Hosel Confusion, Bending Hosels to match Specs

Importance of Set Makeup

Professional Golf Shaft Fitting - Tom Wishon Golf

Adjustable Driver Hosel Confusion Explained

Wishon Custom Fit Ad 2014

TWGT Custom Fitting Update

TWGT Original S2S Shaft Designs Offer a Shaft for Every Golfer Swing Type

Tom Wishon Golf Technology S2S iron, hybrid, and wood shafts (S2S is an acronym for "Shaft to Swing") are color coded and designed with specific bend profiles for 5 different swing characterisics.  These 5 characteristics are: 1) Clubhead Speed, 2) Tempo, 3) Transition, 4) Release, 5) Golfer Physical Strength.  These 5 characteristics are then rated 1, 2, or 3.  If we look at Golfer Physical Strength for example, #1 rating would be below average Physical Strength, #2 rating would be average strength, and #3 rating would be for a golfer with above average Physical Strength.  The color codes are Green, White, Black, Blue, and Red.  What I do is record and observe these 5 characteristics, rate each one individually, plug the numbers into the S2S shaft software program, and observe which shaft is then recommended for that particular golfer's swing type.  Very simple yet very, very, effective in getting the proper shaft into YOUR hands for YOUR driver, fairway woods, hybrids, and irons.
 
No one has made more of a science of matching shaft design characteristics to specific golfer swing types than TWGT. Every year they tweak their shaft design line with new models or make slight changes to existing models so they can offer a golfer a shaft model for any type of golfer swing characteristics.

For 2014, TWGT added on the S2S Green R&S combination flex graphite shafts for woods to further expand the Green shaft designs for average to slightly below average golfer swing characteristics.   They also fine tuned the tip section design on their S2S White wood shafts in all flexes so the White shaft designs can fit not only average player types but very slightly better than average swing characteristics as well.

Coming later in 2014 there will be heavier weight versions of the S2S White wood shafts in R (80G) and S (83g) flexes for those average to slightly better than average players who are stronger than average or slightly more aggressive with their transition/tempo and need a heavier total weight in their driver and woods.

With the addition of the brand new S2S Red iron shafts, golfers now have a heavy weight (>100g) graphite iron shaft designed for better than average to better players who have always liked the feel and the weight of steel iron shafts like the Dynamic Gold or Project X but wish to move into graphite.
Watch for the brand new S2S White Plus R and S flex shafts to come soon for woods. This will be an 80g and 83g heavier weight shafts designed with the same bend profile as the lighter weight S2S White shafts for woods. When doing the updates for the S2S Shaft Fitting Program Software, they determined that they needed to have a heavier weight version of the S2S White for golfers with the Transition, Tempo, and Release characteristics matched to the S2S White, but who also would be above average Strength and/or with a preference for a little heavier total weight.   Watch for the S2S White "Plus" coming soon !!

Technical Comments on the OEM Driver Models That Claim Performance Changes from Movement of the Center of Gravity

From the desk of Tom Wishon:

A number of clubmakers have recently asked TWGT to comment technically on the trend among some OEM companies to offer driver models that claim performance changes from a movable weight on the head intended to change the position of the Center of Gravity (CG) inside the clubhead. We’re always happy to use our depth of understanding of the relationship of the science of head design parameters to practical shot performance to help clubmakers gain the knowledge to be able to be armed with the best information to discuss such matters with golfers who may ask about such trends.
With the introduction of their SLDR driver, Taylor Made Golf Company launched a marketing campaign advising golfers to “Loft Up” when using this club. In TM’s explanation, because the SLDR head is designed with its CG closer to the face, ball flight will be lower with less spin. Thus to achieve the optimal launch and spin performance with the model, the company is advising golfers to use more loft than what the golfer may have used with his previous driver.

It is true that a more forward CG can slightly lower the launch angle and spin of the shot – but ONLY for golfers who have a later and later to very late unhinging of the wrist cock angle (release) on the downswing. For golfers with an early to midway to even slightly later than midway release, a more forward CG will not lower flight and spin, nor will a more rear located CG increase launch and spin.
In addition, TM’s manner of changing loft is through the adjustable hosel device on the SLDR. With all such devices, only if the golfer manually holds the face square to the target line when starting the swing will the hosel device adjustments change the loft. If the golfer soles the driver to address the ball to hit the shot, no adjustable hosel device on the market will change loft. If the golfer soles the driver to address the ball the adjustment said to be done to change loft instead changes the face angle of the head with no change in loft.

Thus for the SLDR driver to perform as claimed and for the Loft Up advice to work for a golfer, the golfer first must have a later to very late release, and second, has to have the habit of always holding the face square to the target line with the driver when he hits the shot. No statistics exist which indicate how many golfers have an early/midway vs later/late release. Nor is there any way of knowing how many golfers have the habit of manually squaring the face of their driver vs soling the driver before hitting the shot. Common sense estimates would say that there are far more golfers with an early to midway release than there are golfers with a later to very late release.

Another driver model now on the market that has brought questions from clubmakers to TWGT is the new Big Bertha driver from Callaway. Designed with a rod with 9g of weight on one end and 1g on the other that is positioned vertically inside the head, golfers can reverse the position of the rod to put the 9g weight on the top of the head to raise the CG to achieve a lower launch angle with less spin, or to put the 9g weight on the bottom of the head to lower the CG to gain a little higher launch with more spin.

Does this driver do what the company claims? Let’s use an example of moving weight on a driver head to get an idea of how much weight it takes to move the CG a specific distance. First of all, a basic rule concerning weight movement vs CG movement. The farther you pl
ace a specific mass of weight from the CG, the greater the distance the CG will move toward the weight. Conversely, the closer you place a specific mass of weight to the CG, the less distance the CG will move toward the weight.
The center of the hosel weight bore on the 919THI driver is 50mm from the CG inside the 919THI head. Placing a 9 gram weight in the hosel weight bore on the 919THI drivers will move the CG a distance of 3/32” horizontally toward the weight bore. Thousands of clubmakers who have built the 919 driver have discovered this 3/32” movement of the CG toward the heel does not change the performance of the 919THI driver at all.

Regarding the movement of 9 grams to the top or bottom of a driver head, its maximum distance above or below the head’s original CG is far less than the 50mm distance from the weight bore of the 919THI driver to its CG. Every driver head ever made has its vertical CG located approximately 2/3’s of the face height up from the bottom of the leading edge. This is because the top crown of the driver is much larger than the sole, thus weighing more to pull the CG above the center of the face.
A typical 450-460cc size driver head has a face height of 53-55mm, with a sole to crown height of 60-64mm, depending on the curvature of the top crown of the head. That means most 450-460cc driver heads have their vertical CG position located on average 36mm up from the sole or 26mm down from the top of the crown.

When the 9g weight is placed on the top of the driver head, at the most that weight is 26mm above the head’s original CG. When the 9g weight is placed on the bottom of the driver head, that weight is not more than 36mm above the head’s original CG. Keep in mind that the closer you place a specific mass of weight to the CG, the less distance the CG will move toward the weight. Now remember that a 9g weight placed 50mm from the CG in the weight bore of the 919THI driver moved the CG 3/32” toward the weight bore. Hence the 9g weight placed either 26mm above the CG is going to move the CG up around 3/64”, while the 9g weight reversed to be positioned 36mm below the CG is going to lower the CG around 1/16”.

Bottom line: a 3/64” and 1/16” movement of the CG down or up in a driver head is quite an insignificant distance when it comes to having a visible effect on launch angle, spin or trajectory.

Is a longer length driver really longer?

Getting more distance of the tee is easy right?

Getting more distance off the tee is easy right? Well, golf companies sure would like you to believe that…they have us feeling as if the equation is as simple as…longer drivers = longer drives. Not so fast cowboy! As recently as the early-90s, most standard off-the-rack drivers were 43″ – 43.5″. That number has since jumped up to around 46″. But, remember humans don’t evolve that quickly…we aren’t getting taller but clubs sure are getting longer. So the question we wanted to answer for everyone …”Is Longer Really Longer?”

A Sanity Check

(Written By: GolfSpy T) If you’ve ever read anything Tom Wishon has written about driver length, or spoken to your local fitter about the topic, there’s a curious statistic that you’ve probably encountered.

Since the mid 2000′s, the average driver length on the PGA Tour has held steady at 44½”.

Think about that for a second. The very best players in the world, guys who hit the sweet spot on their driver as easily as most of us would hit water after falling from a cruise ship, guys who routinely drive the ball to distances that some reading this would need two swings to achieve are playing drivers upwards of 1.5″ shorter than what most of the rest of us have in our bags right now.
Last season (2010) the majority of drivers we received for testing were outfitted stock with 46″ shafts. While there were exceptions, only one driver we’ve ever received for testing was shorter than 45.5″ (Titleist), and that was more than countered by another that actually measured in at 46.5″!
Somewhat surprising considering the distance race the big OEMs are engaged in; for 2011 – and from what we’ve seen from the 2012 lineups – many OEMs have backed off driver length every so slightly (we’re seeing more 45.75″ than 46″ shafts), but I think most would agree overall shaft lengths are at historic highs. As you’ll see below, many golfers custom order clubs well above stock lengths. What they probably haven’t considered is that in all likelihood, their games are suffering for it.
All of this begs the question; Are the Pros shorting themselves distance by playing shorter drivers, or have the rest of us, driven by the compulsive need to gain the fabled 10-15 More Yards, completely lost our minds?

How Did We Get Here…and Who Can We Blame

While it would be easy to blame the OEMs for the never-ending demand for more distance, the reality is, while the golf companies perhaps give us tools we don’t need, they do so only because we asked for them. It’s our prevailing willingness to accept the flawed equation that shaft length = clubhead speed = ball speed = distance … ALWAYS that has most of us hitting out of the rough much more often than we should be.
To get a better idea of how pervasive the “longer than the Pros play” driver phenomenon actually is, we asked TaylorMade to provide us with some details about their custom orders from the last several years. While it’s not surprising that the most popular order, even among custom orders, is for standard length (45.75″-46″) drivers, what I found most shocking is that TaylorMade receives orders for drivers 2″ longer than standard at a rate of 2 to 1 over drivers 2″ shorter than standard.
And while their most popular non-standard order is for drivers cut 1″ below standard length, TaylorMade still ships 2 drivers at 1″ above spec for ever 3 1″ below. In fact, over the last 3-4 years, TaylorMade has received nearly as many orders for drivers longer than standard length as they have for drivers shorter than standard.
When you examine these orders, what you find isn’t a case of the OEMs pushing longer drivers on consumers; you can make the argument that it’s the consumer demanding longer shafts from the golf companies.


To get some perspective on the madness, we asked seasoned club-fitter and Director of the New York Golf Center’s Custom Shop, Josh Chervokas what he generally recommends to his customers. Here’s what he had to say:

“I rarely fit anyone into a driver over 45″ and often I build them shorter, I just did a 43″ build. People want to hit it farther but what we see in fittings is that clubspeed is useless if it cannot be turned into ballspeed. People have a harder time centering the ball in the middle of the club and so they get lower and lower smashfactors as the club gets longer”.

The suggestion is that the average golfer would actually benefit more from playing a shorter driver. We’ve heard this same sentiment echoed time and time again from basically every fitter we’ve ever come in contact with. And yet despite a chorus of respected professionals telling us otherwise, the overwhelming majority of golfers are still bagging drivers longer than most club fitters would recommend.
While golfers should probably shoulder the bulk of the responsibility, the OEM’s aren’t completely without blame. When you look at current product lineups, it’s actually the high-MOI, ultra-forgiving clubs…the ones designed for high handicap golfers (guys who struggle to produce consistent swings) that come stock with the longer (46″ shafts). High handicap golfers have basically been conditioned to believe that longer drivers provide more distance, and ultimately fit them better. Clubs designed for better players often come stock with slightly to significantly shorter shafts. What’s up with that?
On the off chance that Tom Wishon, Josh Chervokas, and basically everyone else who earns a living fitting golfers for their clubs might be wrong, we decided to put together our own little test to determine how much is gained (accuracy), and how much is lost (distance) when golfers are willing to trim a couple of inches off the big dog.

The Test Equipment

Shafts

To provide the shafts for our tests we contacted UST-Mamiya. They agreed to provided us with 4 of their new Proforce VTS Shafts (2 – 65 regular flex, 2 – 75 Stiff flex). Though we didn’t undergo a full shaft fitting for this test, we were very interested to get our hands on the new VTS, which introduces what UST-Mamiya calls 3D Fitting.
While shaft torque has largely been an after-thought the Proforce VTS lineup includes torque as a key part of the fitting equation. Every weight/flex combination in the VTS lineup is offered with 3 distinct torque options. No longer does heavier and stiffer necessarily mean lower torque.
As it turns out, the pearly white color scheme of the VTS also looks positively sick with the head we chose for this test.

HEADS

To provide the heads for our testing we reached out to TaylorMade to see if they’d be interested in participating. Since our test involves multiple shafts (multiple flexes, multiple lengths) it was important for the sake of consistency, simplicity, and expedience that we were able to quickly swap out shafts while using the same head for every shaft. TaylorMade’s R11 heads coupled with their Flight Control Tips matched that need perfectly.
While we sometimes find the marketing a bit over the top, TaylorMade’s implementation of adjustability is almost without argument the most complete and user friendly on the market today. The simple fact that TaylorMade makes its FCT tips available for purchase by the consumer was a substantial factor in why we chose to approach TaylorMade first. Quite frankly we think every OEM should make their adapters available to the consumer. As it stands right now, TaylorMade is the only big OEM that actually does.
We had planned to have our resident club builder help us out with shaft assembly, but when the team at TaylorMade volunteered their Tour Department to handle the assembly, we were happy to take them up on the offer.
At our requests, shafts in each flex were cut to 43.75″ and 45.75″ inches. We asked that each pair be frequency matched, and that the neutral bend point of each shaft be aligned to the standard/neutral position of the Flight Control tip.

The Testing Process

To test distance and accuracy, each of 6 testers was asked to hit a series of 12 shots with both the 43.75″ and 45.75″ drivers. In a perfect world testing would have been blind to eliminate any possibility of the placebo effect, however; let’s be honest…you’d have to be some special kind of oblivious not to notice a 2″ difference in driver length.
To balance things out as much as we possibly could, half of testers hit the longer driver first, the other half hit the shorter first.
After the 12 shot sequence was completed, impact tape was placed on the driver face, and testers were asked to hit an additional 5 shots with each shaft so we could observe quality of impact.

Calculating Averages

To calculate our averages and develop other conclusions we selected the best 10 of 12 shots from each tester at both driver lengths. Best was determined by calculating a total point value based on a simple formula of total distance minus yardage from the center line. This is the same equation we use to determine driver performance within our standard review process.

 

Interpreting the Data

Carry Distance:

With the 45.75″ shaft, our testers averaged 233.75 yards of

carry compared to 232.35 yards with the 43.75″ shaft. That’s a

difference of only 1.4 yards.

Examining the data on an individual level shows that 5 of 6

testers, as one might expect, produced more carry with the

longer driver. However, of those 5, only 2 were more than 4

yards longer with the 45.75″ driver. Each of the remaining 3

produced less than 2 yards more carry on average. Our senior

tester carried the ball an average of 4.9 yards farther with the

shorter club.
 

Total Distance:

With the 45.75″ shaft our testers averaged 247.65 yards

compared to 247.15 yards with the 43.75″ shaft, leaving a total

distance gap of only ½ yard.

Looking at the data on an individual level reveals some

interesting details. Two of our testers proved to be longer with

the 45.75″ driver (3.9 and 5.7 yards). One tester achieved an

identical average with both clubs. The remaining 3 testers

actually produced greater average total distances with the

shorter (43.75″) shaft.

Our senior tester showed the greatest discrepancy; his distance

actually increased by 5.7 yards with the shorter driver. The

other 2 testers posted more modest gains of .1 and .8 yards.

To better understand how distance numbers can remain

relatively consistent despite a 2″ discrepency in shaft length we

need to examine the key factor in determining distance; ball

speed.

As it turns out, some testers produced better ball speeds with

the shorter driver, while others maintained higher numbers

with the longer driver. Looking at the averages, our testers as a

whole produced a relatively insignificant .55 MPH more ball

speed with the longer driver.

Those 2 testers that showed higher ball speed with the longer

driver produced greater clubhead speed. Most importantly,

they were able to be efficient enough in doing so. Individually

their ball speed with the 45.75″ driver was 2.8 and 3.0 MPH

faster than what they produced with the shorter driver.

For each of our other 4 golfers, however; the greatest average

ball speeds were achieved using the shorter driver. In each case

the speed gains were more modest (1.8 MPH, 1.1 MPH, .5

MPH, and .1 MPH), but they are increases none the less.

“People who do not have the benefit of launch monitor data

usually assume that more clubspeed equals more ballspeed.

Additionally, with people who swing under 100 we often see a

longer club actually slows their ss down instead of increasing

it”. – Josh Chervokas, Director New York Golf Center Custom Shop

The argument for playing a shorter driver has never been

about distance. The suggestion as I’ve always interpreted it is

that a shorter driver will be more accurate, and because you’re

better able to control the club, and find the sweet spot, more

argument for a shorter driver is really an argument for

accuracy, and that’s information we were most interested in

obtaining.

ACCURACY:

As a group our testers were 4.63 yards (28% closer) to the

target line with the 43.75″ driver. With the longer shaft, our

testers averaged 16.6 yards offline, compared to only 11.97

yards offline with the 43.75″ driver. Looking at testers

individually reveals more detail. Our senior tester actually

showed the smallest accuracy gain (.1 yards). This isn’t

altogether surprising considering that his total yardage was

significantly shorter than any other tester.

While a 2nd tester showed a relatively most improvement of 1.5

yards, the remaining testers showed accuracy improvements of

between 4.9 and 10.4 yards or (63% more accurate)!

As expected, the 43.75″ driver proved to be substantially more

accurate. And while I wouldn’t expect that most golfers would

see a 63% improvement, moving the ball an average of nearly 5

yards closer to the center line is almost certainly going to save a

couple of strokes over the course of an average round.

So…Should You Cut 2″ Off Your Driver?

Well, our data (and the years of experience from reputable club

fitters all over the globe) suggest that the majority of golfers

(yes you too) would absolutely benefit from playing a shorter-

shafted driver. Not only will accuracy increase (our tests show

by a whopping 28%), our numbers also suggest that any

distance loss would be very minimal, and there’s a chance you

could actually increase your total distance as well.

Whether cutting 2″ is the optimal number for you is impossible

to say. Maybe for you it’s .5″, maybe it’s 2.5″. Maybe stock is

perfect. These are questions that a knowledgeable club fitter

can help you answer and is yet another example of why it’s

absolutely imperative that every golfer serious about improving

his game be custom fit for his equipment.

Now, before you decide, make sure you’re fully aware of the

effect the change will have on your driver’s swing weight.

Cutting 2″ off the shaft will dramatically lower the swing

weight of your driver (with our sample head, the difference was

about 7 swing weight points). Some golfers will actually find

they prefer the lighter feel, some may find the club harder to

control, and many probably won’t care one way or the other

(especially if you become 28% more accurate). Be advised,

adding additional weight to the head will soften the flex (~1

CPM per 2 grams of weight added).

Swing Weight issues aside, the raw data says you probably

should cut some length of your driver, but few things in this

game are absolute, and there are certainly some mitigating

factors. Not surprisingly, it was largely our mid-to-high

handicap golfers who showed the most improvement with the

shorter shaft. Though not true of our lowest handicap golfer, 2

of our single (or near single) digit handicappers actually lost

upwards of 5 yards with the shorter shaft. We also observed

that golfers with a flatter swing plane also showed less benefit

from the shorter shaft.

 

Tell me about the TaylorMade SLDR driver with its low spin and CG closer to the face. The new recommended launch characteristics by TaylorMade is 17* launch and 1700 spin. Wouldn't that have to require a driver swing with a fairly substantial upward angle of attack?

From the desk of Tom Wishon:

This recent commentary from Taylor Made about the 17* launch and 1700 rpms spin is chiefly done to try to help market their Loft Up campaign to go with selling more of their currently offered SLDR driver model.

Purely from a theoretical standpoint, it can be said that 17* launch with 1700 spin is an ideal combination for distance. But the key word is "theoretical". From a PRACTICAL standpoint, as you have asked, such launch numbers would require a very upward angle of attack which is simply impossible for 99+% of all golfers to even come close to. Even in TrackMan's research, for 100mph to 120mph clubhead speeds with +5* upward A of A, around 1700 rpms is optimum for spin, but the optimum launch runs from 12.4* at 100mph down to 10.3* at 120mph. So to get all the way up to 17* launch and still maintain 1700 spin would require something closer to a +10* upward A of A. And that is quite impractical - so impractical that this is why you can look at this Taylor Made 17/1700 campaign and label it as marketing, purely marketing in trying to fool golfers into spending their money for this latest SLDR driver.

Give them 6-9 months and the SLDR will be history and something else will have taken its place in the marketing hype.  

Sadly way too many people hit shots on a launch monitor, see their spin is over 3000, ignore the launch angle and smash factor, and then obsess how to get their spin under 3000 to be like the tour players have. This is SO WRONG. First of all, only the Doppler Radar launch monitors can even read spin with decent accuracy. Second, 98% of the time the golfers are hitting RANGE BALLS when they get their spin number from an inaccurate launch monitor.

Launch angle is KING when it comes to optimizing a driver for any golfer. And launch angle is most influenced by the loft. So if you focus on finding the right loft that brings about the best launch angle for a golfer's clubhead speed and angle of attack, you simply do not worry about spin because if a golfer has a spin problem it will be caused far, far more by swing errors than by anything related to the equipment.

Tell me something about ball spin rates when hitting iron shots. Too much spin vs too little spin?

In my experience, you really can't focus on the spin numbers you get from hitting shots on launch monitors. There are so few launch monitors that can read spin accurately AND consistently because this is without question THE most difficult launch parameter to read. Plus so many people hit shots on launch monitors using range balls or very worn balls so that too significantly affects the readings.

What you have to do first and foremost with spin is to take the complete common sense approach - WATCH THE FLIGHT SHAPE OF YOUR SHOTS to determine if you do or do not have any spin issues. Too much spin always shows up as a fast rise up. followed by a steeper fall down, almost like you shot a duck out of the air. Too little spin never flies as far nor does it achieve as high of a trajectory. Good ball flight can still be a high trajectory but the travel of the ball is more parabolic and the downward flight is gradual and not super steep.

Unfortunately if a golfer truly does have a too much spin or too little spin issue going on, the remedy 99 times out of 100 is a swing technique change and NOT a shaft or a clubhead change. Shaft and clubhead changes can only make SLIGHT differences in spin, not major changes. When it comes to CG differences in heads and spin, this is really not something that works very often for the main reason that the actual vertical CG location in heads of the same type of design (like among all forgings) is SO CLOSE from model to model that you just don't see anything close to a significant difference in spin or flight shape when jumping from one model to the next.

The reason is because so many of the models of the same type of head design are so close to each other in head height and sole width - the two most predominant design elements that affect where the CG is in the head. So do start looking more closely at your ball flight shape to first see if there is even remotely any issue with spin because seeing it with the eyes in the form of flight shape is much more reliable than trying to focus on numbers coming off launch monitors that can be very suspect in their accuracy.

Mizuno Golf Swing DNA: Luke Donald testing iron shafts