What was the COR of the old wooded heads? What is the COR of a one piece stainless steel cast iron head today?
.830 is the legal COR limit meaning that a golf ball shot out of an Air Cannon at the face of a clubhead at 100mph cannot rebound back any faster then 83mph or it is deemed illegal. Now they have a CT test (Characteristic Time) which is just another way of measureing face flexture.
Wooden woods with their array of different plastic to paper fiber to metal face inserts and normal 1 piece stainless cast irons both have a COR in the area of 0.770
In the history and evolution of COR as a performance factor in head design, designers didn't really become aware of COR all that much until around 2 yrs after the very first titanium driver heads came out in the early to mid 90s. Actually the first reason companies began to use titanium to make their driver heads was to enable them to make the head size larger than had been possible with 17-4 stainless steel, not because of the COR capability from titanium's strength to modulus relationship.
Titanium has a much lower density than steel (4.5 g/cc vs 7.6 g/cc) so this enabled designers to push the size of the driver head larger. Size was a big factor in driver design back in 1993-94 because Callaway had started this trend with their original stainless Big Bertha. When BB came out, it pushed the size of a driver from 160cc to 200cc and triggered Cally's marketing campaign of "bigger is better".
So the industry got into all this huff about making larger and larger drivers. And from that moving into Ti for the head material allowed them to do that.
It was only after a year or two that the industry started to take a look at the Ti drivers and realize, "hey, I guess this does hit the ball a little farther - wonder what is doing that?" And from that, then the industry found that titanium's strength to modulus relationship did have an effect on the COR, and from that, an increase in the smash factor for more distance.
Then from that point on, it became a matter of figuring out how to make the Ti heads so the faces could be thinner to keep pushing the COR up while still making sure the faces did not cave in, break or fail.
Also, In the 70s prior to the metal wood era, you would see companies use face inserts made from different hardness materials and saying the metal face insert hit the ball farther than the old paper fiber insert because it is so much harder.
Same thing happened in the early days of the stainless woods - they all were saying that the move to steel woods would bring more distance because steel was harder than wood.
Even today, with much better engineering knowledge in the equipment side of the business, you will still see such claims about harder being better, as in the case of maraging steel face woods you still see marketing departments try and push with totally false claims.
But in reality, what really happens when the face gives a little (pushes inward at impact with the ball) is the ball stays more round and doesn't flatten out as much at impact, thereby retaining more of its energy. Remember when you were a kid and "Superballs" were introduced? When you bounced them on pavement they bounced really high because they didn't flatten out at impact. Now drop a half inflated basketball on the pavement. It won't bounce back because it flattens out and loses all its energy. So a hard clubface that doesn't budge at impact will make the ball flatten more and the ball won't leave the clubface with as much speed therefore less distance.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Why will I play better with custom fit golf clubs?
The Performance Factors of Clubfitting from Tom Wishon:
"After spending over 30 years in golf club design and clubfitting research, I am absolutely convinced that every golfer can play better and enjoy the game more by being accurately fit into golf clubs which are custom built to offset the swing mistakes and enhance the correct swing moves of each individual golfer.
Since 1981, I’ve taught thousands of clubmakers the correct principles of custom fitting. In turn, I have received countless phone calls, letters and emails from clubmakers as well as their clients who realize the best set of golf clubs will never be bought in standard form, off the rack from a golf retail store.
Real improvement through custom clubfitting requires consultation with a trained clubmaker who knows how to translate each golfer’s need for game improvement into direct changes in the specifications of the golf clubs which address each area of improvement.
In Common Sense Clubfitting: The Wishon Method, we teach clubmakers that all of the possible game improvement desires of golfers can be summarized in the following ways:
•I want more Distance
•I want to improve Accuracy
•I want to improve shotmaking Consistency
•I want to change the Trajectory of my shot pattern
•I Want to Improve the Swing and Impact Feel of my Golf Clubs
There are a total of 23 different design specifications which can be altered and customized to come up with the right custom fit clubs for any golfer. That’s a lot. Actually that’s too many for any clubmaker to have to think about trying to fit for each golf club in a set. Through my 30+ years of fitting research I have discovered which of these 23 different design specifications will visibly address a change in the golfer’s Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory and Feel with their clubs. And that’s what we teach custom clubmakers – to focus on the golf club specifications which will result in the greatest amount of positive game improvement in Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory and Feel for each individual golfer and find the golf club specifications which will make that happen.
There are two types of golf club specifications the clubmaker needs to know.
"A" Effect Fitting Specification: An “A” effect golf club specification will create the most visible and noticeable change in Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory or Feel. When an "A" effect specification is changed, even by a moderate amount, the golfer should experience a visible change in that game improvement factor the first time they hit shots with the club.
"B" Effect Fitting Specification: This is a golf club specification that will create a performance change which typically will be less than an “A” effect specification for Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory and Feel. A “B” effect specification will typically display its effect visibly ONLY if that specification was poorly matched in the golfer’s previous golf club(s).
In short, the more "A" and "B" specifications which are addressed in the fitting, and the more those specifications are different from the golfer’s previous club(s), the more visible and dramatic the game improvement change for the golfer will be. That’s how real custom fitting is better than buying standard golf clubs off the rack.
I Want More Distance.
The “A” Effect Specifications on Distance:
•Clubhead Loft Angle
•Club Length
•Club Swingweight or Moment of Inertia
•Woodhead Vertical Face Roll (Driver only)
•Club Total Weight
•Shaft Weight
The “B” Effect Specifications on Distance:
•Clubhead Moment of Inertia
•Fairway woodhead Vertical Roll
•Clubhead Center of Gravity Location
•Full Set Make-Up
•Shaft Primary Flex
•Shaft Bend Profile Design
•Clubhead Face Design
I Want Better Accuracy.
The “A” Effect Specifications for Accuracy:
•Woodhead Face Angle
•Iron, Wedge and Putter Lie Angle
•Club Length
The “B” Effect Specifications for Accuracy:
•Clubhead Hosel Offset
•Shaft Torque (woods)
•Clubhead Moment of Inertia
•Club Total Weight
•Full Set Make-Up
•Grip Size
I Want to Improve Shotmaking Consistency.
The “A” Effect Specifications for Consistency:
•Iron, Wedge and Putter Lie Angle
•Woodhead Face Angle
•Club Length
•Club Swingweight or Club Moment of Inertia
•Full Set Make-Up
The “B” Effect Specifications for Consistency:
•Woodhead Vertical Roll Radius
•Iron and Wedge Sole Angle
•Iron and Wedge Sole Width and Sole Radius
•Clubhead Moment of Inertia
•Shaft Weight
•Grip Size
•Club Total Weight
I Want to Change the Trajectory of my Shot Pattern.
The “A” Effect Specifications for Trajectory:
•Clubhead Loft
•Driver Head Vertical Roll Radius
The “B” Effect Specifications for Trajectory:
•Clubhead Loft
•Clubhead Hosel Offset (wood, hybrid)
•Clubhead Center of Gravity Location
•Shaft Primary Flex
•Shaft Bend Profile
•Fairway Woodhead Vertical Roll Radius
I Want to Improve the Swing and Impact Feel of my Golf Clubs.
The “A” Effect Specifications for the Swing and Impact Feel of the Golf Club:
•Grip Style/Type
•Grip Size
•Club Swingweight or Moment of Inertia
•Full Set Make-Up
•Shaft Weight
•Club Total Weight
The “B Effect Specifications for the Swing Feel of the Golf Club:
•Club Length
•Shaft Primary Flex
•Shaft Bend Profile
A competent professional clubmaker will approach the custom fitting session by first determining which of the areas of game improvement are most important for each golfer – Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory or Feel. Then by measuring the “A” and “B” effect specifications on the golfer’s existing set, the clubmaker can reference these “A” and “B” effect specs for the desired game improvement areas above, and know how much improvement IS possible for the golfer to achieve in an accurately fit set of custom made clubs. The clubmaker then proceeds to guide the golfer through a series of measurements and tests which combine with the clubmaker’s assessment of the “A” and “B” design specifications, to determine the exact specs for the new custom fit set.
That’s real custom fitting, and that is a major reason why custom fit is better than standard off the rack clubs every day of the week, and for every single golfer".
"After spending over 30 years in golf club design and clubfitting research, I am absolutely convinced that every golfer can play better and enjoy the game more by being accurately fit into golf clubs which are custom built to offset the swing mistakes and enhance the correct swing moves of each individual golfer.
Since 1981, I’ve taught thousands of clubmakers the correct principles of custom fitting. In turn, I have received countless phone calls, letters and emails from clubmakers as well as their clients who realize the best set of golf clubs will never be bought in standard form, off the rack from a golf retail store.
Real improvement through custom clubfitting requires consultation with a trained clubmaker who knows how to translate each golfer’s need for game improvement into direct changes in the specifications of the golf clubs which address each area of improvement.
In Common Sense Clubfitting: The Wishon Method, we teach clubmakers that all of the possible game improvement desires of golfers can be summarized in the following ways:
•I want more Distance
•I want to improve Accuracy
•I want to improve shotmaking Consistency
•I want to change the Trajectory of my shot pattern
•I Want to Improve the Swing and Impact Feel of my Golf Clubs
There are a total of 23 different design specifications which can be altered and customized to come up with the right custom fit clubs for any golfer. That’s a lot. Actually that’s too many for any clubmaker to have to think about trying to fit for each golf club in a set. Through my 30+ years of fitting research I have discovered which of these 23 different design specifications will visibly address a change in the golfer’s Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory and Feel with their clubs. And that’s what we teach custom clubmakers – to focus on the golf club specifications which will result in the greatest amount of positive game improvement in Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory and Feel for each individual golfer and find the golf club specifications which will make that happen.
There are two types of golf club specifications the clubmaker needs to know.
"A" Effect Fitting Specification: An “A” effect golf club specification will create the most visible and noticeable change in Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory or Feel. When an "A" effect specification is changed, even by a moderate amount, the golfer should experience a visible change in that game improvement factor the first time they hit shots with the club.
"B" Effect Fitting Specification: This is a golf club specification that will create a performance change which typically will be less than an “A” effect specification for Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory and Feel. A “B” effect specification will typically display its effect visibly ONLY if that specification was poorly matched in the golfer’s previous golf club(s).
In short, the more "A" and "B" specifications which are addressed in the fitting, and the more those specifications are different from the golfer’s previous club(s), the more visible and dramatic the game improvement change for the golfer will be. That’s how real custom fitting is better than buying standard golf clubs off the rack.
I Want More Distance.
The “A” Effect Specifications on Distance:
•Clubhead Loft Angle
•Club Length
•Club Swingweight or Moment of Inertia
•Woodhead Vertical Face Roll (Driver only)
•Club Total Weight
•Shaft Weight
The “B” Effect Specifications on Distance:
•Clubhead Moment of Inertia
•Fairway woodhead Vertical Roll
•Clubhead Center of Gravity Location
•Full Set Make-Up
•Shaft Primary Flex
•Shaft Bend Profile Design
•Clubhead Face Design
I Want Better Accuracy.
The “A” Effect Specifications for Accuracy:
•Woodhead Face Angle
•Iron, Wedge and Putter Lie Angle
•Club Length
The “B” Effect Specifications for Accuracy:
•Clubhead Hosel Offset
•Shaft Torque (woods)
•Clubhead Moment of Inertia
•Club Total Weight
•Full Set Make-Up
•Grip Size
I Want to Improve Shotmaking Consistency.
The “A” Effect Specifications for Consistency:
•Iron, Wedge and Putter Lie Angle
•Woodhead Face Angle
•Club Length
•Club Swingweight or Club Moment of Inertia
•Full Set Make-Up
The “B” Effect Specifications for Consistency:
•Woodhead Vertical Roll Radius
•Iron and Wedge Sole Angle
•Iron and Wedge Sole Width and Sole Radius
•Clubhead Moment of Inertia
•Shaft Weight
•Grip Size
•Club Total Weight
I Want to Change the Trajectory of my Shot Pattern.
The “A” Effect Specifications for Trajectory:
•Clubhead Loft
•Driver Head Vertical Roll Radius
The “B” Effect Specifications for Trajectory:
•Clubhead Loft
•Clubhead Hosel Offset (wood, hybrid)
•Clubhead Center of Gravity Location
•Shaft Primary Flex
•Shaft Bend Profile
•Fairway Woodhead Vertical Roll Radius
I Want to Improve the Swing and Impact Feel of my Golf Clubs.
The “A” Effect Specifications for the Swing and Impact Feel of the Golf Club:
•Grip Style/Type
•Grip Size
•Club Swingweight or Moment of Inertia
•Full Set Make-Up
•Shaft Weight
•Club Total Weight
The “B Effect Specifications for the Swing Feel of the Golf Club:
•Club Length
•Shaft Primary Flex
•Shaft Bend Profile
A competent professional clubmaker will approach the custom fitting session by first determining which of the areas of game improvement are most important for each golfer – Distance, Accuracy, Consistency, Trajectory or Feel. Then by measuring the “A” and “B” effect specifications on the golfer’s existing set, the clubmaker can reference these “A” and “B” effect specs for the desired game improvement areas above, and know how much improvement IS possible for the golfer to achieve in an accurately fit set of custom made clubs. The clubmaker then proceeds to guide the golfer through a series of measurements and tests which combine with the clubmaker’s assessment of the “A” and “B” design specifications, to determine the exact specs for the new custom fit set.
That’s real custom fitting, and that is a major reason why custom fit is better than standard off the rack clubs every day of the week, and for every single golfer".
Monday, June 14, 2010
What's up with these really long length drivers these days? Can golfers really gain much distance from this increased length?
You may find this recent article by Frank Thomas quite interesting as he answers a viewers question on this very subject. For what it's worth, I don't swing a 46" driver any faster then a 441/2" driver. The last time I measured myself, I was actually swinging the 441/2" driver 1 mph faster....so no difference for me.
Posted: June 14, 2010
Hello Frank,
I was wondering if you could answer a question which has been of some concern to me recently.
I'm a Scottish pro and I give a lot of golf lessons. I noticed that many amateurs and even pros struggle with the driver compared to the likes of a 4 or 5-wood. Could it be that drivers are too long for many people to handle?
Yesteryear the driver was around 43.5 inches for a man and now some are 46 inches long.
Is there a maximum or minimum length that you would recommend for the average golfer?
All the best
– Iain
Iain,
Driver length, has also been of some concern to me for some time only because it is being introduced for the sole purpose of increasing distance – the most powerful words in marketing golf equipment.
With today’s light weight and high strength materials; high MOI (Moment of Inertia), increased COR (Coefficient of Restitution), and advanced face design the is driver more efficient than it was ten years ago, and significantly more efficient than the clubs which were available to Jack Nicklaus in the 1960’s– his driver length was 42 ¾ inches long.
This efficiency is good for the game and golfers but if the length of the driver is increased one loses the benefits of the advances made in applying high-tech materials etc.
Iain, you are right and recognize what many teachers have experienced, i.e. that because of the increased length of a driver up to 46 ½ inches long – almost three inches longer than the 3-wood 43 ½ inches – it is difficult to control in spite of the all the advances in design.
We have learned, after many generations of club makers and millions upon millions of rounds played, that for every three degrees change in head loft, the length between successive clubs is approximately ½ inch – i.e. from drivers, to fairway woods and long irons.
Drivers used to fit this model for many years.
Yes, we are going to get increased distance but at the expense of accuracy and control.
My strong recommendation for the average golfer is to take advantage of the new technology along with being able to control your drives, score better and have more fun.
Jack Nicklaus had the opportunity to have a longer driver but as mentioned he selected a 42 ¾ inches. When Tiger did his best he had a 43 ½ inch driver. The average length driver on tour is about 44 ¾ inches.
So take your lead from the best in the world if you want to enjoy your game more and score better using the "Big Gun".
Iain, thanks for the question. I think it is going to help a number of golfers and may even have some influence on some manufacturers who are now negating some of the fine scientific work they are doing for the average golfer.
– Frank
Frank Thomas, inventor of the graphite shaft, is founder of Frankly Golf. Thomas is chief technical advisor to GolfChannel.com. He served as technical director of the USGA for 26 years and directed the development of the GHIN system and introduced the Stimpmeter.
Posted: June 14, 2010
Hello Frank,
I was wondering if you could answer a question which has been of some concern to me recently.
I'm a Scottish pro and I give a lot of golf lessons. I noticed that many amateurs and even pros struggle with the driver compared to the likes of a 4 or 5-wood. Could it be that drivers are too long for many people to handle?
Yesteryear the driver was around 43.5 inches for a man and now some are 46 inches long.
Is there a maximum or minimum length that you would recommend for the average golfer?
All the best
– Iain
Iain,
Driver length, has also been of some concern to me for some time only because it is being introduced for the sole purpose of increasing distance – the most powerful words in marketing golf equipment.
With today’s light weight and high strength materials; high MOI (Moment of Inertia), increased COR (Coefficient of Restitution), and advanced face design the is driver more efficient than it was ten years ago, and significantly more efficient than the clubs which were available to Jack Nicklaus in the 1960’s– his driver length was 42 ¾ inches long.
This efficiency is good for the game and golfers but if the length of the driver is increased one loses the benefits of the advances made in applying high-tech materials etc.
Iain, you are right and recognize what many teachers have experienced, i.e. that because of the increased length of a driver up to 46 ½ inches long – almost three inches longer than the 3-wood 43 ½ inches – it is difficult to control in spite of the all the advances in design.
We have learned, after many generations of club makers and millions upon millions of rounds played, that for every three degrees change in head loft, the length between successive clubs is approximately ½ inch – i.e. from drivers, to fairway woods and long irons.
Drivers used to fit this model for many years.
Yes, we are going to get increased distance but at the expense of accuracy and control.
My strong recommendation for the average golfer is to take advantage of the new technology along with being able to control your drives, score better and have more fun.
Jack Nicklaus had the opportunity to have a longer driver but as mentioned he selected a 42 ¾ inches. When Tiger did his best he had a 43 ½ inch driver. The average length driver on tour is about 44 ¾ inches.
So take your lead from the best in the world if you want to enjoy your game more and score better using the "Big Gun".
Iain, thanks for the question. I think it is going to help a number of golfers and may even have some influence on some manufacturers who are now negating some of the fine scientific work they are doing for the average golfer.
– Frank
Frank Thomas, inventor of the graphite shaft, is founder of Frankly Golf. Thomas is chief technical advisor to GolfChannel.com. He served as technical director of the USGA for 26 years and directed the development of the GHIN system and introduced the Stimpmeter.
Friday, April 30, 2010
How do the Pros on the LPGA and PGA Tours hit it?
As many of you are aware, TrackMan has been the official ball flight analysis system on the PGA and LPGA Tours since 2006. Virtually every week over the past 4 years, TrackMan systems are set up on the driving range as well as on one hole during the tournament to record launch parameter data from all the competitors in each event.
Thanks to our friends at TrackMan, you may find it interesting to be able to view the average launch and flight parameters for players on the PGA and LPGA Tours to be able to see just how the pros hit the ball with each club in the bag. Please understand that the location and the weather have not been normalized for this data. However, because the averages are based on a huge number of shots over a period of several years, the data still offers a very good representation on the key launch parameters for the best men and women golfers in the world.
Keep in mind that the data represent average launch parameters, so there is a wide range between players for each parameter. Some of the interesting points of data from these average launch parameters include the following:
• The PGA Tour average shows the driver and fairway woods with a slight downward angle of attack while the LPGA average exhibits definite upward angle of attack with the driver. Overall, the PGA has a greater downward A of A for all clubs compared to the LPGA.
• The pros tend to hit every club in the bag within a very close range of the same height. Of course the LPGA pros achieve on average a lower shot height than the men because they have a much lower ball velocity for their shots, due to a lower clubhead speed.
•Driver spin rate is very similar for the driver between the men and women pros.
•The smash factor (ball speed divided by clubhead speed) is very similar for the same clubs for the men and women pros.
•Carry distance for the driver between the men and women is very definitely in line with the parameter of 2.8 yards per 1mph difference in clubhead speed.
•Launch angle for the women for the woods is definitely higher than that for the men, and slightly higher in the irons, which may be because of the difference in angle of attack or the use of different lofts per club. The average loft angles per club are not measured in any of this data so the main reason for the difference is likely from the difference in angle of attack for each club.
•The difference in clubhead speed for similar clubs between the men and women decreases progressively from 18mph in the driver down to 13 mph for the 9-iron and PW.
•While there is a significant difference in the spin generated by the men and women with the 3-wood, for all other clubs there is not as much difference in spin as might be expected.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
I only hit about 6 fairways out of 10. How can I improve on this stat?
You may not be aware but the most accurate driver on the PGA tour at year's end is 80%. And this stat is not a driver only stat as it includes teeing off with a club other then a driver such as a fairway wood. Yup, 8 out of 10 fairway's hit wins every year and the winner is never a long driver of the ball but rather one of the shorter hitters out there such as Fred Funk who has won the most accurate driver title several times in his career. So 6 out of 10 fairways is not that bad but actually pretty good.
Let's look at an average golfer for a moment. If you go out to your local driving range and watch golfers hit their drivers, what do you see? If you see two or three golfers out of ten who can consistently hit the ball straight, on a nice trajectory, you're there on a good day. I am not talking about hitting 300 yard drives right down the middle but rather the ball flying high and straight, landing downrange at any reasonable distance, within 20 yards on either side of its intended target. Name any other recreational pursuit in which one of its most common goals seems so unattainable by so many people. It is safe to say that far less then half of all golfers can consistently get off the tee with a driver successfully - and that's being charitable. Now, imagine any other consumer product that works only half the time in the hands of an average user. A product like that would be off the market in a week; yet we golfers just shrug our shoulders and say, "Man, it is a tough game."
I looked the other day and this year's Masters Champion, Phil Mickelson, was ranked 132 out of 134 PGA Pros at 46% of fairways hit. Hard to believe.
But getting back to your question: the first thing to do would be to measure your current driver regarding length, loft, face angle, shaft flex, total weight, grip size, etc. Then have you hit some balls and record your swing characteristics/tendencies and see how well your swing matches up with your driver. Chances are good that a few changes may have you hitting an extra fairway or two. For example, if you are a RH golfer whose misses are usually out to the right and your current driver has a square or slightly open face angle, then you would do well with a driver whose face angle is 1 or 2 degrees closed. Just common sense, plain and simple.
Let's look at an average golfer for a moment. If you go out to your local driving range and watch golfers hit their drivers, what do you see? If you see two or three golfers out of ten who can consistently hit the ball straight, on a nice trajectory, you're there on a good day. I am not talking about hitting 300 yard drives right down the middle but rather the ball flying high and straight, landing downrange at any reasonable distance, within 20 yards on either side of its intended target. Name any other recreational pursuit in which one of its most common goals seems so unattainable by so many people. It is safe to say that far less then half of all golfers can consistently get off the tee with a driver successfully - and that's being charitable. Now, imagine any other consumer product that works only half the time in the hands of an average user. A product like that would be off the market in a week; yet we golfers just shrug our shoulders and say, "Man, it is a tough game."
I looked the other day and this year's Masters Champion, Phil Mickelson, was ranked 132 out of 134 PGA Pros at 46% of fairways hit. Hard to believe.
But getting back to your question: the first thing to do would be to measure your current driver regarding length, loft, face angle, shaft flex, total weight, grip size, etc. Then have you hit some balls and record your swing characteristics/tendencies and see how well your swing matches up with your driver. Chances are good that a few changes may have you hitting an extra fairway or two. For example, if you are a RH golfer whose misses are usually out to the right and your current driver has a square or slightly open face angle, then you would do well with a driver whose face angle is 1 or 2 degrees closed. Just common sense, plain and simple.
Monday, April 12, 2010
I hear alot about ball spin as it relates to driver distance. What can be done in head design to lower spin?
FROM TOM WISHON: For the vast majority of golfers who have a higher swing speed and do fight excessive spin, the reason is more in the swing characteristics that bring about that higher spin than it is in the club - at least as long as the golfer is not using a shaft and ball that both really contribute to higher spin.
From the clubhead's standpoint, there is very little that can be done to exert a significant effect on spin AND STILL KEEP THE CLUBHEAD'S DESIGN SHAPE WITHIN A RANGE THAT A GOLFER COULD STAND TO PLAY WITH.
From the head's standpoint, the only things you can do to bring about a change in spin are loft and center of gravity position. You don't really want to mess much with loft beyond about a +/-1* range from the loft that is optimum for your launch angle. At 100mph swing speed, a change of 1* in loft only changes spin by about 260rpm anyway.
CG wise, if golfers could stand to see and play with a driver that was smaller than 460cc or chopped off to the point that the face to back dimension was in the area of 60-80mm instead of the normal 125mm or so, we could push the CG much closer to the face and from that, bring about a more significant reduction in spin. But I rather think few golfers would want to play with such a radically shaped head, so we designers are not going to create it.
That leaves the shaft and the ball. Starting with the shaft, a player can experience less spin using a stiffer flex or a significantly stiffer tip shaft. But here again, at the expense of what? Using a shaft that no longer fits, no longer feels right and no longer generates the optimum launch angle for distance? No higher swing speed golfer with a decent release would ever want to use a shaft like that, and that is what it would take for the shaft to become a significant way to reduce the spin.
Which brings us to the ball. Not being a ball designer and not having done much more than cursory research in ball technology, there is no question the ball is an important way to change spin for higher swing speed players. In our robot hit testing, just as one example, we see a spin difference of a little more than 400 rpms between the ProV1 and ProV1* at a clubhead speed of 100mph. That increases as the clubhead speed increases.
Swing wise, from a ton of data we've been privy to from the folks at Trackman, the official launch monitor of the PGA and Euro Tours, we see that almost every time we see a pro with higher spin, a downward angle of attack in their swing comes with it. So if the player can deal with the work involved to change their angle of attack to be less downward moving toward slightly upward, along with that comes an automatic reduction in driver spin because they are then able to use a lower loft to achieve what becomes their optimum launch angle for max distance. And from the lower loft then comes the significant change in spin reduction.
Furthermore, 1) reducing head size to 420cc from 460cc is not enough to allow for enough of a CG movement to do anything significant for spin capability, and 2) the market of golfers out there is estimated by the industry mavens who research this sort of thing to be 98-99% polarized toward a 460cc driver and will not buy anything smaller because marketing has "convinced" them that 'bigger is better'.
So any company today that designs a smaller driver will choke on the inventory, unfortunately.
And as mentioned above, to move the CG close enough to the face that a golfer with a late release will instantly see a significant drop in spin would require that the driver head be designed so the face to back dimension would have to be at least 30% less than is average in driver shape dimensions today. And I have serious doubts as to whether there would be very many golfers who would like to look down on something like that in the playing position.
Hope this helps a little,
TOM
From the clubhead's standpoint, there is very little that can be done to exert a significant effect on spin AND STILL KEEP THE CLUBHEAD'S DESIGN SHAPE WITHIN A RANGE THAT A GOLFER COULD STAND TO PLAY WITH.
From the head's standpoint, the only things you can do to bring about a change in spin are loft and center of gravity position. You don't really want to mess much with loft beyond about a +/-1* range from the loft that is optimum for your launch angle. At 100mph swing speed, a change of 1* in loft only changes spin by about 260rpm anyway.
CG wise, if golfers could stand to see and play with a driver that was smaller than 460cc or chopped off to the point that the face to back dimension was in the area of 60-80mm instead of the normal 125mm or so, we could push the CG much closer to the face and from that, bring about a more significant reduction in spin. But I rather think few golfers would want to play with such a radically shaped head, so we designers are not going to create it.
That leaves the shaft and the ball. Starting with the shaft, a player can experience less spin using a stiffer flex or a significantly stiffer tip shaft. But here again, at the expense of what? Using a shaft that no longer fits, no longer feels right and no longer generates the optimum launch angle for distance? No higher swing speed golfer with a decent release would ever want to use a shaft like that, and that is what it would take for the shaft to become a significant way to reduce the spin.
Which brings us to the ball. Not being a ball designer and not having done much more than cursory research in ball technology, there is no question the ball is an important way to change spin for higher swing speed players. In our robot hit testing, just as one example, we see a spin difference of a little more than 400 rpms between the ProV1 and ProV1* at a clubhead speed of 100mph. That increases as the clubhead speed increases.
Swing wise, from a ton of data we've been privy to from the folks at Trackman, the official launch monitor of the PGA and Euro Tours, we see that almost every time we see a pro with higher spin, a downward angle of attack in their swing comes with it. So if the player can deal with the work involved to change their angle of attack to be less downward moving toward slightly upward, along with that comes an automatic reduction in driver spin because they are then able to use a lower loft to achieve what becomes their optimum launch angle for max distance. And from the lower loft then comes the significant change in spin reduction.
Furthermore, 1) reducing head size to 420cc from 460cc is not enough to allow for enough of a CG movement to do anything significant for spin capability, and 2) the market of golfers out there is estimated by the industry mavens who research this sort of thing to be 98-99% polarized toward a 460cc driver and will not buy anything smaller because marketing has "convinced" them that 'bigger is better'.
So any company today that designs a smaller driver will choke on the inventory, unfortunately.
And as mentioned above, to move the CG close enough to the face that a golfer with a late release will instantly see a significant drop in spin would require that the driver head be designed so the face to back dimension would have to be at least 30% less than is average in driver shape dimensions today. And I have serious doubts as to whether there would be very many golfers who would like to look down on something like that in the playing position.
Hope this helps a little,
TOM
What about these longer and lighter drivers being advertised?
First of all, this isn't new by any means. A company no longer in business by the name of Goldwin Golf brought out a driver in the late 90s that had a total weight in the area of 285 grams.
Second point and by far the most important one, - no matter what ANY of the OEM drivers or clubs professes to do or be in their design technology, the OEM's models are nothing more than one size fits all offerings.
In this case of the very light total weight driver, if ALL golfers were well below average in physical and golf swing strength, with a very passive and smooth transition and tempo, and with a square to inside out swing path with a later to very late release, then and only then could you say that a company that makes a very light total weight driver would be applauded for doing so.
Why? Because that is the only type of golfer who would be considered to be well fit into a driver that weighs less than 300 grams and is also 46" in length.
As we all know, golfers come in all manner of strength and swing characteristics. Thus it is very important to understand when you look at ANY new club model from the OEMs, what you have to do is look at what type of golfer characteristics would be best matched to all the specifications of that club. Those golfers who deviate from those playing and swing characteristics would be wasting their money to buy that type of driver.
In the end, since golfers are so different in their combinations of size, strength, athletic ability and swing characteristics, the only clubs that are ever going to allow each golfer to play to the best if their ability will be clubs that are custom fit for each specification to each golfer's individual size, strength, athletic ability and swing characteristics.
I hate to keep sounding like a broken record on this, but until golfers understand this, they are going to continue to be drawn to any new club model the OEMs bring out and from that, will never understand that custom fitting is the only way to spend their money for clubs.
Second point and by far the most important one, - no matter what ANY of the OEM drivers or clubs professes to do or be in their design technology, the OEM's models are nothing more than one size fits all offerings.
In this case of the very light total weight driver, if ALL golfers were well below average in physical and golf swing strength, with a very passive and smooth transition and tempo, and with a square to inside out swing path with a later to very late release, then and only then could you say that a company that makes a very light total weight driver would be applauded for doing so.
Why? Because that is the only type of golfer who would be considered to be well fit into a driver that weighs less than 300 grams and is also 46" in length.
As we all know, golfers come in all manner of strength and swing characteristics. Thus it is very important to understand when you look at ANY new club model from the OEMs, what you have to do is look at what type of golfer characteristics would be best matched to all the specifications of that club. Those golfers who deviate from those playing and swing characteristics would be wasting their money to buy that type of driver.
In the end, since golfers are so different in their combinations of size, strength, athletic ability and swing characteristics, the only clubs that are ever going to allow each golfer to play to the best if their ability will be clubs that are custom fit for each specification to each golfer's individual size, strength, athletic ability and swing characteristics.
I hate to keep sounding like a broken record on this, but until golfers understand this, they are going to continue to be drawn to any new club model the OEMs bring out and from that, will never understand that custom fitting is the only way to spend their money for clubs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)