GIVEAWAY: Odyssey Stroke Lab Rossie Putter - ENTER HERE, Vokey SM8 52* Wedge - ENTER HERE

Spine and FLO shaft

2»
2

Comments

  • Lagavulin62Lagavulin62 Members  2347WRX Points: 326Handicap: 15Posts: 2,347 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #32
    since there seems to be no agreement on puring/floing, for those who need the psychological benefits of thinking it helps, what if instead of floing fhe clubs, they carried a rabbits foot in their bag? What do the shrinks call this when you replace an obsession with something else?
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • TLT_DanTLT_Dan TLT_DAN Hampton, ONMembers  1083WRX Points: 133Posts: 1,083 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #33
    It still seems to me that (even without proof positive) that reducing every variable you can in a build will produce a superior set of clubs that will have a more consistent feel. If I can reduce the size of my ball imprint on the face, reducing toe or heel hits I am going to go this route all day long. I spend a great deal of time dialing in length, lie swingweight (progressive) and the flex why would I eliminate FLO? It's just another step towards a consistency and consistency is a key part to our game.
    Posted:

    Regards Dan

    True Length Technology

    True Frequency Technology

  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers  25573WRX Points: 1,950Posts: 25,573 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 9, 2017 #34
    TLT_Dan wrote:
    <br />
    It still seems to me that (even without proof positive) that reducing every variable you can in a build will produce a superior set of clubs that will have a more consistent feel. If I can reduce the size of my ball imprint on the face, reducing toe or heel hits I am going to go this route all day long. I spend a great deal of time dialing in length, lie swingweight (progressive) and the flex why would I eliminate FLO? It's just another step towards a consistency and consistency is a key part to our game.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Everyone has to follow their own path with respect to what they believe but there are other ways to look at it - none has any more of a valid a claim of being correct than any other.<br />
    <br />
    1) It's not actually a variable that has any actual impact on the results. The shaft flexes through the multiple axis regardless of how it's oriented - so no inconsistency is actually being reduced - no performance is being gained and no step is being taken in the direction of consistency for impact or any other aspect of the swing.<br />
    <br />
    2) It might have some impact in theory but the impact in reality is too small to make any real difference. Think of it this way. Yes you take the time to dial in lie, loft, swing weight, maybe even frequency match your iron shafts. But to what extent? How close do you have to get the right swing weight to be satisfied with the build and not put any more time into it. Within 1 SW pt, 1/2 SW pt, 1/4, 1/10th, 1/100th?? No matter how far you go, someone else can always make the same claim - that going farther would eliminate more variables and produce another 'step toward consistency'. The problem is that, unlike many of the other specs, this one isn't nearly as easy to accurately test to the point where we can really understand how close is close enough like we can with some of those other specs.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Just curious, by any chance do you freq match your iron shafts as well or just FLO? Do you check the frequencies of the two stable FLO planes or just use the first one you find?
    Posted:
  • PitchswagPitchswag Members  741WRX Points: 79Posts: 741 Golden Tee
    Joined:  #35
    <br />
    since there seems to be no agreement on puring/floing, for those who need the psychological benefits of thinking it helps, what if instead of floing fhe clubs, they carried a rabbits foot in their bag? What do the shrinks call this when you replace an obsession with something else?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Props for naming yourself after one of the best whiskeys in the World!
    Posted:

    Proud member of Method EU

    • 421 ilvl Rogue (Outlaw/Assa)
    • 419 ilvl Demon Hunter (Havoc)
    • 418 ilvl Hunter (BM)
  • Lagavulin62Lagavulin62 Members  2347WRX Points: 326Handicap: 15Posts: 2,347 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 12, 2017 #36
    Jeriko wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    since there seems to be no agreement on puring/floing, for those who need the psychological benefits of thinking it helps, what if instead of floing fhe clubs, they carried a rabbits foot in their bag? What do the shrinks call this when you replace an obsession with something else?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Props for naming yourself after one of the best whiskeys in the World!<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    You are too kind, thanks. <br />
    <br />
    I met the REAL Michael Jackson in the early 2000's at a WOW(whiskeys of the world) convention in San Fran, a few years before he passed. He was extremely knowledgeable with a great sense of humor. I used to enjoy his columns in Whisky Magazine. Although not always easy to catch the references, he could have you in stitches. <br />
    <br />
    If you don't already have a copy, here is I believe, the latest edition of his Single Malt Whisky Companion. <br />
    <br />
    Raise a dram! <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    https://www.abebooks.com/products/isbn/9781409348603?cm_sp=bdp-_-9781409348603-_-isbn10
    Posted:
  • baudibaudi Members  719WRX Points: 117Posts: 719 Golden Tee
    Joined:  #37
    Couple of months ago I promised to upload a movie of different outcomes for the same shafts held in different clamps.<br />
    Will pick that up soon.<br />
    <br />
    To me flo-ing makes sense. I see differences in flex in the same shaft. Througout a set I sense more consistency in the motion of the swing. <br />
    I cannot relate t to ballflight though. And I still do not what the best orientation is after finding the most consistent side.<br />
    <br />
    There is spurious circumstantial evidence btw: Richard Weisz (from PURE) does not reject flo-ing.<br />
    But he does question the outcome. After flo it is still impossible to retrieve the stable side. Maybe there is a trick to do so.
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers  25573WRX Points: 1,950Posts: 25,573 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #38
    baudi wrote:
    <br />
    There is spurious circumstantial evidence btw: Richard Weisz (from PURE) does not reject flo-ing.<br />
    But he does question the outcome. After flo it is still impossible to retrieve the stable side. Maybe there is a trick to do so.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Depends on what is meant by "the stable side". If you mean the stronger axis (which is the spine) and differentiating it from the weaker axis (the NBP) - both which give a stable FLO - then the 'trick' is simply to measure the frequency of the two.
    Posted:
  • golfguy31golfguy31 Members  1050WRX Points: 91Posts: 1,050 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #39
    <br />
    I recently upgraded my driver and had them true the shaft. Cost me I think 15 dollars extra. That driver I hit easier and more consistently than the drivers I had been using previously. More distance as well. I am very happy with the results. HOWEVER, I changed to a 12* loft(because I finally found a driver head with that loft in a square face angle) and the Pro Launch Red shaft. I don't believe the trued shaft contributed anything to my success and I will never do this again. To me, just a sales gimmick.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Really? You're swearing off ever doing it again? Because it cost $15? Because you saw success after it? I don't understand the logic. How can you possibly say that it had nothing to do with it? Do you have another exact driver that was not TRUED that you hit equally well?<br />
    I am not a proponent of either, but your post is very Jeckyll and Hyde, help me understand your thinking by expanding further.
    Posted:
    TM M3 9.5 PX HZRDS Yellow 6.0
    Cobra F8+ 3 wood PX LZ Handcrafted 6.0
    TM M1 5 wood PX HZRDS Red 6.0
    Adams V3 23 degree Attas 85 gram
    Adams 9031 26 degree C-Taper Stiff
    TM RocketBladez 6-9 PX LZ 5.5
    Cleveland 588 Special PW 49 degree
    Fourteen LE 52 degree
    Scratch Custom 56 degree
    Fourteen MGrind 60 degree
    MannKrafted Custom Blade
  • Lagavulin62Lagavulin62 Members  2347WRX Points: 326Handicap: 15Posts: 2,347 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #40
    golfguy31 wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    I recently upgraded my driver and had them true the shaft. Cost me I think 15 dollars extra. That driver I hit easier and more consistently than the drivers I had been using previously. More distance as well. I am very happy with the results. HOWEVER, I changed to a 12* loft(because I finally found a driver head with that loft in a square face angle) and the Pro Launch Red shaft. I don't believe the trued shaft contributed anything to my success and I will never do this again. To me, just a sales gimmick.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Really? You're swearing off ever doing it again? Because it cost $15? Because you saw success after it? I don't understand the logic. How can you possibly say that it had nothing to do with it? Do you have another exact driver that was not TRUED that you hit equally well?<br />
    I am not a proponent of either, but your post is very Jeckyll and Hyde, help me understand your thinking by expanding further.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I went from a 9 degree driver loft to a 12, although I think I hit a 10.5 well too. The shaft change was pretty much the same profile as the one I use in other drivers, just around 10 grams lighter. Then the info from my readings and what I have digested from this sight. It was really just weakness that I had it pured in the first place. I figured its just 15, why not? That was before I knew much about it. Sure it's only 15, but if I believed it then I would have to do it for every club and that gets expensive. <br />
    <br />
    I really don't think it's a great leap to giving the credit to loft and shaft in this case. One day <br />
    the shaft may snap on me and if it's still available I will replace, just won't pure. Who knows what the results will be if that day ever comes?
    Posted:
  • baudibaudi Members  719WRX Points: 117Posts: 719 Golden Tee
    Joined:  edited Feb 12, 2017 #41
    Stuart G. wrote:
    <br />
    baudi wrote:
    <br />
    There is spurious circumstantial evidence btw: Richard Weisz (from PURE) does not reject flo-ing.<br />
    But he does question the outcome. After flo it is still impossible to retrieve the stable side. Maybe there is a trick to do so.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Depends on what is meant by "the stable side". If you mean the stronger axis (which is the spine) and differentiating it from the weaker axis (the NBP) - both which give a stable FLO - then the 'trick' is simply to measure the frequency of the two.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Yes I can differentiate between these axes. But that is not what I meant. <br />
    eg. Most of the time I use the harder side but when I mark the hard side; it shows in between two sides at 0 degrees and 180 degrees. Or a left and right side on the shaft. <br />
    <br />
    Hope I explained myself clear enough.
    Posted:
  • cxxcxx Members  3296WRX Points: 259Posts: 3,296 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #42
    baudi wrote:
    <br />
    Stuart G. wrote:
    <br />
    baudi wrote:
    <br />
    There is spurious circumstantial evidence btw: Richard Weisz (from PURE) does not reject flo-ing.<br />
    But he does question the outcome. After flo it is still impossible to retrieve the stable side. Maybe there is a trick to do so.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Depends on what is meant by "the stable side". If you mean the stronger axis (which is the spine) and differentiating it from the weaker axis (the NBP) - both which give a stable FLO - then the 'trick' is simply to measure the frequency of the two.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Yes I can differentiate between these axes. But that is not what I meant. <br />
    eg. Most of the time I use the harder side but when I mark the hard side; it shows in between two sides at 0 degrees and 180 degrees. Or a left and right side on the shaft.<br />
    <br />
    Hope I explained myself clear enough.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I don't think that is correct. Check out Tutelman's posts on spines. http://tutelman.com/golf/shafts/allAboutSpines.php
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • BrianL99BrianL99 Banned  5116WRX Points: 15Handicap: IRLPosts: 5,116 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #43
    cxx wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I don't think that is correct. Check out Tutelman's posts on spines. http://tutelman.com/...AboutSpines.php<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Golfers won't use a Driver that's more than a year or 2 old, because they're not the latest and the greatest ... yet read nonsense that Tutleman came up with 25 years ago and regurgitate it like it's gospel.<br />
    <br />
    ( Please don't tell me Tutleman did his "research" and published his results in 2008 as claimed on a his site ... that's a fabrication, pure and simple). Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
    Posted:
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers  25573WRX Points: 1,950Posts: 25,573 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 12, 2017 #44
    BrianL99 wrote:
    <br />
    Golfers won't use a Driver that's more than a year or 2 old, because they're not the latest and the greatest ... yet read nonsense that Tutleman came up with 25 years ago and regurgitate it like it's gospel.<br />
    <br />
    ( Please don't tell me Tutleman did his "research" and published his results in 2008 as claimed on a his site ... that's a fabrication, pure and simple). Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Are you trying to say you disagree with any of these views of his? or is there something else?<br />
    <br />
      <br />
    • Measure the frequency difference between the FLO planes. If it's less than 3cpm, spine alignment is not going to do anything for performance or feel (though it may give you some peace of mind).<br />
    • There is no provable best direction for aligning the spine. Theories differ, and the experimental evidence is not conclusive. <br />
    • To begin with, I want to make very clear that I don't think spine alignment is a fine tuning for performance or feel.<br />
    • I go out of my way to order shaft models that I know to have negligible spine -- then I just don't worry about aligning.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Other than that, the rest he puts out is just a pretty basic and objective explanation of the physics of asymmetry in a shaft, and of course an evaluation of the accuracy of certain methods for measuring it - which isn't a reflection of how useful he thinks the results really are.
    Posted:
  • BrianL99BrianL99 Banned  5116WRX Points: 15Handicap: IRLPosts: 5,116 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 12, 2017 #45
    Stuart G. wrote:
    <br />
    Other than that, the rest he puts out is just a pretty basic and objective explanation of the physics of asymmetry in a shaft, and of course an evaluation of the accuracy of certain methods for measuring it - which isn't a reflection of how useful he thinks the results really are.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Yep, there it is.<br />
    <br />
    I did notice however, he has now pulled out his only reference to supposed "testing" of the phenomena ... the tests supposedly done by Tim Hewitt (or at least I didn't find the reference that used to be there).<br />
    <br />
    His physics is fine, suggesting it has a controllable impact on golf shots is a horse of another color.<br />
    <br />
    I'm the first to admit that checking FLO before building clubs certainly can't hurt anything and may even provide some mental satisfaction for someone who thinks like that. I just so aggravated a reading a rehash of all the nonsense that permeated golf forums back in the late 80's, early 90's, how FLO was the end all, be all, and a panacea for all that ails your shotmaking. No less an authority than Tom Wishon has been on this forum and admitted, it's of dubious or no value with today's shafts.
    Posted:
  • baudibaudi Members  719WRX Points: 117Posts: 719 Golden Tee
    Joined:  edited Feb 12, 2017 #46
    On -, @CXX Pease I understand that I use flo-ing based on feel as a justified belief.<br />

    I do not want to challenge a golf physicist Mr Tutelman.<br />
    <br />
    All I do is try to find a straight flo line in a shaft AND mark the shaft on top.<br />
    Most of the time I use this line for alignment in the head. If I align this line up front with the face then there is a left side and a right.side. That's all.<br />
    <br />
    As stated before I do not know what the best orientation is, if flo-ing really works etc.<br />
    I have not read of one method that I fully accept as 100 fool proof.<br />
    On the contrary: a shaft profiler could provide better data.<br />
    <br />
    On the other hand: shaft manufacturers are knowledgeable but their claims do not match my outcomes all the time. <br />
    Take brand XXXXXXXXX which is a nice shaft by many standards. If I flo this shaft it does not look very sharp in my clamp.<br />
    So are many expensive brands. But Ctaper is very stable. <br />
    <br />
    I will post a video soon.
    Posted:
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • cxxcxx Members  3296WRX Points: 259Posts: 3,296 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #47
    BrianL99 wrote:
    <br />
    cxx wrote:
    <br />
    I don't think that is correct. Check out Tutelman's posts on spines. http://tutelman.com/...AboutSpines.php<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Golfers won't use a Driver that's more than a year or 2 old, because they're not the latest and the greatest ... yet read nonsense that Tutleman came up with 25 years ago and regurgitate it like it's gospel.<br />
    <br />
    ( Please don't tell me Tutleman did his "research" and published his results in 2008 as claimed on a his site ... that's a fabrication, pure and simple). Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    WTF. You should read tutelman's stuff yourself, it's pretty self evident. It's easier to point people to a well thought out explanation than to get into a pissing contest every time puring or spines come up. There are plenty of people that are doing spining/flowing/puring wrong regardless of whether it has any effect on golf performance or not. They should at least have the oportunity to understand it correctly.
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • BrianL99BrianL99 Banned  5116WRX Points: 15Handicap: IRLPosts: 5,116 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #48
    cxx wrote:
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    WTF. You should read tutelman's stuff yourself, it's pretty self evident. It's easier to point people to a well thought out explanation than to get into a pissing contest every time puring or spines come up. There are plenty of people that are doing spining/flowing/puring wrong regardless of whether it has any effect on golf performance or not. They should at least have the oportunity to understand it correctly.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I can pretty much quote from it, it's been re-hashed for 20 years.<br />
    <br />
    & why should anyone bother with it, if it doesn't affect their shots? That's like saying people should know the proper way to wax their Driver ... well yeah, they shouldn't do it in the sun, but it doesn't have to get beat to death once a week.
    Posted:
  • TLT_DanTLT_Dan TLT_DAN Hampton, ONMembers  1083WRX Points: 133Posts: 1,083 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #49
    Stuart G. wrote:
    <br />
    TLT_Dan wrote:
    <br />
    It still seems to me that (even without proof positive) that reducing every variable you can in a build will produce a superior set of clubs that will have a more consistent feel. If I can reduce the size of my ball imprint on the face, reducing toe or heel hits I am going to go this route all day long. I spend a great deal of time dialing in length, lie swingweight (progressive) and the flex why would I eliminate FLO? It's just another step towards a consistency and consistency is a key part to our game.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Everyone has to follow their own path with respect to what they believe but there are other ways to look at it - none has any more of a valid a claim of being correct than any other.<br />
    <br />
    1) It's not actually a variable that has any actual impact on the results. The shaft flexes through the multiple axis regardless of how it's oriented - so no inconsistency is actually being reduced - no performance is being gained and no step is being taken in the direction of consistency for impact or any other aspect of the swing.<br />
    <br />
    2) It might have some impact in theory but the impact in reality is too small to make any real difference. Think of it this way. Yes you take the time to dial in lie, loft, swing weight, maybe even frequency match your iron shafts. But to what extent? How close do you have to get the right swing weight to be satisfied with the build and not put any more time into it. Within 1 SW pt, 1/2 SW pt, 1/4, 1/10th, 1/100th?? No matter how far you go, someone else can always make the same claim - that going farther would eliminate more variables and produce another 'step toward consistency'. The problem is that, unlike many of the other specs, this one isn't nearly as easy to accurately test to the point where we can really understand how close is close enough like we can with some of those other specs.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Just curious, by any chance do you freq match your iron shafts as well or just FLO? Do you check the frequencies of the two stable FLO planes or just use the first one you find?<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    I do frequency profiling, not just butt frequency, then sort the set from weakest to stiffest and assign longest to shortest (for assembly lengths). I do eliminate any outliers that don't seem to conform by measuring extra shafts.<br />
    <br />
    I do use a spine finder to give me a starting point for finding FLO and try to find the stable plane nearest this spine. Frequency is measured after I have determined the FLO plane and then sorted.
    Posted:

    Regards Dan

    True Length Technology

    True Frequency Technology

  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers  25573WRX Points: 1,950Posts: 25,573 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #50
    BrianL99 wrote:
    <br />
    I did notice however, he has now pulled out his only reference to supposed "testing" of the phenomena ... the tests supposedly done by Tim Hewitt (or at least I didn't find the reference that used to be there).<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    He does still provide references to Tim's study as well as others.<br />
    <br />
    http://tutelman.com/golf/shafts/allAboutSpines4.php<br />
    <br />
    But he only provides them as references to others work, not as validation to any of his views. It's pretty clear he doesn't give much weight to anecdotal data or evidence.
    Posted:
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers  25573WRX Points: 1,950Posts: 25,573 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #51
    TLT_Dan wrote:
    <br />
    I do frequency profiling, not just butt frequency, then sort the set from weakest to stiffest and assign longest to shortest (for assembly lengths). I do eliminate any outliers that don't seem to conform by measuring extra shafts.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Thanks - (and just for clarity) all that is done before or after cutting the shafts to length?
    Posted:
  • LexChisLexChis Members  1WRX Points: 6Posts: 1 Starters
    Joined:  #52

    I have seen some video where the clubfitter is temporarily attaching the clubhead prior to testing for FLO. This makes sense to me since the clubhead will alter the inertial moment - checking for FLO with just a symmetric laser tip is not going to give the same result as when the clubhead is attached. However, what is the best way to temporarily attach the clubhead for this test?

    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • JCAGJCAG John Curry Members  2214WRX Points: 175Posts: 2,214 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #53

    There are several ways to temporarily attach the clubhead to FLO. One is fishing line draped in the hosel and the head force fit. The other is using bubble wrap on the shaft tip and the head forced fit. Most anything can be used to get a good force fit.
    All said and done, many experienced folks say the results using the head or a similar tip weight (like a drill chuck) are the same. No need to use the actual head as long as the tip weight is in the 200-220 gram range be it a wood or iron shaft.
    To the greater subject. I am an advocate of SST Puring or FLOing. Forget the mechanical ball bearing devices.

    Posted:
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers  25573WRX Points: 1,950Posts: 25,573 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #54

    On -, @LexChis said:

    I have seen some video where the clubfitter is temporarily attaching the clubhead prior to testing for FLO. This makes sense to me since the clubhead will alter the inertial moment - checking for FLO with just a symmetric laser tip is not going to give the same result as when the clubhead is attached.

    Sorry, that's not correct. Doesn't matter if you use the actual head or just a weight. See the section in the middle of the following page on "Flat Line Oscillation (FLO) vs Center of Gravity"
    https://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/allAboutSpines2.php

    Posted:
  • McCoy135McCoy135 DoNotGoGently Members  34WRX Points: 33Handicap: 12Posts: 34 Bunkers
    Joined:  #55

    Makes sense to me. I haven't found an aftermarket graphite shaft with a bad FLO plane in a while. The tolerances and manufacturing processes are so good that I'm not sure its still necessary to check them and if your using an adjustable head there's no point anyway.

    I can't say the same thing about OEM shaft offerings. I had a TM hybrid with a "stiff" shaft that I couldn't hit consistently to save my life. Removed the shaft to test and it didn't have a FLO plane at all. Flopped around like a fish out of water at every orientation and CPM value was in the 230 range.

    I still FLO steel shafts, but honestly, the variation I find in DG, KBS, PX etc is so small I'm not sure it matters. If tour vans don't do it when assembling clubs for people that play for 100's of thousands of dollars, it probably isn't worth doing for a hacker like myself. 😉

    Posted:
    Cobra SS 427 Accra AC65 M5
    Cobra Pro X/ST 15* True Temper EI-70 Tour X
    Dynacraft 18* driving iron Tour Concept X1
    Ping S56 3-PW Tour Concept X1
    Maltby MG Tour Grind 52, 56 & 60
    Rife Aruba

    Obsessed with this GAME!!
  • deepreddeepred Members  382WRX Points: 113Handicap: 12Posts: 382 Greens
    Joined:  #56

    Let’s see, Wishon and the nation’s largest aftermarket seller of shafts agree with tour van techs that is of no value so of course golfers pay extra for it.

    Posted:
    Cleveland Classic XL Driver
    KE4 5 wood 17* 43”
    Maltby MXU 23* 
    Maltby Tricept TU 5 Iron
    Wilson Pi5 6-PW
    Wilson JP 55* SW
    Ram Watson Troon Grind 58
    Ray Cook M2 Mallet
  • snipersniper Members  710WRX Points: 111Posts: 710 Golden Tee
    Joined:  #57

    My irons are SST pured. My woods aren’t but my previous ones were. When I purchase new irons I highly doubt they will be pured. I haven’t noticed any real difference

    I think Club Champion pured while TXG doesn’t (I don’t believe). Both are doing a lot with Arccos. It would be interesting to see if the Arccos data shows any advantage for the average Joe in the pured debate.

    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • denkeadenkea Members  481WRX Points: 129Handicap: 10.1Posts: 481 Greens
    Joined:  #58

    " " " SST PURE TOUR REPORT


    SST PURE® Shaft Alignment has had a strong Return To Golf and overall 2019-20 season on the PGA TOUR. Since the PGA TOUR returned to play at the Charles Schwab Challenge in June, SST PURE has been on tour PUREing shafts for players. In the eight events since the Return To Golf, more than 200 clubs have been PUREd for more than 50 players. Three events, the Travelers Championship, Rocket Mortgage Classic, and 3M Open were won by players who had clubs PUREd since golf’s return. The winner of the WGC-FedEx/St. Jude Invitational has also had clubs PUREd.

    Posted:
  • deepreddeepred Members  382WRX Points: 113Handicap: 12Posts: 382 Greens
    Joined:  edited Aug 4, 2020 3:32pm #59

    50 players, roughly 35% lets say after what is it 25 years ?

    I tried it years ago in an Aldila NV shaft, used it for a couple of months, pulled it and reinstalled it the opposite way, couldn’t detect any difference.

    Posted:
    Post edited by deepred on
    Cleveland Classic XL Driver
    KE4 5 wood 17* 43”
    Maltby MXU 23* 
    Maltby Tricept TU 5 Iron
    Wilson Pi5 6-PW
    Wilson JP 55* SW
    Ram Watson Troon Grind 58
    Ray Cook M2 Mallet
2

Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.