball and also try to avoid offset clubs. However, my
>>>> backup set of irons has significant offset and I find it takes about
> two
>>>> swings to make the adjustment.
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest avoiding big offsets.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the input Dave,
>>>
>>> I have a short backswing and tend to keep the clubface square throughout
>>> swing, so probably no need to have more time to "square" the clubhead.
>>>
>>> I would like to avoid large offsets, but would like weight low. Cavity
> backs
>>> provide this, but most have large offsets. So far, R7 TP seems to match
> my
>>> needs, but are there others to consider?
>>>
>> I don't want to dispute or undercut what Dave's said, but here is my take:
>>
>> Offset does hardly anything. Too much makes the club harder to handle
>> in bad lies, but some offset will not have a substantial effect.
>> Consider that the clubhead moves several feet (probably 10 feet) on the
>> downswing - I'm not buying the argument that if your clubhead isn't
>> square, another 1/4" is going to solve the problem even slightly.
>>
>> What offset can do is make the golfer look at the club a little
>> different and swing it differently (better).
>>
>> So if you want a very low cg iron, don't be afraid of seeing some
>> offset. But then don't let the salesperson blow smoke up your ass about
>> it either.
>>
>> Dave
>
> I agree with what "the other Dave" said, which is why I used the term "in
> principle".
>
> I avoid offset because it just seems like an avoidable variable - but don't
> feel strongly enough about this to come up with a different set of backup
> irons (Tommy Armour Silver Scot's).
>
> For a quickie analysis, the clubface is basically 90 degrees open in "the
> slot position". Let's take a 37" 7i. Assume a 1/4 circle rotation plus a
> foot for hand motion as the total distance that the club moves in going from
> 90* open to square (and assume a constant closing rate - a big assumption).
> If I did the math right that 1/4" yields less than 0.4*. That ain't much.
>
> A good golfer probably delays the "closing" much later in the swing. But the
> golfer who needs help might well "close' things earlier (even less 'help'
> from the offset). Surely someone has looked at this in some detail - I
> guess.
>
> dave
To the two Daves,
I don't have any hard data regarding offset, just personal experience.
A few years ago I bought a set of MacGregor 1025Ms, these are zero
offset, muscleback design. I had been using a CB progressive offset
sticks. I found that with the Mac 5 iron I tended to over draw a bit
and the 4 iron was a snap hook the first time I took it out of the bag
for months. I swapped the 3 iron out for a zero bounce Mac 60* when I
bought the set so I can't say how the 3 might have performed for me.
The second observation is that from the 6 to 4 I need to reset my
alignment a bit back or I was hitting thin. Taken together I think that
the offset does buy a little time to square up, but that the real
objective of the design is to afford the novice a way to avoid a fat
strike. I'm guessing at the latter simply because I must have built the
compensation into my swing.
These are the 1025Ms, not the 1025CM split set with progressive offset
and a modified cavity from the 6 up.
FWIW.
Joe
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:16:49
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
Thanks for the input.
So, we have no real proof that the offsets make any difference? Yet club
manufacturers insist of making most of their irons that way!
I will try and avoid excessive offset, but maybe just staying with my
present clubs in one option.
Funnily enough, several early hybrids had large offset, but now they seem to
have given up on that and part of face is even in front of hosel.
Same with drivers - Don't see too many offset drivers, except perhaps in the
'SALE' bins ;)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:40:35
From:
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:16:49 -0400, "Duffer"
<none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
>Thanks for the input.
>
>So, we have no real proof that the offsets make any difference? Yet club
>manufacturers insist of making most of their irons that way!
What kind of "proof" were you seeking? I have seen people who have
older irons with little or no offset and who hit a fade or slice try
offset irons and hit them much straighter. Just because a couple of
guys posted their opinion that offset does nothing does not make it
so. My advice would be to try a couple of different makes and models
and see for yourself if offset will help you.
>
>I will try and avoid excessive offset, but maybe just staying with my
>present clubs in one option.
>
>Funnily enough, several early hybrids had large offset, but now they seem to
>have given up on that and part of face is even in front of hosel.
>
>Same with drivers - Don't see too many offset drivers, except perhaps in the
>'SALE' bins ;)
Offset drivers are still fairly common. Cobra's new M-Speed driver
come in offset and non-offset models. The Ping G5 is available in an
offset model, as well.
Craig
"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 10:51:16
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
<zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net > wrote
>
> What kind of "proof" were you seeking? I have seen people who have
> older irons with little or no offset and who hit a fade or slice try
> offset irons and hit them much straighter. Just because a couple of
> guys posted their opinion that offset does nothing does not make it
> so. My advice would be to try a couple of different makes and models
> and see for yourself if offset will help you.
>
Craig,
The proof I was hoping for , was perhaps a report based on a controlled test
or even a theory based on the mechanics of the swing. But what I have, are a
few opinions (that happen to match my own) and an opinion from you.
I might try writing to the club manufacturers of perhaps the guy that used
to be the USGA technical guru - forget his name offhand.
I have tried various irons (see original post), and I see no difference in
the results. I think we just adapt to whatever tool we happen to use. But,
in my case, I don't like the look of teh offsets - why have the hosel out in
front, where there is a chance of a heel hit making contact with it. I am
sure most of us have done that at least once....
What I am looking for, is a low CG cavity back that doesn't have much
offset.
Duffer
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 21:59:32
From:
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:51:16 -0400, "Duffer"
<none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
>
><zipper40hDIESPAMMERS@netscape.net> wrote
>>
>> What kind of "proof" were you seeking? I have seen people who have
>> older irons with little or no offset and who hit a fade or slice try
>> offset irons and hit them much straighter. Just because a couple of
>> guys posted their opinion that offset does nothing does not make it
>> so. My advice would be to try a couple of different makes and models
>> and see for yourself if offset will help you.
>>
>
>Craig,
>
>The proof I was hoping for , was perhaps a report based on a controlled test
>or even a theory based on the mechanics of the swing. But what I have, are a
>few opinions (that happen to match my own) and an opinion from you.
There is science behind the design (another poster mentions it
elsewhere in the thread). I guess my bottom line is that the proof is
in the pudding. If offset irons do not provide you with any benefit,
and you don't like the look of them, then I would recommend you not
buy them.
>
>I might try writing to the club manufacturers of perhaps the guy that used
>to be the USGA technical guru - forget his name offhand.
I don't see any benefit in doing this if you have already tried them
and found no benefit.
>
>I have tried various irons (see original post), and I see no difference in
>the results. I think we just adapt to whatever tool we happen to use. But,
>in my case, I don't like the look of teh offsets - why have the hosel out in
>front, where there is a chance of a heel hit making contact with it. I am
>sure most of us have done that at least once....
Not sure what you meant by that last sentence. If you mean the heel of
the club making contact with the ball, that can happen with or without
offset.
>
>What I am looking for, is a low CG cavity back that doesn't have much
>offset.
I hope you find something. Most low-CG cavity backs I have seen have a
moderate-to-significant offset. But, I haven't seen everything :)
>
>Duffer
>
Craig
"Nothing matters but the weekend, from a Tuesday point of view."
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 18:24:23
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Duffer" <none2speakof@network.com > wrote in message
news:sVpXh.2007$WE.1592@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote>
> > In principle this gives you more time to square up the clubhead. Imagine
a
> > 6i with a foot of offset. When the shaft is pointing at the ball, you've
> > still got a foot of clubhead motion before you actually make impact.
> >
> > I tend to draw the ball and also try to avoid offset clubs. However, my
> > backup set of irons has significant offset and I find it takes about two
> > swings to make the adjustment.
> >
> > I'd suggest avoiding big offsets.
> >
>
> Thanks for the input Dave,
>
> I have a short backswing and tend to keep the clubface square throughout
> swing, so probably no need to have more time to "square" the clubhead.
>
> I would like to avoid large offsets, but would like weight low. Cavity
backs
> provide this, but most have large offsets. So far, R7 TP seems to match my
> needs, but are there others to consider?
>
I have heard some really good things about the Wishon 560MC irons
(www.wishongolf.com). These would be custom clubs, of course, so you would
have to find a qualified fitter. But for probably the same price or less
than an OEM set you could get an equal/better set of irons truly fit to your
swing (which sounds efficient but not 'normal' by "average golfer"
standards).
If you wanted to take this route you could get onto the Wishon forums (URL
above) and get directed to a fitter in your area that, in their opinion,
would do a good job.
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 10:53:44
From: larry
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:02:10 -0400, "Duffer"
<none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
>
>"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote>
>> In principle this gives you more time to square up the clubhead. Imagine a
>> 6i with a foot of offset. When the shaft is pointing at the ball, you've
>> still got a foot of clubhead motion before you actually make impact.
>>
>> I tend to draw the ball and also try to avoid offset clubs. However, my
>> backup set of irons has significant offset and I find it takes about two
>> swings to make the adjustment.
>>
>> I'd suggest avoiding big offsets.
>>
>
>Thanks for the input Dave,
>
>I have a short backswing and tend to keep the clubface square throughout
>swing, so probably no need to have more time to "square" the clubhead.
>
>I would like to avoid large offsets, but would like weight low. Cavity backs
>provide this, but most have large offsets. So far, R7 TP seems to match my
>needs, but are there others to consider?
Try Callaway BB cavity backs. They are easier to hit than the R7s.
After half a dozen swings you will not be able to discern the
difference between offset and straight. That is bogus. There is no
difference as far as ball flight or contact. And get graphite shafts,
like Hale Irwin and many older pros. Today there is no reason to
swing heavy metal shafts--
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 02:01:30
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
In article <grgs23t5iio4lenaaaculh8bqb0sf4o19b@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:02:10 -0400, "Duffer"
> <none2speakof@network.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote>
> >> In principle this gives you more time to square up the clubhead. Imagine a
> >> 6i with a foot of offset. When the shaft is pointing at the ball, you've
> >> still got a foot of clubhead motion before you actually make impact.
> >>
> >> I tend to draw the ball and also try to avoid offset clubs. However, my
> >> backup set of irons has significant offset and I find it takes about two
> >> swings to make the adjustment.
> >>
> >> I'd suggest avoiding big offsets.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for the input Dave,
> >
> >I have a short backswing and tend to keep the clubface square throughout
> >swing, so probably no need to have more time to "square" the clubhead.
> >
> >I would like to avoid large offsets, but would like weight low. Cavity backs
> >provide this, but most have large offsets. So far, R7 TP seems to match my
> >needs, but are there others to consider?
>
> Try Callaway BB cavity backs. They are easier to hit than the R7s.
> After half a dozen swings you will not be able to discern the
> difference between offset and straight. That is bogus. There is no
> difference as far as ball flight or contact. And get graphite shafts,
> like Hale Irwin and many older pros. Today there is no reason to
> swing heavy metal shafts--
>
> Larry
Of course there's a difference.
An offset club places the centre of mass of the clubhead *behind* the
shaft.
As you swing the club, that mass tries to get as far from the centre of
rotation as possible (that's what "centrifugal" means: "centre fleeing")
and that position is with the centre of mass aligned with the shaft as
seen from the position of the golfer.
Hence, an offset club tends to get towards a closed position as the club
is swung at its greatest speed; hopefully at impact.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 22:47:03
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote
>
> Of course there's a difference.
>
> An offset club places the centre of mass of the clubhead *behind* the
> shaft.
>
> As you swing the club, that mass tries to get as far from the centre of
> rotation as possible (that's what "centrifugal" means: "centre fleeing")
> and that position is with the centre of mass aligned with the shaft as
> seen from the position of the golfer.
>
> Hence, an offset club tends to get towards a closed position as the club
> is swung at its greatest speed; hopefully at impact.
>
I appreciate the attempt at a technical explanation.
But, I still don't get it. If the centre of mass is forward, in-line or aft
of the shaft, the head will still get as far from the center of rotation as
possible. So why would offsetting help?
Duffer
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 01:25:18
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
In article <1sUXh.2124$WE.1890@read1.cgocable.net >,
"Duffer" <none2speakof@network.com > wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote
> >
> > Of course there's a difference.
> >
> > An offset club places the centre of mass of the clubhead *behind* the
> > shaft.
> >
> > As you swing the club, that mass tries to get as far from the centre of
> > rotation as possible (that's what "centrifugal" means: "centre fleeing")
> > and that position is with the centre of mass aligned with the shaft as
> > seen from the position of the golfer.
> >
> > Hence, an offset club tends to get towards a closed position as the club
> > is swung at its greatest speed; hopefully at impact.
> >
>
> I appreciate the attempt at a technical explanation.
>
> But, I still don't get it. If the centre of mass is forward, in-line or aft
> of the shaft, the head will still get as far from the center of rotation as
> possible. So why would offsetting help?
>
> Duffer
To get an understanding of what's going on, simply imagine a very large
amount of offset. Do a thought experiment and in your head imagine that
the centre of mass of the clubhead was moved backwards much further than
the typical offset -- say a foot.
If necessary, move it even farther back.
Let me know what you conclude
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:56:49
From: Duffer
Subject: Re: Offset Irons
|
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote >
> To get an understanding of what's going on, simply imagine a very large
> amount of offset. Do a thought experiment and in your head imagine that
> the centre of mass of the clubhead was moved backwards much further than
> the typical offset -- say a foot.
>
> If necessary, move it even farther back.
>
> Let me know what you conclude
If club had a foot of offset, I would miss the ball altogether, or if I made
contact, the ball may go between my legs or in some other equally
undesirable direction :)
If it was a foot forward, I would still have a problem, probably worse!
Conclusion - Large offset in either direction would cause increasing
difficulty in making good contact. Therefore, minimize offset.
I have my own theory about why irons are made with offset:
What is important in the iron swing, is possibly that the point in the arc
where the ball makes contact with the clubface remains more or less
constant.
On a long iron, this point is further forward than it is with a short iron,
just because of the angle of the face. Therefore, the club manufacturers
adjust offset between clubs so that the longer irons have more offset and
the wedges hardly any at all. If this was not done, the contact point moves
further and further behind the shaft axis as the loft increases.
In looking at my own irons, this is the way they are. Some offset on 3 & 4
irons, but none on lofted clubs.
I can see this, but I still can't see adding additional offset to the whole
set.
Then I read about moving the ball forward for long irons and back for short
irons, and by inches, not fractions of inches. Now how would that fit in
with all the offset theories? Do they do this when testing clubs with Iron
Byron? Probably not. I think Jack Niclaus said to always place the ball at
the same point relative to your stance.
Duffer
|
|
