| |
Main
Date: 24 Nov 2006 03:30:31
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Matching "best" club not best?
|
X-No-Archice: yes
A GEA thread on MOI had a reply from a notable clubmaker who suggested
that matching a set to a so called favorite club is not a particularly
useful practice. His reason given was that he felt that the measureable
properties of the club as not necessarily why the club is a fav. Could
be the specific properties of the given club, say a 7I, that matches a
persons swing characteristics well for that club only. Different club,
different issues.
I have always been a trial and error sort of guy, measuring the degree
to which I actually hit better shots with a given club...with no
consideration for how it feels...just not a touchy feely kinda golfer I
guess! In any event, with so many people using launch monitors and other
high tech snake oil, I wonder if the day of the old match all the clubs
in your bag to your fav are over?
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 04:08:19
From: THE Sandman
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45666551.478C0C66@att.net...
> X-No-Archice: yes
>
> A GEA thread on MOI had a reply from a notable clubmaker who suggested
> that matching a set to a so called favorite club is not a particularly
> useful practice. His reason given was that he felt that the measureable
> properties of the club as not necessarily why the club is a fav. Could
> be the specific properties of the given club, say a 7I, that matches a
> persons swing characteristics well for that club only. Different club,
> different issues.
>
> I have always been a trial and error sort of guy, measuring the degree
> to which I actually hit better shots with a given club...with no
> consideration for how it feels...just not a touchy feely kinda golfer I
> guess! In any event, with so many people using launch monitors and other
> high tech snake oil, I wonder if the day of the old match all the clubs
> in your bag to your fav are over?
>
I don't think those days are over. While the measurable qualities that make
a club a "favorite" may not be the sole reason it is the favorite and that
club may be so due to a person's swing characteristics, I think it is
logical that any measurable qualities that enhance a person's swing
characteristics should be re-created to the extent possible throughout that
person's set of golf clubs.
Sandman
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 10:12:00
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
The_Professor wrote:
> SKIPPER wrote:
>
> > Every top golfer matches the clubs in his bag, first through trial
> > and error, then by altering shafts and/or adding lead tape.
> >
> > They all do it ALMOST exactly the same way. The resonant frequency
> > of the WHOLE CLUB in the golfer's hands. The frequency is highest
> > for the shortest clubs that have shorter swings, and lowest for the
> > driver, which has a longer swing.
>
> Sounds like something out of a clubmaking book.
>
> I recall how well that worked for Tiger Woods with the Nike
> driver...not to mention Vijay and the current Cleveland concoction.
> Trial and error works for me, and I don't care what the "resonant
> frequency" of the shaft is.
Physics is always right.
The fact that many do not understand it does not make it
any less right.
Shaft resonant frequency is much less useful than the
resonant frequeny of the entire club.
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 23:51:46
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164391919.839505.74570@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The_Professor wrote:
> > SKIPPER wrote:
> >
> > > Every top golfer matches the clubs in his bag, first through trial
> > > and error, then by altering shafts and/or adding lead tape.
> > >
> > > They all do it ALMOST exactly the same way. The resonant frequency
> > > of the WHOLE CLUB in the golfer's hands. The frequency is highest
> > > for the shortest clubs that have shorter swings, and lowest for the
> > > driver, which has a longer swing.
> >
> > Sounds like something out of a clubmaking book.
> >
> > I recall how well that worked for Tiger Woods with the Nike
> > driver...not to mention Vijay and the current Cleveland concoction.
> > Trial and error works for me, and I don't care what the "resonant
> > frequency" of the shaft is.
>
> Physics is always right.
>
> The fact that many do not understand it does not make it
> any less right.
>
> Shaft resonant frequency is much less useful than the
> resonant frequeny of the entire club.
>
> -PA
>
Physics may 'always be right', but calculating the entire system (ball,
clubhead, shaft, body, conscious and subconscious minds) is one helluva
physics problem.
I don't load the shaft that much in my swing, so I can easily go from a
'definitely on the soft side of Regular' to a geniune stiff shaft (say 25
cpm) with a very small to non-existent impact on ballstriking. I'll
definitely have a preference for the softer shaft, but I'll hit them pretty
much the same. Golfers who load the shaft more than I do may well see a
bigger difference.
dave
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 09:20:21
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
SKIPPER wrote:
> Every top golfer matches the clubs in his bag, first through trial
> and error, then by altering shafts and/or adding lead tape.
>
> They all do it ALMOST exactly the same way. The resonant frequency
> of the WHOLE CLUB in the golfer's hands. The frequency is highest
> for the shortest clubs that have shorter swings, and lowest for the
> driver, which has a longer swing.
Sounds like something out of a clubmaking book.
I recall how well that worked for Tiger Woods with the Nike
driver...not to mention Vijay and the current Cleveland concoction.
Trial and error works for me, and I don't care what the "resonant
frequency" of the shaft is. MY best driver is WAAAAAAY too stiff for
me, and my best wedges are "too soft". I don't care though, because
they work. I tend to overswing with the driver, and I tend to get
tentative with the wedges.
I just figure, however, given the curerent ubiquitous launch monitor,
and the fact that people can easily be conned into giving up over
$100.00 for a launch monitor analysis, it doesn't take much to say to
someone that the spin rate on their 4I is off some optimum, and they
nedd a longer/shorter/softer/firmer shaft with more/less offset in the
clubhead! ..and the underlying fact that even with the match to the
equally ubiquitous "favorite", the 7I (or thereabouts), the person
still can't hit the 4I very well, the days are over for that "easy way
out" appraoch to clubfitting.
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 06:43:28
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> X-No-Archice: yes
>
> A GEA thread on MOI had a reply from a notable clubmaker who suggested
> that matching a set to a so called favorite club is not a particularly
> useful practice. His reason given was that he felt that the measureable
> properties of the club as not necessarily why the club is a fav. Could
> be the specific properties of the given club, say a 7I, that matches a
> persons swing characteristics well for that club only. Different club,
> different issues.
>
> I have always been a trial and error sort of guy, measuring the degree
> to which I actually hit better shots with a given club...with no
> consideration for how it feels...just not a touchy feely kinda golfer I
> guess! In any event, with so many people using launch monitors and other
> high tech snake oil, I wonder if the day of the old match all the clubs
> in your bag to your fav are over?
Every top golfer matches the clubs in his bag, first through trial
and error, then by altering shafts and/or adding lead tape.
They all do it ALMOST exactly the same way. The resonant frequency
of the WHOLE CLUB in the golfer's hands. The frequency is highest
for the shortest clubs that have shorter swings, and lowest for the
driver, which has a longer swing.
The real problem in manufacturing is that to do this for every
golfer is tricky. Assume you want to match swingweight and
club frequency. This pretty much means you HAVE to have a
shaft with a very specifically selected stiffness to match the
clubhead weight. It is VERY tricky to produce shafts with
a low production tolerance in stiffness.
The most anal clubmakers will trim tips and/or use lead
weight to achieve a desirable result. Small swingweight
variability from club to club is an acceptable compromise
for having well-matched resonant frequencies OF THE WHOLE
CLUB IN THE GOLFER'S HANDS.
So how much matters? The resonant frequency matters more on
longer clubs. Even 10 CPM off and you will go notice it, 20 CPM
off and you will go nuts. That is a principal reason that avid
amateurs have a barrel full of drivers that didn't work. Shorter
clubs will have lesser errors, so the resonant frequency doesn't
impact shotmaking as much. Its useful to choose a driver a little
too high frequency (too stiff a shaft) and use lead tape to make
it resonate properly. As long as your initial swingweight is
pretty close, you will get a driver that works.
-PA
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 02:30:29
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
SKIPPER wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > SKIPPER wrote:
> >
> > > Every top golfer matches the clubs in his bag, first through trial
> > > and error, then by altering shafts and/or adding lead tape.
> > >
> > > They all do it ALMOST exactly the same way. The resonant frequency
> > > of the WHOLE CLUB in the golfer's hands. The frequency is highest
> > > for the shortest clubs that have shorter swings, and lowest for the
> > > driver, which has a longer swing.
> >
> > Sounds like something out of a clubmaking book.
> >
> > I recall how well that worked for Tiger Woods with the Nike
> > driver...not to mention Vijay and the current Cleveland concoction.
> > Trial and error works for me, and I don't care what the "resonant
> > frequency" of the shaft is.
>
> Physics is always right.
>
> The fact that many do not understand it does not make it
> any less right.
>
> Shaft resonant frequency is much less useful than the
> resonant frequeny of the entire club.
I understand very well, actually, and the effect is in absolute terms,
negligible compared to say the effect of friction on the clubhead.
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 17:54:35
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
Dave Lee wrote:
> Physics may 'always be right', but calculating the entire system (ball,
> clubhead, shaft, body, conscious and subconscious minds) is one helluva
> physics problem.
It is not, really. And you probably already know that. If you hit low
slices, you need a slightly flexier shaft. High hooks, and you need
more stiffness. Assuming the clubhead stays the same, and the
swingweight
doesn't change much.
> I don't load the shaft that much in my swing, so I can easily go from a
> 'definitely on the soft side of Regular' to a geniune stiff shaft (say 25
> cpm) with a very small to non-existent impact on ballstriking. I'll
> definitely have a preference for the softer shaft, but I'll hit them pretty
> much the same. Golfers who load the shaft more than I do may well see a
> bigger difference.
No matter how you might think you load or do not load the shaft, it is
still
a dynamic event. You still accelerate the clubhead from rest to max
velocity in roughly 1/5 second, and the forces required to do that
will
interact with the club resonant frequency and cause issues. If the
shaft is too soft, you will hit high hooks, if the shaft
is too stiff, low slices. Add clubhead weight to any club with lead
tape and it
will transform the shots on the continuum from low slices to high
hooks. Take
any of the longer clubs in your bag and put a softer shaft in it and
the same
thing will happen. Sitffen the shaft and that opposite will happen, And
it
will mostly impact the longer clubs in your bag.
All we are really talking about is ways to shift the phase of the golf
club at
impact so the club hits the ball square on an average swimg. Clubhead
weight,
shaft stiffness, and swing are the variables. It doesn't require a full
profile
to match you, just a few shots with longer and shorter clubs.
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 02:53:28
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164419675.030003.91680@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Lee wrote:
>
> > Physics may 'always be right', but calculating the entire system (ball,
> > clubhead, shaft, body, conscious and subconscious minds) is one helluva
> > physics problem.
>
> It is not, really. And you probably already know that. If you hit low
> slices, you need a slightly flexier shaft. High hooks, and you need
> more stiffness. Assuming the clubhead stays the same, and the
> swingweight
> doesn't change much.
It's not???????????????????
>
>
> > I don't load the shaft that much in my swing, so I can easily go from a
> > 'definitely on the soft side of Regular' to a geniune stiff shaft (say
25
> > cpm) with a very small to non-existent impact on ballstriking. I'll
> > definitely have a preference for the softer shaft, but I'll hit them
pretty
> > much the same. Golfers who load the shaft more than I do may well see a
> > bigger difference.
>
> No matter how you might think you load or do not load the shaft, it is
> still
> a dynamic event. You still accelerate the clubhead from rest to max
> velocity in roughly 1/5 second, and the forces required to do that
> will
> interact with the club resonant frequency and cause issues. If the
> shaft is too soft, you will hit high hooks, if the shaft
> is too stiff, low slices. Add clubhead weight to any club with lead
> tape and it
> will transform the shots on the continuum from low slices to high
> hooks. Take
> any of the longer clubs in your bag and put a softer shaft in it and
> the same
> thing will happen. Sitffen the shaft and that opposite will happen, And
> it
> will mostly impact the longer clubs in your bag.
>
> All we are really talking about is ways to shift the phase of the golf
> club at
> impact so the club hits the ball square on an average swimg. Clubhead
> weight,
> shaft stiffness, and swing are the variables. It doesn't require a full
> profile
> to match you, just a few shots with longer and shorter clubs.
>
> -PA
>
I just don't think that you can simplify things to that extent with the
biggest complicating factor being that the shaft response will be a function
of its resonant frequency and the forcing function (what you do to the
shaft). You can't leave out the latter (and you can't analyze it, either).
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 04:32:37
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:IeO9h.3601$1s6.1150@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>
> I just don't think that you can simplify things to that extent with the
> biggest complicating factor being that the shaft response will be a
> function
> of its resonant frequency and the forcing function (what you do to the
> shaft). You can't leave out the latter (and you can't analyze it, either).
>
Not at all. This is a strictly emperical affair, and it doesn't lend itself
to a cold scientific approach to begin with. What makes a golfer happy is
not even necessarily results (and it is making golfers happy that is the
business of clubfitters). Many golfers are not so thrilled when they hit a
very thin bullet approach shot that lucks into 10 feet from the cup. It
didn't feel or look right. On the other hand, an approach that misses the
green, but was hit right on the money with that didn't-even-feel-the-ball
effect makes them smile. How do you analyze that?
Not to attack the OP's knowledge on the subject, but how many hackers such
as myself have had problems with high hooks and low fades? Is it just me,
or is that ass-backwards? Is it just me, or have other hackers hit both
high-fades and low hooks with the same club on the same shaft with the same
resonance characteristics?
Scott
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 04:04:31
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
Dave Lee wrote:
> I just don't think that you can simplify things to that extent with the
> biggest complicating factor being that the shaft response will be a function
> of its resonant frequency and the forcing function (what you do to the
> shaft). You can't leave out the latter (and you can't analyze it, either).
from a physics POV, the shaft resonant frequency is largely
irrelevant. It is a spring for all intensive purposes. If you wanted
to know the reaonance of a spring-mass combination (a simple
physics problem), you weigh the mass and measure the spring
contant of the spring. Or, you simply push the mass and
measure the resonance empirircally.
But you do not just push the spring and measure its resonance, it
may oscillate through interaction with its own mass, but the
knowledge of that frequency is not particularly useful.
I wasn't suggesting the user input was irrelevant. Just that the
golf shaft goes through one period of oscillation, exactly, in
a golf swing, from the top to impact. The phase of the oscillation
can be leading or lagging at impact.
If it is high hooks, you remove weight from the clubhead or
add stiffness to the shaft.
If it is low slices, you add weight to the clubhead or remove
shaft stiffness.
In either case moving the swingweight up to 2 notches is
no real problem if the club frequency ends up appropriate.
A good tradeoff.
And these issues are far less of a problem for shorter
clubs where the total clubhead movement via shaft
flex is much less.
If you can't hit the ball consistently enough to notice, I can
recommend TMFOG and the driving range.
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 16:10:48
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164456271.428786.150060@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Lee wrote:
>
> > I just don't think that you can simplify things to that extent with the
> > biggest complicating factor being that the shaft response will be a
function
> > of its resonant frequency and the forcing function (what you do to the
> > shaft). You can't leave out the latter (and you can't analyze it,
either).
>
> from a physics POV, the shaft resonant frequency is largely
> irrelevant. It is a spring for all intensive purposes. If you wanted
> to know the reaonance of a spring-mass combination (a simple
> physics problem), you weigh the mass and measure the spring
> contant of the spring. Or, you simply push the mass and
> measure the resonance empirircally.
>
> But you do not just push the spring and measure its resonance, it
> may oscillate through interaction with its own mass, but the
> knowledge of that frequency is not particularly useful.
>
> I wasn't suggesting the user input was irrelevant. Just that the
> golf shaft goes through one period of oscillation, exactly, in
> a golf swing, from the top to impact. The phase of the oscillation
> can be leading or lagging at impact.
>
> If it is high hooks, you remove weight from the clubhead or
> add stiffness to the shaft.
>
> If it is low slices, you add weight to the clubhead or remove
> shaft stiffness.
>
> In either case moving the swingweight up to 2 notches is
> no real problem if the club frequency ends up appropriate.
> A good tradeoff.
>
> And these issues are far less of a problem for shorter
> clubs where the total clubhead movement via shaft
> flex is much less.
>
> If you can't hit the ball consistently enough to notice, I can
> recommend TMFOG and the driving range.
>
> -PA
>
If it really is this simple you would think that a well-matched set of clubs
would have a constant frequency. I know that in my case the timing of my
full swing is basically the same for a full SW vs. a long iron or hybrid.
Of course this is not done. Either "they" are missing something or it isn't
that simple.
dave
ps. Somewhere I read about 'constant frequency irons'. Maybe there is
somebody out there who does this.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 17:46:17
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
Dave Lee wrote:
snippppp
If it really is this simple you would think that a well-matched set of clubs
> would have a constant frequency. I know that in my case the timing of my
> full swing is basically the same for a full SW vs. a long iron or hybrid.
>
> Of course this is not done. Either "they" are missing something or it isn't
> that simple.
>
> dave
>
> ps. Somewhere I read about 'constant frequency irons'. Maybe there is
> somebody out there who does this.
There have been several attempts at freq. matching over the years. Brunswick
made a big investment in it at one time. You see a lot of pseudo-scientific
gobbledegook in golf. I don't know what it is about golfers that so many of them
go for this, but the issue is simply. In science we explain phenomena that
actually exist, the theory (the scientific name for an explanation) explains a
phenomenon that actually exists. With stuff like "resonant frequency" we have a
theory that explains a hypothetical phenomenon. You have to "beleive" the
phenoenon exists to accept the theory. SOme science skirts this a bit, like
maybe black holes don't really exist, but there are a lot of facts that the
theory predicting black holes unites into one explanation. "Resonant frequency"
explains no facts at all.
That's why I think this sort of thing is done. With launch monitors, we can show
you for a fact that you are not getting an optimal trajectory or spin rate with
your "resnonant freq." matched *CLUBS*, although we've know this all along. What
works in feel for a 7I isn't necessarily going to work for feel with a 4I.
I design my clubs to compensate for what I do when I swing badly, not to
optimize what I do when I hit the ball well. One can criticize this till the
cows come home, but I beleive in it, and will stick to it...and recommend it. Of
course you have to know why you hit the ball noit so great. Even top golfers
claim they slightly mishit the ball almost every time...so who am I to design
clubs for those few times, like 1/100...1/1000...1/10,000...if ever *REALLY* I
hit the ball right?
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 15:30:35
From: Don A Roof
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
I have to admit upfront that it is easy for me to decry "technology" as
snake oil in many cases - and especially when it comes to clubfitting.
I don't think that I can be convinced that the best way - if not the
only way - to determine which clubs suit you best, is to HIT them.
I think it was Trevino who said in response to someone changing clubs or
seeking to change clubs to a newer model: "Why buy it if you don't hit
it any better than your old club?" He said this (if the quote is
accurately attributed to him) before he started "selling" clubs himself.
Whether Trevino said it or not, it makes sense. He also was supposed to
have said to someone who was extolling the advantages of graphite in
irons and ended by telling him that it felt and acted "just like
steel.."Why would I want to change then?"
My point is really that all of the testing in the world can't substitute
for what actually happens when YOU hit the club. Another story made the
rounds a few years ago about Ray Floyd trying a couple of dozen drivers
that had been made to the "exact" specifications of the one that he had
broken - none of them suited him.
Not only do I believe that to be true, but I have experienced the same
type of situation myself on many occasions with all kinds of clubs from
drivers to irons; from fairway woods to putter. Every club IMO is
different to some degree and that difference will pop up and bite you.
While I can appreciate frequency matching and determining launch angle
etc, I still see no substitute for actually hitting a club and seeing
what it will do.
I will concede that there seems to greater consistency in iron sets
today than in the past. I refer to the so-called gap between each iron
as to distance. I don't claim complete consistency, but it is far
better than what you found in irons years ago. Even given that - buying
top of the line irons is still no guarantee of accurate gapping between
clubs - which kind of brings me back to the premise proposed that it
might not be all that beneficial to "match" a set to a favorite club.
I agree that it might not be beneficial at all due to the differences
that occur even between "exact" matches of the same club.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 16:26:25
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
"Don A Roof" <donaroof@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:3561-4568A7EB-520@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
>I have to admit upfront that it is easy for me to decry "technology" as
> snake oil in many cases - and especially when it comes to clubfitting.
> I don't think that I can be convinced that the best way - if not the
> only way - to determine which clubs suit you best, is to HIT them.
>
> I think it was Trevino who said in response to someone changing clubs or
> seeking to change clubs to a newer model: "Why buy it if you don't hit
> it any better than your old club?" He said this (if the quote is
> accurately attributed to him) before he started "selling" clubs himself.
>
> Whether Trevino said it or not, it makes sense. He also was supposed to
> have said to someone who was extolling the advantages of graphite in
> irons and ended by telling him that it felt and acted "just like
> steel.."Why would I want to change then?"
>
> My point is really that all of the testing in the world can't substitute
> for what actually happens when YOU hit the club. Another story made the
> rounds a few years ago about Ray Floyd trying a couple of dozen drivers
> that had been made to the "exact" specifications of the one that he had
> broken - none of them suited him.
>
> Not only do I believe that to be true, but I have experienced the same
> type of situation myself on many occasions with all kinds of clubs from
> drivers to irons; from fairway woods to putter. Every club IMO is
> different to some degree and that difference will pop up and bite you.
>
> While I can appreciate frequency matching and determining launch angle
> etc, I still see no substitute for actually hitting a club and seeing
> what it will do.
>
> I will concede that there seems to greater consistency in iron sets
> today than in the past. I refer to the so-called gap between each iron
> as to distance. I don't claim complete consistency, but it is far
> better than what you found in irons years ago. Even given that - buying
> top of the line irons is still no guarantee of accurate gapping between
> clubs - which kind of brings me back to the premise proposed that it
> might not be all that beneficial to "match" a set to a favorite club.
>
> I agree that it might not be beneficial at all due to the differences
> that occur even between "exact" matches of the same club.
>
One of the things I insist on in my own clubs is that the lie angles be
progressive and that the loft angles be progressive, tweaked in an amount to
produce "equidistant difference" between successive clubs, by trial and
error and common sense adjustment. Mine are 3/8" difference in length each,
and for the most part 3 or 4 degrees different in lofts. If I were so
accurate with, and had the chance TRULY TO TAKE THE TIME TO TEST their
distances with someone out there to mark impact points and track yardages,
that would be great. But my playing experiences are far less demanding
other than my own confidence that the clubs DO produce relatively reliable
distances and gaps between.
My fitter did make the shafts progressively stiffer and truth be told I do
not experience any difference in feel.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:12:40
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
Don A Roof wrote:
> I have to admit upfront that it is easy for me to decry "technology" as
> snake oil in many cases - and especially when it comes to clubfitting.
> I don't think that I can be convinced that the best way - if not the
> only way - to determine which clubs suit you best, is to HIT them.
>
> I think it was Trevino who said in response to someone changing clubs or
> seeking to change clubs to a newer model: "Why buy it if you don't hit
> it any better than your old club?" He said this (if the quote is
> accurately attributed to him) before he started "selling" clubs himself.
>
> Whether Trevino said it or not, it makes sense. He also was supposed to
> have said to someone who was extolling the advantages of graphite in
> irons and ended by telling him that it felt and acted "just like
> steel.."Why would I want to change then?"
>
> My point is really that all of the testing in the world can't substitute
> for what actually happens when YOU hit the club. Another story made the
> rounds a few years ago about Ray Floyd trying a couple of dozen drivers
> that had been made to the "exact" specifications of the one that he had
> broken - none of them suited him.
>
> Not only do I believe that to be true, but I have experienced the same
> type of situation myself on many occasions with all kinds of clubs from
> drivers to irons; from fairway woods to putter. Every club IMO is
> different to some degree and that difference will pop up and bite you.
>
> While I can appreciate frequency matching and determining launch angle
> etc, I still see no substitute for actually hitting a club and seeing
> what it will do.
>
> I will concede that there seems to greater consistency in iron sets
> today than in the past. I refer to the so-called gap between each iron
> as to distance. I don't claim complete consistency, but it is far
> better than what you found in irons years ago. Even given that - buying
> top of the line irons is still no guarantee of accurate gapping between
> clubs - which kind of brings me back to the premise proposed that it
> might not be all that beneficial to "match" a set to a favorite club.
>
> I agree that it might not be beneficial at all due to the differences
> that occur even between "exact" matches of the same club.
To me, clubmaking is all about having the proper gradation in clubhead
weights, the proper gradations in clubshaft lengths, a reasonable gradation
in lofts and the proper gradation in lie angles. The room for variation in
lofts comes from the fact you can have stronger or weaker lofted irons. The
proper gradations have been worked out over the years, and the real skill in
clubmaking involves having the right progression for each factor. The rest
is snake oil. The minor variations in shaft properties are meaningless. A
person who "should" have say X flex shafts accoring to some snake oil recipe
can nonetheless play quite well with R flex shafts. The person is at risk of
being the victim of a snake oil clubmaker...but the proof is in the lack of
a guarantee of the effect of making proposed changes to your game. Will the
snale oil clubmaker compensate you if the change ruins your game...or just
...maybe...give you your money back on the quack clubs? So if the snake oil
clubmaker causes a 2.3 index golfer to go to a 10, and never get back to 2.3
again, what's that worth to the golfer...and will the snake oil vendor take
responsibility for that? The answer is, of course, no...so why risk it?
I realize most victims of snake oil vendors of various sorts are 5-25
handicappers, but even still!
|
| |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 04:20:27
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
Dave Lee wrote:
> If it really is this simple you would think that a well-matched set of clubs
> would have a constant frequency. I know that in my case the timing of my
> full swing is basically the same for a full SW vs. a long iron or hybrid.
>
> Of course this is not done. Either "they" are missing something or it isn't
> that simple.
>
> dave
>
> ps. Somewhere I read about 'constant frequency irons'. Maybe there is
> somebody out there who does this.
Simple it is.
Easy to achieve it is not.
The problem is one of consistency in shaft
stiffness. To solve the problem properly you need
shaft stiffnesses that vary by a small amount. This
is much easier with steel than graphite due to manufacturing
issues. You also need to be able to control the shaft
stiffnesses in small increments.
But I still maintain that ballpark is close enough from
the 7 iron through the wedge, and it only becomes
a tough problem when you start hitting longer irons,
woods, or hybrids. That's where you'll find most of
the lead tape in avid golfer's clubs.
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 13:40:59
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Matching "best" club not best?
|
"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164543627.487286.276380@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Lee wrote:
>
> > If it really is this simple you would think that a well-matched set of
clubs
> > would have a constant frequency. I know that in my case the timing of my
> > full swing is basically the same for a full SW vs. a long iron or
hybrid.
> >
> > Of course this is not done. Either "they" are missing something or it
isn't
> > that simple.
> >
> > dave
> >
> > ps. Somewhere I read about 'constant frequency irons'. Maybe there is
> > somebody out there who does this.
>
> Simple it is.
>
> Easy to achieve it is not.
>
> The problem is one of consistency in shaft
> stiffness. To solve the problem properly you need
> shaft stiffnesses that vary by a small amount. This
> is much easier with steel than graphite due to manufacturing
> issues. You also need to be able to control the shaft
> stiffnesses in small increments.
>
> But I still maintain that ballpark is close enough from
> the 7 iron through the wedge, and it only becomes
> a tough problem when you start hitting longer irons,
> woods, or hybrids. That's where you'll find most of
> the lead tape in avid golfer's clubs.
>
> -PA
>
If micro-tweaking stiffness is what you want, it is very, very simple. Just
tip-trim (graphite or steel) in small increments until you get what you
want.
dave
|
|
