| |
Main
Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:33:16
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near future.
At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean calendar
2007 :-)
An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly) "the
right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer means
less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be "the
stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I honestly
don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just don't
see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are more
clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club and
similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The "droop
thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that if
the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too upright
for a chip shot.
Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but I
recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it did
Dave - this is RSG :-)
dave
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 23:02:51
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
In message <iu3gjDXQr5zFFwBX@alancampbell.demon.co.uk >, greenkeeper
<greenkeeper@xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk > writes
>In message <539hoaF1rkitbU1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Dalecki
><mike@removeclubdoctor.com> writes
>>Dave Lee wrote:
>>> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote in message
>>> news:538oirF1qnts4U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> I'll bet you do have a preference. You may find that you can make
>>>>
>>>> the variations work--if you swing them properly.
>>>>
>>>> But one will feel the most comfortable to you
Sorry nothing seemed to come through the first time.
Hi Mike,
I am currently using a set of Spalding Topflite Custom Mades with
ProjectX shafts medium to slightly stiff. Lofts 50° PW then 4°
increments downwards. I am thinking of pulling these and putting them in
a set of Hogan Apex II, do you think this will work? Looking at the same
loft progression in the Apex.
Will have to think about these for my Apex Pc's I have in the US.
I really like the Project X in the Spaldings.
The weather at the moment!!
http://www.pbase.com/alancampbell/image/73008534/medium
--
alan
--
alan
|
| | |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 16:06:21
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
greenkeeper wrote:
> In message <iu3gjDXQr5zFFwBX@alancampbell.demon.co.uk>, greenkeeper
> <greenkeeper@xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk> writes
>> In message <539hoaF1rkitbU1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Dalecki
>> <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> writes
>>> Dave Lee wrote:
>>>> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:538oirF1qnts4U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet you do have a preference. You may find that you can make
>>>>> the variations work--if you swing them properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> But one will feel the most comfortable to you
>
> Sorry nothing seemed to come through the first time.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I am currently using a set of Spalding Topflite Custom Mades with
> ProjectX shafts medium to slightly stiff. Lofts 50° PW then 4°
> increments downwards. I am thinking of pulling these and putting them in
> a set of Hogan Apex II, do you think this will work? Looking at the same
> loft progression in the Apex.
>
> Will have to think about these for my Apex Pc's I have in the US.
> I really like the Project X in the Spaldings.
>
>
> The weather at the moment!!
> http://www.pbase.com/alancampbell/image/73008534/medium
>
>
>
Will it work? If the hosels are the same, why not?
Well, you asked--I'm not a fan of the Project X shafts. I did a
reshafting job with them and was shocked at how poorly they were
matched. But if they're working for you, then perhaps you have a good
set.
Mike
--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
|
| |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 22:38:08
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
In message <539hoaF1rkitbU1@mid.individual.net >, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > writes
>Dave Lee wrote:
>> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote in message
>> news:538oirF1qnts4U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> I'll bet you do have a preference. You may find that you can make
>>>all
>>> the variations work--if you swing them properly.
>>>
>>> But one will feel the most comfortable to you
|
| |
Date: 09 Feb 2007 08:48:43
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
Shaft stiffness.
Yeah, as if...
|
| |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 12:41:13
From: newellsatwsu
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 7, 8:01 am, "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Yeah, but I like the full quote better. It is worth repeating
> again, just in case someone has a false idea what Ernest Jones
> was preaching with his "swing the clubhead" method:
>
<<snip to key part of Ernest Jones STC quote >>
>
> What sometimes happens is that the hacker transposes from
> one failing to another. He then tries to let the club do the work
> -- without his participation. He does not use his hands, perhaps
> because he hasn't been told about the "feel" of the swing, lets
> the club fall against the ball. It is a fluffy stroke without any
> power or authority motivating the club's action.
>
> [end quote]
Good thing we don't know any STC preacher around here who took Ernest
Jones advice the wrong way.
Nice quote Bill.
|
| |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 13:39:53
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
Dave Lee wrote:
> I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near future.
> At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean calendar
> 2007 :-)
>
> An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly) "the
> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer means
> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be "the
> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
>
> I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I honestly
> don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
> better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
>
> I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just don't
> see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are more
> clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club and
> similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The "droop
> thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that if
> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too upright
> for a chip shot.
>
> Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but I
> recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it did
> Dave - this is RSG :-)
>
> dave
Much of the flex question revolves around how you swing a club. The
most flexible club you can handle tends to assume you have a smooth
swing; those who load the club fast, and swing fast, tend to need
stiffer shafts.
To be honest with you, I think the best thing you can do--since you're
building them yourself--is simply try 2 or 3 variations and see what
feels the best. Most truisms, like what you quoted above, are
true--sometimes.
Mike
--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
|
| | |
Date: 09 Feb 2007 12:09:42
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote in message
news:531ckaF1qkmtrU2@mid.individual.net...
> Dave Lee wrote:
> > I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near
future.
> > At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean
calendar
> > 2007 :-)
> >
> > An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
"the
> > right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
means
> > less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
"the
> > stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
> >
> > I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I
honestly
> > don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
> > better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
> >
> > I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just
don't
> > see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are
more
> > clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club
and
> > similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The
"droop
> > thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that
if
> > the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
upright
> > for a chip shot.
> >
> > Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but
I
> > recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
did
> > Dave - this is RSG :-)
> >
> > dave
>
> Much of the flex question revolves around how you swing a club. The
> most flexible club you can handle tends to assume you have a smooth
> swing; those who load the club fast, and swing fast, tend to need
> stiffer shafts.
>
> To be honest with you, I think the best thing you can do--since you're
> building them yourself--is simply try 2 or 3 variations and see what
> feels the best. Most truisms, like what you quoted above, are
> true--sometimes.
>
> Mike
snip
Mike, have kind of started a few experiments and will probably do more.
I'm actually anticipating what to do if the outcome of these experiments is
"I don't seem to have a preference".
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 08:46:38
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
Dave Lee wrote:
> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote in message
> news:531ckaF1qkmtrU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Dave Lee wrote:
>>> I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near
> future.
>>> At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean
> calendar
>>> 2007 :-)
>>>
>>> An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
> "the
>>> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
> means
>>> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
> "the
>>> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
>>>
>>> I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I
> honestly
>>> don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
>>> better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
>>>
>>> I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just
> don't
>>> see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are
> more
>>> clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club
> and
>>> similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The
> "droop
>>> thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that
> if
>>> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
> upright
>>> for a chip shot.
>>>
>>> Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but
> I
>>> recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
> did
>>> Dave - this is RSG :-)
>>>
>>> dave
>> Much of the flex question revolves around how you swing a club. The
>> most flexible club you can handle tends to assume you have a smooth
>> swing; those who load the club fast, and swing fast, tend to need
>> stiffer shafts.
>>
>> To be honest with you, I think the best thing you can do--since you're
>> building them yourself--is simply try 2 or 3 variations and see what
>> feels the best. Most truisms, like what you quoted above, are
>> true--sometimes.
>>
>> Mike
> snip
>
> Mike, have kind of started a few experiments and will probably do more.
>
> I'm actually anticipating what to do if the outcome of these experiments is
> "I don't seem to have a preference".
>
> dave
>
>
I'll bet you do have a preference. You may find that you can make all
the variations work--if you swing them properly.
But one will feel the most comfortable to you.
I've noticed this with my own clubs (experimenting w/ drivers and
shafts). I *can* make a stiff shaft perform in the driver--and in fact,
I can produce some pretty good results with it, good distance. But I
have to jump on it to get it to load and unload at the right time.
But that's not what I'm swinging. I want something more flexible,
because I'm trying to get the same swing with the woods as I use with
the irons. The last year or so, a lot of my practice has been focusing
on lag, and I have a very difficult time maintaining that if I have to
swing quickly--too easy for me to come over the top.
So something that responds better to my lag, and even requires me to
wait a bit for the club, works better for me.
When you experiment, make sure you have some pretty significant
differences at the gins, at least at the beginning. Don't, for
instance, tip 1/4" more shaft and expect you'll find a major difference
you can feel.
If it were me, I'd try to define a shaft that was too stiff, and one
that was too flexible. Then I'd define the point between them where i
didn't have to work to make the club perform.
Mike
--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 18:34:24
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote in message
news:538oirF1qnts4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I'll bet you do have a preference. You may find that you can make all
> the variations work--if you swing them properly.
>
> But one will feel the most comfortable to you.
>
> I've noticed this with my own clubs (experimenting w/ drivers and
> shafts). I *can* make a stiff shaft perform in the driver--and in fact,
> I can produce some pretty good results with it, good distance. But I
> have to jump on it to get it to load and unload at the right time.
>
> But that's not what I'm swinging. I want something more flexible,
> because I'm trying to get the same swing with the woods as I use with
> the irons. The last year or so, a lot of my practice has been focusing
> on lag, and I have a very difficult time maintaining that if I have to
> swing quickly--too easy for me to come over the top.
>
> So something that responds better to my lag, and even requires me to
> wait a bit for the club, works better for me.
>
> When you experiment, make sure you have some pretty significant
> differences at the gins, at least at the beginning. Don't, for
> instance, tip 1/4" more shaft and expect you'll find a major difference
> you can feel.
>
> If it were me, I'd try to define a shaft that was too stiff, and one
> that was too flexible. Then I'd define the point between them where i
> didn't have to work to make the club perform.
>
> Mike
snip
Mike, that is good advice and probably something that I will do.
But I do find it surprising that on a side-by-side test of the same
clubheads - one on an A flex shaft (37 7/8" at 295 cpm) and an identical
clubhead on a stock Hogan #4 (stiff) shaft - I don't really seem to have a
preference.
However, my lag is not that good and it really may not matter much.
dave
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 15:56:26
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
Dave Lee wrote:
> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote in message
> news:538oirF1qnts4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> I'll bet you do have a preference. You may find that you can make all
>> the variations work--if you swing them properly.
>>
>> But one will feel the most comfortable to you.
>>
>> I've noticed this with my own clubs (experimenting w/ drivers and
>> shafts). I *can* make a stiff shaft perform in the driver--and in fact,
>> I can produce some pretty good results with it, good distance. But I
>> have to jump on it to get it to load and unload at the right time.
>>
>> But that's not what I'm swinging. I want something more flexible,
>> because I'm trying to get the same swing with the woods as I use with
>> the irons. The last year or so, a lot of my practice has been focusing
>> on lag, and I have a very difficult time maintaining that if I have to
>> swing quickly--too easy for me to come over the top.
>>
>> So something that responds better to my lag, and even requires me to
>> wait a bit for the club, works better for me.
>>
>> When you experiment, make sure you have some pretty significant
>> differences at the gins, at least at the beginning. Don't, for
>> instance, tip 1/4" more shaft and expect you'll find a major difference
>> you can feel.
>>
>> If it were me, I'd try to define a shaft that was too stiff, and one
>> that was too flexible. Then I'd define the point between them where i
>> didn't have to work to make the club perform.
>>
>> Mike
> snip
>
> Mike, that is good advice and probably something that I will do.
>
> But I do find it surprising that on a side-by-side test of the same
> clubheads - one on an A flex shaft (37 7/8" at 295 cpm) and an identical
> clubhead on a stock Hogan #4 (stiff) shaft - I don't really seem to have a
> preference.
>
> However, my lag is not that good and it really may not matter much.
>
> dave
>
>
Have you spec'd the hogan stiff shaft? I could tell you stories....
Mike
--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 22:36:51
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote in message
news:539hoaF1rkitbU1@mid.individual.net...
> Dave Lee wrote:
> > "Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote in message
> > news:538oirF1qnts4U1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> >> I'll bet you do have a preference. You may find that you can make all
> >> the variations work--if you swing them properly.
> >>
> >> But one will feel the most comfortable to you.
> >>
> >> I've noticed this with my own clubs (experimenting w/ drivers and
> >> shafts). I *can* make a stiff shaft perform in the driver--and in
fact,
> >> I can produce some pretty good results with it, good distance. But I
> >> have to jump on it to get it to load and unload at the right time.
> >>
> >> But that's not what I'm swinging. I want something more flexible,
> >> because I'm trying to get the same swing with the woods as I use with
> >> the irons. The last year or so, a lot of my practice has been focusing
> >> on lag, and I have a very difficult time maintaining that if I have to
> >> swing quickly--too easy for me to come over the top.
> >>
> >> So something that responds better to my lag, and even requires me to
> >> wait a bit for the club, works better for me.
> >>
> >> When you experiment, make sure you have some pretty significant
> >> differences at the gins, at least at the beginning. Don't, for
> >> instance, tip 1/4" more shaft and expect you'll find a major difference
> >> you can feel.
> >>
> >> If it were me, I'd try to define a shaft that was too stiff, and one
> >> that was too flexible. Then I'd define the point between them where i
> >> didn't have to work to make the club perform.
> >>
> >> Mike
> > snip
> >
> > Mike, that is good advice and probably something that I will do.
> >
> > But I do find it surprising that on a side-by-side test of the same
> > clubheads - one on an A flex shaft (37 7/8" at 295 cpm) and an
identical
> > clubhead on a stock Hogan #4 (stiff) shaft - I don't really seem to have
a
> > preference.
> >
> > However, my lag is not that good and it really may not matter much.
> >
> > dave
> >
> >
>
> Have you spec'd the hogan stiff shaft? I could tell you stories....
>
> Mike
>
> --
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
I don't have the ability to profile it. I could measure the butt frequency
if I would just remove the grip.
I have done a similar experiment with two different TT DG S300 shafts vs. TT
A flex Tx-90 with similar results. This comparison wasn't as clean as the
clubheads were also different.
In fact one of those was on a Cleveland TA3 (moderate cavity back) where I
kept thinking "surely I'll feel something more forgiving about this vs. my
blade. So I put a matching TX-90 shaft in the TA3. I have a hard time
finding anything "that I like better".
But as I said in the forgiving irons thread, I don't like my 1960's Walter
Hagen blade with the bent shaft. So I'm only using straight ones from now on
:-)
dave
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 17:49:21
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
A thought.
It's all fun and and knock yourselves out with whatever floats your boat
but:
I think if you spent as much time hitting balls and playing golf as you do
with this stuff, you might find that if you would just set yourself up with
a decent set of clubs and play the crap out of them, all this other stuff
would take care of itself.
Play golf.
Otto
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:7UMzh.994$Jl.700@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote in message
> news:539hoaF1rkitbU1@mid.individual.net...
> > Dave Lee wrote:
> > > "Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote in message
> > > news:538oirF1qnts4U1@mid.individual.net...
> > >
> > >> I'll bet you do have a preference. You may find that you can make
all
> > >> the variations work--if you swing them properly.
> > >>
> > >> But one will feel the most comfortable to you.
> > >>
> > >> I've noticed this with my own clubs (experimenting w/ drivers and
> > >> shafts). I *can* make a stiff shaft perform in the driver--and in
> fact,
> > >> I can produce some pretty good results with it, good distance. But I
> > >> have to jump on it to get it to load and unload at the right time.
> > >>
> > >> But that's not what I'm swinging. I want something more flexible,
> > >> because I'm trying to get the same swing with the woods as I use with
> > >> the irons. The last year or so, a lot of my practice has been
focusing
> > >> on lag, and I have a very difficult time maintaining that if I have
to
> > >> swing quickly--too easy for me to come over the top.
> > >>
> > >> So something that responds better to my lag, and even requires me to
> > >> wait a bit for the club, works better for me.
> > >>
> > >> When you experiment, make sure you have some pretty significant
> > >> differences at the gins, at least at the beginning. Don't, for
> > >> instance, tip 1/4" more shaft and expect you'll find a major
difference
> > >> you can feel.
> > >>
> > >> If it were me, I'd try to define a shaft that was too stiff, and one
> > >> that was too flexible. Then I'd define the point between them where
i
> > >> didn't have to work to make the club perform.
> > >>
> > >> Mike
> > > snip
> > >
> > > Mike, that is good advice and probably something that I will do.
> > >
> > > But I do find it surprising that on a side-by-side test of the same
> > > clubheads - one on an A flex shaft (37 7/8" at 295 cpm) and an
> identical
> > > clubhead on a stock Hogan #4 (stiff) shaft - I don't really seem to
have
> a
> > > preference.
> > >
> > > However, my lag is not that good and it really may not matter much.
> > >
> > > dave
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Have you spec'd the hogan stiff shaft? I could tell you stories....
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > --
> > Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
> > RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
>
> I don't have the ability to profile it. I could measure the butt frequency
> if I would just remove the grip.
>
> I have done a similar experiment with two different TT DG S300 shafts vs.
TT
> A flex Tx-90 with similar results. This comparison wasn't as clean as the
> clubheads were also different.
>
> In fact one of those was on a Cleveland TA3 (moderate cavity back) where I
> kept thinking "surely I'll feel something more forgiving about this vs. my
> blade. So I put a matching TX-90 shaft in the TA3. I have a hard time
> finding anything "that I like better".
>
> But as I said in the forgiving irons thread, I don't like my 1960's Walter
> Hagen blade with the bent shaft. So I'm only using straight ones from now
on
> :-)
>
> dave
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 02:20:15
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
Otto wrote:
> A thought.
>
> It's all fun and and knock yourselves out with whatever floats your boat
> but:
>
> I think if you spent as much time hitting balls and playing golf as you do
> with this stuff, you might find that if you would just set yourself up with
> a decent set of clubs and play the crap out of them, all this other stuff
> would take care of itself.
>
> Play golf.
>
> Otto
I pretty much agree with this sentiment. You cannot find your golf game on a
driving range, and the clubs themselves will not affect your golfing ability one
bit.
However, you can optimize your clubs, but you have to know your game to do it.
The OPer claimed he has little lag. In that case, I can't see anything other
than stiff flex or stiffer shafts working well for him. The softer shafts only
work properly when you can feel the lag. Most recreational golfers are not slow
enough at the top for anything but really stiff shafts. Softer shafts simply
increase inconsistency for you classic hard OTT recreational swing. Get stiff,
heavy shafts and have at it!.
In my game, I have learned that I simply do not have the athletic ability ot
properly accelerate the clubhead to any great speed. Sure, I could work out, do
stretching, and increase my ability to generate clubhead speed, but I don't want
to do that. So I have to accept 180-200 as the optimal carry distance for my
driver. I can get in a groove and carry a shot that far and hit it where I want
it. I can hit an 8I very nicely from 120. I go for a harder swing and I will
very rapidly and exponentially increase the chances of a bad shot. Slowing down
my swing has changed my design for clubs. I have R flex DGSL's in my irons, and
the design of these shafts really works well for me. For some reason the
Evolution/Bangenstein combo works well in my driver. It is not as long as say my
BOM, but the BOM is so light I lose feel of it, and tend to get too quick and
too wild with it. The Evolution shaft has a really solid feel to it, and the
club has a feeling of heft to it, and I feel I can control it. It also doesn't
penalize me as much for getting quick and OTT as much as my irons do.
Since I quit playing in dogfights and other "competitions" where cheating is the
rule, keeping the ball in play and being more consistent from shot to shot has
come to mean a lot more. Slowing it down and playing within myself has made me a
better golfer. Interestingly it doesn't show in my handicap too much (although
I've quit keeping a handicap), but there have been times recently where I've
literally been able to will myself to hit the ball solidly, and I've never been
able to do that before.
In any event, for me, softer shafts have worked well in my irons because I have
changed the way I play. I still get quick, and pay a higher price for it, but
overall, my game is a lot better. BUT!! If I were to go to more of a swing hard
mentality, the stiffest shafts would be what I would need.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 23:17:40
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:%_Mzh.4245$6a.3468@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> A thought.
>
> It's all fun and and knock yourselves out with whatever floats your boat
> but:
>
> I think if you spent as much time hitting balls and playing golf as you do
> with this stuff, you might find that if you would just set yourself up
with
> a decent set of clubs and play the crap out of them, all this other stuff
> would take care of itself.
>
> Play golf.
>
> Otto
>
Make you a deal. I'll give you $1 for every ball that you've hit in the past
two weeks if you'll give me $.50 for everyone that I've hit :-).
In fact this whole thing process started because I have literally worn out
my PW (a common practice club for me). It no longer has a bottom groove.
dave
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 18:23:48
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
How many holes of golf have you played?
Otto
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:ouNzh.530$x74.100@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Make you a deal. I'll give you $1 for every ball that you've hit in the
past
> two weeks if you'll give me $.50 for everyone that I've hit :-).
>
> In fact this whole thing process started because I have literally worn out
> my PW (a common practice club for me). It no longer has a bottom groove.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 23:43:01
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:ivNzh.4254$6a.2535@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> How many holes of golf have you played?
>
> Otto
>
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:ouNzh.530$x74.100@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Make you a deal. I'll give you $1 for every ball that you've hit in the
> past
> > two weeks if you'll give me $.50 for everyone that I've hit :-).
> >
> > In fact this whole thing process started because I have literally worn
out
> > my PW (a common practice club for me). It no longer has a bottom groove.
>
>
I play twice/week and practice 4-5x/week (fortunate to be retired and
healthy).
Used to play 3x/week but prefer this format for now. Am getting pressure
from some friends/relatives so I can see 3x/week in the near future (for
better or worse).
dave
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 18:53:00
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
I was watching one of these "Playing Lessons with the Pros" on the Golf
Channel.
The amateur was complaining about a lack of consistency.
The pro asked him how much he played and the amateur responded "3X a week."
The pro followed with "If I played 3X a week I would be inconsistent too."
If you are retired and healthy you should be playing every day--if you want
to get better and be consistent.
Now if you want to pick an item or two and work on it at the range--knock
yourself out. But do it after or before the round.
Play more holes.
I shoot for 90 holes a week(5 rounds) and I have a job and a family and I am
not retired.
And I walk---fast.
Otto
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:9SNzh.543$tD2.18@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I play twice/week and practice 4-5x/week (fortunate to be retired and
> healthy).
>
> Used to play 3x/week but prefer this format for now. Am getting pressure
> from some friends/relatives so I can see 3x/week in the near future (for
> better or worse).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 00:55:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:53:00 -0500, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>I shoot for 90 holes a week(5 rounds) and I have a job and a family and I am
>not retired.
How do you find time?
>And I walk---fast.
That works on empty courses.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 20:08:06
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:rkevs25vkcffq97jlmfievcf35vedjrge9@4ax.com...
> >I shoot for 90 holes a week(5 rounds) and I have a job and a family and I
am
> >not retired.
>
> How do you find time?
I work 14-16 hour shifts at night and during daylight golf is a priority.
> >And I walk---fast.
>
> That works on empty courses.
Empty courses help. It is the benefit of cold and rain and wind and ice
pellets and the rest. It opens up the course. Warm, sunny days on weekends
are a challenge. Extreme heat in the summer helps clear the course too.
Otto
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2007 18:35:26
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:QkJzh.385$tD2.80@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote in message
> news:538oirF1qnts4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >
> > I'll bet you do have a preference. You may find that you can make all
> > the variations work--if you swing them properly.
> >
> > But one will feel the most comfortable to you.
> >
> > I've noticed this with my own clubs (experimenting w/ drivers and
> > shafts). I *can* make a stiff shaft perform in the driver--and in fact,
> > I can produce some pretty good results with it, good distance. But I
> > have to jump on it to get it to load and unload at the right time.
> >
> > But that's not what I'm swinging. I want something more flexible,
> > because I'm trying to get the same swing with the woods as I use with
> > the irons. The last year or so, a lot of my practice has been focusing
> > on lag, and I have a very difficult time maintaining that if I have to
> > swing quickly--too easy for me to come over the top.
> >
> > So something that responds better to my lag, and even requires me to
> > wait a bit for the club, works better for me.
> >
> > When you experiment, make sure you have some pretty significant
> > differences at the gins, at least at the beginning. Don't, for
> > instance, tip 1/4" more shaft and expect you'll find a major difference
> > you can feel.
> >
> > If it were me, I'd try to define a shaft that was too stiff, and one
> > that was too flexible. Then I'd define the point between them where i
> > didn't have to work to make the club perform.
> >
> > Mike
> snip
>
> Mike, that is good advice and probably something that I will do.
>
> But I do find it surprising that on a side-by-side test of the same
> clubheads - one on an A flex shaft (37 7/8" at 295 cpm) and an identical
> clubhead on a stock Hogan #4 (stiff) shaft - I don't really seem to have a
> preference.
>
> However, my lag is not that good and it really may not matter much.
>
> dave
>
As a final comment. I seem to be pretty picky when it comes to drivers. Go
figure.
dave
|
| | |
Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:00:47
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:39:53 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
>Much of the flex question revolves around how you swing a club.
There you go introducing fact into the argument.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| |
Date: 07 Feb 2007 16:32:39
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 7, 10:51 am, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
<Usual crap snipped >
Go away tin, I wasn't even talking to you. I was discussing Ernest
Jones
with Howard.
|
| |
Date: 07 Feb 2007 08:01:41
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 7, 9:06 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net > wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2007 16:57:22 -0800, "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, in seeking instruction, the hacker is frequently told:
> >"Let the club do the work."
>
> That can work - with a pro who is watching your response to his
> instruction and giving you feedback until you "get" it.
Yeah, but I like the full quote better. It is worth repeating
again, just in case someone has a false idea what Ernest Jones
was preaching with his "swing the clubhead" method:
[begin quote]
Unfortunately, in seeking instruction, the hacker is frequently told:
"Let the club do the work."
The teacher knows what he has in mind, and it is correct. But he
has used the wrong words. What he means is that you cannot
move the clubhead faster than you can swing it. So he should
tell you to swing the clubhead. But he says: "Let the club do
the work."
What sometimes happens is that the hacker transposes from
one failing to another. He then tries to let the club do the work
-- without his participation. He does not use his hands, perhaps
because he hasn't been told about the "feel" of the swing, lets
the club fall against the ball. It is a fluffy stroke without any
power or authority motivating the club's action.
There must be force in the swing. When the hacker learns that
force comes through controlling the clubhead with the hands
and fingers, he is ready to move into the class of the swinger,
where all good golfers belong.
[end quote]
|
| | |
Date: 07 Feb 2007 11:51:34
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170864101.362151.228950@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 9:06 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2007 16:57:22 -0800, "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Unfortunately, in seeking instruction, the hacker is frequently told:
>> >"Let the club do the work."
>>
>> That can work - with a pro who is watching your response to his
>> instruction and giving you feedback until you "get" it.
>
> Yeah, but I like the full quote better. It is worth repeating
> again, just in case someone has a false idea what Ernest Jones
> was preaching with his "swing the clubhead" method:
>
> [begin quote]
>
> Unfortunately, in seeking instruction, the hacker is frequently told:
> "Let the club do the work."
>
> The teacher knows what he has in mind, and it is correct. But he
> has used the wrong words. What he means is that you cannot
> move the clubhead faster than you can swing it. So he should
> tell you to swing the clubhead. But he says: "Let the club do
> the work."
>
> What sometimes happens is that the hacker transposes from
> one failing to another. He then tries to let the club do the work
> -- without his participation. He does not use his hands, perhaps
> because he hasn't been told about the "feel" of the swing, lets
> the club fall against the ball. It is a fluffy stroke without any
> power or authority motivating the club's action.
>
> There must be force in the swing. When the hacker learns that
> force comes through controlling the clubhead with the hands
> and fingers, he is ready to move into the class of the swinger,
> where all good golfers belong.
>
> [end quote]
>
>
>
Excuse me, Bill, I thought it was clear who that someone was and what the
false idea was. Here, I'll refresh your memory just in case you missed it
the first time you made a mistake in reading comprehension.
As I was saying, I began my post with:
"Do you remember the advice you were given a long time ago when you started
playing? "Let the club do the work." When I use the driver, I'm not trying
to send the ball far, the club will do that for me nicely with its long
shaft and low loft, I just want to send the ball straight. In fact, that's
what I want to do with all my clubs and all my clubs are designed for a very
specific distance."
At this point, it's obvious what I'm talking about, it's the function for
which the club was designed. A longer, lower lofted club is designed to send
the ball farther than the shorter club. All the player has to do now is send
the ball straight.
Are you following me up to this point? I'm just making sure because the last
time I wrote something, you lost your way to neverneverland.
And then you fuck yourself with a quote completely out of context that seems
to demonstrate either that you are stupid, intent on confusing the subject,
or simply pointing out that the words I wrote can be used in a different
context.
Here, I'll point out the context just for you, just so you can see how you
fucked yourself.
Ernest Jones, according to the quoted text you posted, Bill, was trying to
convey that the hacker could misunderstand what the teacher was trying to
say when he says "Let the club do the work" in such a way that it could mean
"Don't work the club, let it work itself". By that understanding, the hacker
would then go on and on swinging the club with very passive arms, not
realising that all this time, all Ernest Jones wanted to say was that "Let
the club do the work" applied to an entirely different principle than what
the student frequently understands.
What you did not quote was what that principle is. Please find a quote from
Ernest Jones where "Let the club do the work" is indeed written in an
appropriate way, according to Ernest Jones himself, anyway.
Oh fuck that, I just realised that Ernest Jones was an idiot. Just like you,
Bill. I mean, what the fuck does that mean:
"What he means is that you cannot
> move the clubhead faster than you can swing it."?!?
When it's an explanation for this:
" > Unfortunately, in seeking instruction, the hacker is frequently told:
> "Let the club do the work."
>
> The teacher knows what he has in mind, and it is correct. But he
> has used the wrong words."?!?
And then he confuses us further with this:
"So he should
> tell you to swing the clubhead. But he says: "Let the club do
> the work.""?!?
Clearly, Ernest Jones was an idiot who had the slightest idea of what he was
talking about. Ernest Jones is saying that the teacher frequently uses the
wrong words. No shit. Ernest Jones himself used the wrong words.
I mean, if I had written this: "The teacher knows what he has in mind, and
it is correct. But he has used the wrong words. What he means is that you
cannot move the clubhead faster than you can swing it. So he should tell you
to swing the clubhead. But he says: "Let the club do the work." without
first having attributed it to Ernest Jones, I'd look like a real retard
right now.
Do you doubt his word now, Bill?
Bill, do you know what we call a person whom, when shown that his actions
are wrong, persists in doing them anyway? We call that person stupid and
since it's true, it isn't an insult. Are you stupid? Oh fuck, that's a
stupid question. If you are stupid, you wouldn't know it.
|
| |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:01:39
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 6, 9:26 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:f7byh.46132$3D6.1628737@weber.videotron.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1170809842.935863.96770@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Feb 6, 12:02 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>> Do you remember the advice you were given a long time ago when you
> >>> started
> >>> playing? "Let the club do the work." When I use the driver, I'm not
> >>> trying
> >>> to send the ball far, the club will do that for me nicely with its long
> >>> shaft and low loft, I just want to send the ball straight.
>
> >> Here is what Ernest Jones has to say about that:
>
> >> [begin quote]
>
> >> Unfortunately, in seeking instruction, the hacker is frequently told:
> >> "Let the club do the work."
>
> >> The teacher knows what he has in mind, and it is correct. But he
> >> has used the wrong words. What he means is that you cannot
> >> move the clubhead faster than you can swing it. So he should
> >> tell you to swing the clubhead. But he says: "Let the club do
> >> the work."
>
> >> What sometimes happens is that the hacker transposes from
> >> one failing to another. He then tries to let the club do the work
> >> -- without his participation. He does not use his hands, perhaps
> >> because he hasn't been told about the "feel" of the swing, lets
> >> the club fall against the ball. It is a fluffy stroke without any
> >> power or authority motivating the club's action.
>
> >> There must be force in the swing. When the hacker learns that
> >> force comes through controlling the clubhead with the hands
> >> and fingers, he is ready to move into the class of the swinger,
> >> where all good golfers belong.
>
> >> [end quote]
>
> > That quote doesn't fit with what I wrote. I other words, you quote the
> > very same words I wrote in a context that is different than the one I
> > wrote them for.
>
> > The context I wrote them in is this: Far versus close and the function for
> > which the club was designed.
>
> > The context you quote them in is this: Apply force versus not.
>
> > I have difficulty deciding whether you did this on purpose to confuse the
> > subject or if you simply wanted to point out that the words "Let the club
> > do the work" can be used in a different context than my original text or
> > if you are simply stupid.
>
> My apology, Bill, I didn't mean to write "stupid". What I meant to write was
> "not sufficiently intelligent to understand the text". I wouldn't want you
> to think that I'm trying to insult you or anything like that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like playing this insult game your way, moron. It's lots of fun.
Keep it coming.
|
| |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 19:21:01
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 6, 8:50 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170809842.935863.96770@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 12:02 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> Do you remember the advice you were given a long time ago when you
> >> started
> >> playing? "Let the club do the work." When I use the driver, I'm not
> >> trying
> >> to send the ball far, the club will do that for me nicely with its long
> >> shaft and low loft, I just want to send the ball straight.
>
> > Here is what Ernest Jones has to say about that:
>
> > [begin quote]
>
> > Unfortunately, in seeking instruction, the hacker is frequently told:
> > "Let the club do the work."
>
> > The teacher knows what he has in mind, and it is correct. But he
> > has used the wrong words. What he means is that you cannot
> > move the clubhead faster than you can swing it. So he should
> > tell you to swing the clubhead. But he says: "Let the club do
> > the work."
>
> > What sometimes happens is that the hacker transposes from
> > one failing to another. He then tries to let the club do the work
> > -- without his participation. He does not use his hands, perhaps
> > because he hasn't been told about the "feel" of the swing, lets
> > the club fall against the ball. It is a fluffy stroke without any
> > power or authority motivating the club's action.
>
> > There must be force in the swing. When the hacker learns that
> > force comes through controlling the clubhead with the hands
> > and fingers, he is ready to move into the class of the swinger,
> > where all good golfers belong.
>
> > [end quote]
>
> That quote doesn't fit with what I wrote. I other words, you quote the very
> same words I wrote in a context that is different than the one I wrote them
> for.
>
> The context I wrote them in is this: Far versus close and the function for
> which the club was designed.
>
> The context you quote them in is this: Apply force versus not.
>
> I have difficulty deciding whether you did this on purpose to confuse the
> subject or if you simply wanted to point out that the words "Let the club do
> the work" can be used in a different context than my original text or if you
> are simply stupid.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Liar. Idiot.
|
| |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 16:57:22
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 6, 12:02 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> Do you remember the advice you were given a long time ago when you started
> playing? "Let the club do the work." When I use the driver, I'm not trying
> to send the ball far, the club will do that for me nicely with its long
> shaft and low loft, I just want to send the ball straight.
Here is what Ernest Jones has to say about that:
[begin quote]
Unfortunately, in seeking instruction, the hacker is frequently told:
"Let the club do the work."
The teacher knows what he has in mind, and it is correct. But he
has used the wrong words. What he means is that you cannot
move the clubhead faster than you can swing it. So he should
tell you to swing the clubhead. But he says: "Let the club do
the work."
What sometimes happens is that the hacker transposes from
one failing to another. He then tries to let the club do the work
-- without his participation. He does not use his hands, perhaps
because he hasn't been told about the "feel" of the swing, lets
the club fall against the ball. It is a fluffy stroke without any
power or authority motivating the club's action.
There must be force in the swing. When the hacker learns that
force comes through controlling the clubhead with the hands
and fingers, he is ready to move into the class of the swinger,
where all good golfers belong.
[end quote]
|
| | |
Date: 07 Feb 2007 08:06:37
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On 6 Feb 2007 16:57:22 -0800, "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>Unfortunately, in seeking instruction, the hacker is frequently told:
>"Let the club do the work."
That can work - with a pro who is watching your response to his
instruction and giving you feedback until you "get" it.
|
| |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 22:31:14
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:g%Ixh.24677$X72.15506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near
future.
> At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean
calendar
> 2007 :-)
>
> An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
"the
> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
means
> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
"the
> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
>
> I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I honestly
> don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
> better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
>
> I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just
don't
> see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are
more
> clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club and
> similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The "droop
> thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that if
> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
upright
> for a chip shot.
>
> Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but I
> recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
did
> Dave - this is RSG :-)
>
> dave
Guess I'll stick this here for lack of a better place.
I was on the range today and the only good thing I'll say is that it was
sunny. The rest of the story is mid-30's, breezy, and the range balls had
been stored in the range shed overnight with a low in the teens. But with
the sun (and lots of layers) it was tolerable.
I was hitting the following collection of clubs.
1) mid 90's Hogan Apex (channelback) blade 5i/6i reshafted with TT Tx 90 A
flex
2) mid 90's Hogan Apex (channelback) blade 5i with stock Hogan #4 shaft
(stiff)
3) Cleveland Ta3 (cavity back) 6i reshafted to match #1 above
4) KZG Forged IIM cavity back 5i with TT Tx90 R flex 5i
5) KZG Forged blade with Rifle 6.0 shaft
6) Tommy Armour Silver Scot cavity back 5i/6i with stock R flex shaft
7) Titleist DCI 762 cavity back 6i with TT DG S300 (stiff) shaft
8) early 70's Titleist cavity back 5i with stock R flex shaft
9) mid 90's Hogan Apex (channelback) blade 2i (just for grins) with stock
Hogan #4 shaft (stiff)
I really only had two strong reactions to all this.
1) It is REALLY fun to hit a 2i well. It just isn't fun when it hits the
front of the green and rolls off the back. And it isn't fun to hit one off
the toe either (for example).
2) I'll swear that there isn't a hill of beans difference between all these
clubs (other than the obvious such as some having stronger lofts than
others). Maybe I liked #4 and #7 a bit better - maybe. Yesterday I loved #4
and today it was more neutral. But I'll swear that I'd alternate between the
stiff shafted Apex 5i and the A flex Apex 5i and while they didn't feel the
same, I honestly don't know which one I preferred.
Tough to be a real darksider when everything tastes like vanilla :-)
dave
|
| | |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 00:02:11
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:Sk7yh.19809$yx6.2784@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Guess I'll stick this here for lack of a better place.
>
> I was on the range today and the only good thing I'll say is that it was
> sunny. The rest of the story is mid-30's, breezy, and the range balls had
> been stored in the range shed overnight with a low in the teens. But with
> the sun (and lots of layers) it was tolerable.
>
> I was hitting the following collection of clubs.
>
> 1) mid 90's Hogan Apex (channelback) blade 5i/6i reshafted with TT Tx 90 A
> flex
>
> 2) mid 90's Hogan Apex (channelback) blade 5i with stock Hogan #4 shaft
> (stiff)
>
> 3) Cleveland Ta3 (cavity back) 6i reshafted to match #1 above
>
> 4) KZG Forged IIM cavity back 5i with TT Tx90 R flex 5i
>
> 5) KZG Forged blade with Rifle 6.0 shaft
>
> 6) Tommy Armour Silver Scot cavity back 5i/6i with stock R flex shaft
>
> 7) Titleist DCI 762 cavity back 6i with TT DG S300 (stiff) shaft
>
> 8) early 70's Titleist cavity back 5i with stock R flex shaft
>
> 9) mid 90's Hogan Apex (channelback) blade 2i (just for grins) with stock
> Hogan #4 shaft (stiff)
>
> I really only had two strong reactions to all this.
>
> 1) It is REALLY fun to hit a 2i well. It just isn't fun when it hits the
> front of the green and rolls off the back. And it isn't fun to hit one off
> the toe either (for example).
>
> 2) I'll swear that there isn't a hill of beans difference between all
these
> clubs (other than the obvious such as some having stronger lofts than
> others). Maybe I liked #4 and #7 a bit better - maybe. Yesterday I loved
#4
> and today it was more neutral. But I'll swear that I'd alternate between
the
> stiff shafted Apex 5i and the A flex Apex 5i and while they didn't feel
the
> same, I honestly don't know which one I preferred.
>
> Tough to be a real darksider when everything tastes like vanilla :-)
>
> dave
Was back on the range today with my "club collection" listed above (minus
the 2i) plus an old Wilson "Tour 1000" cavity back, and an even older
1980'ish Hogan blade (Director). I was pretty much determined to make some
decisions on what my preference is. Interestingly if I have a preference it
is for my existing irons (Hogan mid 90's vintage blade) with a stiffer
shaft. So I'll be doing some shaft experiments with my existing heads.
But my experience with the KZG forged blade with Rifle shafts was
interesting. In the hitting session today I just couldn't seem to hit that
club. I hit probably 15-20 shots with that thing spread out over the entire
roughly 1 hour experiment. I never did hit one "really sweet". I decided
that it was probably the shaft.
I was about to leave and I got curious about my "KZG blade problem". So I
put some impact tape on the club to see just exactly how bad the mis-hits
were. I'll swear that I hit 5 shots in a row - every damn one of them dead
center/on the screws. The ks on the impact tape after 5 shots were hardly
bigger than the first one. This was easily the best "five consecutive shots"
of the day.
This 'what club/shaft do you like best' stuff is fickle.
dave
ps. I've always liked those old Hogan Director blades. Might well be my
second choice, but the lofts don't fit well into my current set.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 08:36:49
From: Rex
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
Snip ..
"). Maybe I liked #4 and #7 a bit better - maybe. Yesterday I loved #4
> and today it was more neutral. But I'll swear that I'd alternate between
> the
> stiff shafted Apex 5i and the A flex Apex 5i and while they didn't feel
> the
> same, I honestly don't know which one I preferred.
>
> Tough to be a real darksider when everything tastes like vanilla :-)
>
> dave
>
Dave
Do all the irons have the same swingweight and overall weight. Overall
weight may be the influencing factor here. Just a thought.
Rex
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Feb 2007 22:38:05
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Rex" <rexroh@gmail.com > wrote in message news:eqd9oj$6bv$1@aioe.org...
> Snip ..
> "). Maybe I liked #4 and #7 a bit better - maybe. Yesterday I loved #4
> > and today it was more neutral. But I'll swear that I'd alternate between
> > the
> > stiff shafted Apex 5i and the A flex Apex 5i and while they didn't feel
> > the
> > same, I honestly don't know which one I preferred.
> >
> > Tough to be a real darksider when everything tastes like vanilla :-)
> >
> > dave
> >
> Dave
>
> Do all the irons have the same swingweight and overall weight. Overall
> weight may be the influencing factor here. Just a thought.
>
> Rex
>
>
Swingweights are similar. But with different shaft weights (and similar club
lengths) there are obviously total weight differences. Of course the issue
here is lack of a preference. I'm tempted to take a different tack on this
and attempt to build a 5/6 i that I absolute hate. Maybe that would be a
start - i'm not kidding, BTW.
dave
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 17:35:40
From: Rex
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:hxsyh.25561$X72.20522@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Rex" <rexroh@gmail.com> wrote in message news:eqd9oj$6bv$1@aioe.org...
>> Snip ..
>> "). Maybe I liked #4 and #7 a bit better - maybe. Yesterday I loved #4
>> > and today it was more neutral. But I'll swear that I'd alternate
>> > between
>> > the
>> > stiff shafted Apex 5i and the A flex Apex 5i and while they didn't feel
>> > the
>> > same, I honestly don't know which one I preferred.
>> >
>> > Tough to be a real darksider when everything tastes like vanilla :-)
>> >
>> > dave
>> >
>> Dave
>>
>> Do all the irons have the same swingweight and overall weight. Overall
>> weight may be the influencing factor here. Just a thought.
>>
>> Rex
>>
>>
>
> Swingweights are similar. But with different shaft weights (and similar
> club
> lengths) there are obviously total weight differences. Of course the issue
> here is lack of a preference. I'm tempted to take a different tack on this
> and attempt to build a 5/6 i that I absolute hate. Maybe that would be a
> start - i'm not kidding, BTW.
>
> dave
>
>
Maybe you should try building and extremely light and extremely heavy club
both about same swingweight. Then build one with swingweight C8 and another
D6 and see if there is any preference. ( I once had some Irons that were d8
and I hit them well.) You might get a preference for one of these
combinations.
Rex
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 11:52:37
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Rex" <rexroh@gmail.com > wrote in message news:eqe9av$ckb$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:hxsyh.25561$X72.20522@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Rex" <rexroh@gmail.com> wrote in message news:eqd9oj$6bv$1@aioe.org...
> >> Snip ..
> >> "). Maybe I liked #4 and #7 a bit better - maybe. Yesterday I loved #4
> >> > and today it was more neutral. But I'll swear that I'd alternate
> >> > between
> >> > the
> >> > stiff shafted Apex 5i and the A flex Apex 5i and while they didn't
feel
> >> > the
> >> > same, I honestly don't know which one I preferred.
> >> >
> >> > Tough to be a real darksider when everything tastes like vanilla :-)
> >> >
> >> > dave
> >> >
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> Do all the irons have the same swingweight and overall weight. Overall
> >> weight may be the influencing factor here. Just a thought.
> >>
> >> Rex
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Swingweights are similar. But with different shaft weights (and similar
> > club
> > lengths) there are obviously total weight differences. Of course the
issue
> > here is lack of a preference. I'm tempted to take a different tack on
this
> > and attempt to build a 5/6 i that I absolute hate. Maybe that would be a
> > start - i'm not kidding, BTW.
> >
> > dave
> >
> >
> Maybe you should try building and extremely light and extremely heavy club
> both about same swingweight. Then build one with swingweight C8 and
another
> D6 and see if there is any preference. ( I once had some Irons that were
d8
> and I hit them well.) You might get a preference for one of these
> combinations.
>
> Rex
>
>
Built a left handed club once - didn't like it :-)
dave
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 17:57:54
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:Sk7yh.19809$yx6.2784@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I really only had two strong reactions to all this.
>
> 1) It is REALLY fun to hit a 2i well.
Nuff said. If you had to feed your family with a 220 yard shot then screw
the 2i.
But when you are out to enjoy the game of golf, all the mishits are worth
that one sweet 2i.
It's what I call a TV shot.
When you hit it right, there isn't anyone on TV that can do better and it
always brings you back.
Otto
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 22:38:13
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 5, 8:41 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170724190.159889.24290@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:09 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> "Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > The flex of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on it's quality. Try
> >> > another tack, this one isn't even questionable.
>
> >> "The rigidity of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on its quality."
>
> >> Fuck, that statement sure makes it look like I'm lying. I wonder why.
>
> > No, it simply makes you look ignorant, which you are.
>
> > OK explain to us how tip-trimming a shaft makes it higher quality.
>
> > Oh, and fuck you. Just wanted to say it first, since I know you will
> > swear a lot in your response. No offense intended of course, moron.
>
> Yes, fuck me indeed. I am ignorant in a lot of things, aren't you?
>
> Tip trimming? Well you can only trip trim so much and then you can't so that
> doesn't change the starting quality of the shaft by much. But let us look
> into the matter of tip trimming to see exactly by how much we can do it
> while retaining all of its usefulness. Have a look at the TTDG identifying
> tables for various shafts. I think you'll agree with me that there isn't
> much you can do to change the initial quality of a shaft once you've
> selected the model.
>
> For example, the TT dynamic Gold model. Starting raw length is 41", total
> usable tip length is 10.125" for X flex. Let's go with a pitching wedge.
> Mine is 36" long, the shaft would be about 34-35" long so I'd have to cut
> the new shaft by at least 7 inches. TT recommends in its tip trimming
> instructions that I trim it down by 4.25" for the pitching wedge. A
> difference of 2.75" between my preference and TT's own recommendation. That
> is a small difference, not enough to write home about. The difference
> becomes negligable once we get to the longest irons. What do you think?
>
> Or you could simply reduce its initial quality by butt trimming everything.
> Render it less useful. I don't know why you'd want to do such a thing
> though. We need all the help we can get.
>
> No offense taken, stupid.
>
> tin Levac- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you agree that you can make an R flex and an S flex from the same
shaft, and the quality of the two is essentially the same. But wait a
minute,
didn't you say that stiffer shafts were higher quality? Still
waiting for
your explanation on that.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 03:13:53
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170743893.081648.208030@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 5, 8:41 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1170724190.159889.24290@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 3:09 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> >> "Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > The flex of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on it's quality.
>> >> > Try
>> >> > another tack, this one isn't even questionable.
>>
>> >> "The rigidity of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on its quality."
>>
>> >> Fuck, that statement sure makes it look like I'm lying. I wonder why.
>>
>> > No, it simply makes you look ignorant, which you are.
>>
>> > OK explain to us how tip-trimming a shaft makes it higher quality.
>>
>> > Oh, and fuck you. Just wanted to say it first, since I know you will
>> > swear a lot in your response. No offense intended of course, moron.
>>
>> Yes, fuck me indeed. I am ignorant in a lot of things, aren't you?
>>
>> Tip trimming? Well you can only trip trim so much and then you can't so
>> that
>> doesn't change the starting quality of the shaft by much. But let us look
>> into the matter of tip trimming to see exactly by how much we can do it
>> while retaining all of its usefulness. Have a look at the TTDG
>> identifying
>> tables for various shafts. I think you'll agree with me that there isn't
>> much you can do to change the initial quality of a shaft once you've
>> selected the model.
>>
>> For example, the TT dynamic Gold model. Starting raw length is 41", total
>> usable tip length is 10.125" for X flex. Let's go with a pitching wedge.
>> Mine is 36" long, the shaft would be about 34-35" long so I'd have to cut
>> the new shaft by at least 7 inches. TT recommends in its tip trimming
>> instructions that I trim it down by 4.25" for the pitching wedge. A
>> difference of 2.75" between my preference and TT's own recommendation.
>> That
>> is a small difference, not enough to write home about. The difference
>> becomes negligable once we get to the longest irons. What do you think?
>>
>> Or you could simply reduce its initial quality by butt trimming
>> everything.
>> Render it less useful. I don't know why you'd want to do such a thing
>> though. We need all the help we can get.
>>
>> No offense taken, stupid.
>>
>> tin Levac- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So you agree that you can make an R flex and an S flex from the same
> shaft, and the quality of the two is essentially the same. But wait a
> minute,
> didn't you say that stiffer shafts were higher quality? Still
> waiting for
> your explanation on that.
>
That's what TT says on their website about the R and S flex, it's the same
shaft model to begin with. The initial quality of the two is the same since
it's the same shaft to begin with. Not so for the X flex, that's a different
shaft than the R/S model. The two shafts are different to begin with so
their respective initial quality is different as well. The X flex model
being of higher quality than the R/S flex model. According to my definition,
yes. But not according to yours or to TT's obviously.
If you want an explanation, make one up. Try it, it's a good exercise for
the brain. It allows you to open your mind to new ways of thinking. That's
what I do, I think of even more ridiculous ways a shaft can act right up to
the point where it simply becomes too unnatural to believe it anymore. Then
I try to argue the contrary.
Do you know when, historically speaking, it had become custoy to
determine shaft flex based on the player's ability? Do you know what tools
were available to determine such characteristics and how they were used? Do
you know when it was discovered that there were very specific conditions
that the ball had to meet to fly a precise distance?
tin Levac
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 22:29:56
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 5, 8:37 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
> "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170726950.718717.31710@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 10:33 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> > Jack Nicklaus wrote in one of his books (probably Golf My Way)
> > that for a short time he played with extra stiff shafts that felt
> > like "telephone poles", but he soon gave them up for more
> > flexible shafts. This tells me that there is a limit for everyone,
> > otherwise everyone would be playing XXXS shafts. I think the
> > limit is based largely on swing speed, but the rate of acceleration
> > also plays a role. In my opinion, most amateurs are just
> > kidding themselves when they play stiff shafts.
>
> > I knew a player with a good swing and quite decent swing
> > speeds (110+ mph) switch from stiff to regular shafts, because
> > he could hit the regular shafts longer, and they just felt better to
> > him. I've heard John Daly uses, or at least at one time used
> > regular shafts.
>
> > In my opinion, the swing of most amateurs is much less
> > consistent than any variation brought on by the flex of the shaft.
>
> Interesting. I have that book and looked through the equipment section. I
> found two references to "the telephone pole phase of 1962" which Jack said
> was "best forgotten". He didn't elaborate.
>
> Clearly Jack is not an equipment hound. But I found it interesting that Jack
> makes a very erroneous statement early in that chapter. He is talking about
> the importance of the correct lie in a golf club and then says ""Since the
> general tendency is to return the club at impact to where it was at address,
> most golfers will play best with clubs that sole flat on the ground at
> address".
>
> In my experience the vast majority of golfers have a more vertical shaft at
> impact vs. address. And that ignores the club droop issue. Kind of
> surprising to see a him state that a static lie evaluation is good enough.
Jack was a great golfer, but I don't think he was a great
theoretical thinker about the golf swing. He made several
errors in his books. But the telephone pole thing was
something he actually experienced, not some theory he had.
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 22:48:04
From: Tom K
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
Are you anywhere near a Golfsmith or similar place where you can go on a
golf monitor for some swings for free? Golfsmith also has a very good club
making course Saturday mornings and afternoons.
--Tom
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:g%Ixh.24677$X72.15506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near
> future.
> At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean
> calendar
> 2007 :-)
>
> An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
> "the
> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
> means
> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
> "the
> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
>
> I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I honestly
> don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
> better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
>
> I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just
> don't
> see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are
> more
> clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club and
> similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The "droop
> thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that if
> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
> upright
> for a chip shot.
>
> Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but I
> recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
> did
> Dave - this is RSG :-)
>
> dave
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 12:02:44
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Tom K" <tkanitra@optonline.net > wrote in message
news:STSxh.54$Ry2.41@newsfe10.lga...
> Are you anywhere near a Golfsmith or similar place where you can go on a
> golf monitor for some swings for free? Golfsmith also has a very good
club
> making course Saturday mornings and afternoons.
>
> --Tom
>
>
No Golfsmith's near where I am. Certainly are some monitors around, although
not typically for free. I've thought about actually doing a side-by-side
comparison on a monitor where you could probably detect small dispersion (or
whatever) differences might result from different shafts.
dave
|
| |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 03:44:14
From: Manco
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
Dave Lee wrote:
> I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near
> future. At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that
> would mean calendar 2007 :-)
>
and here I was thinking this was a Viagra post....
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 17:55:50
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 5, 10:33 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
> I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near future.
> At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean calendar
> 2007 :-)
>
> An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly) "the
> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer means
> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be "the
> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
>
> I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I honestly
> don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
> better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
>
> I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just don't
> see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are more
> clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club and
> similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The "droop
> thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that if
> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too upright
> for a chip shot.
>
> Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but I
> recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it did
> Dave - this is RSG :-)
>
> dave
Jack Nicklaus wrote in one of his books (probably Golf My Way)
that for a short time he played with extra stiff shafts that felt
like "telephone poles", but he soon gave them up for more
flexible shafts. This tells me that there is a limit for everyone,
otherwise everyone would be playing XXXS shafts. I think the
limit is based largely on swing speed, but the rate of acceleration
also plays a role. In my opinion, most amateurs are just
kidding themselves when they play stiff shafts.
I knew a player with a good swing and quite decent swing
speeds (110+ mph) switch from stiff to regular shafts, because
he could hit the regular shafts longer, and they just felt better to
him. I've heard John Daly uses, or at least at one time used
regular shafts.
In my opinion, the swing of most amateurs is much less
consistent than any variation brought on by the flex of the shaft.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 08:44:44
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On 5 Feb 2007 17:55:50 -0800, "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>I knew a player with a good swing and quite decent swing
>speeds (110+ mph) switch from stiff to regular shafts, because
>he could hit the regular shafts longer, and they just felt better to
>him. I've heard John Daly uses, or at least at one time used
>regular shafts.
Daly's extra long back swing is ideal for more flexible shafts. He's
tried stiff shafts, and says he can't hit them.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 12:07:39
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:7h8hs2hcd2im6jdlmsr2ja2k1obvgea3fk@4ax.com...
> Daly's extra long back swing is ideal for more flexible shafts. He's
> tried stiff shafts, and says he can't hit them.
The other extreme would be Allen Doyle--very short swing but he generates a
ton of flexion in the shaft.
I wonder if he uses stiff shafts?
Anyone know?
Otto
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 02:37:13
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170726950.718717.31710@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 5, 10:33 am, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> Jack Nicklaus wrote in one of his books (probably Golf My Way)
> that for a short time he played with extra stiff shafts that felt
> like "telephone poles", but he soon gave them up for more
> flexible shafts. This tells me that there is a limit for everyone,
> otherwise everyone would be playing XXXS shafts. I think the
> limit is based largely on swing speed, but the rate of acceleration
> also plays a role. In my opinion, most amateurs are just
> kidding themselves when they play stiff shafts.
>
> I knew a player with a good swing and quite decent swing
> speeds (110+ mph) switch from stiff to regular shafts, because
> he could hit the regular shafts longer, and they just felt better to
> him. I've heard John Daly uses, or at least at one time used
> regular shafts.
>
> In my opinion, the swing of most amateurs is much less
> consistent than any variation brought on by the flex of the shaft.
>
Interesting. I have that book and looked through the equipment section. I
found two references to "the telephone pole phase of 1962" which Jack said
was "best forgotten". He didn't elaborate.
Clearly Jack is not an equipment hound. But I found it interesting that Jack
makes a very erroneous statement early in that chapter. He is talking about
the importance of the correct lie in a golf club and then says ""Since the
general tendency is to return the club at impact to where it was at address,
most golfers will play best with clubs that sole flat on the ground at
address".
In my experience the vast majority of golfers have a more vertical shaft at
impact vs. address. And that ignores the club droop issue. Kind of
surprising to see a him state that a static lie evaluation is good enough.
dave
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 17:09:50
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Feb 5, 3:09 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
> > The flex of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on it's quality. Try
> > another tack, this one isn't even questionable.
>
> "The rigidity of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on its quality."
>
> Fuck, that statement sure makes it look like I'm lying. I wonder why.
No, it simply makes you look ignorant, which you are.
OK explain to us how tip-trimming a shaft makes it higher quality.
Oh, and fuck you. Just wanted to say it first, since I know you will
swear a lot in your response. No offense intended of course, moron.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:41:58
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170724190.159889.24290@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 5, 3:09 pm, "tin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> "Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > The flex of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on it's quality. Try
>> > another tack, this one isn't even questionable.
>>
>> "The rigidity of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on its quality."
>>
>> Fuck, that statement sure makes it look like I'm lying. I wonder why.
>
> No, it simply makes you look ignorant, which you are.
>
> OK explain to us how tip-trimming a shaft makes it higher quality.
>
> Oh, and fuck you. Just wanted to say it first, since I know you will
> swear a lot in your response. No offense intended of course, moron.
>
Yes, fuck me indeed. I am ignorant in a lot of things, aren't you?
Tip trimming? Well you can only trip trim so much and then you can't so that
doesn't change the starting quality of the shaft by much. But let us look
into the matter of tip trimming to see exactly by how much we can do it
while retaining all of its usefulness. Have a look at the TTDG identifying
tables for various shafts. I think you'll agree with me that there isn't
much you can do to change the initial quality of a shaft once you've
selected the model.
For example, the TT dynamic Gold model. Starting raw length is 41", total
usable tip length is 10.125" for X flex. Let's go with a pitching wedge.
Mine is 36" long, the shaft would be about 34-35" long so I'd have to cut
the new shaft by at least 7 inches. TT recommends in its tip trimming
instructions that I trim it down by 4.25" for the pitching wedge. A
difference of 2.75" between my preference and TT's own recommendation. That
is a small difference, not enough to write home about. The difference
becomes negligable once we get to the longest irons. What do you think?
Or you could simply reduce its initial quality by butt trimming everything.
Render it less useful. I don't know why you'd want to do such a thing
though. We need all the help we can get.
No offense taken, stupid.
tin Levac
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 18:33:06
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:g%Ixh.24677$X72.15506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near
> future.
> At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean
> calendar
> 2007 :-)
>
> An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
> "the
> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
> means
> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
> "the
> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
>
> I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I honestly
> don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
> better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
>
> I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just
> don't
> see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are
> more
> clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club and
> similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The "droop
> thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that if
> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
> upright
> for a chip shot.
>
> Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but I
> recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
> did
> Dave - this is RSG :-)
>
> dave
>
>
Dave, I'll make a direct reply just to stay on the subject.
If you don't see an upside to supple shafts, don't use them and stick to
rigid shafts. You know better than anybody what suits you so trust yourself
to choose what's best for you. If you want my opinion on the matter well I
think you know what it is by now. Anyway, I prefer to think that a more
rigid shaft will allow me to be more accurate than a more supple shaft.
What is strange is that you prefer a supple shaft in the driver and rigid
shaft in the irons. Maybe you're doing something different? Maybe you don't
like the feel at impact because you're not so accurate with the driver so
you frequently strike the ball away from the center of the clubface? Have
you tried a tiny driver head combined with the same shaft? That would give
you a good idea of the accuracy you are capable of with that length of
shaft.
Getting back to the lever principle. A bigger head has the potential to
twist the clubhead harder than a smaller head simply because the lever is
longer. Combine this to a longer shaft and you might find your answer
therein.
tin Levac
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 08:42:38
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:33:06 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>
>What is strange is that you prefer a supple shaft in the driver and rigid
>shaft in the irons.
That's fairly common. Most people can hit a ball farther with a
flexible shaft. Drivers are designed to hit the long ball.
But when we hit a 9I, we want consistency more than length.
Also, we are much more likely to take half swings with our irons than
with our drivers.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 11:10:35
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:1a8hs2dhkm3lus5mm83rqghb4hus5mmffb@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:33:06 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>What is strange is that you prefer a supple shaft in the driver and rigid
>>shaft in the irons.
>
> That's fairly common. Most people can hit a ball farther with a
> flexible shaft. Drivers are designed to hit the long ball.
>
> But when we hit a 9I, we want consistency more than length.
>
> Also, we are much more likely to take half swings with our irons than
> with our drivers.
Ok Howard, I'll bite. Most people hit the ball farther than what? How about
farther than the target, would that do? How about closer to the target
instead, would that do better? I thought drivers were designed to hit the
straight ball, I could be wrong. I forgot about that latest Callaway "draw"
FT3 that Phil used to good effect. The one that's designed to hit the curve
ball. What's wrong with straight anyway, not good enough for Phil?
How many people do you know hit the ball 300 yards with today's equipment? I
mean people you know personally and have seen it with your own eyes where
the ball went. How many people do you know send the ball 150 yards with the
same equipment? I know many 150 yarders but only one proven 300 yarder. Oh I
hear a bunch of stories about amazing achievements at some time or another
but none of these people can do it at will except that one guy. I even met
one guy brag about 287 yards he did once long ago, brag!
My personal experience tends to disagree with "drivers are designed to hit
the long ball". But it certainly looks like it's designed to hit the crooked
short ball into the woods, that's for sure. Or maybe it's not the equipment,
it's the swing. Well, if we match the equipment based on the swing and the
swing is flawed to begin with, I think the equipment we'll select will
probably be just as bad as the swing itself, don't you think? That sounds
logical to me.
On the other hand if we select the very best equipment regardless of the
swing, I think that the swing has a much better chance of being good at some
point.
tin Levac
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 09:42:18
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:10:35 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>Ok Howard, I'll bite. Most people hit the ball farther than what?
Farther down the fairway than they do with clubs that don't go as far.
>How about
>farther than the target, would that do? How about closer to the target
>instead, would that do better?
For various values of "target". But in general, a driver isn't used
to put the ball on the green. It is used to hit a much bigger
fairway. The top players don't even mind trading some more yards
for a bigger chance of hitting out of trouble.
>I thought drivers were designed to hit the
>straight ball, I could be wrong. I forgot about that latest Callaway "draw"
>FT3 that Phil used to good effect. The one that's designed to hit the curve
>ball. What's wrong with straight anyway, not good enough for Phil?
>
>How many people do you know hit the ball 300 yards with today's equipment? I
>mean people you know personally and have seen it with your own eyes where
>the ball went. How many people do you know send the ball 150 yards with the
>same equipment? I know many 150 yarders but only one proven 300 yarder. Oh I
>hear a bunch of stories about amazing achievements at some time or another
>but none of these people can do it at will except that one guy. I even met
>one guy brag about 287 yards he did once long ago, brag!
So what has that got to do with whether someone uses a driver to hit
the ball long? Long is relative.
>My personal experience tends to disagree with "drivers are designed to hit
>the long ball". But it certainly looks like it's designed to hit the crooked
>short ball into the woods, that's for sure.
Then tee off with your short irons.
>Or maybe it's not the equipment,
>it's the swing. Well, if we match the equipment based on the swing and the
>swing is flawed to begin with, I think the equipment we'll select will
>probably be just as bad as the swing itself, don't you think? That sounds
>logical to me.
Of course - but when we tee off with a driver - no matter what your
ability - we are trying to hit the ball long. Our target will
almost always be a larger target than when we are using our short
irons.
>On the other hand if we select the very best equipment regardless of the
>swing, I think that the swing has a much better chance of being good at some
>point.
The discussion is what the very best equipment is. I noted that a
lot of people prefer more accuracy with the short clubs and more
distance with the long clubs. Certainly that applies to Tiger and
Phil - and they carry equipment that they have determined is the very
best for their goals.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 13:02:23
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:acbhs2lsdpbg54g60lpb9bcoqk90v3ab86@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:10:35 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Ok Howard, I'll bite. Most people hit the ball farther than what?
>
> Farther down the fairway than they do with clubs that don't go as far.
>
>>How about
>>farther than the target, would that do? How about closer to the target
>>instead, would that do better?
>
> For various values of "target". But in general, a driver isn't used
> to put the ball on the green. It is used to hit a much bigger
> fairway. The top players don't even mind trading some more yards
> for a bigger chance of hitting out of trouble.
>
>>I thought drivers were designed to hit the
>>straight ball, I could be wrong. I forgot about that latest Callaway
>>"draw"
>>FT3 that Phil used to good effect. The one that's designed to hit the
>>curve
>>ball. What's wrong with straight anyway, not good enough for Phil?
>>
>>How many people do you know hit the ball 300 yards with today's equipment?
>>I
>>mean people you know personally and have seen it with your own eyes where
>>the ball went. How many people do you know send the ball 150 yards with
>>the
>>same equipment? I know many 150 yarders but only one proven 300 yarder. Oh
>>I
>>hear a bunch of stories about amazing achievements at some time or another
>>but none of these people can do it at will except that one guy. I even met
>>one guy brag about 287 yards he did once long ago, brag!
>
> So what has that got to do with whether someone uses a driver to hit
> the ball long? Long is relative.
>
>>My personal experience tends to disagree with "drivers are designed to hit
>>the long ball". But it certainly looks like it's designed to hit the
>>crooked
>>short ball into the woods, that's for sure.
>
> Then tee off with your short irons.
>
>>Or maybe it's not the equipment,
>>it's the swing. Well, if we match the equipment based on the swing and the
>>swing is flawed to begin with, I think the equipment we'll select will
>>probably be just as bad as the swing itself, don't you think? That sounds
>>logical to me.
>
> Of course - but when we tee off with a driver - no matter what your
> ability - we are trying to hit the ball long. Our target will
> almost always be a larger target than when we are using our short
> irons.
>
>>On the other hand if we select the very best equipment regardless of the
>>swing, I think that the swing has a much better chance of being good at
>>some
>>point.
>
> The discussion is what the very best equipment is. I noted that a
> lot of people prefer more accuracy with the short clubs and more
> distance with the long clubs. Certainly that applies to Tiger and
> Phil - and they carry equipment that they have determined is the very
> best for their goals.
Do you remember the advice you were given a long time ago when you started
playing? "Let the club do the work." When I use the driver, I'm not trying
to send the ball far, the club will do that for me nicely with its long
shaft and low loft, I just want to send the ball straight. In fact, that's
what I want to do with all my clubs and all my clubs are designed for a very
specific distance. I don't know of any club that's designed to send the ball
crooked into the woods but that's what it looks like to me when I see all
these people playing golf. Maybe it is the equipment afterall.
I'm sure Phil's goal is to send the ball into the woods and lose like a
champ as a result. But maybe in this case it's not the equipment, it's the
player. Now that doesn't tell us much about the equipment at first glance
but it sure tells us a lot about the player which makes us doubt his choice
of equipment at second glance. See how that works out in favor of neither
the equipment nor the player?
Let us do a little exercise to understand how important it is to send the
ball straight over far.
If you could send the ball straight to your target every time but only 200
yards, what kind of score would you make on any course of your choice? Then
do the same exercise but with 300 yards. Calculate score like so:
For 200 yards.
Hole less than 200 yards: 2 strokes.
Hole 200 to 400 yards: 3 stroke.
Hole 400 yards and more: 4 strokes.
For 300 yards.
Hole less than 300 yards: 2 strokes.
Hole 300 to 550 yards: 3 strokes.
Hole 550 yards and more: 4 strokes.
It's understood that you send the ball very close to the target but not in
the hole, hence the one for every hole. It's understood that you use the
driver off the tee but the 3W off the deck, hence the 300-550 yards. Anyway,
if you used the driver off the deck, the difference on my course would be 1
stroke.
For my course, I get results of 15 under par for 200 yards and 21 under par
for 300 yards. Wow, 300 yards is indeed better than 200 yards. Look!, it's
21 under versus 15 under. Don't get too excited about that, 15 under par is
already extremely good for a player who can only send the ball 200 yards
away. I don't understand what's wrong with people who want to send the ball
300 yards when they can't even send it straight at 200 yards.
Hell, even if that player didn't putt very well and always made two putts
per hole, he'd still score a very respectable 3 over. For a guy that can
send the ball only 200 yards, that's very impressive indeed.
After you've done this little exercise, apply it to actual PGA tournaments
to see if it would place well.
Then, see if you can't make a club that allows a player to send the ball 200
yards very straight to the target every time. I don't know what parts you'd
choose but I'd start with the stiffest shaft I could find just to be on the
safe side.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 11:56:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:02:23 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>After you've done this little exercise, apply it to actual PGA tournaments
>to see if it would place well.
It's easy to note how often people who drive 200 yards win PGA
tournaments.
But I'm not a pro - just because the pros don't follow your
recommendations, doesn't man that they aren't suitable for me.
It may be a good thing for my score if I choose to leave my woods in
the car, and only use clubs that will go 200 yards or less. That
would be because I wouldn't be as far in the woods with my misses,
giving me a better chance to find my ball in play. I suspect
though, that those shorter misses won't make that much difference. And
my decent shots won't be nearly as much fun.
If I don't see a significant accuracy gain, and see a significant fun
loss, I won't trade my woods for irons just to hit the ball shorter.
For me "accurate" means "in the fairway" for tee shots, or "on the
green" for approach shots. Being more in the middle of the fairway
isn't worth as much as being farther down the fairway.
>Then, see if you can't make a club that allows a player to send the ball 200
>yards very straight to the target every time. I don't know what parts you'd
>choose but I'd start with the stiffest shaft I could find just to be on the
>safe side.
That's because you uniquely believe that the stiffest shaft will keep
the ball straight. My own experience is limited - but I was less
accurate with stiffer clubs and my hands hurt more.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 01:14:10
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:l8Pxh.37218$vT5.927598@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:g%Ixh.24677$X72.15506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near
> > future.
> > At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean
> > calendar
> > 2007 :-)
> >
> > An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
> > "the
> > right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
> > means
> > less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
> > "the
> > stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
> >
> > I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I
honestly
> > don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
> > better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
> >
> > I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just
> > don't
> > see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are
> > more
> > clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club
and
> > similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The
"droop
> > thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that
if
> > the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
> > upright
> > for a chip shot.
> >
> > Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but
I
> > recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
> > did
> > Dave - this is RSG :-)
> >
> > dave
> >
> >
>
> Dave, I'll make a direct reply just to stay on the subject.
>
> If you don't see an upside to supple shafts, don't use them and stick to
> rigid shafts. You know better than anybody what suits you so trust
yourself
> to choose what's best for you. If you want my opinion on the matter well I
> think you know what it is by now. Anyway, I prefer to think that a more
> rigid shaft will allow me to be more accurate than a more supple shaft.
>
> What is strange is that you prefer a supple shaft in the driver and rigid
> shaft in the irons. Maybe you're doing something different? Maybe you
don't
> like the feel at impact because you're not so accurate with the driver so
> you frequently strike the ball away from the center of the clubface? Have
> you tried a tiny driver head combined with the same shaft? That would give
> you a good idea of the accuracy you are capable of with that length of
> shaft.
>
> Getting back to the lever principle. A bigger head has the potential to
> twist the clubhead harder than a smaller head simply because the lever is
> longer. Combine this to a longer shaft and you might find your answer
> therein.
>
>
> tin Levac
Haven't stated an iron preference - just asked a question. FWIW I don't
really have a preference for flexxier driver shafts, just driver shafts with
soft tips. I had a UST ProForce in a driver at 248 cpm butt frequency and it
felt really harsh. I replaced with aN SKFiber shaft known to be tip soft and
really like it. The butt frequency was 246 cpm which is the same, for all
practical purposes, as the UST.
I'm really irritated with myself for getting into Hogan irons. They are fine
irons but have tapered shafts so are a pain in the butt to experiment with.
That's gonna change as I will be doing some experiments (with clubs that I
can tip trim).
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 22:57:20
From: Tom K
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:CDQxh.21185$w91.10637@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> I'm really irritated with myself for getting into Hogan irons. They are
> fine
> irons but have tapered shafts so are a pain in the butt to experiment
> with.
> That's gonna change as I will be doing some experiments (with clubs that I
> can tip trim).
>
> dave
Sounds like it's time to use a Drill Press on the Hogans. Drill them out to
370.
--Tom
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 11:58:51
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Tom K" <tkanitra@optonline.net > wrote in message
news:y0Txh.55$Ry2.51@newsfe10.lga...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:CDQxh.21185$w91.10637@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > I'm really irritated with myself for getting into Hogan irons. They are
> > fine
> > irons but have tapered shafts so are a pain in the butt to experiment
> > with.
> > That's gonna change as I will be doing some experiments (with clubs that
I
> > can tip trim).
> >
> > dave
>
> Sounds like it's time to use a Drill Press on the Hogans. Drill them out
to
> 370.
>
> --Tom
>
>
My Hogan's actually are drilled out to 0.37" (done by a clubmaker). I like
to compare clubs side-by-side so I gotta do it again for comparisons that I
like. Oh well.
dave
|
| |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 10:01:52
From: Rex
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:g%Ixh.24677$X72.15506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near
> future.
> At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean
> calendar
> 2007 :-)
>
> An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
> "the
> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
> means
> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
> "the
> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
>
> I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I honestly
> don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
> better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
>
> I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just
> don't
> see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are
> more
> clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club and
> similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The "droop
> thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that if
> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
> upright
> for a chip shot.
>
> Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but I
> recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
> did
> Dave - this is RSG :-)
>
> dave
>
>
I used regular steel shafts for years. No great problems but did not hit the
ball as well as I thought I should. Then I had a fiting session with a
pro who suggested that I needed Senior steel shafts so I went with them. I
was not altogether happy with the irons and never really seemed tohave them
under control. I then went back to regular steel shaft and that was an
improvement.
I was subsequently given a set of Mizuno TP 19 blades with S400 shafts. I
have never hit irons as well as I have hit these irons. I am sure that it
is in part the shafts. I am 64 years old with a short fast swing. Ihit a 4
iron 180 meters (200 yards). I am sure that matching the shaft to my swing
has been then greatest improvement for me over the last 5 years.
So I would suggest you look at your swing and then try to match shaft with
swing. If you can build 3 irons - regular, stiff and either senior or xtra
stiff depending on how your swing is. Then trial them over several days.
You will know what feels best.
My mistake when I was fitted was that it was after a round of golf and I was
tired and was not hitting the ball but just taking easy swings. I had a
different swing on the course.
Rex
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 11:39:55
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:g%Ixh.24677$X72.15506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but I
> recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
did
> Dave - this is RSG :-)
Most select too stiff a shaft.
If you are going to error, error to the side of a regular flex shaft.
And get steel unless you have physical issues that require the less shock of
graphite.
Otto
|
| | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:45:44
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:q5Jxh.43068$Ts.19475@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:g%Ixh.24677$X72.15506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but
I
> > recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
> did
> > Dave - this is RSG :-)
>
>
> Most select too stiff a shaft.
>
> If you are going to error, error to the side of a regular flex shaft.
>
> And get steel unless you have physical issues that require the less shock
of
> graphite.
>
> Otto
>
>
What is wrong with a "too stiff" iron shaft? I can envision what is wrong
with a shaft with too much flex. I just can't see a downside to too stiff
beyond feel.
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 11:52:30
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:YaJxh.24690$X72.23691@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> What is wrong with a "too stiff" iron shaft? I can envision what is wrong
> with a shaft with too much flex. I just can't see a downside to too stiff
> beyond feel.
The vast majority of amateur golfers do not have a swing which requires a
stiff shaft.
I don't know if it is a macho thing or what. I see it all the time.
You have to be an extremely hard swinger to justify a stiff shaft. Very few
amateurs can swing that hard and consistently strike the ball good.
Go with a regular flex, swing full and smooth, and let the club do the work.
Be club swinger, not a ball hitter. Your consistency will go way up.
And your body will thank you.
Otto
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 13:19:39
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:ehJxh.43071$Ts.9956@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:YaJxh.24690$X72.23691@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> What is wrong with a "too stiff" iron shaft? I can envision what is wrong
>> with a shaft with too much flex. I just can't see a downside to too stiff
>> beyond feel.
>
>
> The vast majority of amateur golfers do not have a swing which requires a
> stiff shaft.
>
> I don't know if it is a macho thing or what. I see it all the time.
>
> You have to be an extremely hard swinger to justify a stiff shaft. Very
> few
> amateurs can swing that hard and consistently strike the ball good.
>
> Go with a regular flex, swing full and smooth, and let the club do the
> work.
>
> Be club swinger, not a ball hitter. Your consistency will go way up.
>
> And your body will thank you.
>
> Otto
>
>
>
The vast majority of amateurs don't know what the fuck they're talking
about. At first glance, it looks like you're one of them. No offense
intended, of course.
Oh so now we determine the quality of the equipment based on the quality of
the player? That's news to me. In baseball, we select the very best quality
for the equipment regardless of the quality of the players that use it. Same
in football, soccer, cycling, polo, badminton, tennis. Oh what the hell, in
any activity except golf, we select the best equipment money can buy. "Oh,
I'm sorry, this quality is reserved for highly skilled players and you're
just a beginner, take this piece of shit, it suits your ability better."
Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher the
quality of the shaft. The more supple it is, the lower the quality of the
shaft. Since we can't make an absolutely rigid shaft, we invent all kinds of
reasons for you to accept that reality. Look, a very rigid shaft is good for
accuracy but it will feed back power to the player's hands. Feedback. That
feedback is good for learning how to hit the ball well versus how to hit the
ball not-well. A very supple shaft doesn't tranmit as much feedback as a
very rigid shaft. Then, there's the aspect of weight. A rigid shaft, for
equal material and geometry, is heavier than a supple shaft. At this point,
it becomes a matter of compromise. You either get a very rigid shaft for
maximum accuracy potential but since it's heavier, you can't swing it as
fast so the absolute speed potential is less. The other aspect of compromise
is feedback. More or less with the proportionate accuracy potential of each.
See, compromise. That's all we've ever known but at some point, we forgot
that and started talking about kick point, shaft flex scale and other types
of bullshit.
Here, a little clearer than in the paragraph above:
The more rigid it is, the heavier it is, the more accurate it is, the more
feedback it gives.
The less rigid it is, the lighter it is, the less accurate it is, the less
feedback it gives.
If you didn't know already, let me instruct you in the subtleties of levers.
Because that's all it is, a lever. A lever with which the player transmits
power from one end to the other. The more rigid the tool is, the more
accurately the player can transmit power from one end to the other. The
reverse is also true. Golf is a game of accuracy, but certainly you knew
that already, no?
Maybe you just want to add loft, dynamic loft, at impact. What the fuck. If
you want more loft, just use a club that begins with more loft. I mean,
fucking dah. Maybe you want to send the ball higher? Fucking dah again.
Maybe you want to send the ball lower? Fucking dah, dah and more fucking
dah.
Do you know why loft is added? I bet you just don't have a clue. Let me
instruct you again on the subtleties of levers. In this case, the lever at
one end isn't straight, there's a head, the clubhead, that points in a
different direction than the rest of the club. Do you know what center of
gravity refers to? Let me instruct you again on the subtleties of levers.
The center of gravity is a point in space where the mass of an object is
concentrated and around which this object will spin if it does spin. Yeah,
that's what the enter of gravity is. Anyway, as the player swings the club,
the center of gravity of the clubhead wants to align itself with the
centripetal force that the player applies to the club so the shaft bends,
the clubhead changes position and in doing so, adds loft. See? It's so easy
when you know what the fuck you're talking about.
So what's the problem with golfers? We're all gullible. Let me rephrase
that, you are all gullible, I'm not. Look, it's very easy to determine if
you're gullible or not. Either you are gullible and you'll reply with all
kinds of bullshit to justify going with a supple shaft or you're not
gullible and you'll simply agree with what I wrote.
My apology if I was a bit rude, pompous and patronising and perhaps even a
bit insulting. It's just that I'm truly and well pissed that people like you
spew out the same bullshit day in and day out even after the whole fucking
truth has been known for centuries and shown to them quite clearly.
Have a nice day.
tin Levac
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:49:54
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
> Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher the
> quality of the shaft.
Wrong.
Otto
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:09:14
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:POLxh.23429$fC2.16030@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>> the
>> quality of the shaft.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>
> Otto
>
>
OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is, the
higher quality it is.
Oh wait, you mean that shaft rigidity is not one aspect of quality? Yes, I
think that's what you want to tell me. I mean, I can only extrapolate so
much from "Wrong.". Oh wait, you mean that there are subtleties involved in
shaft rigidity such as kick point and all that crap? Yes, I know all about
it, no need for you to repeat the bullshit. Do you have anything new to add,
anything I don't already know?
Try this exercise. Convince yourself that what you think is the truth.
You'll be surprised by the amount of bullshit you can convince yourself of.
Hell, we've been doing this for two thousand years. At least. Why not put in
the bullshit about golf club shafts in the mix, it's only one more thing.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 05:26:57
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On 5-Feb-2007, "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> >> Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
> >> the
> >> quality of the shaft.
> >
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> >
> > Otto
> >
> >
>
> OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is,
> the
> higher quality it is.
Wrong again, shaft stiffness, or rigidity if you prefer, is no indication of
quality. Shafts are of differenct flexibities because golfers swings vary
widely from player to player. Swingers, hitters, throwers, late hitters,
slow swings, fast swings, different loading points and amounts all make for
variations requiring more or less flex. From what I can gather, quality in a
shaft is mesured by how similar individual shafts of the same grade/type
are.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 02:58:28
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:45c811a0$0$10593$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 5-Feb-2007, "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> >> Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>> >> the
>> >> quality of the shaft.
>> >
>> >
>> > Wrong.
>> >
>> >
>> > Otto
>> >
>> >
>>
>> OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is,
>> the
>> higher quality it is.
>
> Wrong again, shaft stiffness, or rigidity if you prefer, is no indication
> of
> quality. Shafts are of differenct flexibities because golfers swings vary
> widely from player to player. Swingers, hitters, throwers, late hitters,
> slow swings, fast swings, different loading points and amounts all make
> for
> variations requiring more or less flex. From what I can gather, quality in
> a
> shaft is mesured by how similar individual shafts of the same grade/type
> are.
>
> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
How is it not an indication of quality? Why do they require different shaft
flex? So a very crappy shaft model if it's made very precisely all the time
it's a high quality shaft?
The quality of a tool is determined priily by its ability to perform the
function for which it was designed and built. The better it can perform its
function, the higher its quality. The worse it can perform its function, the
lower its quality. What is the function of a golf club shaft? Can a rigid
lever transmit the same power more precisely than a supple lever? Is a golf
club shaft a lever?
tin Levac
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 16:13:39
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On 6-Feb-2007, "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> The quality of a tool is determined priily by its ability to perform
> the function for which it was designed and built. The better it can
> perform
> its function, the higher its quality. The worse it can perform its
> function,
> the lower its quality. What is the function of a golf club shaft? Can a
> rigid
> lever transmit the same power more precisely than a supple lever? Is a
> golf club shaft a lever?
Perhaps you don't understand that people are individuals (c-à-d différent)
that require individual (c-à-d différent) solutions. Do you really believe
that everyone should swing with the same shaft? Your absolute statements are
worthy of LLLarry.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:03:01
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:13:39 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
>Perhaps you don't understand that people are individuals (c-à-d différent)
>that require individual (c-à-d différent) solutions. Do you really believe
>that everyone should swing with the same shaft? Your absolute statements are
>worthy of LLLarry.
In case you haven't been paying attention he's been using Larry's
modus operandi as a troll. It works, see how many people take the
bait every time?
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Feb 2007 07:31:56
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On 8-Feb-2007, David Laville <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> In case you haven't been paying attention he's been using Larry's
> modus operandi as a troll. It works, see how many people take the
> bait every time?
Well what do you expect? As a Québéquois he doesn't even speak proper
French! :-P
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 13:18:02
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:45c8a932$0$10552$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 6-Feb-2007, "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> The quality of a tool is determined priily by its ability to perform
>> the function for which it was designed and built. The better it can
>> perform
>> its function, the higher its quality. The worse it can perform its
>> function,
>> the lower its quality. What is the function of a golf club shaft? Can a
>> rigid
>> lever transmit the same power more precisely than a supple lever? Is a
>> golf club shaft a lever?
>
> Perhaps you don't understand that people are individuals (c-à-d différent)
> that require individual (c-à-d différent) solutions. Do you really believe
> that everyone should swing with the same shaft? Your absolute statements
> are
> worthy of LLLarry.
>
> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
Perhaps I do understand but I'm just an individual requiring an individual
solution. I don't believe anything. Don't let that stop you from believing
anything you want, though.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Feb 2007 04:45:00
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On 6-Feb-2007, "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> Perhaps I do understand but I'm just an individual requiring an individual
> solution. I don't believe anything. Don't let that stop you from believing
> anything you want, though.
C'est vraiment con
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:49:47
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
tin Levac wrote:
> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:POLxh.23429$fC2.16030@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>>"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>>>Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>>>the
>>>quality of the shaft.
>>
>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>
>>Otto
>>
>>
>
>
> OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is, the
> higher quality it is.
>
SIP SNIP SNIP
Lets start with an accepted definition of quality:
Quality:
The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service
that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.
Not bad, is it?
Shaft rigidity: A single characteristic. Or is that all that matters?
Now, your lover might answer that shaft rigidity is a good measure of
quality but as it pertains to hitting a golf ball, maybe not so much.
If you are hitter, you apply most of the acceleration at the top of the
downswing so a more rigid shaft is certainly more suitable. Underline
suitable! A softer shaft would lag too much at the top and be ahead at
impact, adding loft.
A swinger will have more continuous acceleration applied so that the
maximum speed is reached at a point just past the impact point. A
softer shaft will lag further into the swing, returning the club head to
a neutral loft (against the design spec) at the low point. A more
suitable approach for this swing type. Underline suitable again.
Each case illustrates suitability for a specific swing type. Using that
widely accepted definition of quality that I provided, rigidity is only
a characteristic, not a measure of total quality. A quality golf club
shaft would be one that matches the user, will not vary from one shaft
to the next in terms of specifications, will not fail under normal use etc.
If you want to lecture, I suggest that you fully understand what you are
saying before pontificating.
Respectfully yours,
Joe
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:38:39
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:45c79848$0$4911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
> tin Levac wrote:
>> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:POLxh.23429$fC2.16030@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>>"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>
>>>>Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>>>>the
>>>>quality of the shaft.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Otto
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is,
>> the higher quality it is.
>>
> SIP SNIP SNIP
>
> Lets start with an accepted definition of quality:
>
> Quality:
>
> The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that
> bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.
>
> Not bad, is it?
>
> Shaft rigidity: A single characteristic. Or is that all that matters?
>
> Now, your lover might answer that shaft rigidity is a good measure of
> quality but as it pertains to hitting a golf ball, maybe not so much.
>
> If you are hitter, you apply most of the acceleration at the top of the
> downswing so a more rigid shaft is certainly more suitable. Underline
> suitable! A softer shaft would lag too much at the top and be ahead at
> impact, adding loft.
>
> A swinger will have more continuous acceleration applied so that the
> maximum speed is reached at a point just past the impact point. A softer
> shaft will lag further into the swing, returning the club head to a
> neutral loft (against the design spec) at the low point. A more suitable
> approach for this swing type. Underline suitable again.
>
> Each case illustrates suitability for a specific swing type. Using that
> widely accepted definition of quality that I provided, rigidity is only a
> characteristic, not a measure of total quality. A quality golf club shaft
> would be one that matches the user, will not vary from one shaft to the
> next in terms of specifications, will not fail under normal use etc.
>
> If you want to lecture, I suggest that you fully understand what you are
> saying before pontificating.
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> Joe
>
>
>
That was almost correct. There's one part where the bullshit rears its ugly
head, here it is:
"A
> softer shaft will lag further into the swing,"
That is just not the case. If you will indulge me, I'll tell you all about
centripetal force and what it does for the golf club.
Let's begin with centrifugal force. Well, that sounds better than
centripetal force but unfortunately, centrifugal force doesn't exist.
What?!? Yes, you read correctly. There's centrifugal tendency, centrifugal
acceleration and velocity, but no centrifugal force. What does exist is
centripetal force.
Let's put it in context, shall we.
As the player swings the club, he swings it around himself. The club wants
to go straight, as all objects want to do, but the player holds it with his
hands. A direct result of this action on the club results in the club going
around the player. In other words, he applies centripetal force. Get it?
Centripetal: Towards the center. The player applies force towards the center
with his hands so the club obeys and goes around the player.
That's not all, I've yet to put it in the context that renders what you
wrote completely untrue.
As the player swings the club and applies centripetal force, the club wants
to straighten itself because it wants to go straight but centripetal force
prevents it from doing so. And here's the kicker. The faster the player
swings the club, the more centripetal force he must apply to prevent it from
slipping out of his hands, the more the club wants to straighten itself.
See? What you refer to as lag in "a softer shaft will lag..." must be
something else you've seen in pictures or whatnot. In fact, the shaft will
lag less and less as more and more centripetal force is applied to it. That
goes directly against your statement.
Actually, the club doesn't exactly straighten itself, instead, it aligns its
center of gravity with the centripetal force being applied to it. But you
understand what I meant, I'm sure.
But what about what I saw in those pictures? It must be true. No, Joe, it
isn't true, it's an illusion. Do you mean the bend that is caused by the
centripetal force that's being applied to it? Oh that is not an illusion but
it can't account for everything, only a very small fraction of the bend you
see in all the pictures and movies. Hell, it only accounts for a fraction of
the bend you can see with the naked eye.
What?!? The shaft I see bend isn't actually bending? You're fucking lying.
Oh my. Take a pencil, waggle it in front of your eyes. See? Who's fucking
lying now?
Sorry, I got carried away.
Well there you have it, that little statement about the softer shaft and
everything else that relates to the underlying principles behind that
statement, it's just not true. The rest though looks alright to me.
The way you mean suitability, I don't like it. I know that it doesn't make
much of a difference to you but still. I prefer to think that golf is a game
of accuracy and the most suitable tool to achieve that is a very precise
tool itself. A very rigid shaft will do that for me. Not you?
A side point here. Do you mean by "hitter" a player that pushes against the
club to propel it and a "swinger" a player that pulls the club to propel it?
If so, why not simply say pusher and puller.
Anyway, Joe, thank you for your indulgence.
tin Levac
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 17:28:53
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
tin Levac wrote:
> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
> news:45c79848$0$4911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>>
>>tin Levac wrote:
>>
>>>"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>news:POLxh.23429$fC2.16030@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>>>>>the
>>>>>quality of the shaft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Otto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is,
>>>the higher quality it is.
>>>
>>
>>SIP SNIP SNIP
>>
>>Lets start with an accepted definition of quality:
>>
>>Quality:
>>
>>The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that
>>bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.
>>
>>Not bad, is it?
>>
>>Shaft rigidity: A single characteristic. Or is that all that matters?
>>
>>Now, your lover might answer that shaft rigidity is a good measure of
>>quality but as it pertains to hitting a golf ball, maybe not so much.
>>
>>If you are hitter, you apply most of the acceleration at the top of the
>>downswing so a more rigid shaft is certainly more suitable. Underline
>>suitable! A softer shaft would lag too much at the top and be ahead at
>>impact, adding loft.
>>
>>A swinger will have more continuous acceleration applied so that the
>>maximum speed is reached at a point just past the impact point. A softer
>>shaft will lag further into the swing, returning the club head to a
>>neutral loft (against the design spec) at the low point. A more suitable
>>approach for this swing type. Underline suitable again.
>>
>>Each case illustrates suitability for a specific swing type. Using that
>>widely accepted definition of quality that I provided, rigidity is only a
>>characteristic, not a measure of total quality. A quality golf club shaft
>>would be one that matches the user, will not vary from one shaft to the
>>next in terms of specifications, will not fail under normal use etc.
>>
>>If you want to lecture, I suggest that you fully understand what you are
>>saying before pontificating.
>>
>>Respectfully yours,
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> That was almost correct. There's one part where the bullshit rears its ugly
> head, here it is:
>
> "A
>
>>softer shaft will lag further into the swing,"
>
>
> That is just not the case. If you will indulge me, I'll tell you all about
> centripetal force and what it does for the golf club.
>
> Let's begin with centrifugal force. Well, that sounds better than
> centripetal force but unfortunately, centrifugal force doesn't exist.
> What?!? Yes, you read correctly. There's centrifugal tendency, centrifugal
> acceleration and velocity, but no centrifugal force. What does exist is
> centripetal force.
>
> Let's put it in context, shall we.
>
> As the player swings the club, he swings it around himself. The club wants
> to go straight, as all objects want to do, but the player holds it with his
> hands. A direct result of this action on the club results in the club going
> around the player. In other words, he applies centripetal force. Get it?
> Centripetal: Towards the center. The player applies force towards the center
> with his hands so the club obeys and goes around the player.
>
> That's not all, I've yet to put it in the context that renders what you
> wrote completely untrue.
>
> As the player swings the club and applies centripetal force, the club wants
> to straighten itself because it wants to go straight but centripetal force
> prevents it from doing so. And here's the kicker. The faster the player
> swings the club, the more centripetal force he must apply to prevent it from
> slipping out of his hands, the more the club wants to straighten itself.
> See? What you refer to as lag in "a softer shaft will lag..." must be
> something else you've seen in pictures or whatnot. In fact, the shaft will
> lag less and less as more and more centripetal force is applied to it. That
> goes directly against your statement.
>
> Actually, the club doesn't exactly straighten itself, instead, it aligns its
> center of gravity with the centripetal force being applied to it. But you
> understand what I meant, I'm sure.
>
> But what about what I saw in those pictures? It must be true. No, Joe, it
> isn't true, it's an illusion. Do you mean the bend that is caused by the
> centripetal force that's being applied to it? Oh that is not an illusion but
> it can't account for everything, only a very small fraction of the bend you
> see in all the pictures and movies. Hell, it only accounts for a fraction of
> the bend you can see with the naked eye.
>
> What?!? The shaft I see bend isn't actually bending? You're fucking lying.
> Oh my. Take a pencil, waggle it in front of your eyes. See? Who's fucking
> lying now?
>
> Sorry, I got carried away.
>
> Well there you have it, that little statement about the softer shaft and
> everything else that relates to the underlying principles behind that
> statement, it's just not true. The rest though looks alright to me.
>
> The way you mean suitability, I don't like it. I know that it doesn't make
> much of a difference to you but still. I prefer to think that golf is a game
> of accuracy and the most suitable tool to achieve that is a very precise
> tool itself. A very rigid shaft will do that for me. Not you?
>
> A side point here. Do you mean by "hitter" a player that pushes against the
> club to propel it and a "swinger" a player that pulls the club to propel it?
> If so, why not simply say pusher and puller.
>
> Anyway, Joe, thank you for your indulgence.
>
>
> tin Levac
>
>
Point 1 ty, I was replying to your discussion of "quality of a golf
club shaft". You know, the one where you were wrong.
Point 2, have you heard of Newton? Does inertia ring a bell? The mass
of the club head swamps the mass of the shaft. That is not exactly
correct but suitable for a back of the envelope discussion.
I'm really sorry that you don't like my definition of quality with
respect to suitability for intended use, but what the hell, everyone has
an opinion. My Daddy taught me not to piss into the wind.
By hitter and swinger I meant exactly what I said. How the individual
manipulates the club is a not the issue. What counts is how the force
is applied over time.
Just a bit less respectfully yours,
Joe
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 18:10:50
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:45c7af82$0$24730$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
> tin Levac wrote:
>
>> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>> news:45c79848$0$4911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>>
>>>tin Levac wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:POLxh.23429$fC2.16030@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>quality of the shaft.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Otto
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is,
>>>>the higher quality it is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>SIP SNIP SNIP
>>>
>>>Lets start with an accepted definition of quality:
>>>
>>>Quality:
>>>
>>>The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that
>>>bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.
>>>
>>>Not bad, is it?
>>>
>>>Shaft rigidity: A single characteristic. Or is that all that matters?
>>>
>>>Now, your lover might answer that shaft rigidity is a good measure of
>>>quality but as it pertains to hitting a golf ball, maybe not so much.
>>>
>>>If you are hitter, you apply most of the acceleration at the top of the
>>>downswing so a more rigid shaft is certainly more suitable. Underline
>>>suitable! A softer shaft would lag too much at the top and be ahead at
>>>impact, adding loft.
>>>
>>>A swinger will have more continuous acceleration applied so that the
>>>maximum speed is reached at a point just past the impact point. A softer
>>>shaft will lag further into the swing, returning the club head to a
>>>neutral loft (against the design spec) at the low point. A more suitable
>>>approach for this swing type. Underline suitable again.
>>>
>>>Each case illustrates suitability for a specific swing type. Using that
>>>widely accepted definition of quality that I provided, rigidity is only a
>>>characteristic, not a measure of total quality. A quality golf club
>>>shaft would be one that matches the user, will not vary from one shaft to
>>>the next in terms of specifications, will not fail under normal use etc.
>>>
>>>If you want to lecture, I suggest that you fully understand what you are
>>>saying before pontificating.
>>>
>>>Respectfully yours,
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That was almost correct. There's one part where the bullshit rears its
>> ugly head, here it is:
>>
>> "A
>>
>>>softer shaft will lag further into the swing,"
>>
>>
>> That is just not the case. If you will indulge me, I'll tell you all
>> about centripetal force and what it does for the golf club.
>>
>> Let's begin with centrifugal force. Well, that sounds better than
>> centripetal force but unfortunately, centrifugal force doesn't exist.
>> What?!? Yes, you read correctly. There's centrifugal tendency,
>> centrifugal acceleration and velocity, but no centrifugal force. What
>> does exist is centripetal force.
>>
>> Let's put it in context, shall we.
>>
>> As the player swings the club, he swings it around himself. The club
>> wants to go straight, as all objects want to do, but the player holds it
>> with his hands. A direct result of this action on the club results in the
>> club going around the player. In other words, he applies centripetal
>> force. Get it? Centripetal: Towards the center. The player applies force
>> towards the center with his hands so the club obeys and goes around the
>> player.
>>
>> That's not all, I've yet to put it in the context that renders what you
>> wrote completely untrue.
>>
>> As the player swings the club and applies centripetal force, the club
>> wants to straighten itself because it wants to go straight but
>> centripetal force prevents it from doing so. And here's the kicker. The
>> faster the player swings the club, the more centripetal force he must
>> apply to prevent it from slipping out of his hands, the more the club
>> wants to straighten itself. See? What you refer to as lag in "a softer
>> shaft will lag..." must be something else you've seen in pictures or
>> whatnot. In fact, the shaft will lag less and less as more and more
>> centripetal force is applied to it. That goes directly against your
>> statement.
>>
>> Actually, the club doesn't exactly straighten itself, instead, it aligns
>> its center of gravity with the centripetal force being applied to it. But
>> you understand what I meant, I'm sure.
>>
>> But what about what I saw in those pictures? It must be true. No, Joe, it
>> isn't true, it's an illusion. Do you mean the bend that is caused by the
>> centripetal force that's being applied to it? Oh that is not an illusion
>> but it can't account for everything, only a very small fraction of the
>> bend you see in all the pictures and movies. Hell, it only accounts for a
>> fraction of the bend you can see with the naked eye.
>>
>> What?!? The shaft I see bend isn't actually bending? You're fucking
>> lying. Oh my. Take a pencil, waggle it in front of your eyes. See? Who's
>> fucking lying now?
>>
>> Sorry, I got carried away.
>>
>> Well there you have it, that little statement about the softer shaft and
>> everything else that relates to the underlying principles behind that
>> statement, it's just not true. The rest though looks alright to me.
>>
>> The way you mean suitability, I don't like it. I know that it doesn't
>> make much of a difference to you but still. I prefer to think that golf
>> is a game of accuracy and the most suitable tool to achieve that is a
>> very precise tool itself. A very rigid shaft will do that for me. Not
>> you?
>>
>> A side point here. Do you mean by "hitter" a player that pushes against
>> the club to propel it and a "swinger" a player that pulls the club to
>> propel it? If so, why not simply say pusher and puller.
>>
>> Anyway, Joe, thank you for your indulgence.
>>
>>
>> tin Levac
>>
>>
>
> Point 1 ty, I was replying to your discussion of "quality of a golf
> club shaft". You know, the one where you were wrong.
>
> Point 2, have you heard of Newton? Does inertia ring a bell? The mass of
> the club head swamps the mass of the shaft. That is not exactly correct
> but suitable for a back of the envelope discussion.
>
> I'm really sorry that you don't like my definition of quality with respect
> to suitability for intended use, but what the hell, everyone has an
> opinion. My Daddy taught me not to piss into the wind.
>
> By hitter and swinger I meant exactly what I said. How the individual
> manipulates the club is a not the issue. What counts is how the force is
> applied over time.
>
> Just a bit less respectfully yours,
>
> Joe
>
That's exactly what I was saying. Newton, inertia, objects want to go
straight, etc. how can you agree with me one way and disagree with me the
same way?
Ring a bell? Yeah, sure let's ring bells.
Look at Newton's laws of motion, expecially the one where it says that an
object in motion tends to remain in motion. Well, I'm not saying anything
you don't already know when I speak of centripetal force and what it does to
the club to which it is being applied. The club (object) in motion (the
player swings it) wants to remain in motion, but the player applies
centripetal force to it with his hands so it stops going straight and
instead goes around the player. That doesn't stop the forces from acting on
the club which is why the club straightens out with a tendency that grows in
proportion equal to the centripetal force the player applies to it. See?
It's pretty easy to deal with Newton's laws.
Ok, so I don't know what you mean by hitter and swinger so I'll just use my
terms for it. Because it's pretty confusing to use the terms hitter and
swinger, I mean we all swing the club. Swing, that's what we do with the
club, we swing it to and fro, back and forth. And that regardless of the
technique we use to swing it. But thanks anyway.
So my daddy taught me not to ask too many questons. I don't listen to what
my daddy tells me much. And I learned not to piss in the wind on my own. But
I still do it just to remind me of how much I learned that day. Perhaps one
day you'll learn how to send the ball to the target and you'll do it again
just to remind you of how much you learned that day, who knows.
tin Levac
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 19:11:54
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
tin Levac wrote:
> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
> news:45c7af82$0$24730$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>>
>>tin Levac wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>>>news:45c79848$0$4911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>tin Levac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:POLxh.23429$fC2.16030@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>quality of the shaft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Otto
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is,
>>>>>the higher quality it is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>SIP SNIP SNIP
>>>>
>>>>Lets start with an accepted definition of quality:
>>>>
>>>>Quality:
>>>>
>>>>The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that
>>>>bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.
>>>>
>>>>Not bad, is it?
>>>>
>>>>Shaft rigidity: A single characteristic. Or is that all that matters?
>>>>
>>>>Now, your lover might answer that shaft rigidity is a good measure of
>>>>quality but as it pertains to hitting a golf ball, maybe not so much.
>>>>
>>>>If you are hitter, you apply most of the acceleration at the top of the
>>>>downswing so a more rigid shaft is certainly more suitable. Underline
>>>>suitable! A softer shaft would lag too much at the top and be ahead at
>>>>impact, adding loft.
>>>>
>>>>A swinger will have more continuous acceleration applied so that the
>>>>maximum speed is reached at a point just past the impact point. A softer
>>>>shaft will lag further into the swing, returning the club head to a
>>>>neutral loft (against the design spec) at the low point. A more suitable
>>>>approach for this swing type. Underline suitable again.
>>>>
>>>>Each case illustrates suitability for a specific swing type. Using that
>>>>widely accepted definition of quality that I provided, rigidity is only a
>>>>characteristic, not a measure of total quality. A quality golf club
>>>>shaft would be one that matches the user, will not vary from one shaft to
>>>>the next in terms of specifications, will not fail under normal use etc.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to lecture, I suggest that you fully understand what you are
>>>>saying before pontificating.
>>>>
>>>>Respectfully yours,
>>>>
>>>>Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That was almost correct. There's one part where the bullshit rears its
>>>ugly head, here it is:
>>>
>>>"A
>>>
>>>
>>>>softer shaft will lag further into the swing,"
>>>
>>>
>>>That is just not the case. If you will indulge me, I'll tell you all
>>>about centripetal force and what it does for the golf club.
>>>
>>>Let's begin with centrifugal force. Well, that sounds better than
>>>centripetal force but unfortunately, centrifugal force doesn't exist.
>>>What?!? Yes, you read correctly. There's centrifugal tendency,
>>>centrifugal acceleration and velocity, but no centrifugal force. What
>>>does exist is centripetal force.
>>>
>>>Let's put it in context, shall we.
>>>
>>>As the player swings the club, he swings it around himself. The club
>>>wants to go straight, as all objects want to do, but the player holds it
>>>with his hands. A direct result of this action on the club results in the
>>>club going around the player. In other words, he applies centripetal
>>>force. Get it? Centripetal: Towards the center. The player applies force
>>>towards the center with his hands so the club obeys and goes around the
>>>player.
>>>
>>>That's not all, I've yet to put it in the context that renders what you
>>>wrote completely untrue.
>>>
>>>As the player swings the club and applies centripetal force, the club
>>>wants to straighten itself because it wants to go straight but
>>>centripetal force prevents it from doing so. And here's the kicker. The
>>>faster the player swings the club, the more centripetal force he must
>>>apply to prevent it from slipping out of his hands, the more the club
>>>wants to straighten itself. See? What you refer to as lag in "a softer
>>>shaft will lag..." must be something else you've seen in pictures or
>>>whatnot. In fact, the shaft will lag less and less as more and more
>>>centripetal force is applied to it. That goes directly against your
>>>statement.
>>>
>>>Actually, the club doesn't exactly straighten itself, instead, it aligns
>>>its center of gravity with the centripetal force being applied to it. But
>>>you understand what I meant, I'm sure.
>>>
>>>But what about what I saw in those pictures? It must be true. No, Joe, it
>>>isn't true, it's an illusion. Do you mean the bend that is caused by the
>>>centripetal force that's being applied to it? Oh that is not an illusion
>>>but it can't account for everything, only a very small fraction of the
>>>bend you see in all the pictures and movies. Hell, it only accounts for a
>>>fraction of the bend you can see with the naked eye.
>>>
>>>What?!? The shaft I see bend isn't actually bending? You're fucking
>>>lying. Oh my. Take a pencil, waggle it in front of your eyes. See? Who's
>>>fucking lying now?
>>>
>>>Sorry, I got carried away.
>>>
>>>Well there you have it, that little statement about the softer shaft and
>>>everything else that relates to the underlying principles behind that
>>>statement, it's just not true. The rest though looks alright to me.
>>>
>>>The way you mean suitability, I don't like it. I know that it doesn't
>>>make much of a difference to you but still. I prefer to think that golf
>>>is a game of accuracy and the most suitable tool to achieve that is a
>>>very precise tool itself. A very rigid shaft will do that for me. Not
>>>you?
>>>
>>>A side point here. Do you mean by "hitter" a player that pushes against
>>>the club to propel it and a "swinger" a player that pulls the club to
>>>propel it? If so, why not simply say pusher and puller.
>>>
>>>Anyway, Joe, thank you for your indulgence.
>>>
>>>
>>>tin Levac
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Point 1 ty, I was replying to your discussion of "quality of a golf
>>club shaft". You know, the one where you were wrong.
>>
>>Point 2, have you heard of Newton? Does inertia ring a bell? The mass of
>>the club head swamps the mass of the shaft. That is not exactly correct
>>but suitable for a back of the envelope discussion.
>>
>>I'm really sorry that you don't like my definition of quality with respect
>>to suitability for intended use, but what the hell, everyone has an
>>opinion. My Daddy taught me not to piss into the wind.
>>
>>By hitter and swinger I meant exactly what I said. How the individual
>>manipulates the club is a not the issue. What counts is how the force is
>>applied over time.
>>
>>Just a bit less respectfully yours,
>>
>>Joe
>>
>
>
> That's exactly what I was saying. Newton, inertia, objects want to go
> straight, etc. how can you agree with me one way and disagree with me the
> same way?
>
You skipped the quality issue! Oh Well.
With respect to inertia, you sort of have it partly right. Think rest
mass.
> Ring a bell? Yeah, sure let's ring bells.
>
> Look at Newton's laws of motion, expecially the one where it says that an
> object in motion tends to remain in motion. Well, I'm not saying anything
> you don't already know when I speak of centripetal force and what it does to
> the club to which it is being applied. The club (object) in motion (the
> player swings it) wants to remain in motion, but the player applies
> centripetal force to it with his hands so it stops going straight and
> instead goes around the player. That doesn't stop the forces from acting on
> the club which is why the club straightens out with a tendency that grows in
> proportion equal to the centripetal force the player applies to it. See?
> It's pretty easy to deal with Newton's laws.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand any of this paragraph.
> Ok, so I don't know what you mean by hitter and swinger so I'll just use my
> terms for it. Because it's pretty confusing to use the terms hitter and
> swinger, I mean we all swing the club. Swing, that's what we do with the
> club, we swing it to and fro, back and forth. And that regardless of the
> technique we use to swing it. But thanks anyway.
>
Now you are just being silly.
> So my daddy taught me not to ask too many questons. I don't listen to what
> my daddy tells me much. And I learned not to piss in the wind on my own. But
> I still do it just to remind me of how much I learned that day. Perhaps one
> day you'll learn how to send the ball to the target and you'll do it again
> just to remind you of how much you learned that day, who knows.
>
Have a nice day. I'm done playing!
>
> tin Levac
Joe
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:10:02
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:45c7c7a6$0$28119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
> tin Levac wrote:
>
>> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>> news:45c7af82$0$24730$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>>
>>>tin Levac wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:45c79848$0$4911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>tin Levac wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:POLxh.23429$fC2.16030@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the
>>>>>>>>higher the
>>>>>>>>quality of the shaft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Otto
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it
>>>>>>is, the higher quality it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>SIP SNIP SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>>Lets start with an accepted definition of quality:
>>>>>
>>>>>Quality:
>>>>>
>>>>>The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service
>>>>>that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not bad, is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>Shaft rigidity: A single characteristic. Or is that all that matters?
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, your lover might answer that shaft rigidity is a good measure of
>>>>>quality but as it pertains to hitting a golf ball, maybe not so much.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you are hitter, you apply most of the acceleration at the top of the
>>>>>downswing so a more rigid shaft is certainly more suitable. Underline
>>>>>suitable! A softer shaft would lag too much at the top and be ahead at
>>>>>impact, adding loft.
>>>>>
>>>>>A swinger will have more continuous acceleration applied so that the
>>>>>maximum speed is reached at a point just past the impact point. A
>>>>>softer shaft will lag further into the swing, returning the club head
>>>>>to a neutral loft (against the design spec) at the low point. A more
>>>>>suitable approach for this swing type. Underline suitable again.
>>>>>
>>>>>Each case illustrates suitability for a specific swing type. Using that
>>>>>widely accepted definition of quality that I provided, rigidity is only
>>>>>a characteristic, not a measure of total quality. A quality golf club
>>>>>shaft would be one that matches the user, will not vary from one shaft
>>>>>to the next in terms of specifications, will not fail under normal use
>>>>>etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you want to lecture, I suggest that you fully understand what you
>>>>>are saying before pontificating.
>>>>>
>>>>>Respectfully yours,
>>>>>
>>>>>Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That was almost correct. There's one part where the bullshit rears its
>>>>ugly head, here it is:
>>>>
>>>>"A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>softer shaft will lag further into the swing,"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is just not the case. If you will indulge me, I'll tell you all
>>>>about centripetal force and what it does for the golf club.
>>>>
>>>>Let's begin with centrifugal force. Well, that sounds better than
>>>>centripetal force but unfortunately, centrifugal force doesn't exist.
>>>>What?!? Yes, you read correctly. There's centrifugal tendency,
>>>>centrifugal acceleration and velocity, but no centrifugal force. What
>>>>does exist is centripetal force.
>>>>
>>>>Let's put it in context, shall we.
>>>>
>>>>As the player swings the club, he swings it around himself. The club
>>>>wants to go straight, as all objects want to do, but the player holds it
>>>>with his hands. A direct result of this action on the club results in
>>>>the club going around the player. In other words, he applies centripetal
>>>>force. Get it? Centripetal: Towards the center. The player applies force
>>>>towards the center with his hands so the club obeys and goes around the
>>>>player.
>>>>
>>>>That's not all, I've yet to put it in the context that renders what you
>>>>wrote completely untrue.
>>>>
>>>>As the player swings the club and applies centripetal force, the club
>>>>wants to straighten itself because it wants to go straight but
>>>>centripetal force prevents it from doing so. And here's the kicker. The
>>>>faster the player swings the club, the more centripetal force he must
>>>>apply to prevent it from slipping out of his hands, the more the club
>>>>wants to straighten itself. See? What you refer to as lag in "a softer
>>>>shaft will lag..." must be something else you've seen in pictures or
>>>>whatnot. In fact, the shaft will lag less and less as more and more
>>>>centripetal force is applied to it. That goes directly against your
>>>>statement.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, the club doesn't exactly straighten itself, instead, it aligns
>>>>its center of gravity with the centripetal force being applied to it.
>>>>But you understand what I meant, I'm sure.
>>>>
>>>>But what about what I saw in those pictures? It must be true. No, Joe,
>>>>it isn't true, it's an illusion. Do you mean the bend that is caused by
>>>>the centripetal force that's being applied to it? Oh that is not an
>>>>illusion but it can't account for everything, only a very small fraction
>>>>of the bend you see in all the pictures and movies. Hell, it only
>>>>accounts for a fraction of the bend you can see with the naked eye.
>>>>
>>>>What?!? The shaft I see bend isn't actually bending? You're fucking
>>>>lying. Oh my. Take a pencil, waggle it in front of your eyes. See? Who's
>>>>fucking lying now?
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, I got carried away.
>>>>
>>>>Well there you have it, that little statement about the softer shaft and
>>>>everything else that relates to the underlying principles behind that
>>>>statement, it's just not true. The rest though looks alright to me.
>>>>
>>>>The way you mean suitability, I don't like it. I know that it doesn't
>>>>make much of a difference to you but still. I prefer to think that golf
>>>>is a game of accuracy and the most suitable tool to achieve that is a
>>>>very precise tool itself. A very rigid shaft will do that for me. Not
>>>>you?
>>>>
>>>>A side point here. Do you mean by "hitter" a player that pushes against
>>>>the club to propel it and a "swinger" a player that pulls the club to
>>>>propel it? If so, why not simply say pusher and puller.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, Joe, thank you for your indulgence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>tin Levac
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Point 1 ty, I was replying to your discussion of "quality of a golf
>>>club shaft". You know, the one where you were wrong.
>>>
>>>Point 2, have you heard of Newton? Does inertia ring a bell? The mass
>>>of the club head swamps the mass of the shaft. That is not exactly
>>>correct but suitable for a back of the envelope discussion.
>>>
>>>I'm really sorry that you don't like my definition of quality with
>>>respect to suitability for intended use, but what the hell, everyone has
>>>an opinion. My Daddy taught me not to piss into the wind.
>>>
>>>By hitter and swinger I meant exactly what I said. How the individual
>>>manipulates the club is a not the issue. What counts is how the force is
>>>applied over time.
>>>
>>>Just a bit less respectfully yours,
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's exactly what I was saying. Newton, inertia, objects want to go
>> straight, etc. how can you agree with me one way and disagree with me the
>> same way?
>>
> You skipped the quality issue! Oh Well.
>
> With respect to inertia, you sort of have it partly right. Think rest
> mass.
>
>> Ring a bell? Yeah, sure let's ring bells.
>>
>> Look at Newton's laws of motion, expecially the one where it says that an
>> object in motion tends to remain in motion. Well, I'm not saying anything
>> you don't already know when I speak of centripetal force and what it does
>> to the club to which it is being applied. The club (object) in motion
>> (the player swings it) wants to remain in motion, but the player applies
>> centripetal force to it with his hands so it stops going straight and
>> instead goes around the player. That doesn't stop the forces from acting
>> on the club which is why the club straightens out with a tendency that
>> grows in proportion equal to the centripetal force the player applies to
>> it. See? It's pretty easy to deal with Newton's laws.
>
> I'm sorry, I just don't understand any of this paragraph.
>
>
>> Ok, so I don't know what you mean by hitter and swinger so I'll just use
>> my terms for it. Because it's pretty confusing to use the terms hitter
>> and swinger, I mean we all swing the club. Swing, that's what we do with
>> the club, we swing it to and fro, back and forth. And that regardless of
>> the technique we use to swing it. But thanks anyway.
>>
>
> Now you are just being silly.
>
>> So my daddy taught me not to ask too many questons. I don't listen to
>> what my daddy tells me much. And I learned not to piss in the wind on my
>> own. But I still do it just to remind me of how much I learned that day.
>> Perhaps one day you'll learn how to send the ball to the target and
>> you'll do it again just to remind you of how much you learned that day,
>> who knows.
>>
> Have a nice day. I'm done playing!
>
>>
>> tin Levac
>
>
> Joe
>
OK so I'm gonna start over on the whole centripetal force thing. If you
don't know how a centrifugal pump works, you will after having read the
following.
A centrifugal pump is known, mistakenly, to function through centrifugal
force. As we know, centrifugal force does not exist. There is centrifugal
tendency, acceleration and velocity but no force. The force that we want to
refer to is centripetal. I'll get to that in a moment. For the pump to
function, we must apply centripetal force. This force is in the mechanical
form. There are several forms of centripetal force such as gravitational,
electrical and mechanical. What we're dealing with in a centrifugal pump is
mechanical: The body of the pump with its enclosing walls to retain the
liquid we're pumping.
Anyway, as the rotor turns, it pushes the liquid against the wall which
applies centripetal force to the liquid right up to the hole through which
the liquid escapes this centripetal force. As the liquid escapes, it retains
much of the velocity it had accumulated through being pushed by the rotor.
As the liquid escapes, more liquid enters through an hole near the center of
the rotor due to the vaccum created by the liquid that escaped and the cycle
repeats. We could say that the liquid is released from its orbit as it
enters the exit hole.
You know how gravity works so I don't need to explain that.
Alright, now that you have a good idea of what the force is and how it
works, let's apply it to the golf swing.
As the player swings the club, he propels it from a starting point that is
closer to the center as applicable than the intended point at impact. As he
swings it in this direction, the club wants to go straight. But since the
player is holding the club with his hands, the club goes around the center
as applicable here. The center could be construed as the shoulders but it
must be understood that it is moving as the player moves the club around
himself. But nevermind that for the moment. The action of the player holding
the club is centripetal force. He applies force towards the center to keep
the club from going away from him. No luck there, the club does indeed go
away from him as it is released from its starting position close to the
center until it strikes the ball. As it is released from this position and
adopts its new position farther than the first, it gains momentum that is
quite proportional to the centripetal force that the player applies to it in
its second position. If the player was applying less force than required to
hold the club in his hands, we'd call that throwing instead of swinging.
Naturally, the starting velocity prior to being released from that position
has a fundamental effect on the terminal velocity at the end of the club.
The trick is to time this release just right so that the club end achieves
the greatest momentum it can. But you already knew that last part.
It's like this. The greater the starting velocity, the greater the
centripetal force must be applied to maintain a hold on the club, the
greater the acceleration the club will be subjected to during its release,
the greater the terminal velocity that will be produced once the club is
released from its starting position, the greater the centripetal force one
must apply to the club still to maintain a hold on the club again.
I remember reading somewhere that a club being swung at a speed of 100mph
could appear to weigh as much as 60lbs at that speed. I don't know about you
but I would find such a club very difficult to control at those speeds and I
think that it would help me tremendously if the shaft didn't bend so much in
the process.
Now perhaps you're one of those people that think that a supple club would
be adequate for a low skill player. That's ridiculous. Think about it. It
isn't the ability of the player that should determine the quality of
equipment to be used, it's the quality of the equipment that determines the
maximum ability that the player can demonstrate. In other words, high
quality equipment will not help the player but low quality equipment will
certainly hinder him.
tin Levac
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:27:24
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:d9Mxh.33802$vT5.868352@wagner.videotron.net...
> Try this exercise. Convince yourself that what you think is the truth.
> You'll be surprised by the amount of bullshit you can convince yourself
of.
You have clearly mastered this exercise.
Otto
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:46:30
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:HqMxh.31641$uW.8530@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:d9Mxh.33802$vT5.868352@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Try this exercise. Convince yourself that what you think is the truth.
>> You'll be surprised by the amount of bullshit you can convince yourself
> of.
>
>
> You have clearly mastered this exercise.
>
> Otto
>
>
Indeed I have. But don't you think that would make me an expert in such
matters? If expert I am, then bullshit I know. And if bullshit I know, then
I'm certain to be able to distinguish it from the rest. See? I know exactly
what the fuck I'm talking about.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:11:13
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:9IMxh.33955$vT5.873220@wagner.videotron.net...
> Indeed I have. But don't you think that would make me an expert in such
> matters? If expert I am, then bullshit I know. And if bullshit I know,
then
> I'm certain to be able to distinguish it from the rest. See? I know
exactly
> what the fuck I'm talking about.
LOL!!!
Otto
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:25:45
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:09:14 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>
>"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:POLxh.23429$fC2.16030@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>>> Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>>> the
>>> quality of the shaft.
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>
>> Otto
>>
>>
>
>OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is, the
>higher quality it is.
>
The flex of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on it's quality. Try
another tack, this one isn't even questionable.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:09:30
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:0j4fs29rrnmi58pkcpcj3mk9ks5hor2j8k@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:09:14 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>news:POLxh.23429$fC2.16030@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>> Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>>>> the
>>>> quality of the shaft.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Otto
>>>
>>>
>>
>>OK. So, shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The more supple it is,
>>the
>>higher quality it is.
>>
> The flex of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on it's quality. Try
> another tack, this one isn't even questionable.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 08:42:33
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
tin Levac wrote:
> "The quality of a shaft is composed of these components: Flexional rigidity,
> torsional rigidity, tensional rigidity, weight, weight distribution,
> durability, geometry, compatibility to other materials for assembly into a
> golf club."
>
None of these characteristics, especially rigidity, have anything to do
with quality. (Go study QA 101)
If bullshit were music you would be a f#@*ing brass band mate!
No offence intended, of course!
cheers
david
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 17:30:51
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"david s-a" <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote in message
news:52pmmiF1or8htU1@mid.individual.net...
> tin Levac wrote:
>
>
>> "The quality of a shaft is composed of these components: Flexional
>> rigidity, torsional rigidity, tensional rigidity, weight, weight
>> distribution, durability, geometry, compatibility to other materials for
>> assembly into a golf club."
>>
>
> None of these characteristics, especially rigidity, have anything to do
> with quality. (Go study QA 101)
>
> If bullshit were music you would be a f#@*ing brass band mate!
>
> No offence intended, of course!
>
> cheers
> david
If you meet a tennis player, please mention it to him, would you? I'm sure
he'd have something to say about rigidity being one aspect of quality in a
racket. How about the hockey player or the baseball player, I'm sure they
have a good idea of what role rigidity plays in their ability to strike the
puck and ball with accuracy.
But never mind the sports. While we're on the subject of telling others to
go places, go study the nature of a lever. You'll learn some interesting
things about that. Such that the priy purpose of a lever is to transmit
power from one end to the other. The more rigid it is, the more accurately
power can be transmitted through it. That sounds like it could be useful to
know when it comes to golf. And then since accuracy is so important in golf,
I'd say that a high quality club is one that allows great accuracy and since
a rigid lever allows greater accuracy, I guess that makes it of high
quality. Conversely, a more supple shaft would be considered of lesser
quality.
Don't you think I'm pretty good with logic? Thank you, you are too kind.
I don't want to disagree with you but I must:
All of these characteristics, especially rigidity, have everything to do
with quality.
Perhaps you prefer to consider only one characteristic that determines
quality, that which allows the ball to be sent far? Let me see, if far is
good then farther must be better, yes? Ok, I understand that part. Let me
ask you a question so we all know exactly what that means. Farther than
what? Yes, that's what I asked, farther than what. I meant, is farther than
the target better than closer to the target, that's what I was leading up
to. Ah, come on, don't leave, play with me.
tin Levac
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:16:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:09:30 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:0j4fs29rrnmi58pkcpcj3mk9ks5hor2j8k@4ax.com...
>> The flex of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on it's quality. Try
>> another tack, this one isn't even questionable.
>> ___,
>> bk
>
>Hey, that's what the makers of said shaft want you to believe. Sorry, Bobby,
>you fell for it. What you just wrote is the first step in believing the rest
>of the bullshit. You know, it's much more appropriate to speak of shaft
>rigidity than shaft flex, it puts things into the proper perspective.
<clip more bullshit than is deserved here >
>Look, Bobby, I mean you no harm despite what it may look at first glance.
>
>tin Levac
>
Look, tin, there's no way that you can do any harm to anyone here.
What it does look like, at many, many, glances, is that you just throw
out absolutes that are full of shit.
Now. I guess that you will say that extra stiff shafts are the only
ones that have real quality. Ergo, if you have a swing speed of 85
and want the best quality shaft, screw the obvious. Buy X-shafts.
Bullshit is called. But I'm not the first, or last, to say this.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 17:08:47
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:b97fs2533r4algduidqgu19il26eejat97@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:09:30 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:0j4fs29rrnmi58pkcpcj3mk9ks5hor2j8k@4ax.com...
>
>>> The flex of a shaft has no bearing, whatsoever, on it's quality. Try
>>> another tack, this one isn't even questionable.
>>> ___,
>
>>> bk
>>
>>Hey, that's what the makers of said shaft want you to believe. Sorry,
>>Bobby,
>>you fell for it. What you just wrote is the first step in believing the
>>rest
>>of the bullshit. You know, it's much more appropriate to speak of shaft
>>rigidity than shaft flex, it puts things into the proper perspective.
> <clip more bullshit than is deserved here>
>>Look, Bobby, I mean you no harm despite what it may look at first glance.
>>
>>tin Levac
>>
> Look, tin, there's no way that you can do any harm to anyone here.
>
> What it does look like, at many, many, glances, is that you just throw
> out absolutes that are full of shit.
>
> Now. I guess that you will say that extra stiff shafts are the only
> ones that have real quality. Ergo, if you have a swing speed of 85
> and want the best quality shaft, screw the obvious. Buy X-shafts.
>
> Bullshit is called. But I'm not the first, or last, to say this.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 08:35:01
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:08:47 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>The best equipment with regards to golf is the one that will allow me to
>produce the most accurate shots. There's no question about that. Since the
>golf club is a lever and since levers are used to transmit power from one
>end to the other and since I need to be as accurate as possible in golf and
>since a very rigid shaft will allow me to do that, I'll take the stiffest
>shaft available and it will suit me just fine.
It is possible to make much more rigid shafts than are available in
golf clubs. But manufacturers don't make them because nobody would
buy them.
Sure, some players have a shorter swing that fits with stiffer shafts
than other players - but they all want some flex.
Maybe they are all wrong and you are right. Or maybe they are right
and you are unique - so you also are right.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 10:42:32
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:so7hs254ev0tc1qbvial74o0rbmaqsidq8@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:08:47 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>The best equipment with regards to golf is the one that will allow me to
>>produce the most accurate shots. There's no question about that. Since the
>>golf club is a lever and since levers are used to transmit power from one
>>end to the other and since I need to be as accurate as possible in golf
>>and
>>since a very rigid shaft will allow me to do that, I'll take the stiffest
>>shaft available and it will suit me just fine.
>
> It is possible to make much more rigid shafts than are available in
> golf clubs. But manufacturers don't make them because nobody would
> buy them.
>
> Sure, some players have a shorter swing that fits with stiffer shafts
> than other players - but they all want some flex.
>
> Maybe they are all wrong and you are right. Or maybe they are right
> and you are unique - so you also are right.
That's reasonable. I agree.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 22:23:16
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:08:47 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:b97fs2533r4algduidqgu19il26eejat97@4ax.com...
>
>> Now. I guess that you will say that extra stiff shafts are the only
>> ones that have real quality. Ergo, if you have a swing speed of 85
>> and want the best quality shaft, screw the obvious. Buy X-shafts.
>>
>> Bullshit is called. But I'm not the first, or last, to say this.
>> bk
>
>If you looked at it differently, it would make the world of difference. Try
>it:
>
>"I will select the best equipment possible regardless of my ability."
>
>The best equipment with regards to golf is the one that will allow me to
>produce the most accurate shots. <clip>
If that is so, then why do manufacturers produce more than one shaft ?
Don't even try the $$$ situation. It would be much more profitable to
only make one shaft for the manufacturer, and they could charge
whatever they want.
Your argument is full of holes
.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 17:50:28
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:fcbfs2th8ftgkiko5h73r2972kt0n3hvvm@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:08:47 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:b97fs2533r4algduidqgu19il26eejat97@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Now. I guess that you will say that extra stiff shafts are the only
>>> ones that have real quality. Ergo, if you have a swing speed of 85
>>> and want the best quality shaft, screw the obvious. Buy X-shafts.
>>>
>>> Bullshit is called. But I'm not the first, or last, to say this.
>
>>> bk
>>
>>If you looked at it differently, it would make the world of difference.
>>Try
>>it:
>>
>>"I will select the best equipment possible regardless of my ability."
>>
>>The best equipment with regards to golf is the one that will allow me to
>>produce the most accurate shots. <clip>
>
> If that is so, then why do manufacturers produce more than one shaft ?
> Don't even try the $$$ situation. It would be much more profitable to
> only make one shaft for the manufacturer, and they could charge
> whatever they want.
>
> Your argument is full of holes
> .
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 08:36:39
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:50:28 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>Euh, because if they were to make and sell only one shaft, it would mean to
>admit to everybody that they were lying to us all this time. Why should we
>then believe them about this one shaft being the only thing we needed? Euh,
>because they must satisfy the demand that they themselves created with their
>lies to make a profit?
New companies come into existence all the time. They *love* to tell
us that the old companies didn't "get" it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 10:45:29
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:d28hs2t8oqt8mjpblm3ck3786ccmq8u3nt@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:50:28 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Euh, because if they were to make and sell only one shaft, it would mean
>>to
>>admit to everybody that they were lying to us all this time. Why should we
>>then believe them about this one shaft being the only thing we needed?
>>Euh,
>>because they must satisfy the demand that they themselves created with
>>their
>>lies to make a profit?
>
> New companies come into existence all the time. They *love* to tell
> us that the old companies didn't "get" it.
They do indeed. But knowing how one company can own another company without
us knowing about it, it wouldn't surprise me if the first company did that
as a way to try new ideas that are potentially destructive.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 22:54:51
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:50:28 -0500, "tin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:fcbfs2th8ftgkiko5h73r2972kt0n3hvvm@4ax.com...
<clip >
>> If that is so, then why do manufacturers produce more than one shaft ?
>> Don't even try the $$$ situation. It would be much more profitable to
>> only make one shaft for the manufacturer, and they could charge
>> whatever they want.
>>
>> Your argument is full of holes
>> bk
>
>I can't not use the money argument because that's the only argument that the
>makers can't ignore.
<clip waaaaay too many words >
>tin Levac
>
The sheer volume of print that you have to use for such a simple thing
is telling. You have to obfuscate because you just don't know what
you're talking about.
I'm done with this because your arguments are circular, and
unimpressive.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:02:50
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:54:51 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>The sheer volume of print that you have to use for such a simple thing
>is telling. You have to obfuscate because you just don't know what
>you're talking about.
>
>I'm done with this because your arguments are circular, and
>unimpressive.
Bobby, did you take the troll bait again?
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:09:14
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 03:02:50 GMT, David Laville
<dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:54:51 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>The sheer volume of print that you have to use for such a simple thing
>>is telling. You have to obfuscate because you just don't know what
>>you're talking about.
>>
>>I'm done with this because your arguments are circular, and
>>unimpressive.
>
>Bobby, did you take the troll bait again?
>
>
Nah....just baiting back.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 18:20:16
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:g7dfs2hpep1llqnmb5t3rjv34fbp3i605t@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:50:28 -0500, "tin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:fcbfs2th8ftgkiko5h73r2972kt0n3hvvm@4ax.com...
> <clip>
>>> If that is so, then why do manufacturers produce more than one shaft ?
>>> Don't even try the $$$ situation. It would be much more profitable to
>>> only make one shaft for the manufacturer, and they could charge
>>> whatever they want.
>>>
>>> Your argument is full of holes
>
>>> bk
>>
>>I can't not use the money argument because that's the only argument that
>>the
>>makers can't ignore.
> <clip waaaaay too many words>
>>tin Levac
>>
>
> The sheer volume of print that you have to use for such a simple thing
> is telling. You have to obfuscate because you just don't know what
> you're talking about.
>
> I'm done with this because your arguments are circular, and
> unimpressive.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:00:44
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:49:54 -0500, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
>"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher the
>> quality of the shaft.
>
>
>Wrong.
>
>Otto
Just another check in the L column for Levac.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 19:45:11
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ehJxh.43071$Ts.9956@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> > news:YaJxh.24690$X72.23691@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> What is wrong with a "too stiff" iron shaft? I can envision what is
wrong
> >> with a shaft with too much flex. I just can't see a downside to too
stiff
> >> beyond feel.
> >
> >
> > The vast majority of amateur golfers do not have a swing which requires
a
> > stiff shaft.
> >
> > I don't know if it is a macho thing or what. I see it all the time.
> >
> > You have to be an extremely hard swinger to justify a stiff shaft. Very
> > few
> > amateurs can swing that hard and consistently strike the ball good.
> >
> > Go with a regular flex, swing full and smooth, and let the club do the
> > work.
> >
> > Be club swinger, not a ball hitter. Your consistency will go way up.
> >
> > And your body will thank you.
> >
> > Otto
> >
> >
> >
>
> The vast majority of amateurs don't know what the fuck they're talking
> about. At first glance, it looks like you're one of them. No offense
> intended, of course.
>
> Oh so now we determine the quality of the equipment based on the quality
of
> the player? That's news to me. In baseball, we select the very best
quality
> for the equipment regardless of the quality of the players that use it.
Same
> in football, soccer, cycling, polo, badminton, tennis. Oh what the hell,
in
> any activity except golf, we select the best equipment money can buy. "Oh,
> I'm sorry, this quality is reserved for highly skilled players and you're
> just a beginner, take this piece of shit, it suits your ability better."
>
> Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher the
> quality of the shaft. The more supple it is, the lower the quality of the
> shaft. Since we can't make an absolutely rigid shaft, we invent all kinds
of
> reasons for you to accept that reality. Look, a very rigid shaft is good
for
> accuracy but it will feed back power to the player's hands. Feedback. That
> feedback is good for learning how to hit the ball well versus how to hit
the
> ball not-well. A very supple shaft doesn't tranmit as much feedback as a
> very rigid shaft. Then, there's the aspect of weight. A rigid shaft, for
> equal material and geometry, is heavier than a supple shaft. At this
point,
> it becomes a matter of compromise. You either get a very rigid shaft for
> maximum accuracy potential but since it's heavier, you can't swing it as
> fast so the absolute speed potential is less. The other aspect of
compromise
> is feedback. More or less with the proportionate accuracy potential of
each.
> See, compromise. That's all we've ever known but at some point, we forgot
> that and started talking about kick point, shaft flex scale and other
types
> of bullshit.
>
> Here, a little clearer than in the paragraph above:
>
> The more rigid it is, the heavier it is, the more accurate it is, the more
> feedback it gives.
> The less rigid it is, the lighter it is, the less accurate it is, the less
> feedback it gives.
>
> If you didn't know already, let me instruct you in the subtleties of
levers.
> Because that's all it is, a lever. A lever with which the player transmits
> power from one end to the other. The more rigid the tool is, the more
> accurately the player can transmit power from one end to the other. The
> reverse is also true. Golf is a game of accuracy, but certainly you knew
> that already, no?
>
> Maybe you just want to add loft, dynamic loft, at impact. What the fuck.
If
> you want more loft, just use a club that begins with more loft. I mean,
> fucking dah. Maybe you want to send the ball higher? Fucking dah again.
> Maybe you want to send the ball lower? Fucking dah, dah and more fucking
> dah.
>
> Do you know why loft is added? I bet you just don't have a clue. Let me
> instruct you again on the subtleties of levers. In this case, the lever at
> one end isn't straight, there's a head, the clubhead, that points in a
> different direction than the rest of the club. Do you know what center of
> gravity refers to? Let me instruct you again on the subtleties of levers.
> The center of gravity is a point in space where the mass of an object is
> concentrated and around which this object will spin if it does spin. Yeah,
> that's what the enter of gravity is. Anyway, as the player swings the
club,
> the center of gravity of the clubhead wants to align itself with the
> centripetal force that the player applies to the club so the shaft bends,
> the clubhead changes position and in doing so, adds loft. See? It's so
easy
> when you know what the fuck you're talking about.
>
> So what's the problem with golfers? We're all gullible. Let me rephrase
> that, you are all gullible, I'm not. Look, it's very easy to determine if
> you're gullible or not. Either you are gullible and you'll reply with all
> kinds of bullshit to justify going with a supple shaft or you're not
> gullible and you'll simply agree with what I wrote.
>
> My apology if I was a bit rude, pompous and patronising and perhaps even a
> bit insulting. It's just that I'm truly and well pissed that people like
you
> spew out the same bullshit day in and day out even after the whole fucking
> truth has been known for centuries and shown to them quite clearly.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> tin Levac
>
>
People who say
"Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher the
quality of the shaft. The more supple it is, the lower the quality of the
shaft"
should not be implying that others don't know what the fuck they are talking
about.
dave
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:39:32
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:bPLxh.24746$X72.14895@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:ehJxh.43071$Ts.9956@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
>> > news:YaJxh.24690$X72.23691@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> What is wrong with a "too stiff" iron shaft? I can envision what is
> wrong
>> >> with a shaft with too much flex. I just can't see a downside to too
> stiff
>> >> beyond feel.
>> >
>> >
>> > The vast majority of amateur golfers do not have a swing which
>> > requires
> a
>> > stiff shaft.
>> >
>> > I don't know if it is a macho thing or what. I see it all the time.
>> >
>> > You have to be an extremely hard swinger to justify a stiff shaft. Very
>> > few
>> > amateurs can swing that hard and consistently strike the ball good.
>> >
>> > Go with a regular flex, swing full and smooth, and let the club do the
>> > work.
>> >
>> > Be club swinger, not a ball hitter. Your consistency will go way up.
>> >
>> > And your body will thank you.
>> >
>> > Otto
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The vast majority of amateurs don't know what the fuck they're talking
>> about. At first glance, it looks like you're one of them. No offense
>> intended, of course.
>>
>> Oh so now we determine the quality of the equipment based on the quality
> of
>> the player? That's news to me. In baseball, we select the very best
> quality
>> for the equipment regardless of the quality of the players that use it.
> Same
>> in football, soccer, cycling, polo, badminton, tennis. Oh what the hell,
> in
>> any activity except golf, we select the best equipment money can buy.
>> "Oh,
>> I'm sorry, this quality is reserved for highly skilled players and you're
>> just a beginner, take this piece of shit, it suits your ability better."
>>
>> Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
>> the
>> quality of the shaft. The more supple it is, the lower the quality of the
>> shaft. Since we can't make an absolutely rigid shaft, we invent all kinds
> of
>> reasons for you to accept that reality. Look, a very rigid shaft is good
> for
>> accuracy but it will feed back power to the player's hands. Feedback.
>> That
>> feedback is good for learning how to hit the ball well versus how to hit
> the
>> ball not-well. A very supple shaft doesn't tranmit as much feedback as a
>> very rigid shaft. Then, there's the aspect of weight. A rigid shaft, for
>> equal material and geometry, is heavier than a supple shaft. At this
> point,
>> it becomes a matter of compromise. You either get a very rigid shaft for
>> maximum accuracy potential but since it's heavier, you can't swing it as
>> fast so the absolute speed potential is less. The other aspect of
> compromise
>> is feedback. More or less with the proportionate accuracy potential of
> each.
>> See, compromise. That's all we've ever known but at some point, we forgot
>> that and started talking about kick point, shaft flex scale and other
> types
>> of bullshit.
>>
>> Here, a little clearer than in the paragraph above:
>>
>> The more rigid it is, the heavier it is, the more accurate it is, the
>> more
>> feedback it gives.
>> The less rigid it is, the lighter it is, the less accurate it is, the
>> less
>> feedback it gives.
>>
>> If you didn't know already, let me instruct you in the subtleties of
> levers.
>> Because that's all it is, a lever. A lever with which the player
>> transmits
>> power from one end to the other. The more rigid the tool is, the more
>> accurately the player can transmit power from one end to the other. The
>> reverse is also true. Golf is a game of accuracy, but certainly you knew
>> that already, no?
>>
>> Maybe you just want to add loft, dynamic loft, at impact. What the fuck.
> If
>> you want more loft, just use a club that begins with more loft. I mean,
>> fucking dah. Maybe you want to send the ball higher? Fucking dah again.
>> Maybe you want to send the ball lower? Fucking dah, dah and more fucking
>> dah.
>>
>> Do you know why loft is added? I bet you just don't have a clue. Let me
>> instruct you again on the subtleties of levers. In this case, the lever
>> at
>> one end isn't straight, there's a head, the clubhead, that points in a
>> different direction than the rest of the club. Do you know what center of
>> gravity refers to? Let me instruct you again on the subtleties of levers.
>> The center of gravity is a point in space where the mass of an object is
>> concentrated and around which this object will spin if it does spin.
>> Yeah,
>> that's what the enter of gravity is. Anyway, as the player swings the
> club,
>> the center of gravity of the clubhead wants to align itself with the
>> centripetal force that the player applies to the club so the shaft bends,
>> the clubhead changes position and in doing so, adds loft. See? It's so
> easy
>> when you know what the fuck you're talking about.
>>
>> So what's the problem with golfers? We're all gullible. Let me rephrase
>> that, you are all gullible, I'm not. Look, it's very easy to determine if
>> you're gullible or not. Either you are gullible and you'll reply with all
>> kinds of bullshit to justify going with a supple shaft or you're not
>> gullible and you'll simply agree with what I wrote.
>>
>> My apology if I was a bit rude, pompous and patronising and perhaps even
>> a
>> bit insulting. It's just that I'm truly and well pissed that people like
> you
>> spew out the same bullshit day in and day out even after the whole
>> fucking
>> truth has been known for centuries and shown to them quite clearly.
>>
>> Have a nice day.
>>
>> tin Levac
>>
>>
>
> People who say
>
> "Shaft rigidity is one aspect of quality. The stiffer it is, the higher
> the
> quality of the shaft. The more supple it is, the lower the quality of the
> shaft"
>
> should not be implying that others don't know what the fuck they are
> talking
> about.
>
> dave
>
>
Oh Dave, you started out real nice and logical. Now, it's like you made a
180 and shut down your brain. I'm not implying anything, I'm stating
everything. Right now, it sure looks like you're the one implying something
about me, what with the "People who say "quote" should not be implying that
others don't know what the fuck they are talking about." That is exactly the
method one uses to imply something. And I'm not implying that, I'm stating
it in full. See? I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
What about you, Dave, do you know what the fuck you're talking about? It
looked that way until you replied to me with that implication so what are
you implying about me, about what I wrote? What is it that makes you think
that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about? No implying anything this
time, I know your tricks and I want a clear and definite answer so there's
no doubt as to what you are saying.
I mean, I don't think you're an idiot, I don't think you're stupid or
ignorant. I think you're a nice guy (even though I don't know you) but that
last reply was not very representative of your first impression, I'm sorry
to say. At first you say one thing, then say another, that doesn't sound
very honest in the end. I'm not putting your honesty or integrity in
question, I'm just saying what it looks like.
Here's the gist of your first post.
"The more supple it is, the less accurate I can be. The more rigid it is,
the more feedback I get from it."
I didn't put these words in your mouth, I just resumed in as few words as I
could manage what you wrote in your original post. What do you mean you
didn't mean it that way? In what way did you mean this:
"The "droop thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it
means that if
the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too upright
for a chip shot." ?
Or this:
"And I just don't see any upside to more flex other than how it feels." ?
Or even this:
"An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
"the
right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer means
less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be "the
stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging"." ?!?
I mean, what the fuck do you mean if you're not saying exactly what I'm
saying? Here, have another look:
>> The more rigid it is, the heavier it is, the more accurate it is, the
>> more
>> feedback it gives.
>> The less rigid it is, the lighter it is, the less accurate it is, the
>> less
>> feedback it gives.
See what I mean? You "wonder why it really shouldn't be" the goddamn
contrary to the bullshit the entire world is hooked on right now. I stopped
wondering, I know what the fuck's happening.
Aw shit, I scared you back into neverneverland. Now you'll just go back to
whatever they want you to believe because you hate my guts. Fine. Sorry to
have troubled you. I promise I won't do it again unless you start it.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:51:27
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:DBMxh.33954$vT5.871940@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:bPLxh.24746$X72.14895@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
> >>
> >> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:ehJxh.43071$Ts.9956@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >> >
>
> Oh Dave, you started out real nice and logical. Now, it's like you made a
> 180 and shut down your brain. I'm not implying anything, I'm stating
> everything. Right now, it sure looks like you're the one implying
something
> about me, what with the "People who say "quote" should not be implying
that
> others don't know what the fuck they are talking about." That is exactly
the
> method one uses to imply something. And I'm not implying that, I'm stating
> it in full. See? I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
>
> What about you, Dave, do you know what the fuck you're talking about? It
> looked that way until you replied to me with that implication so what are
> you implying about me, about what I wrote? What is it that makes you think
> that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about? No implying anything
this
> time, I know your tricks and I want a clear and definite answer so there's
> no doubt as to what you are saying.
>
> I mean, I don't think you're an idiot, I don't think you're stupid or
> ignorant. I think you're a nice guy (even though I don't know you) but
that
> last reply was not very representative of your first impression, I'm sorry
> to say. At first you say one thing, then say another, that doesn't sound
> very honest in the end. I'm not putting your honesty or integrity in
> question, I'm just saying what it looks like.
>
> Here's the gist of your first post.
>
> "The more supple it is, the less accurate I can be. The more rigid it is,
> the more feedback I get from it."
>
> I didn't put these words in your mouth, I just resumed in as few words as
I
> could manage what you wrote in your original post. What do you mean you
> didn't mean it that way? In what way did you mean this:
>
> "The "droop thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it
> means that if
> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
upright
> for a chip shot." ?
>
> Or this:
>
> "And I just don't see any upside to more flex other than how it feels." ?
>
> Or even this:
>
> "An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
> "the
> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
means
> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
"the
> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging"." ?!?
>
> I mean, what the fuck do you mean if you're not saying exactly what I'm
> saying? Here, have another look:
>
> >> The more rigid it is, the heavier it is, the more accurate it is, the
> >> more
> >> feedback it gives.
> >> The less rigid it is, the lighter it is, the less accurate it is, the
> >> less
> >> feedback it gives.
>
> See what I mean? You "wonder why it really shouldn't be" the goddamn
> contrary to the bullshit the entire world is hooked on right now. I
stopped
> wondering, I know what the fuck's happening.
>
> Aw shit, I scared you back into neverneverland. Now you'll just go back to
> whatever they want you to believe because you hate my guts. Fine. Sorry to
> have troubled you. I promise I won't do it again unless you start it.
>
>
Look, tin. I got pissed because I was hoping (even on RSG) for a
nice/civil conversation. I found your post to be step #1 towards it heading
to the RSG crap-pile of accusations, etc.
I probably agree with more than half of what you think on this topic.
Correlating quality and shaft stiffness isn't on of those items.
dave
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:10:22
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:jNMxh.24761$X72.13891@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:DBMxh.33954$vT5.871940@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
>> news:bPLxh.24746$X72.14895@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:ehJxh.43071$Ts.9956@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >
>>
>> Oh Dave, you started out real nice and logical. Now, it's like you made a
>> 180 and shut down your brain. I'm not implying anything, I'm stating
>> everything. Right now, it sure looks like you're the one implying
> something
>> about me, what with the "People who say "quote" should not be implying
> that
>> others don't know what the fuck they are talking about." That is exactly
> the
>> method one uses to imply something. And I'm not implying that, I'm
>> stating
>> it in full. See? I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
>>
>> What about you, Dave, do you know what the fuck you're talking about? It
>> looked that way until you replied to me with that implication so what are
>> you implying about me, about what I wrote? What is it that makes you
>> think
>> that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about? No implying anything
> this
>> time, I know your tricks and I want a clear and definite answer so
>> there's
>> no doubt as to what you are saying.
>>
>> I mean, I don't think you're an idiot, I don't think you're stupid or
>> ignorant. I think you're a nice guy (even though I don't know you) but
> that
>> last reply was not very representative of your first impression, I'm
>> sorry
>> to say. At first you say one thing, then say another, that doesn't sound
>> very honest in the end. I'm not putting your honesty or integrity in
>> question, I'm just saying what it looks like.
>>
>> Here's the gist of your first post.
>>
>> "The more supple it is, the less accurate I can be. The more rigid it is,
>> the more feedback I get from it."
>>
>> I didn't put these words in your mouth, I just resumed in as few words as
> I
>> could manage what you wrote in your original post. What do you mean you
>> didn't mean it that way? In what way did you mean this:
>>
>> "The "droop thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it
>> means that if
>> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
> upright
>> for a chip shot." ?
>>
>> Or this:
>>
>> "And I just don't see any upside to more flex other than how it feels." ?
>>
>> Or even this:
>>
>> "An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
>> "the
>> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
> means
>> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
> "the
>> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging"." ?!?
>>
>> I mean, what the fuck do you mean if you're not saying exactly what I'm
>> saying? Here, have another look:
>>
>> >> The more rigid it is, the heavier it is, the more accurate it is, the
>> >> more
>> >> feedback it gives.
>> >> The less rigid it is, the lighter it is, the less accurate it is, the
>> >> less
>> >> feedback it gives.
>>
>> See what I mean? You "wonder why it really shouldn't be" the goddamn
>> contrary to the bullshit the entire world is hooked on right now. I
> stopped
>> wondering, I know what the fuck's happening.
>>
>> Aw shit, I scared you back into neverneverland. Now you'll just go back
>> to
>> whatever they want you to believe because you hate my guts. Fine. Sorry
>> to
>> have troubled you. I promise I won't do it again unless you start it.
>>
>>
>
> Look, tin. I got pissed because I was hoping (even on RSG) for a
> nice/civil conversation. I found your post to be step #1 towards it
> heading
> to the RSG crap-pile of accusations, etc.
>
> I probably agree with more than half of what you think on this topic.
> Correlating quality and shaft stiffness isn't on of those items.
>
> dave
>
>
>
I understand. Sorry. I will be more civil next time.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:59:17
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Shaft Stiffness and Irons
|
"tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:x2Nxh.33994$vT5.875546@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:jNMxh.24761$X72.13891@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:DBMxh.33954$vT5.871940@wagner.videotron.net...
> >>
> >> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> >> news:bPLxh.24746$X72.14895@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "tin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:uyKxh.31042$vT5.840428@wagner.videotron.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:ehJxh.43071$Ts.9956@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh Dave, you started out real nice and logical. Now, it's like you made
a
> >> 180 and shut down your brain. I'm not implying anything, I'm stating
> >> everything. Right now, it sure looks like you're the one implying
> > something
> >> about me, what with the "People who say "quote" should not be implying
> > that
> >> others don't know what the fuck they are talking about." That is
exactly
> > the
> >> method one uses to imply something. And I'm not implying that, I'm
> >> stating
> >> it in full. See? I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
> >>
> >> What about you, Dave, do you know what the fuck you're talking about?
It
> >> looked that way until you replied to me with that implication so what
are
> >> you implying about me, about what I wrote? What is it that makes you
> >> think
> >> that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about? No implying anything
> > this
> >> time, I know your tricks and I want a clear and definite answer so
> >> there's
> >> no doubt as to what you are saying.
> >>
> >> I mean, I don't think you're an idiot, I don't think you're stupid or
> >> ignorant. I think you're a nice guy (even though I don't know you) but
> > that
> >> last reply was not very representative of your first impression, I'm
> >> sorry
> >> to say. At first you say one thing, then say another, that doesn't
sound
> >> very honest in the end. I'm not putting your honesty or integrity in
> >> question, I'm just saying what it looks like.
> >>
> >> Here's the gist of your first post.
> >>
> >> "The more supple it is, the less accurate I can be. The more rigid it
is,
> >> the more feedback I get from it."
> >>
> >> I didn't put these words in your mouth, I just resumed in as few words
as
> > I
> >> could manage what you wrote in your original post. What do you mean you
> >> didn't mean it that way? In what way did you mean this:
> >>
> >> "The "droop thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as
it
> >> means that if
> >> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
> > upright
> >> for a chip shot." ?
> >>
> >> Or this:
> >>
> >> "And I just don't see any upside to more flex other than how it feels."
?
> >>
> >> Or even this:
> >>
> >> "An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is
(roughly)
> >> "the
> >> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
> > means
> >> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
> > "the
> >> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging"." ?!?
> >>
> >> I mean, what the fuck do you mean if you're not saying exactly what I'm
> >> saying? Here, have another look:
> >>
> >> >> The more rigid it is, the heavier it is, the more accurate it is,
the
> >> >> more
> >> >> feedback it gives.
> >> >> The less rigid it is, the lighter it is, the less accurate it is,
the
> >> >> less
> >> >> feedback it gives.
> >>
> >> See what I mean? You "wonder why it really shouldn't be" the goddamn
> >> contrary to the bullshit the entire world is hooked on right now. I
> > stopped
> >> wondering, I know what the fuck's happening.
> >>
> >> Aw shit, I scared you back into neverneverland. Now you'll just go back
> >> to
> >> whatever they want you to believe because you hate my guts. Fine. Sorry
> >> to
> >> have troubled you. I promise I won't do it again unless you start it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Look, tin. I got pissed because I was hoping (even on RSG) for a
> > nice/civil conversation. I found your post to be step #1 towards it
> > heading
> > to the RSG crap-pile of accusations, etc.
> >
> > I probably agree with more than half of what you think on this topic.
> > Correlating quality and shaft stiffness isn't on of those items.
> >
> > dave
> >
> >
> >
>
> I understand. Sorry. I will be more civil next time.
>
>
Now tin. We don't apologize on RSG. We fight back with much fanfare,
accusations, and name-calling :-)
dave
|
|
