On Clublength and its Relationship to Distance (long)
Mike Dalecki
thread.
The discussion revolved around the idea that Tiger could get perhaps
20mph more with more modern equipment. Length seemed to be the crucial
variable people were considering, though one might also consider if
shaft composition might get the club to unload at a more optimal time
which would increase swingspeed (doubtful, to me).
Anyway, I didn't have access to my materials when I posted before; now I
do.
I'm referring to Maltby's "Complete Golf Club Fitting Plan." In it, he
discusses how length can affect different elements of the swing and
resulting shot. Some of his conclusions:
1. (Very surprising for most people, BTW): "Generally speaking, almost
any length golf club can be fit to any height golfer as longa s the lie
angle is correct for that particular club length and golfer's hand
height at impact."
The issue of lie angle, then, is really more an issue of making the club
set up correctly at that length. A golfer w/ a too-flat lie angle can
resolve that issue by simply lengthening the club until such time as the
*effective* lie angle is proper for their setup and length.
[I'm going to come back to this in a minute, for those who see this and
are ready to respond; I am going to get to the comment you're going to
make.]
2. In an analysis of different length drivers hit by machine, ranging
from 42" to 46", with constant shaft mass (120g) and head mass (200g),
the difference in clubhead speed increased from 98.88 to 100.34. Ball
carry improved from 210.75 to 212.14.
No big deal, in other words, and there will be a tremendous loss of
consistency in clubface impact with the longer driver compared to the
shorter driver.
However, what is not being controlled is the effective swingweight of
the driver. With an average of 2 SW points for every 1/2" increase in
length, the 46" driver will be 16 SW points higher (!), and thus it's
not clear if it's even possible to maintain the swingspeed necessary to
realize the increase in driver clubhead speed that the longer shaft
would imply.
That's why we generally need light graphite shafts in long drivers, to
offset the higher swingweights that result if one uses the same
components.
A little back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that a 100-mph swing
w/ a 42" driver would produce a 109mph swing w/ a 46" driver. (Any
engineering types want to check that for me? I just figured out how
much further a longer driver would travel as the circumference of a
circle compared to a 42" driver).
But what happens is not just an increase in swingspeed; you also get a
decrease in consistency. The more you miss the sweetspot, the less
distance you get, regardless of swingspeed. Golfworks also had actual
golfers test drivers from 42 1/2" to 46" long; these drivers were
identical except for length, which means to me they adjusted the SW
issue. What they found is that the average increase in drive from the
42.5" to the 46" driver was 7 yards.
Further, the 46" drivers tended to hit the ball 6.75 yards more offline
than the 42.5" drivers.
What this implies to me is that if Tiger applied the same angular force
to a long 46" driver as his shorter 43 1/2" driver, he'd increase his
swingspeed by less than 9 percent (quite a bit less, too). No increase
of 20mph, as near as I can tell.
Getting back to statement #1 above, while it's true that you can adjust
almost any length club to work if you adjust the lie angle, using clubs
that are too long to control--even though the lie angle might be
right--will also reduce consistency. Any length advantage from the
longer clublength will likely be offset by lack of consistency. And so
lengthening a club w/ a too-flat lie angle will correct the lie angle
issues, but it might introduce other consistency issues at the same
time.
Further, not everyone sets up the same. Online fitting programs don't
take this into account at all. Do you crouch? How much? Bend your
knees more than average? Do you even know? Do you have a very upright
stance? No way online fitting programs can quantify this, and thus
whatever "conclusions" they give you will merely be reasonable places to
start, not the final answer.
I built clubs for a guy a while back who has a very strange setup: He
tends to lift his forearms at address, which caused the club to point
down a bit more. An effectively flat lie angle results, and in fact,
his ballflight was one that leaked right almost all the time. Through
dynamic fitting, we determined he needed 3* upright, which offsets his
peculiar setup. And that's what he needs. No way an online fitting
program picks that up.
There's been, I think, a gradual move away from really long shafted
drivers. People are recognizing the inherent difficulty of hitting the
sweetspot with overlength drivers; further, they go further offline when
not hit well, and as a result, don't offer much advantage for the player
whose swing is not picture-perfect.
In the final analysis, the issue of clublength is finding the longest
clubs one can still consistently hit the sweetspot with. Once the club
is too long for consistency, the golfer should back down in length, and
then work to get the lie angle to be correct at that clublength.
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker
http://www.dalecki.net/clubdoctor
RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim
I do not patronize spammers. Help keep RSG clean!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"R&B"
simple. What length of driver can you handle? For those of us who are
"vertically challenged," going to, say, a 52-inch driver would result in a
golf swing that might more closely approximate a baseball swing -- much too
horizontal. And while that might not be as much of a problem with a driver
(since the ball is teed up), longer irons can be REALLY problematical,
because it flattens out the bottom of the arc, making it quite difficult to
pick the ball cleanly off the turf, and darn near next to impossible to get
a club on the ball when it's sitting down in the rough.
There's no question that the most upright swing plane a player can
reasonably achieve is best, but that is rendered impossible with extra long
clubs.
It is fair to point out that most of the long drive champions use extra long
drivers, so there must be something to the notion that it enhances length
off the tee. But as you point out, the extra swing weight gained by
lengthening clubs does negate somewhat the advanage. However, most of those
long drive guys are behemoths, so a few extra swing weights doesn't much
matter to them, and in fact, probably makes the club more playable. Such is
not the case for many of us "mere mortals."
The point that gets lost in all this is that while extra distance may (or
may not) be achieved by longer-shafted clubs, it is silly to discuss it in
the context of a Tiger Woods. If his 320-yard drives with old-skool
technology clubs aren't long enough, then he should consider another line of
work. And if he needs to eek out an extra 15 yards with his 8-iron (as if
185 yards isn't enough), then maybe he should think about a job at a Nike
Outlet store. Or maybe he should just hit a 7-iron instead.
It may be a real ego trip for some to hit the ball miles and miles. But
what the world's best players know better than anyone is, it's not how far
you hit it -- it's HOW MANY *TIMES* you hit it. That's why Tiger opts for
steel-shafted woods. For someone who has enough length off the tee, it's
not about extra yardage, it's about CONTROL. Phil Mickelson may have
outdriven Tiger on Sunday by a few yards (and he does seem to dig the fact
that he can), but too many of his approach shots were from fairway bunkers
and rough, while Tiger was sitting in the fairway. Is the game about
chest-thumping and bragging rights for who hit the longest shot? Or is the
game about who gets the trophy?
The answer is pretty obvious to me.
Randy
"Mike Dalecki" <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
news:3E5408A2...@dalecki.net...
Kenny Stultz
>
>I'm starting a new thread with this because it was buried in the Kostas
>thread.
>
>
>There's been, I think, a gradual move away from really long shafted
>drivers. People are recognizing the inherent difficulty of hitting the
>sweetspot with overlength drivers; further, they go further offline when
>not hit well, and as a result, don't offer much advantage for the player
>whose swing is not picture-perfect.
>
>In the final analysis, the issue of clublength is finding the longest
>clubs one can still consistently hit the sweetspot with. Once the club
>is too long for consistency, the golfer should back down in length, and
>then work to get the lie angle to be correct at that clublength.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
Good post, Mike. I think your final paragraph sums things up nicely. I recall
reading an article somewhere about a study of drivers of different lengths, and
the author came to the conclusion that 44 inches was about optimum as far as
trading off distance for accuracy. Longer drivers would give longer drives but
not as many stayed in the fairway. Sure, that number is going to be different
for different people, but that's the kind of thing the average guy should be
looking for.
Kenny
PS. Since you asked, when you were doing you swingspeed calculation, you didn't
allow for the distance between the butt end of the club and the center of
rotation (on the golfer's spine). The 109 is a real upper limit. I'd guess
more like 106 mph figuring a couple of feet between club and the spine.
--
Kenny Stultz - Troll and SPAM intolerant
RSG Rollcall: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=stultzk
"Golf is the only sport where a precise knowledge of the Rules can
earn one a reputation for poor sportsmanship"
jeffc
> clubs one can still consistently hit the sweetspot with. Once the club
> is too long for consistency, the golfer should back down in length, and
> then work to get the lie angle to be correct at that clublength.
Actually, I think club length is probably the most confusing and least
understood aspect of club fitting, even by the "pros". They tend to make up
for a lot with longer clubs. It still amazes the length of club some club
fitters recommend.
But to get back to your comment, which club do you do that with? (finding
the longest clubs one can hit consistently) If you do it with a driver, I
don't really see how that helps you in fitting the person for a 7 iron, for
example. I see how you could extrapolate, but it doesn't seem like a very
reliable method at that point.
jeffc
""R&B"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM> wrote in message
news:b313mr$8n0$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> There's no question that the most upright swing plane a player can
> reasonably achieve is best, but that is rendered impossible with extra
long
> clubs.
Why? (on both counts)
jeffc
"Gaines N." <gai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e54522c$1_6@server....
>
> A few years ago, Maltby was selling their "Hero" driver as a distance and
> accuracy improvement club. It was 1/2" shorter than "standard" and was
> slightly heavier (IIRC). They must not have sold many because it was only
> in a couple of catalogs.
I didn't even realize he was trying to sell it. I thought he was just
mentioning the specs for fitting purposes.
Mike Dalecki
Why would you only choose one club? I'd do it w/ driver, fairway woods,
irons.
It doesn't mean that you make all your clubs 43" long if that's the
longest driver you can use effectively.
Start w/ a standard 37.5" five iron. Too wild with it? Try a 37" five
iron. You hit the 37.5" fine? Consider going up to a 38" five iron,
see what happens. Find the point where you lose something, then scale
back.
But if you hit the 37.5" five iron just fine, you don't necessarily have
to move up to longer clubs. You'll gain a bit of distance if you do,
but that only really matters in the very longest iron you have--at any
lesser distance, you can always just club down to a longer club.
Fitting someone for length in a driver doesn't mecessarily tell me
anything about what that someone needs in a 7-iron. I'd rather not just
assume, I'd rather get some evidence of what works for them.
That evidence can come from a variety of sources. If they have a
specific club that works very well for them (a 6-iron, say), then that
is the basis for new clubs, length, flex, lie-angle, and so on. If
there isn't such a thing, then some dynamic fitting is in order.
I think too many people want to get "fit" quick. Sometimes it takes a
little more time than that to get it right. And if they really want to
get it right, they won't mind the time.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://www.dalecki.net/clubdoctor
RSG-Wisconsin 2003: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
Brent Hutto
wrote:
>Start w/ a standard 37.5" five iron. Too wild with it? Try a 37" five
>iron. You hit the 37.5" fine? Consider going up to a 38" five iron,
>see what happens. Find the point where you lose something, then scale
>back.
>
>But if you hit the 37.5" five iron just fine, you don't necessarily have
>to move up to longer clubs. You'll gain a bit of distance if you do,
>but that only really matters in the very longest iron you have--at any
>lesser distance, you can always just club down to a longer club.
I think your second paragraph is more useful than the first. I look at
it from a somewhat different perspective. First define the end points
for your set of irons. Let's call an "set of irons" as the clubs I use
that have a clubhead like an iron and which all share the same basic
sole shape. By contrast "wedges" have a similar clubhead but the sole
characteristics vary by purpose and "woods" have something deeper and
hollower than an iron clubhead and that would include Rescue-type
clubs, as well.
At the long end, what's the longest distance and lowest trajectory
that the player wants to try and hit a club with an iron-type
clubhead? For me, that would be 180 yards or so. I know my own ability
enough to say that any attempt to hit the ball farther than that will
be much more successful with a "wood". At the short end, what's the
shortest and highest-lofted club that the player would want to use
without going to a much different sole shape (i.e. "wedge")? For me,
that's about 100 yards. For shots less than that I want either a
partial swing with an "iron" or I want some other sole shape.
So we have a range. 100 yard to 180 yards with a full swing. For a PGA
Tour player that range might be 125 yards to 225 yards. Now the next
question is how many of my 14 clubs do I want to divvy up to cover
that range. In my case, I'd be happy with 12-15 yard gaps so seven
clubs ought to do it. Right now, I use 7 "iron" clubs that cover the
range from about 95 yards to a little over 160 yards with a full swing
but I'm hoping my swing speed improves a bit over the next few months
and gets me to 170+ on the upper end. Mine happen to have "P", "9",
"8", "7", "6", "5" and "4" on them but that doesn't really matter.
That leaves me a putter plus three wedges and three woods or whatever
other allocation I want to make from my 14 clubs. Now we can proceed
to fitting those "irons" for performance. If I want a club I can hit
100 yards as my shortest "iron", there's some tradeoffs I can make
between length, loft and weight (with clubhead design a second-order
factor). I happen to know that a small-headed cavity-back iron that's
about 36" long, with 45 degrees of loft and heavy steel shafts will
hit the ball for about 100 yards of carry distance. I could probably
do the same with a 34" club and 41 degrees of loft and lighter weight
or a 38" club with 52 degrees of loft or lots of other combinations
but I'm happy with my DCI 990 9-iron that goes a little over 100
yards.
Finally, the longest "iron". I know that 160-165 yards is what I can
expect from a 38.25" DCI 990 4-iron with 25 degrees of loft and heavy
steel shafts. If I were to be able to hit an "iron" 180 yards it would
probably need a much lighter weight and at least an inch more length
and even then it might need 23 or 24 degrees of loft. More like an
overlength, graphite-shafted 3-iron, I suppose. And I'd probably need
more weight in the sole to get it in the air. But it would be possible
to fit something that meets that need (at least for my best swings).
The last step is to fill in between the shortest and longest "irons"
with length and loft progressions that are evenly spaced to give
consistent gaps between full-swing distances. How's that for a
scientific approach to iron fitting? It'd be a lot of work but in the
end the player would get what he asked for, assuming he asks for
something his swing can back up.
Brent Hutto
Brent Hutto
wrote:
>That leaves me a putter plus three wedges and three woods or whatever
>other allocation I want to make from my 14 clubs. Now we can proceed
>to fitting those "irons" for performance. If I want a club I can hit
>100 yards as my shortest "iron", there's some tradeoffs I can make
>between length, loft and weight (with clubhead design a second-order
>factor). I happen to know that a small-headed cavity-back iron that's
>about 36" long, with 45 degrees of loft and heavy steel shafts will
>hit the ball for about 100 yards of carry distance. I could probably
>do the same with a 34" club and 41 degrees of loft and lighter weight
>or a 38" club with 52 degrees of loft or lots of other combinations
>but I'm happy with my DCI 990 9-iron that goes a little over 100
>yards.
>
>Finally, the longest "iron". I know that 160-165 yards is what I can
>expect from a 38.25" DCI 990 4-iron with 25 degrees of loft and heavy
>steel shafts. If I were to be able to hit an "iron" 180 yards it would
>probably need a much lighter weight and at least an inch more length
>and even then it might need 23 or 24 degrees of loft. More like an
>overlength, graphite-shafted 3-iron, I suppose. And I'd probably need
>more weight in the sole to get it in the air. But it would be possible
>to fit something that meets that need (at least for my best swings).
Let me add that at each step in this process, there will be more than
one set of length/loft/weight/clubhead that will give the desired
difference. For instance, one player might have a preference for
longer, stronger-lofted clubs to keep the ball lower and another might
want more loft and less length for a high-straight, troublefree, easy
ball flight.
Brent Hutto
Mike Dalecki
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:52:04 -0600, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Start w/ a standard 37.5" five iron. Too wild with it? Try a 37" five
> >iron. You hit the 37.5" fine? Consider going up to a 38" five iron,
> >see what happens. Find the point where you lose something, then scale
> >back.
> >
> >But if you hit the 37.5" five iron just fine, you don't necessarily have
> >to move up to longer clubs. You'll gain a bit of distance if you do,
> >but that only really matters in the very longest iron you have--at any
> >lesser distance, you can always just club down to a longer club.
>
> I think your second paragraph is more useful than the first.
They're both useful. Depends on what the golfer's goals are. If you're
starting from scratch, the first paragraph is more useful. If you're
already hitting a set that's fine, it's fine.
It isn't rocket science, and there's no reason to make it more
complicated than it has to be.
Mike
<Snip the rest>
Mike Dalecki
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:21:53 -0500, Brent Hutto <ott...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >That leaves me a putter plus three wedges and three woods or whatever
> >other allocation I want to make from my 14 clubs. Now we can proceed
> >to fitting those "irons" for performance. If I want a club I can hit
> >100 yards as my shortest "iron", there's some tradeoffs I can make
> >between length, loft and weight (with clubhead design a second-order
> >factor). I happen to know that a small-headed cavity-back iron that's
> >about 36" long, with 45 degrees of loft and heavy steel shafts will
> >hit the ball for about 100 yards of carry distance. I could probably
> >do the same with a 34" club and 41 degrees of loft and lighter weight
> >or a 38" club with 52 degrees of loft or lots of other combinations
> >but I'm happy with my DCI 990 9-iron that goes a little over 100
> >yards.
> >
> >Finally, the longest "iron". I know that 160-165 yards is what I can
> >expect from a 38.25" DCI 990 4-iron with 25 degrees of loft and heavy
> >steel shafts. If I were to be able to hit an "iron" 180 yards it would
> >probably need a much lighter weight and at least an inch more length
> >and even then it might need 23 or 24 degrees of loft. More like an
> >overlength, graphite-shafted 3-iron, I suppose. And I'd probably need
> >more weight in the sole to get it in the air. But it would be possible
> >to fit something that meets that need (at least for my best swings).
I've never heard of anyone fitting a set based on the distance they want
to get from a particular club.
How many times have you done it this way, Brent? And how has it worked
for you?
Brent Hutto
wrote:
>I've never heard of anyone fitting a set based on the distance they want
>to get from a particular club.
I don't think it's common, that's just the way I think about it.
It does assume the player has some reasonable idea of what he's trying
to accomplish and whether his swing will get it done. It also needs to
be a flexible idea since the clubfitting process might show something
that is possible that wasn't in the plan. For my own game, it could
well be that an "iron" could be built that lets me hit the ball with
an iron-like trajectory 190 or 200 yards. I doubt it very much but it
might happen one day.
>How many times have you done it this way, Brent? And how has it worked
>for you?
I don't build clubs (well, not often anyway). It's just the way I
think about it when I deciding what clubs I need. I've always started
the conventional way with a set of 3-PW irons and then dropped or
added clubs from there. But I thought I lot about this a year or so
ago when I was this "----" close to building myself a whole set of
clubs from scratch. I ultimately decided to spend that effort
upgrading my golf game rather than my equipment so I never got a
chance to go through the process.
However, this process is how I went about choosing the woods to add to
my iron set. To start with, I had three Orlimar fairways woods that
gave me basically 170, 180 and 190 yards and no driver. So I asked a
clubmaking friend to supply me with a 160-yard club to fit between the
22-degree Orlimar and my 150-yard 5-iron and we came up with a
Golfsmith 9-wood with an EI-70 shaft. It was easier to hit than the
Orlimars and gave me about 165 yards. So I decided I needed a 180-yard
metalwood. We got that from a matching 5-wood (XPC3) and EI-70 combo.
Finally, we came up with a driver (966SD/EI-70) that matched the other
two woods and that I could hit a little over 200 yards. Now all the
Orlimars are long out of the bag.
I've since replaced the driver that matches my fairway woods with a
lighter, heel-backweighted Adams driver that I hit a little farther
and I'm searching for a 3-wood that I can hit 200 yards from the
fairway. I've also just about dropped the 9-wood since my swing has
improved enough to hit my 4-iron almost the same distance. My ideal is
to have the irons from 100 yards to 180 yards, overlap with a 180-yard
metalwood plus a longer fairway wood and a driver. In any case my
theory is that the number on the club doesn't matter, I tend to think
of "my 180-yard wood" or "my 140-yard iron" when I'm choosing clubs so
that's would be the essence of any clubfitting I do for myself.
Wedges are a different matter. I have 53-degree and 56-degree
Cleveland's that probably are only 10-12 yards apart in full-swing
distance and for that matter aren't a whole terrible lot shorter than
the "P" from my iron set. But they have different soles (and probably
different souls) and I try to use that variety to my advantage on the
course. I also have a 60-degree but that's a special-purpose club.
Brent Hutto
Sparky
On 19-Feb-2003, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote:
> In the final analysis, the issue of clublength is finding the longest
> clubs one can still consistently hit the sweetspot with. Once the club
> is too long for consistency, the golfer should back down in length, and
> then work to get the lie angle to be correct at that clublength.
What about if one were thinking of entering a long-drive contest? What
would your advice be on a club built for the sole purpose of eeking out
every last possible yard?
me
Mike Dalecki
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:49:35 -0600, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I've never heard of anyone fitting a set based on the distance they want
> >to get from a particular club.
>
> I don't think it's common, that's just the way I think about it.
>
> It does assume the player has some reasonable idea of what he's trying
> to accomplish and whether his swing will get it done.
But why would anyone try to do it this way? The only club for which
this matters is the longest iron; every other distance is managed by the
natural progression between irons.
> It also needs to
> be a flexible idea since the clubfitting process might show something
> that is possible that wasn't in the plan.
What?
> For my own game, it could
> well be that an "iron" could be built that lets me hit the ball with
> an iron-like trajectory 190 or 200 yards. I doubt it very much but it
> might happen one day.
Or maybe it can't be. Why would this be the focus?
> >How many times have you done it this way, Brent? And how has it worked
> >for you?
>
> I don't build clubs (well, not often anyway). It's just the way I
> think about it when I deciding what clubs I need.
So in effect, then, it's simply a theory not grounded in any actual
empirical result.
> I've always started
> the conventional way with a set of 3-PW irons and then dropped or
> added clubs from there. But I thought I lot about this a year or so
> ago when I was this "----" close to building myself a whole set of
> clubs from scratch. I ultimately decided to spend that effort
> upgrading my golf game rather than my equipment so I never got a
> chance to go through the process.
I'm still not sure why that process is desirable. Sounds like an awful
lot of thinking about something that mostly doesn't matter.
> However, this process is how I went about choosing the woods to add to
> my iron set. To start with, I had three Orlimar fairways woods that
> gave me basically 170, 180 and 190 yards and no driver. So I asked a
> clubmaking friend to supply me with a 160-yard club to fit between the
> 22-degree Orlimar and my 150-yard 5-iron and we came up with a
> Golfsmith 9-wood with an EI-70 shaft. It was easier to hit than the
> Orlimars and gave me about 165 yards. So I decided I needed a 180-yard
> metalwood. We got that from a matching 5-wood (XPC3) and EI-70 combo.
> Finally, we came up with a driver (966SD/EI-70) that matched the other
> two woods and that I could hit a little over 200 yards. Now all the
> Orlimars are long out of the bag.
This is different than what you proposed initially. YOu're trying to
fill a gap, which is far different than saying "I need a 4-iron that
goes 180."
> I've since replaced the driver that matches my fairway woods with a
> lighter, heel-backweighted Adams driver that I hit a little farther
> and I'm searching for a 3-wood that I can hit 200 yards from the
> fairway. I've also just about dropped the 9-wood since my swing has
> improved enough to hit my 4-iron almost the same distance. My ideal is
> to have the irons from 100 yards to 180 yards, overlap with a 180-yard
> metalwood plus a longer fairway wood and a driver. In any case my
> theory is that the number on the club doesn't matter, I tend to think
> of "my 180-yard wood" or "my 140-yard iron" when I'm choosing clubs so
> that's would be the essence of any clubfitting I do for myself.
How has this worked for you in terms of your game? How has your scoring
been? Has any of this enabled you to get your handicap down?
Brent Hutto
wrote:
>Brent Hutto wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:49:35 -0600, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I've never heard of anyone fitting a set based on the distance they want
>> >to get from a particular club.
>>
>> I don't think it's common, that's just the way I think about it.
>>
>> It does assume the player has some reasonable idea of what he's trying
>> to accomplish and whether his swing will get it done.
>
>But why would anyone try to do it this way? The only club for which
>this matters is the longest iron; every other distance is managed by the
>natural progression between irons.
Well, I'd argue longest iron, shortest iron and shortest fairway wood.
Also, as I pointed out earlier "what you want to accomplish" also
informs decisions about longer/shorter versus loft versus shaft and
clubhead as means of achieving a certain distance.
>> It also needs to
>> be a flexible idea since the clubfitting process might show something
>> that is possible that wasn't in the plan.
>
>What?
I simply mean that a player's idea of what they want to accomplish
might change after getting fitted for new clubs. Maybe they think that
once they get to 200 yards, they'll be hitting a metalwood and it's
not reasonable to build an iron for that purpose. But then they find
out that an iron that was designed as a 190-yard club hits the ball
better than expected and they can count on it as a 205-yard iron in
which case their expectation would change from "I want a long iron
that goes 190 and then woods for longer shots" to "I want a long iron
that goes 205 and then woods for longer shots".
>> For my own game, it could
>> well be that an "iron" could be built that lets me hit the ball with
>> an iron-like trajectory 190 or 200 yards. I doubt it very much but it
>> might happen one day.
>
>Or maybe it can't be. Why would this be the focus?
In this particular example, a well-struck iron shot is easier to aim
accurately and will have a more desirable (lower) trajectory than a
metalwood for the same distance. The drawback is that there's no
iron-type club I've ever hit that consistently comes anywhere close to
200 yards. I just don't have the swing speed for that shot. OTOH, if
you put a longer, lighter, more-forgiving iron-type club in my hands
and I could get it in the air and straight at the target then I'd love
to use it. That's all.
>> >How many times have you done it this way, Brent? And how has it worked
>> >for you?
>>
>> I don't build clubs (well, not often anyway). It's just the way I
>> think about it when I deciding what clubs I need.
>
>So in effect, then, it's simply a theory not grounded in any actual
>empirical result.
Yes, that's what I said. You're beginning to adopt a tone I find
slightly insulting. My intention was to share an alternative way of
looking at the question, not to imply that it was either universal or
superior in some absolute sense to other perspectives.
>> I've always started
>> the conventional way with a set of 3-PW irons and then dropped or
>> added clubs from there. But I thought I lot about this a year or so
>> ago when I was this "----" close to building myself a whole set of
>> clubs from scratch. I ultimately decided to spend that effort
>> upgrading my golf game rather than my equipment so I never got a
>> chance to go through the process.
>
>I'm still not sure why that process is desirable. Sounds like an awful
>lot of thinking about something that mostly doesn't matter.
Well, since I didn't build the clubs it didn't matter at all. If I had
gone to all the effort of prototyping and testing irons with various
heads, shafts, lengths, etc. then a little effort to make sure I knew
what I was trying to accomplish seemed worthwhile. I certainly knew
that I wasn't going to just buy a set of heads with "3" through "P" on
the sole and build them so the 5-iron goes as far as possible, which
seems to be a not-uncommon approach. For starters, I really wanted to
cover my 100-180 yard range with six clubs instead of eight.
>> However, this process is how I went about choosing the woods to add to
>> my iron set. To start with, I had three Orlimar fairways woods that
>> gave me basically 170, 180 and 190 yards and no driver. So I asked a
>> clubmaking friend to supply me with a 160-yard club to fit between the
>> 22-degree Orlimar and my 150-yard 5-iron and we came up with a
>> Golfsmith 9-wood with an EI-70 shaft. It was easier to hit than the
>> Orlimars and gave me about 165 yards. So I decided I needed a 180-yard
>> metalwood. We got that from a matching 5-wood (XPC3) and EI-70 combo.
>> Finally, we came up with a driver (966SD/EI-70) that matched the other
>> two woods and that I could hit a little over 200 yards. Now all the
>> Orlimars are long out of the bag.
>
>This is different than what you proposed initially. YOu're trying to
>fill a gap, which is far different than saying "I need a 4-iron that
>goes 180."
I would never say "I need a 4-iron that goes 180" because I don't like
to grant any credence to the numbers on the sole of the club. But you
are correct that I started out filling a gap. Once I saw how well that
particular club worked, I scrapped the Orlimars (actually, I kept the
3-wood in the bag while we were experimenting) and started building
from that 9-wood and working up toward a 200-yard fairway wood and a
driver.
The club-fitting approach that I'm proposing is my conclusion after
seeing the results of the one-at-a-time fitting and design process
with the woods.
>> I've since replaced the driver that matches my fairway woods with a
>> lighter, heel-backweighted Adams driver that I hit a little farther
>> and I'm searching for a 3-wood that I can hit 200 yards from the
>> fairway. I've also just about dropped the 9-wood since my swing has
>> improved enough to hit my 4-iron almost the same distance. My ideal is
>> to have the irons from 100 yards to 180 yards, overlap with a 180-yard
>> metalwood plus a longer fairway wood and a driver. In any case my
>> theory is that the number on the club doesn't matter, I tend to think
>> of "my 180-yard wood" or "my 140-yard iron" when I'm choosing clubs so
>> that's would be the essence of any clubfitting I do for myself.
>
>How has this worked for you in terms of your game? How has your scoring
>been? Has any of this enabled you to get your handicap down?
Somewhat, although it's more practice than club changes. When I got
that first 9-wood, my handicap was around 29-30. For a while when I
was playing around with clubs instead of practicing it drifted up into
the mid-30's (very frustrating). By the time I had the 5-wood in the
bag for a couple months it was 26-ish and almost a year later it's
22.3 last time I checked.
Hard to attribute more than a little of that lower index to new clubs,
though. My swing is much improved. But I've had a couple rounds under
90 that would not have happened without hitting 200+ yard drives into
just about every fairway and having that 180-yard 5-wood that I *know*
will be in the fairway for tighter driving holes.
The level I eventually aspire to is to not even think in terms of
hitting "my 140-yard club" or whatever. My golf teacher's game is very
much built around the idea that for most shots he has a half-dozen
clubs he can use and at least three or four options that he's totally
confident in and chooses according to conditions. Unfortunately, it'll
be a long time before I have perfect confidence in one 160-yard shot,
much less three or four.
Brent Hutto
Kenny Stultz
What a neat question. Pretty much, the goal is to build a club that gives you
the maximun clubhead speed.
It would be a few step process. In general terms, I think you want a driver
that's long and light. Since all driver heads weigh about the same (plus or
minus), at first I'd focus on the shaft and how long to make it.
I'd make up some test drivers. They'd all have the same head. They'd all be
the same length. They might not all have the same shafts. I might put weights
on some of them so that with the combination of different shafts and weights,
there would be a good spread in the MOI of the different drivers. We'd go out
on the range and through a combination of measuring your swing speed and your
driving distance, we would determine at what MOI it gets to the point that you
start losing swing speed/distance. As the clubs get dynamically heavier
(that's more or less what MOI is measuring), there will come a spot where you
can't put enough torque on the club to get it around properly. If I know what
that MOI is, I want to build you a driver whose MOI is no greater.
There will be a gazillion different driver configurations whose MOI is equal to
your maximum. I'd size the driver so that it was as long as possible yet short
enough so that your maximum MOI value wasn't exceeded. That way I know you are
capable of supplying enough torque to get the most possible out of the driver.
Flex would be a consideration, but not the main one. I get the length of the
driver set and then use the softest flex shaft that you could semi-control.
Following that, I'd have you try different driver lofts to find which (in
combination with your already selected shaft) would yield the most distance.
And the driver head would definately be one of the ones on the USGA
Non-Conforming list. :-)
Kenny
scrub
this is pretty OT and i really don't mean to hijack this thread, but i
never saw the post by gaines n that jeff's post is referring to. this
has happened a few times before, and almost always happens with
anything rick rider posts (in other words, i never see his original
post, but often see him quoted by others).
this is when i'm using google to read newsgroup posts. i can use other
readers and see all threads fine. can anyone tell me why this is?
paul
Mike Dalecki
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:44:56 -0600, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Brent Hutto wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:49:35 -0600, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've never heard of anyone fitting a set based on the distance they want
> >> >to get from a particular club.
> >>
> >> I don't think it's common, that's just the way I think about it.
> >>
> >> It does assume the player has some reasonable idea of what he's trying
> >> to accomplish and whether his swing will get it done.
> >
> >But why would anyone try to do it this way? The only club for which
> >this matters is the longest iron; every other distance is managed by the
> >natural progression between irons.
>
> Well, I'd argue longest iron, shortest iron and shortest fairway wood.
> Also, as I pointed out earlier "what you want to accomplish" also
> informs decisions about longer/shorter versus loft versus shaft and
> clubhead as means of achieving a certain distance.
I can't imagine anyone doing this. The essence of good course
management is placing your shots where you can readily make the next
shot.
Never has anyone asked me to adjust the amount of distance they can get
with a club through some clubfitting process.
> >> It also needs to
> >> be a flexible idea since the clubfitting process might show something
> >> that is possible that wasn't in the plan.
> >
> >What?
>
> I simply mean that a player's idea of what they want to accomplish
> might change after getting fitted for new clubs. Maybe they think that
> once they get to 200 yards, they'll be hitting a metalwood and it's
> not reasonable to build an iron for that purpose. But then they find
> out that an iron that was designed as a 190-yard club hits the ball
> better than expected and they can count on it as a 205-yard iron in
> which case their expectation would change from "I want a long iron
> that goes 190 and then woods for longer shots" to "I want a long iron
> that goes 205 and then woods for longer shots".
I still don't know what that means. Once fitted for new clubs, they're
going to get rid of them because they have a different idea?
If I wanted a long iron to go a bit less, I'd choke down on it a bit.
> >> For my own game, it could
> >> well be that an "iron" could be built that lets me hit the ball with
> >> an iron-like trajectory 190 or 200 yards. I doubt it very much but it
> >> might happen one day.
> >
> >Or maybe it can't be. Why would this be the focus?
>
> In this particular example, a well-struck iron shot is easier to aim
> accurately and will have a more desirable (lower) trajectory than a
> metalwood for the same distance. The drawback is that there's no
> iron-type club I've ever hit that consistently comes anywhere close to
> 200 yards. I just don't have the swing speed for that shot. OTOH, if
> you put a longer, lighter, more-forgiving iron-type club in my hands
> and I could get it in the air and straight at the target then I'd love
> to use it. That's all.
Well, I don't get it. I see a lot of words, Brent, but I'm not getting
much out of them.
> >> >How many times have you done it this way, Brent? And how has it worked
> >> >for you?
> >>
> >> I don't build clubs (well, not often anyway). It's just the way I
> >> think about it when I deciding what clubs I need.
Oh. It was written, it seemed to me, like the voice of experience
talking.
> >So in effect, then, it's simply a theory not grounded in any actual
> >empirical result.
>
> Yes, that's what I said. You're beginning to adopt a tone I find
> slightly insulting. My intention was to share an alternative way of
> looking at the question, not to imply that it was either universal or
> superior in some absolute sense to other perspectives.
I'm trying to figure out where you're getting all this stuff from. It
runs quite counter to my own experiences as a golfer, as a clubmaker,
and as a golfer who plays the clubs he makes. And that's not including
all the clubs for other people.
And so, I'm trying to determine if there's some basis for these
theories.
> >> I've always started
> >> the conventional way with a set of 3-PW irons and then dropped or
> >> added clubs from there. But I thought I lot about this a year or so
> >> ago when I was this "----" close to building myself a whole set of
> >> clubs from scratch. I ultimately decided to spend that effort
> >> upgrading my golf game rather than my equipment so I never got a
> >> chance to go through the process.
> >
> >I'm still not sure why that process is desirable. Sounds like an awful
> >lot of thinking about something that mostly doesn't matter.
>
> Well, since I didn't build the clubs it didn't matter at all. If I had
> gone to all the effort of prototyping and testing irons with various
> heads, shafts, lengths, etc. then a little effort to make sure I knew
> what I was trying to accomplish seemed worthwhile. I certainly knew
> that I wasn't going to just buy a set of heads with "3" through "P" on
> the sole and build them so the 5-iron goes as far as possible, which
> seems to be a not-uncommon approach. For starters, I really wanted to
> cover my 100-180 yard range with six clubs instead of eight.
You wanted 15-yard gaps between clubs? That is very...unusual. It
would make it harder to hit the tweeners, wouldn't it?
> >> However, this process is how I went about choosing the woods to add to
> >> my iron set. To start with, I had three Orlimar fairways woods that
> >> gave me basically 170, 180 and 190 yards and no driver. So I asked a
> >> clubmaking friend to supply me with a 160-yard club to fit between the
> >> 22-degree Orlimar and my 150-yard 5-iron and we came up with a
> >> Golfsmith 9-wood with an EI-70 shaft. It was easier to hit than the
> >> Orlimars and gave me about 165 yards. So I decided I needed a 180-yard
> >> metalwood. We got that from a matching 5-wood (XPC3) and EI-70 combo.
> >> Finally, we came up with a driver (966SD/EI-70) that matched the other
> >> two woods and that I could hit a little over 200 yards. Now all the
> >> Orlimars are long out of the bag.
> >
> >This is different than what you proposed initially. YOu're trying to
> >fill a gap, which is far different than saying "I need a 4-iron that
> >goes 180."
>
> I would never say "I need a 4-iron that goes 180" because I don't like
> to grant any credence to the numbers on the sole of the club. But you
> are correct that I started out filling a gap. Once I saw how well that
> particular club worked, I scrapped the Orlimars (actually, I kept the
> 3-wood in the bag while we were experimenting) and started building
> from that 9-wood and working up toward a 200-yard fairway wood and a
> driver.
That sure seemed like where you were going in the earlier post.
> The club-fitting approach that I'm proposing is my conclusion after
> seeing the results of the one-at-a-time fitting and design process
> with the woods.
OK, but it's a conclusion based on...what? As you'll see below, I can't
imagine doing it this way. Fitting for a particular distance, rather
than to fill a gap, is very weird. Build a set; make sure it has
predictable gaps. Done!
> >> I've since replaced the driver that matches my fairway woods with a
> >> lighter, heel-backweighted Adams driver that I hit a little farther
> >> and I'm searching for a 3-wood that I can hit 200 yards from the
> >> fairway. I've also just about dropped the 9-wood since my swing has
> >> improved enough to hit my 4-iron almost the same distance. My ideal is
> >> to have the irons from 100 yards to 180 yards, overlap with a 180-yard
> >> metalwood plus a longer fairway wood and a driver. In any case my
> >> theory is that the number on the club doesn't matter, I tend to think
> >> of "my 180-yard wood" or "my 140-yard iron" when I'm choosing clubs so
> >> that's would be the essence of any clubfitting I do for myself.
> >
> >How has this worked for you in terms of your game? How has your scoring
> >been? Has any of this enabled you to get your handicap down?
>
> Somewhat, although it's more practice than club changes. When I got
> that first 9-wood, my handicap was around 29-30. For a while when I
> was playing around with clubs instead of practicing it drifted up into
> the mid-30's (very frustrating). By the time I had the 5-wood in the
> bag for a couple months it was 26-ish and almost a year later it's
> 22.3 last time I checked.
The reason I'm asking is that you may have a view of clubfitting that is
not serving your improvement as a golfer (assuming that's your goal,
which it might not be--some people just want to play, and let the
strokes fall where they may).
But you appear, based on the volume of your posts and willingness to
offer suggestions, to want to improve. And thus I might suggest that
there be other ways to view fitting than the ones you've taken. For
instance, you might get a set of well-matched clubs, matched to your
game and swingspeed (length, lie angle, etc)., and then learn to play
with what they produce for you.
The building a club to a specific "distance" is, to me, a red herring.
You almost never get that distance on the course unless you're good
enough to drop a shot at the 100-yard marker every time--but even then,
it's 100 from the center of the green, not the pin.
Where the tees are positioned day to day, where the pin is located day
to day, how the wind is blowing--all these change the effective distance
you have. Thus you're almost never going to have that magic distance.
As a result, I believe you're far better off getting a set of clubs that
produce consistent gaps between clubs, and learning to grip down if you
need a little less with a particular club. What you need is a matched
set, matched to you, with predictable gaps. Anything else is spending a
lot of time producing something that really doesn't matter.
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker
http://www.dalecki.net/clubdoctor
RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
Brent Hutto
it one more try taking it one step at a time.
1) I don't care what the clubs are called: 4-iron, pitching wedge and
so forth are just names. I only care about distance and trajectory.
2) I know I can't hit any club 250 yards and I doubt I can hit any
iron 200 yards but I am sure that there are irons I can hit 180 yards.
So in building a set of irons, I expect the longest one to be
something I can get at least 180 yards with.
3) Under 100 yards I want special-purpose wedges, not general-purpose
irons. So now we know that 100-180 yards is the range I expect a set
of irons to cover. I don't want to lug 10 clubs around to cover that
range or even 8 clubs. Preferably, I would like 6 or 7 clubs to cover
that range.
4) There are probably many combinations of loft/length/shaft/head that
will let me build a 180-yard club. I'd pick the combination that I hit
most consistently and then scale those specs down in even steps down
to a shorter, more lofted 100-yard club for my shortest iron and four
or five irons in between.
5) Let's say I go through this process and discover there's actually
an iron I can hit 200 yards. That means my assumption about the
longest iron was wrong so I'll change my assumptions from now on and
expect to be able to hit iron shots up to 200 yards. That's good news.
Now of these items, which are the ones you find unreasonable?
1) Don't you agree taking the numbers on the clubs as a starting point
is unhelpful?
2) Do you think I'm wrong to believe that for my swing shots longer
than 180 yards with an iron don't work well? I'm better off using a
fairway wood.
3) I realize that some people want clubs spaced 10 yards apart or
whatever. Do you think it unreasonable to accept wider spaces and have
one or two fewer clubs to carry around?
4) This item seems to be the stumbling block. The usual approach seems
to be building a bunch of 5-irons, picking the one that gets the most
distance and consistency, scaling it up to 4-iron, 3-iron, etc. and
stopping when you get to one that's too hard to hit well. Is this how
you prefer to do it?
5) Surely this one is clear even if I didn't say it clearly before.
Mike, you seem to be used to people who expect to get 3-iron through
pitching wedge and want to find a 3-PW set which they can hit well.
Then if necessary they'll drop the 3-iron for a Rescue club or add a
2-iron or whatever. Or am I putting words in your mouth?
Why wouldn't you first determine what's the longest shot they're going
to be able to hit with an iron and work from there? Ultimately, that's
all I'm really suggesting and the rest is just details. I'm not saying
one way works and the other doesn't. I just figure if you're building
the clubs from scratch you don't have to be bound by OEM-style 3-PW
thinking.
Brent Hutto
jeffc
> jeffc wrote:
> > >
> > > In the final analysis, the issue of clublength is finding the longest
> > > clubs one can still consistently hit the sweetspot with. Once the
club
> > > is too long for consistency, the golfer should back down in length,
and
> > > then work to get the lie angle to be correct at that clublength.
> >
> >
(finding
> > the longest clubs one can hit consistently) If you do it with a driver,
I
> > don't really see how that helps you in fitting the person for a 7 iron,
for
> > example. I see how you could extrapolate, but it doesn't seem like a
very
> > reliable method at that point.
>
> Why would you only choose one club? I'd do it w/ driver, fairway woods,
> irons.
>
> It doesn't mean that you make all your clubs 43" long if that's the
> longest driver you can use effectively.
>
> Start w/ a standard 37.5" five iron. Too wild with it? Try a 37" five
> iron. You hit the 37.5" fine? Consider going up to a 38" five iron,
> see what happens. Find the point where you lose something, then scale
> back.
But that was just one club. So that means 37.5 is the longest club you can
hit consistently. So you can't use any longer clubs (4 iron, etc.). That's
the only way that test makes sense to me.
Mike Dalecki
Nope. The whole set is longer/shorter than standard.
Mike
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker
http://www.dalecki.net/clubdoctor
RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
jeffc
"Sparky" <bi...@funco.com> wrote in message
news:AC75a.190080$be.178399@rwcrnsc53...
>
> What about if one were thinking of entering a long-drive contest? What
> would your advice be on a club built for the sole purpose of eeking out
> every last possible yard?
Not to evade the question, but to win a long drive contest, you don't
necessarily have to eek out every last possible yard. You have to hit the
fairway for the shot to count.
Mike Dalecki
>
> I don't know why we can't get on the same wavelength, Mike. I'll give
> it one more try taking it one step at a time.
>
> 1) I don't care what the clubs are called: 4-iron, pitching wedge and
> so forth are just names. I only care about distance and trajectory.
You should care about gaps between clubs, and making sure the gaps are
consistent.
> 2) I know I can't hit any club 250 yards and I doubt I can hit any
> iron 200 yards but I am sure that there are irons I can hit 180 yards.
> So in building a set of irons, I expect the longest one to be
> something I can get at least 180 yards with.
OK, I suppose.
> 3) Under 100 yards I want special-purpose wedges, not general-purpose
> irons. So now we know that 100-180 yards is the range I expect a set
> of irons to cover. I don't want to lug 10 clubs around to cover that
> range or even 8 clubs. Preferably, I would like 6 or 7 clubs to cover
> that range.
Whatever floats your boat. However, Brent, given your handicap, what is
it these things do for you that allows you to score? I'm trying to
point out to you that perhaps, given your playing level, that you may be
overanalyzing this stuff and it's causing you to think that the causal
factors that affect scoring are different than what they really are.
> 4) There are probably many combinations of loft/length/shaft/head that
> will let me build a 180-yard club. I'd pick the combination that I hit
> most consistently and then scale those specs down in even steps down
> to a shorter, more lofted 100-yard club for my shortest iron and four
> or five irons in between.
This, to me, is an example of how you will learn to play the game
better. You say you want to put all these clubs saved by having big
gaps into specialty wedges. But Brent, your handicap indicates that
these things aren't working for you. You're all focused on these
equipment issues, but it's clear they're not helping you.
> 5) Let's say I go through this process and discover there's actually
> an iron I can hit 200 yards. That means my assumption about the
> longest iron was wrong so I'll change my assumptions from now on and
> expect to be able to hit iron shots up to 200 yards. That's good news.
I'm just shaking my head, Brent. But then again, I thought the way you
do back when my handicap was high.
> Now of these items, which are the ones you find unreasonable?
>
> 1) Don't you agree taking the numbers on the clubs as a starting point
> is unhelpful?
As a starting point? Make yourself a set. Learn that these issues are
relatively unimportant when it comes to scoring and improving. The set
must fit you for flex, length, lie, etc., but I would suggest that you
focus on other things.
> 2) Do you think I'm wrong to believe that for my swing shots longer
> than 180 yards with an iron don't work well? I'm better off using a
> fairway wood.
Oh, I can believe that you don't hit such shots well with a long iron.
Yes, I can.
> 3) I realize that some people want clubs spaced 10 yards apart or
> whatever. Do you think it unreasonable to accept wider spaces and have
> one or two fewer clubs to carry around?
Unreasonable? Not if you don't care about improving. Heck, everyone
should enjoy the game their own way, and if producing a set makeup like
this gives you joy, more power to you. Just don't expect to improve
much if this is how you view the role equipment should play in your
game.
> 4) This item seems to be the stumbling block. The usual approach seems
> to be building a bunch of 5-irons, picking the one that gets the most
> distance and consistency, scaling it up to 4-iron, 3-iron, etc. and
> stopping when you get to one that's too hard to hit well. Is this how
> you prefer to do it?
I think this is an excellent method. If it turns out someone can't hit
a 3-iron, it's a swing thing, not a club thing. Maybe they want a
rescue wood instead, or a regular 7-wood or whatever, but the problem,
Brent, isn't what they hit long; it's how you play the game.
And in my view, you're focused on all the wrong things here.
> 5) Surely this one is clear even if I didn't say it clearly before.
What's clear?
> Mike, you seem to be used to people who expect to get 3-iron through
> pitching wedge and want to find a 3-PW set which they can hit well.
> Then if necessary they'll drop the 3-iron for a Rescue club or add a
> 2-iron or whatever. Or am I putting words in your mouth?
I'll build 'em what they want. Even if you don't hit a 3-iron well, if
you really want to improve, I'll bet you'd benefit from having one and
trying to figure out why you *can't* hit it well.
But again, you have this focus on these distances, gaps that are too
wide (IMO), and a fixation on shorter wedges that, judging by your
handicap, aren't doing much for you anyway.
I've been trying to be nice without saying the obvious, Brent, now I'm
just going to say it (and forgive me if you're offended): You're just
not good enough--yet--for these things to matter! And if they really
did matter, you'd see single-digit golfers using your approach. They
don't. Ergo, there's a lesson there.
There are many other places you can improve your game that have nothing
to do with equipment. Course management. Short game (I'd guess you
have room for improvement there). Putting (same comment).
> Why wouldn't you first determine what's the longest shot they're going
> to be able to hit with an iron and work from there?
You tell me. Nobody asks me that. Everybody wants a set. They want a
complete set. It may be for resale value (though I doubt that). More
likely, it's because if they're serious about golf, they're going to
have to sooner or later learn to hit those clubs, if they want to
improve.
IMO, your approach, Brent, is one of trying to build in compensations
for your swing issues through your equipment. Instead of learning to do
it better, you're looking for ways for the equipment to compensate for
the lack of ability at this point to apply a good swing.
You can't buy a swing. You can't buy equipment that will substitute for
a swing. And you've been applying some oddball ideas that, IMO, will
retard your development as a golfer.
> Ultimately, that's
> all I'm really suggesting and the rest is just details. I'm not saying
> one way works and the other doesn't. I just figure if you're building
> the clubs from scratch you don't have to be bound by OEM-style 3-PW
> thinking.
All I can say, Brent, is that I used to think like you. Then I started
listening to single-digit players, and watching what they do, and
applying the lessons; only after that did I begin to score in the 70s
regularly.
Mike Dalecki
To be honest, I don't know that I'd have any advice. I know the
generalities, but in terms of how to select equipment to make it work, I
really don't know specifics.
I'd have one question: With an ultra long driver (50+ inches, say), my
guess would be that this would create an effectively very-upright lie
angle. I wonder if they use special heads with flatter lie angles, or
bend them (can be done with some heads, with the right equipment), or
just leave them as-is, accepting the draw-bias that they would tend to
induce.
Mike
--
Frostback
Brent Hutto wrote:
snippo....
> I just figure if you're building
> the clubs from scratch you don't have to be bound by OEM-style 3-PW
> thinking.
>
Nice post. I have a drawer full of 3I heads. I may start an official
collection and perhaps open a museum to house them! Find the clubs you
play well with and go with them. Most people cannot hit a 5I well most
of the time during a round of golf, and most here is probably at least
80% of those who golf. 180 is a great distance to work from. Maybe I'll
get there some day. Right now I work from 150; I should be able to make
a shot from 150 most of the time. I want as many clubs for 150 or less
as possible. When I play from more than 150, how much I miss by is less
an issue than were I miss (the club makes little difference) and whether
or not I make the up and down.
The 4I is in thew bag now because I am carrying 3 wedges. No other
reason.
Rob
--
__________________________________________________________________
GOP (Golf Only Pledge...I will only initiate golf related threads)
Service is the rent we pay for being
RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~frostback2002)
__________________________________________________________________
MyQ
> Sparky wrote:
>>
>> On 19-Feb-2003, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In the final analysis, the issue of clublength is finding the
>> > longest clubs one can still consistently hit the sweetspot with.
>> > Once the club is too long for consistency, the golfer should back
>> > down in length, and then work to get the lie angle to be correct at
>> > that clublength.
>>
>> What about if one were thinking of entering a long-drive contest?
>> What would your advice be on a club built for the sole purpose of
>> eeking out every last possible yard?
>>
>> me
>
> To be honest, I don't know that I'd have any advice. I know the
> generalities, but in terms of how to select equipment to make it work,
> I really don't know specifics.
>
> I'd have one question: With an ultra long driver (50+ inches, say),
> my guess would be that this would create an effectively very-upright
> lie angle. I wonder if they use special heads with flatter lie
> angles, or bend them (can be done with some heads, with the right
> equipment), or just leave them as-is, accepting the draw-bias that
> they would tend to induce.
>
> Mike
Mike, I suspect the latter is true, standard heads, standard lies but the
lofts are probably fairly flat given the incredible clubhead speeds they
generate. Flat lofts will also reduce draw-bias.
Your replies to Brent may seem a little brutal to many, but it is indeed
wise advice.
The swing and what you do with it is often more important than the
equipment. I always reckon on a spread of +/- 20 yds approximately for
any club in my bag - I have a central distance in mind for a full swing
and then I try to take something off the shot or add some afterburners -
so 165 yds is a 6- or 7- or 8-iron, for example - or you might say a 7-
iron could be used for 145 to 180 yds. The club is just a tool to
achieve a result, the golfer is the artist and the swing is his art,
validated by the result however achieved.
A young pro once asked Henry Cotton which was the right club for a
particularly difficult 165yd shot. Henry Cotton proceeded to empty all
14 clubs out of the young pro's bag and used each club to hit 14 balls
onto the green. Cotton turned to the young pro and told him to choose
the one that was closest to the green. [165yds with a putter? Obviously
had a long shaft - right? ;-) ]
Thanks for your great posts. MyQ
Brent Hutto
wrote:
>Brent Hutto wrote:
>
>snippo....
>
>> I just figure if you're building
>> the clubs from scratch you don't have to be bound by OEM-style 3-PW
>> thinking.
>>
>
>Nice post. I have a drawer full of 3I heads. I may start an official
>collection and perhaps open a museum to house them! Find the clubs you
>play well with and go with them. Most people cannot hit a 5I well most
>of the time during a round of golf, and most here is probably at least
>80% of those who golf. 180 is a great distance to work from. Maybe I'll
>get there some day. Right now I work from 150; I should be able to make
>a shot from 150 most of the time. I want as many clubs for 150 or less
>as possible. When I play from more than 150, how much I miss by is less
>an issue than were I miss (the club makes little difference) and whether
>or not I make the up and down.
>
>The 4I is in thew bag now because I am carrying 3 wedges. No other
>reason.
You talk a little like Dave Pelz on this issue.
Brent Hutto
Brent Hutto
wrote:
>Brent Hutto wrote:
>>
>> 1) Don't you agree taking the numbers on the clubs as a starting point
>> is unhelpful?
>
>As a starting point? Make yourself a set. Learn that these issues are
>relatively unimportant when it comes to scoring and improving. The set
>must fit you for flex, length, lie, etc., but I would suggest that you
>focus on other things.
When did the subject change from "Clublength and Distance" to "What's
Wrong with Brent's Golf Game"? I've been focusing on this subject for
exactly the 36 hours that we've been having this discussion, partly
because I have an injury and can't go to the golf course. It you want
to start another thread on game-improvement, then do so.
If you recall, I never built the golf clubs that started me thinking
about this topic:
" I ultimately decided to spend that effort upgrading my golf game
rather than my equipment so I never got a chance to go through the
process."
>> 2) Do you think I'm wrong to believe that for my swing shots longer
>> than 180 yards with an iron don't work well? I'm better off using a
>> fairway wood.
>
>Oh, I can believe that you don't hit such shots well with a long iron.
>Yes, I can.
Yeah, that's a real helpful attitude, Mike. I'm not sure why you feel
the need to act like a jerk about it but it doesn't add anything to
the discussion. Have I insulted you in some way? If so it wasn't my
intention.
>> 4) This item seems to be the stumbling block. The usual approach seems
>> to be building a bunch of 5-irons, picking the one that gets the most
>> distance and consistency, scaling it up to 4-iron, 3-iron, etc. and
>> stopping when you get to one that's too hard to hit well. Is this how
>> you prefer to do it?
>
>I think this is an excellent method. If it turns out someone can't hit
>a 3-iron, it's a swing thing, not a club thing. Maybe they want a
>rescue wood instead, or a regular 7-wood or whatever, but the problem,
>Brent, isn't what they hit long; it's how you play the game.
To say that someone should allocate part of their practice time to
figuring out how to hit one arrbitrarily selected club that doesn't
fit their game is poor advice, IMO. Your position seems to be that
until you can buy a 3-PW set of clubs and hit them all welll then
anything you think about golf clubs is wrong.
>> Mike, you seem to be used to people who expect to get 3-iron through
>> pitching wedge and want to find a 3-PW set which they can hit well.
>> Then if necessary they'll drop the 3-iron for a Rescue club or add a
>> 2-iron or whatever. Or am I putting words in your mouth?
>
>I'll build 'em what they want. Even if you don't hit a 3-iron well, if
>you really want to improve, I'll bet you'd benefit from having one and
>trying to figure out why you *can't* hit it well.
So should I buy a 1-iron and figure out why I can't hit that well?
What is it that's uniquely valuable about a 3-iron as opposed to a
4-iron or a 7-wood or a Rescue club?
>I've been trying to be nice without saying the obvious, Brent, now I'm
>just going to say it (and forgive me if you're offended): You're just
>not good enough--yet--for these things to matter! And if they really
>did matter, you'd see single-digit golfers using your approach. They
>don't. Ergo, there's a lesson there.
>
>There are many other places you can improve your game that have nothing
>to do with equipment. Course management. Short game (I'd guess you
>have room for improvement there). Putting (same comment).
And that's the stuff I work on.
What you're really saying is that my golf game isn't good enough for
me to express an opinion "On Clublength and its Relationship to
Distance". Which is nonsense. In the future I won't post any
responses to threads you initiate since I don't meet whatever
standards you deem necessary for holding a valid opinion.
>> Why wouldn't you first determine what's the longest shot they're going
>> to be able to hit with an iron and work from there?
>
>You tell me. Nobody asks me that. Everybody wants a set. They want a
>complete set. It may be for resale value (though I doubt that). More
>likely, it's because if they're serious about golf, they're going to
>have to sooner or later learn to hit those clubs, if they want to
>improve.
If you'd said this earlier I'd have saved a lot of typing. You think
that the only place to start is the same 3-PW set people buy off the
shelf at Nevada Bob's. That seems to be the gist of your experience as
a clubmaker so perhaps it's more universal than I imagined. For some
reason, you equate wanting that particular set of clubs with "serious
about golf", which is quite a stretch, IMO.
>IMO, your approach, Brent, is one of trying to build in compensations
>for your swing issues through your equipment. Instead of learning to do
>it better, you're looking for ways for the equipment to compensate for
>the lack of ability at this point to apply a good swing.
>
>You can't buy a swing. You can't buy equipment that will substitute for
>a swing. And you've been applying some oddball ideas that, IMO, will
>retard your development as a golfer.
My ideas of how I would go about designing a set of golf clubs is
pretty much orthogonal to improving my golf game. This entire thread
got off track when you took offense at my suggestion of an alternative
way of approach the clubfitting challenge. You started out by
asserting that my opinion must be wrong since I'm not a clubmaker (and
you are) and then switched to saying that it further must be wrong
since my golf game isn't any good (not as good as yours).
I always thought you were a pretty valuable contributor to this
newsgroup, Mike. When you seemed to be at odds (frequently) with one
person or another I assumed it was a misunderstanding or that I hadn't
seen the whole discussion. That's not the case at all. For some reason
you have taken my comments on clubfitting as an attack on the validity
of your own opinions. You seem to have an unreasonably thin skin for
someone who spends so much time on a newsgroup and when you engage
this condescending, defensive mode and take the discussion off topic
it gets ugly. I'm done, you have fun without me.
Brent Hutto
Mike Dalecki
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:44:43 -0600, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Brent Hutto wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) Don't you agree taking the numbers on the clubs as a starting point
> >> is unhelpful?
> >
> >As a starting point? Make yourself a set. Learn that these issues are
> >relatively unimportant when it comes to scoring and improving. The set
> >must fit you for flex, length, lie, etc., but I would suggest that you
> >focus on other things.
>
> When did the subject change from "Clublength and Distance" to "What's
> Wrong with Brent's Golf Game"?
It is part and parcel of how your views of clubfitting are shaped by
what you know.
> I've been focusing on this subject for
> exactly the 36 hours that we've been having this discussion, partly
> because I have an injury and can't go to the golf course. It you want
> to start another thread on game-improvement, then do so.
Oh? I've been focused on this subject for much more than 36 hours,
believe me. Try years.
> If you recall, I never built the golf clubs that started me thinking
> about this topic:
>
> " I ultimately decided to spend that effort upgrading my golf game
> rather than my equipment so I never got a chance to go through the
> process."
There's a big difference between "I have this idea and I'm going to try
it and I'll report back later on how it worked out" or "Hey, what does
anyone think about this? Any downside to it?"
and
"Here's how one can produce clubs; I don't know if it has any validity,
don't know anybody who's tried it, I've never tried it, but here's how
you go about it."
> >> 2) Do you think I'm wrong to believe that for my swing shots longer
> >> than 180 yards with an iron don't work well? I'm better off using a
> >> fairway wood.
> >
> >Oh, I can believe that you don't hit such shots well with a long iron.
> >Yes, I can.
>
> Yeah, that's a real helpful attitude, Mike. I'm not sure why you feel
> the need to act like a jerk about it but it doesn't add anything to
> the discussion. Have I insulted you in some way? If so it wasn't my
> intention.
What did you expect me to say? I'm confirming that I do believe what
you are telling me. I'm sorry if you feel insulted.
I had a lesson yesterday (indoors, at a dome). I want to know the
unvarnished truth from my pro; don't sugarcoat it for me, tell me what
I'm doing wrong, and how I can correct it.
And part of that process is accepting the way things are, not the way we
wish they would be.
> >> 4) This item seems to be the stumbling block. The usual approach seems
> >> to be building a bunch of 5-irons, picking the one that gets the most
> >> distance and consistency, scaling it up to 4-iron, 3-iron, etc. and
> >> stopping when you get to one that's too hard to hit well. Is this how
> >> you prefer to do it?
> >
> >I think this is an excellent method. If it turns out someone can't hit
> >a 3-iron, it's a swing thing, not a club thing. Maybe they want a
> >rescue wood instead, or a regular 7-wood or whatever, but the problem,
> >Brent, isn't what they hit long; it's how you play the game.
>
> To say that someone should allocate part of their practice time to
> figuring out how to hit one arrbitrarily selected club that doesn't
> fit their game is poor advice, IMO. Your position seems to be that
> until you can buy a 3-PW set of clubs and hit them all welll then
> anything you think about golf clubs is wrong.
I can see my efforts in the previous post were fully and completely
wasted. The point wasn't to learn how to hit one arbitrarily-selected
club (though your fixation on that is further indication of what I'd
consider part of the issue). The point was that if you're serious about
learning the game, you can learn to hit one of those 3-irons.
And you said you were serious, or at least, provided words to that
effect.
What I think you're serious about is learning to golf your way. IMO,
you are in a comfort zone and want to enjoy the game within that zone.
That's fine, I suppose. More power to you. Just don't expect too much.
> >> Mike, you seem to be used to people who expect to get 3-iron through
> >> pitching wedge and want to find a 3-PW set which they can hit well.
> >> Then if necessary they'll drop the 3-iron for a Rescue club or add a
> >> 2-iron or whatever. Or am I putting words in your mouth?
> >
> >I'll build 'em what they want. Even if you don't hit a 3-iron well, if
> >you really want to improve, I'll bet you'd benefit from having one and
> >trying to figure out why you *can't* hit it well.
>
> So should I buy a 1-iron and figure out why I can't hit that well?
> What is it that's uniquely valuable about a 3-iron as opposed to a
> 4-iron or a 7-wood or a Rescue club?
I don't know that this would hurt you any. (3-irons today are close to
what 1-irons were in bygone days, BTW, which is why I like a 3-iron at
the bottom of the set). But you're missing the point. The point is the
swing, not the equipment.
IMO, you're focused on things that don't matter anywhere near as much as
other things.
> >I've been trying to be nice without saying the obvious, Brent, now I'm
> >just going to say it (and forgive me if you're offended): You're just
> >not good enough--yet--for these things to matter! And if they really
> >did matter, you'd see single-digit golfers using your approach. They
> >don't. Ergo, there's a lesson there.
> >
> >There are many other places you can improve your game that have nothing
> >to do with equipment. Course management. Short game (I'd guess you
> >have room for improvement there). Putting (same comment).
>
> And that's the stuff I work on.
How has it worked out so far?
> What you're really saying is that my golf game isn't good enough for
> me to express an opinion "On Clublength and its Relationship to
> Distance". Which is nonsense.
No, I don't think there's any basis for people saying you can or can't
post about anything. I've been trying to suggest an alternative point
of view that you had not considered. But you seem pretty bound and
determined to not consider it.
> In the future I won't post any
> responses to threads you initiate since I don't meet whatever
> standards you deem necessary for holding a valid opinion.
I'm saying that, IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've given you
some reasons why I think that. First and foremost is that your current
approach *is not working* if we take your current skill level as the
indication of that.
> >> Why wouldn't you first determine what's the longest shot they're going
> >> to be able to hit with an iron and work from there?
> >
> >You tell me. Nobody asks me that. Everybody wants a set. They want a
> >complete set. It may be for resale value (though I doubt that). More
> >likely, it's because if they're serious about golf, they're going to
> >have to sooner or later learn to hit those clubs, if they want to
> >improve.
>
> If you'd said this earlier I'd have saved a lot of typing. You think
> that the only place to start is the same 3-PW set people buy off the
> shelf at Nevada Bob's.
Apparently, you're not reading what I'm saying--or at least not
remembering it. I've indicated more than once that such a set should
fit you for flex, lie angle, length.
Only place to start? I suppose one might even use the approach you are
advocating. However, how well has it worked for you, Brent?
> That seems to be the gist of your experience as
> a clubmaker so perhaps it's more universal than I imagined. For some
> reason, you equate wanting that particular set of clubs with "serious
> about golf", which is quite a stretch, IMO.
I've challenged your assumptions. I think you're in a comfort zone
about your game. Know why I think that? Because it reminds me of what
I used to think.
I've made a mistake here in assuming you might be ready for this
information. I was wrong. I apologize.
> >IMO, your approach, Brent, is one of trying to build in compensations
> >for your swing issues through your equipment. Instead of learning to do
> >it better, you're looking for ways for the equipment to compensate for
> >the lack of ability at this point to apply a good swing.
> >
> >You can't buy a swing. You can't buy equipment that will substitute for
> >a swing. And you've been applying some oddball ideas that, IMO, will
> >retard your development as a golfer.
>
> My ideas of how I would go about designing a set of golf clubs is
> pretty much orthogonal to improving my golf game.
Orthogonal means independent of or at right-angles to. I have no idea
what your use of it means--and yes, I know what orthogonality is, but
never would I have thought of applying it to the distinction between
designing clubs and improving one's game. [When doing principle
components analysis--factor analysis--one often produces factors
orthogonal to each other. That means the factors have correlations with
each other of zero]
I don't even believe you believe that, BTW. If you didn't believe
equipment related to improving your game, you wouldn't be spending time
taling about this stuff. Equipment is not independent of improving your
game. When you want to design clubs that have 15-yard gaps, and you
think this is going to impact your game (why else would you design them
that way?), then the two are not orthogonal.
> This entire thread
> got off track when you took offense at my suggestion of an alternative
> way of approach the clubfitting challenge.
You suggested an alternate way as if it were a common or validated way
of doing it. It isn't, and it's not. You indicated yourself you'd
never even done it. So what you did was to offer here something you
have no basis for believing in, and presented it as if it were valid.
That's why I responded. And I offered you the chance to explain why it
was valid.
> You started out by
> asserting that my opinion must be wrong since I'm not a clubmaker (and
> you are)
No. I started out by asking you the basis for your opinion, whether
you'd done it yourself, and how it had worked out for you.
That's what I did. Go back and see.
> and then switched to saying that it further must be wrong
> since my golf game isn't any good (not as good as yours).
No. I was trying to point out how, IMO, your point of view might not be
the best one.
> I always thought you were a pretty valuable contributor to this
> newsgroup, Mike.
And because I disagree with you, that's changed?
> When you seemed to be at odds (frequently) with one
> person or another I assumed it was a misunderstanding or that I hadn't
> seen the whole discussion.
Yeah. It must be me. Couldn't possibly be you, could it? I responded
to what *you* wrote. Who was responsible for what was in your posts,
Brent?
If you want to post material and have it uncritically accepted by
others, perhaps there's another newsgroup you might frequent that will
afford you that opportunity.
> That's not the case at all.
You don't even remember *our* whole discussion (for instance, my noting
that clubs should fit you); how can you purport to draw conclusions from
anyone else's discussion?
> For some reason
> you have taken my comments on clubfitting as an attack on the validity
> of your own opinions.
No. I asked you to defend yours, trying to be honest about whether you
might actually have a sound basis for your opinion. I asked you some
questions designed to expose fallacies in the argument, if such
fallacies were in fact part of the logic.
You have the right to your opinion; I have no problem with that, never
have. You do not, however, have the right to have it taken seriously by
others.
> You seem to have an unreasonably thin skin for
> someone who spends so much time on a newsgroup and when you engage
> this condescending, defensive mode
In other words, again, because you can't defend your point of view--and
I pointed that out--it's my fault.
My gosh, who posted your posts in the first place? Someone using your
account and posing as you?
> and take the discussion off topic
> it gets ugly. I'm done, you have fun without me.
Well, I tried. I suppose one good thing that might come of this is that
others who are at a similar stage to you will actually listen and begin
a process of improvement with less focus on equipment.
Howard Brazee
On 20-Feb-2003, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote:
> For starters, I really wanted to
> > cover my 100-180 yard range with six clubs instead of eight.
>
> You wanted 15-yard gaps between clubs? That is very...unusual. It
> would make it harder to hit the tweeners, wouldn't it?
I have read of a study that shows most people would score better with 8 clubs
instead of 14. I suppose being able to hit tweeners would be good for any
golfer.
jeffc
> >
> > But that was just one club. So that means 37.5 is the longest club you
can
> > hit consistently. So you can't use any longer clubs (4 iron, etc.).
That's
> > the only way that test makes sense to me.
>
> Nope. The whole set is longer/shorter than standard.
I know that, of course. What I'm saying is that the "length test" doesn't
make sense to me. You're trying to find the longest length a golfer can
swing consistently. So you take a 5 iron (or whatever), find the longest
one he can hit well, and then fit it to him otherwise. Then you set the
length of the entire set based on that. Well, you've just given him 5 clubs
or so that are longer than that 5 iron, which invalidates the test as far as
I can see. I'm not arguing against your process - I realize this is the
standard process, but it doesn't seem to make sense. And frankly, I don't
think most pros or clubfitters know how to fit for the length/lie
combination either. Witness the wildly varying specs some recent posters
have reported being fit for.
Howard Brazee
On 20-Feb-2003, "jeffc" <f...@chance.com> wrote:
> > What about if one were thinking of entering a long-drive contest? What
> > would your advice be on a club built for the sole purpose of eeking out
> > every last possible yard?
>
> Not to evade the question, but to win a long drive contest, you don't
> necessarily have to eek out every last possible yard. You have to hit the
> fairway for the shot to count.
How many tries do you get? If you could get an extra 30 yards by with only a
50% chance of hitting the fairway, would this be a good bet in a long drive
contest?
Howard Brazee
On 20-Feb-2003, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote:
> I'd have one question: With an ultra long driver (50+ inches, say), my
> guess would be that this would create an effectively very-upright lie
> angle. I wonder if they use special heads with flatter lie angles, or
> bend them (can be done with some heads, with the right equipment), or
> just leave them as-is, accepting the draw-bias that they would tend to
> induce.
How much difference does lie angle make with a ball teed up high and with a low
loft driver for a long drive contest?
I'm not familiar with the terminology does an "upright lie angle" imply the
opposite of an "upright swing plane", as this will be a very flat swing plane.
Mike Dalecki
>
> On 20-Feb-2003, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd have one question: With an ultra long driver (50+ inches, say), my
> > guess would be that this would create an effectively very-upright lie
> > angle. I wonder if they use special heads with flatter lie angles, or
> > bend them (can be done with some heads, with the right equipment), or
> > just leave them as-is, accepting the draw-bias that they would tend to
> > induce.
>
> How much difference does lie angle make with a ball teed up high and with a low
> loft driver for a long drive contest?
It will make less difference the lower the loft is, but I don't know how
much. I don't know if these guys hit draws, power fades, try to hit it
straight, or whatever. Long for me is 275 yards! :) Typical is
230-260.
> I'm not familiar with the terminology does an "upright lie angle" imply the
> opposite of an "upright swing plane", as this will be a very flat swing plane.
No, it has nothing necessarily to do w/ upright swing plane (though it
can, but we're focused on what's going on at the ball/cluface
interface). An upright lie angle has the toe of the club sticking in
the air at impact rather than the sole being flat; a flat lie angle has
the toe sticking down.
You can visualize it this way: Take a 7 iron and get into your address
position; then, slowly drop the shaft toward the ground, keeping the
clubface behind where the ball is. When you actually lay the club down,
note where the *face* of the clubhead points (imagine a pencil taped
perpendicular to the plane of the clubface). It'll point way left.
That's extreme, of course, but you get the idea.
This can also be induced by imagining that 7-iron as a 6-foot long
club. If you had a 6-foot shaft in it, you'd have the head much farther
away from you; it would again, as a result, have the face pointed left.
So a long driver would have that tendency. It's more an issue with
high-lofted clubs than low-lofted clubs, and MyQ is right that it will
be less pronounced with the low-lofted clubs these guys use (As low as
4*, actually).
I just don't know how much it matters. It's not an area I have any
experience in--ideas yes, but I don't know that any of them are valid.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://www.dalecki.net/clubdoctor
RSG-Wisconsin 2003: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
Brent Hutto
wrote:
>Brent Hutto wrote:
>>
>> When did the subject change from "Clublength and Distance" to "What's
>> Wrong with Brent's Golf Game"?
>
>It is part and parcel of how your views of clubfitting are shaped by
>what you know.
No, it's an attempt to belittle what I say on one topic based on your
low opinion of my ability in another area.
Do you build golf clubs because it improves your game? No, you build
them because building and fitting golf clubs for other people holds an
interest for you. Likewise, my curiosity about ways to go about
building and fitting golf clubs is not, repeat not driven by any
desire to improve my golf game. It's because I find the subject
interesting.
>> I've been focusing on this subject for
>> exactly the 36 hours that we've been having this discussion, partly
>> because I have an injury and can't go to the golf course. It you want
>> to start another thread on game-improvement, then do so.
>
>Oh? I've been focused on this subject for much more than 36 hours,
>believe me. Try years.
And you know what? I have no doubt that you know more about
clubfitting than I do. I also think that there's nothing I could say
that would add to your knowledge or provide an alternative
perspective. I apologize for wasting your time.
>> If you recall, I never built the golf clubs that started me thinking
>> about this topic:
>>
>> " I ultimately decided to spend that effort upgrading my golf game
>> rather than my equipment so I never got a chance to go through the
>> process."
>
>There's a big difference between "I have this idea and I'm going to try
>it and I'll report back later on how it worked out" or "Hey, what does
>anyone think about this? Any downside to it?"
>
>and
>
>"Here's how one can produce clubs; I don't know if it has any validity,
>don't know anybody who's tried it, I've never tried it, but here's how
>you go about it."
OK, those are two different statements. My original post was somewhere
in between but closer to the latter. What's wrong with either of those
statements? Either way, it's just an expression of one person's
opinion. I never claimed any credentials or special credibility, just
offered an alternative perspective that seemed logical to me.
[snip]
>What I think you're serious about is learning to golf your way. IMO,
>you are in a comfort zone and want to enjoy the game within that zone.
>That's fine, I suppose. More power to you. Just don't expect too much.
You're correct except that it's not so much "my way" as it is the way
that my golf teacher suggests I proceed. BUT LEARNING TO PLAY GOLF HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH A DISCUSSION OF CLUBFITTING!
Where in any of my too-many posts on this topic did you get the idea
that I'm out there building clubs instead of practicing? I never said
anything of the sort. You brought up the question by asking
"How has this worked for you in terms of your game? How has your
scoring been? Has any of this enabled you to get your handicap down?"
to which I replied
"Somewhat, although it's more practice than club changes."
and
"Hard to attribute more than a little of that lower index to new
clubs, though. My swing is much improved."
[snip]
>I'm saying that, IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've given you
>some reasons why I think that. First and foremost is that your current
>approach *is not working* if we take your current skill level as the
>indication of that.
And this is the key issue. I shared my opinion on what seems to be a
good way to fit someone for a set of clubs. You think it's totally off
base and said so. Fine, more people probably agree with you than not.
Then you began repeating this idea that starting clubfitting by
working from the longest distance you can hit an iron is a bad idea as
proven by the fact that it hasn't improved my game. That's a complete
non-sequeter. I've never built a set of clubs with that approach and
in fact I've never changed my irons with any idea of improving my
game. That's all something you just made up.
[snip]
>> My ideas of how I would go about designing a set of golf clubs is
>> pretty much orthogonal to improving my golf game.
>
>Orthogonal means independent of or at right-angles to. I have no idea
>what your use of it means--and yes, I know what orthogonality is, but
>never would I have thought of applying it to the distinction between
>designing clubs and improving one's game. [When doing principle
>components analysis--factor analysis--one often produces factors
>orthogonal to each other. That means the factors have correlations with
>each other of zero]
Let me use different words. My ideas of how I would go about designing
a set of golf club DOESN'T HAVE ONE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH IMPROVING
MY GOLF GAME!
You keep asserting some connection between my golf game and my opinion
on clubfitting. There is none. It's just a topic that interests me.
>I don't even believe you believe that, BTW. If you didn't believe
>equipment related to improving your game, you wouldn't be spending time
>taling about this stuff. Equipment is not independent of improving your
>game. When you want to design clubs that have 15-yard gaps, and you
>think this is going to impact your game (why else would you design them
>that way?), then the two are not orthogonal.
Dave Pelz says long gaps between iron distances are generally not a
problem. My golf teacher says most high-handicappers could shoot the
same score with four clubs as with fourteen. I have shot some of my
best scores when playing out of a six or nine-club bag. Fewer clubs
are not better but for most amateur golfers they are no worse, either.
Now that's just my opinion, Mike. You don't have to agree and I may
even be dead-flat wrong about it. If so, once I reach your level I'll
realize the error of my thinking and retract that statement. In the
mean while, it's just an honest opinion.
>> This entire thread
>> got off track when you took offense at my suggestion of an alternative
>> way of approach the clubfitting challenge.
>
>You suggested an alternate way as if it were a common or validated way
>of doing it. It isn't, and it's not. You indicated yourself you'd
>never even done it. So what you did was to offer here something you
>have no basis for believing in, and presented it as if it were valid.
>
>That's why I responded. And I offered you the chance to explain why it
>was valid.
All I said was
"I look at it from a somewhat different perspective."
and no one has chimed in and said that they agreed with that
perspective. That indicates it's probably not useful, which is a good
thing to know. Thank you for the feedback. As I said, I've always
thought of you as one of the valuable contributors to the group.
However, I'm not going to now announce that everything I thought about
clubfitting is wrong. That's still the way I look at it, not that it
matters in any but some abstract way. Do you want to know where my
actual set of irons that I use every week came from? I went in Nevada
Bob's. They had a set of discontinued Titleist DCI 990's at a good
price. I bought them to replace the DCI Oversize+ that my golf teacher
had fitted for me six years ago (it happens that Titleist's standard
length and lie is perfect for me with "R" flex shafts and one degree
upright with "S" flex). I showed them to my teacher, he watched me hit
balls with the 7-iron for a while and said "Great clubs, have fun, go
practice with 'em" and that's what I did.
>> You started out by
>> asserting that my opinion must be wrong since I'm not a clubmaker (and
>> you are)
>
>No. I started out by asking you the basis for your opinion, whether
>you'd done it yourself, and how it had worked out for you.
>
>That's what I did. Go back and see.
Absolutely true. That's how you started out. And when I said that it
was just speculation and that I don't build golf clubs you responded:
"How has this worked for you in terms of your game? How has your
scoring been? Has any of this enabled you to get your handicap down?"
and the thread proceeded totally off-track from there.
Brent Hutto
Loren Miller
> You should care about gaps between clubs, and making sure the gaps are
> consistent.
I'll just leave this up at the top to point back at later.
> But again, you have this focus on these distances, gaps that are too
> wide (IMO), and a fixation on shorter wedges that, judging by your
> handicap, aren't doing much for you anyway.
>
> I've been trying to be nice without saying the obvious, Brent, now I'm
> just going to say it (and forgive me if you're offended): You're just
> not good enough--yet--for these things to matter! And if they really
> did matter, you'd see single-digit golfers using your approach. They
> don't. Ergo, there's a lesson there.
Dave Pelz is a scratch golfer. Dave Pelz recommends 15 yard gaps. Are
you saying that Dave Pelz isn't a scratch golfer, or are you saying
that you know clubs better than he does? Maybe, just maybe, the reason
people stick with 10 yard gaps is tradition, not effectiveness. IMHO,
if you had 15 yard gaps between clubs, except for the Putter thru
Wedge gaps, then you'd be doing pretty well. Why not design a set for
15-yard gaps instead of having 10-yard gaps for the irons and much
wider gaps for everything else? Didn't you say, up above, that folks
should be concerned about having consistent gaps between clubs? Why
then are you arguing against consistent gaps for *all* the clubs and
in favor of inconsistent gaps for all clubs except the mid-irons?
For example, what's wrong with the following targets for a set?
Club Expected Yards (good hitter)
Putter 0
Lob 60 70
Sand 55 100
Pitch 50 115
9I 130
8I 145
7I 160
5.5I 175
4I 190
2.5I/9W 205
1I/7W 220
5W 235
3W 250
Driver 265+
A high handicapper wouldn't get those distances, but they wouldn't be
so likely to have multiple clubs that they hit all the same distance
(3I to 5I) like most high handicappers do.
At present my interest in these things is theoretical. Instead of
building clubs, I'm focusing on being able to swing the club so it
compresses the ball and impacts in the middle of the clubface, for all
clubs. But, when I'm not able to practice and I'm thinking about
things golf anyway, sometimes the elusive goal of a better set of
clubs raises its head. I would think that as a clubbuilder you'd be
interested in the same thing, but oh well. Apparently you're more
interested in ragging a relative beginner about his handicap. I'll
raise my hand. Why don't you rag me about my playing ability too?
Regards,
Loren
The Rev
wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> How much difference does lie angle make with a ball teed up high and with a low
>> loft driver for a long drive contest?
>
>It will make less difference the lower the loft is, but I don't know how
>much. I don't know if these guys hit draws, power fades, try to hit it
>straight, or whatever. Long for me is 275 yards! :) Typical is
>230-260.
Well, from what my (rather drunken at the time) mind will allow me to
remember about the World Long Drive championships, these guys were
making a real effort to draw the ball. Every ball that scampered out
of bounds would be because of putting too much draw on it. Makes
sense, though, seeing as you'll get more total distance with a draw...
All I know, after reading through this thread, is that when my club
guy tosses my new Proforce 75 into my driver, it's getting cut to 44".
:)
Todd McGillivray - http://cplhicks.tripod.com/
Emailing me? tmcg at sk dot sympatico dot ca
"Hi Principal Skinner! Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers!"
-- Ralph Wiggum, The Simpsons
MyQ
news:b35cbh$76s$1...@peabody.colorado.edu:
> I have read of a study that shows most people would score better with
> 8 clubs instead of 14. I suppose being able to hit tweeners would be
> good for any golfer.
In that vein, I recall a golf outing years ago, where we played a
strokeplay round in the morning and then played a 4 club (putter +3)
competition in the afternoon. The winner of the 4 club competition scored
exactly 10 shots less than he had with 14 clubs! I sense a correlation
here! Incidently, the rounds with 4 clubs were almost 30 minutes shorter
than with 14 clubs - must be the reduced weight or is that "reduced wait".
:-)
Howard Brazee
On 21-Feb-2003, lonsd...@yahoo.com (Loren Miller) wrote:
> 5W 235
> 3W 250
> Driver 265+
>
> A high handicapper wouldn't get those distances, but they wouldn't be
> so likely to have multiple clubs that they hit all the same distance
> (3I to 5I) like most high handicappers do.
Depends on the reason(s) for the high handicap.
Frostback
jeffc wrote:
>
> I know that, of course. What I'm saying is that the "length test" doesn't
> make sense to me. You're trying to find the longest length a golfer can
> swing consistently. So you take a 5 iron (or whatever), find the longest
> one he can hit well, and then fit it to him otherwise. Then you set the
> length of the entire set based on that. Well, you've just given him 5 clubs
> or so that are longer than that 5 iron, which invalidates the test as far as
> I can see. I'm not arguing against your process - I realize this is the
> standard process, but it doesn't seem to make sense. And frankly, I don't
> think most pros or clubfitters know how to fit for the length/lie
> combination either. Witness the wildly varying specs some recent posters
> have reported being fit for.
Yup. that's where clubfitting doesn't really work. If I know one thing
from long experience it is that how someone swings on the range, and
most particularly, how well someone hits the ball on the range has
nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they can make shots with
that club on the course. For me, it has become a process of selecting
the kinds of clubs I am most consistent with and going with them as much
as possible. I have no real knowledge of why certain clubs work for me,
and I don't really care! One thing for certain though, the longer the
club, the more inconsistent I am with it. Thus I want all clubs to be as
short as is reasonable.
I don't believe that it is possible to "fit" another person for clubs.
Even extremes, like a guy I know who comes hard OTT, and stands really
close to the ball, who probably would "fit" to +9 or so lie angles plays
quite well for someone with that swing, using standard lie angles. You
change the lie angles to match some mark on some board, and the ball is
not going to come off the club for him the same as it has all those n
number of years, and while he might be able to get a feel for it on the
range, it has to kill his confidence on the course.
Howard Brazee
On 21-Feb-2003, Frostback <Fros...@nospam.buy> wrote:
> Yup. that's where clubfitting doesn't really work. If I know one thing
> from long experience it is that how someone swings on the range, and
> most particularly, how well someone hits the ball on the range has
> nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they can make shots with
> that club on the course
So if you see someone hitting over the top on the range, you have no
expectations on how he will play on the course?
Frostback
Not really. I know a guy who *REALLY* comes over the top. He is about a
7 handicap. I hit balls on the range much better than he does, but I
cannot play better than him on the course.
jeffc
>
> This can also be induced by imagining that 7-iron as a 6-foot long
> club. If you had a 6-foot shaft in it, you'd have the head much farther
> away from you; it would again, as a result, have the face pointed left.
>
> So a long driver would have that tendency.
That's why there's a tendency for companies to make upright drivers! (How
many people is TaylorMade's 46" 60* driver really going to fit properly?
It's for slicers :-)
jeffc
"The Rev" <idontl...@mpfc.com> wrote in message
news:stic5v4f32cd9mr7h...@4ax.com...
>
> Well, from what my (rather drunken at the time) mind will allow me to
> remember about the World Long Drive championships, these guys were
> making a real effort to draw the ball. Every ball that scampered out
> of bounds would be because of putting too much draw on it. Makes
> sense, though, seeing as you'll get more total distance with a draw...
The last report I remember on the subject showed that straight balls went
the farthest. Draws were second, fades were third.
jeffc
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:b35cl2$7dc$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> >
> > Not to evade the question, but to win a long drive contest, you don't
> > necessarily have to eek out every last possible yard. You have to hit
the
> > fairway for the shot to count.
>
> How many tries do you get? If you could get an extra 30 yards by with
only a
> 50% chance of hitting the fairway, would this be a good bet in a long
drive
> contest?
Yup. Usually 3 tries, I think.
jeffc
>
> How much difference does lie angle make with a ball teed up high and with
a low
> loft driver for a long drive contest?
Yeah, that's a good question. Those guys are often using lower lofted
drivers - like 5-8*. At those lofts, lie angle doesn't mean much. (At 0*,
theoretically it means nothing at all.)
Sparky
On 21-Feb-2003, The Rev <idontl...@mpfc.com> wrote:
> Well, from what my (rather drunken at the time) mind will allow me to
> remember about the World Long Drive championships, these guys were
> making a real effort to draw the ball. Every ball that scampered out
> of bounds would be because of putting too much draw on it. Makes
> sense, though, seeing as you'll get more total distance with a draw...
I must do something wrong then as all of my longest drives (350+) have
been power fades or straight shots..
me