Is Swing-weight the most important of all club specs?

after 10 years on this forum, SW questions seems the be the most frequent....what happens to Swing weight if....how many grams to reset Swing weight if....

I have not been into golf or club making for long enough to understand how this started, but its compactly crazy since the consensus seems to be that SW values is about the most important club spec parameter there is, but if you ask those who "believes in a certain value", they cant even explain what swing weight is, so my question is:

- **WHO Started this? **why does players seems to believe that a certain SW value is of highly importance to them, and almost like the club want work if the return value is anything but their "trusted D or E number"?

Over and over, players want to change shafts, grips, heads, what ever, they seems to be willing to try whatever to make their clubs work better, but DO NOT try to convince them that another SW value is also a option, ITS NOT a option on their list, its like it was some magic to this numbers, so its out of the question to do anything about that, and i wants to know how it could end up like that, who started this? who is to blame?

it's not the be-all-end-all, but if the club feels too light w/ too low of a SW, then I can't feel where club is and swing gets out of sync and can't deliver head back to the ball consistently. For me, it's very important...not that needs to be exactly certain number, but anything too light is a no-go and greatly impacts my contact

> @Gehly said:

> it's not the be-all-end-all, but if the club feels too light w/ too low of a SW, then I can't feel where club is and swing gets out of sync and can't deliver head back to the ball consistently. For me, it's very important...not that needs to be exactly certain number, but anything too light is a no-go and greatly impacts my contact

Thats how we should deal with this, but thats not what i see....what im observing is that way to many trace a certain VALUE, and they was never fittet to play that value on that club, but still that value is "needed"...

I just read a article about Dechambeau, before he turned pro, and he has some tech degree so he should know....NOPE, dont seems like he does, he was modifying a driver to the extreme to get to "his target SW value" in this case B9....how would he know that B9 was the right value for a club he never played before? its simply NO WAY to do the math for that. so its that kind of stuff that makes me ask about this, and its a daily question in here, and seems more important than any other specs, so i simply wonder how it ended like that.

> @Gehly said:

> it's not the be-all-end-all, but if the club feels too light w/ too low of a SW, then I can't feel where club is and swing gets out of sync and can't deliver head back to the ball consistently. For me, it's very important...not that needs to be exactly certain number, but anything too light is a no-go and greatly impacts my contact

Agreed 100%. I just want to be able to feel where the club is. As an engineer I'd say it probably 30% technical 70% mental. If you can not feel where the club is you can get that "oh s%$^' feeling in you back swing and that never leads to good. Also, if you can't feel it you may subconsciously start over/under swinging, or changing your transition speed to get the feeling you want which moved the swing out of sync.

I don't think anyone is to blame. I think it's just a case of a little information being dangerous. The basic "rules" are easy to learn and even make some sense so people think that's enough and don't pursue the additional learning needed to really properly use and apply the swing weight concept. Largely because it is vague and fuzzy and not nearly as well defined nor anywhere as intuitive for those w/o the necessary background.

FWIW, I don't doubt he's an intelligent individual - but Dechambeau didn't even finish his undergraduate degree - and swing dynamics are extremely complex - even for graduate students. Not sure how deep they go into it with a Physics degree - but in Mech Engineering - at least at my school - the basic dynamics undergrad class has one of the highest failure rates among the students. I think only the Fluid Dynamics classes were more difficult.

As far as what to do about it? I'm not sure there is much more we can do that we are not already doing. Just keep doing our best to spread the word and help educate folks as best we can.

> @Warrior42111 said:

> > @Gehly said:

> > it's not the be-all-end-all, but if the club feels too light w/ too low of a SW, then I can't feel where club is and swing gets out of sync and can't deliver head back to the ball consistently. For me, it's very important...not that needs to be exactly certain number, but anything too light is a no-go and greatly impacts my contact

>

> Agreed 100%. I just want to be able to feel where the club is. As an engineer I'd say it probably 30% technical 70% mental. If you can not feel where the club is you can get that "oh s%$^' feeling in you back swing and that never leads to good. Also, if you can't feel it you may subconsciously start over/under swinging, or changing your transition speed to get the feeling you want which moved the swing out of sync.

Both of you seems to have a "open mind" and go by feel and what works, and that how it should be done, its the "hunting for a certain value" that frustrate me, sure we can get to what ever value we want, but when someone do "the fitting job" next to the SW scale, and when they see they magic number, its like "jack pot" for them, now they are convinced that club is perfect.

Ive been trying to convince the students i had in fitting and club making that we should split the FITTING from the CLUB MAKING.

During fitting, we shall NOT look at values for club specs at all, but navigate by "More or Less" or "too little or too much", and that goes for ALL specs, simply dont look or measure anything before we are done, it often leads us in the wrong direction.

When we have tuned up that way, and found what works, now we can enter the work shop and measure specs, so we can make a copy of the club used for fitting, and save those specs for future repair of that club.

Thats how i mean this should be done, others might have another way to get there, but what i do know is, if we start by "a holy number" for SW values...we can never make clubs that works perfect for the actual player

> @Stuart_G said:

> I don't think anyone is to blame. I think it's just a case of a little information being dangerous. The basic "rules" are easy to learn and even make some sense so people think that's enough and don't pursue the additional learning needed to really properly use and apply the swing weight concept. Largely because it is vague and fuzzy and not nearly as well defined nor anywhere as intuitive for those w/o the necessary background.

>

> FWIW, I don't doubt he's an intelligent individual - but Dechambeau didn't even finish his undergraduate degree - and swing dynamics are extremely complex - even for graduate students. Not sure how deep they go into it with a Physics degree - but in Mech Engineering - at least at my school - the basic dynamics undergrad class has one of the highest failure rates among the students. I think only the Fluid Dynamics classes were more difficult.

>

> As far as what to do about it? I'm not sure there is much more we can do that we are not already doing. Just keep doing our best to spread the word and help educate folks as best we can.

its this article im referring to, and the reason for why i started this tread, i was shocked...EVEN HIM? how can it be?

"“He was looking to lower his overall head weight so he could get to his target swingweight of B-9.”

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/dechambeaus-new-driver-has-b-9-swingweight

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> its this article im referring to, and the reason for why i started this tread, i was shocked...EVEN HIM? how can it be?

> "“He was looking to lower his overall head weight so he could get to his target swingweight of B-9.”

>

> https://www.golfdigest.com/story/dechambeaus-new-driver-has-b-9-swingweight

It's hard to tell how much if that is the ignorance of the writer - and how much is DeChambeau's. It's really only talking about what he did to put a new head into play, so that target value could have been based on a previous club at the same length, with the same grip and the same shaft. The comment about choosing those grips to get the light swing weight is more a presumption than necessarily the real reason Bryson choose them. I don't even think he's playing them anymore and he definitely relies a lot more on feel than specific SW values. Here is a more recent article

https://www.pgatour.com/equipmentreport/2019/04/17/golf-clubs-equipment-bryson-dechambeau-cobra-drastic-change-to-grip-weights.html

Why is "D2" the standard for OEMs?

> @JD3 said:

> Why is "D2" the standard for OEMs?

Good question even if there is varieties to that, and the reason is "most likely" because its a "middle way" or compromise of some sort.

of 13 full swing clubs in my bag, 1 or 2 of them is close to D2, but not because its "standard"

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> > @Warrior42111 said:

> > > @Gehly said:

> > > it's not the be-all-end-all, but if the club feels too light w/ too low of a SW, then I can't feel where club is and swing gets out of sync and can't deliver head back to the ball consistently. For me, it's very important...not that needs to be exactly certain number, but anything too light is a no-go and greatly impacts my contact

> >

> > Agreed 100%. I just want to be able to feel where the club is. As an engineer I'd say it probably 30% technical 70% mental. If you can not feel where the club is you can get that "oh s%$^' feeling in you back swing and that never leads to good. Also, if you can't feel it you may subconsciously start over/under swinging, or changing your transition speed to get the feeling you want which moved the swing out of sync.

>

> Both of you seems to have a "open mind" and go by feel and what works, and that how it should be done, its the "hunting for a certain value" that frustrate me, sure we can get to what ever value we want, but when someone do "the fitting job" next to the SW scale, and when they see they magic number, its like "jack pot" for them, now they are convinced that club is perfect.

>

> Ive been trying to convince the students i had in fitting and club making that we should split the FITTING from the CLUB MAKING.

> During fitting, we shall NOT look at values for club specs at all, but navigate by "More or Less" or "too little or too much", and that goes for ALL specs, simply dont look or measure anything before we are done, it often leads us in the wrong direction.

> When we have tuned up that way, and found what works, now we can enter the work shop and measure specs, so we can make a copy of the club used for fitting, and save those specs for future repair of that club.

>

> Thats how i mean this should be done, others might have another way to get there, but what i do know is, if we start by "a holy number" for SW values...we can never make clubs that works perfect for the actual player

It depends all on the persons 'brain makeup'. Honestly, I understand what DeChambeau is thinking, he has a very analytical brain, and for him to feel comfortable he needs to see that number. For someone else, they might not even give any thought to SW and go by what feels right to them and that but them at ease. As you stated most people are somewhere in the middle. They say golf is 90% mental, so whatever best gets that person comfortable what they will look for.

Why is it when shafts are pulled on custom orders that were set at standard D2 I never see adjustments made like tungsten powder or sleeve inserts etc? I'd think custom adjustments like 1/2" longer than standard would require adjustments to get SW back to standard

> @JD3 said:

> Why is it when shafts are pulled on custom orders that were set at standard D2 I never see adjustments made like tungsten powder or sleeve inserts etc? I'd think custom adjustments like 1/2" longer than standard would require adjustments to get SW back to standard

Why do you think so? why do you think "D2" should be the value no matter play length?

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > Why is it when shafts are pulled on custom orders that were set at standard D2 I never see adjustments made like tungsten powder or sleeve inserts etc? I'd think custom adjustments like 1/2" longer than standard would require adjustments to get SW back to standard

>

> Why do you think so? why do you think "D2" should be the value no matter play length?

I didn't say I thought that. But they quote specs as "D2" for custom orders and I'm wondering how they get it to D2 given the changes like a longer shaft would effect swing weight. Yet as I said I never see signs of adjustments on their part to get to D2

> @JD3 said:

> > @"Howard Jones" said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > Why is it when shafts are pulled on custom orders that were set at standard D2 I never see adjustments made like tungsten powder or sleeve inserts etc? I'd think custom adjustments like 1/2" longer than standard would require adjustments to get SW back to standard

> >

> > Why do you think so? why do you think "D2" should be the value no matter play length?

>

> I didn't say I thought that. But they quote specs as "D2" for custom orders and I'm wondering how they get it to D2 given the changes like a longer shaft would effect swing weight. Yet as I said I never see signs of adjustments on their part to get to D2

Some OEMs have, or used to have heads with different head weight (way beyond tolerances), like the old set of Callaway X-Tours i have.

They was Custom ordered from Callaway as plus 1.0" from standard, so head weight is about 10 grams below STD, but it did not make them D3 as was the standard value for those clubs at standard play lengths. Mizuno is another OEM that often used "B weight" or heads with either 5 or 10 grams lighter for clubs who was made to 0.5" or longer, so "they do something" ('or did), but not to get back to the standard value itself, but to keep resistance down and closer to their "standard specs". Titleist also have (or had) this options, but im not up to date with any OEMs or what they offer now.

> @Warrior42111 said:

> > @"Howard Jones" said:

> > > @Warrior42111 said:

> > > > @Gehly said:

> > > > it's not the be-all-end-all, but if the club feels too light w/ too low of a SW, then I can't feel where club is and swing gets out of sync and can't deliver head back to the ball consistently. For me, it's very important...not that needs to be exactly certain number, but anything too light is a no-go and greatly impacts my contact

> > >

> > > Agreed 100%. I just want to be able to feel where the club is. As an engineer I'd say it probably 30% technical 70% mental. If you can not feel where the club is you can get that "oh s%$^' feeling in you back swing and that never leads to good. Also, if you can't feel it you may subconsciously start over/under swinging, or changing your transition speed to get the feeling you want which moved the swing out of sync.

> >

> > Both of you seems to have a "open mind" and go by feel and what works, and that how it should be done, its the "hunting for a certain value" that frustrate me, sure we can get to what ever value we want, but when someone do "the fitting job" next to the SW scale, and when they see they magic number, its like "jack pot" for them, now they are convinced that club is perfect.

> >

> > Ive been trying to convince the students i had in fitting and club making that we should split the FITTING from the CLUB MAKING.

> > During fitting, we shall NOT look at values for club specs at all, but navigate by "More or Less" or "too little or too much", and that goes for ALL specs, simply dont look or measure anything before we are done, it often leads us in the wrong direction.

> > When we have tuned up that way, and found what works, now we can enter the work shop and measure specs, so we can make a copy of the club used for fitting, and save those specs for future repair of that club.

> >

> > Thats how i mean this should be done, others might have another way to get there, but what i do know is, if we start by "a holy number" for SW values...we can never make clubs that works perfect for the actual player

>

> It depends all on the persons 'brain makeup'. Honestly, I understand what DeChambeau is thinking, he has a very analytical brain, and for him to feel comfortable he needs to see that number. For someone else, they might not even give any thought to SW and go by what feels right to them and that but them at ease. As you stated most people are somewhere in the middle. They say golf is 90% mental, so whatever best gets that person comfortable what they will look for.

This is why im asking, when someone have to modify the club head itself (not only removing removable weights, but cut off parts of it) to see a value on the scale, they dont know what they are doing. That number tells nothing if we never tried that club before with that play length, total weight or grip weight, but since he had to modify the club head itself to get there, it tells me he never tried a club like that, he traced a "holy value" and that makes no sense at all in this case.

We can stick to GRIP SIZE, those values should not change depending on club, but all others will if a genuine fitting is done.

The trending ( wish ) of using a tool to solve all problems is, a wishful thinking.

Over emphasize the journey of getting there overshadowed the destination. Why are all th measuring "important" ? Because they were used to get us to the end of the rainbow which is to help us to achieve a better golf game.

Swing weight is another tool just like the launch monitor and the nubers of all the angles of one could measure to make sense of or to explain why things are the way it happens to be.

The single most difficult thing to explain or relate to in the game of golf is, feel. One person's feel is not quite the same as the next person's. Heck, one person's feel today might be slightly different tomorrow.............

Swing weight, just like the other tools used to quantify and make meaning of measuring the relationship between the craftsman ( golfer ) and his e tool ( golf clubs ).

It's an important tool to aid in refining the search for the perfection, just like the other tools we had invented but it's not the end of the rainbow as they would put it.

There are some whom sneeze at using swing weight as part of the fitting. I do believe a tool is as good as how it's applied to the task. I often use swing weigh as one of the tool to explain why one golf club "feels" better than the other identical one.

Yes, I use the swing weights as a piece of the puzzle, it's as important as all the other tools in the box.

And we all know the search for the perfect golf club is endless. Just when one thought he had found the perfect stick, the search will continue.

> @Stuart_G said:

> I don't think anyone is to blame. I think it's just a case of a little information being dangerous. The basic "rules" are easy to learn and even make some sense so people think that's enough and don't pursue the additional learning needed to really properly use and apply the swing weight concept. Largely because it is vague and fuzzy and not nearly as well defined nor anywhere as intuitive for those w/o the necessary background.

>

> FWIW, I don't doubt he's an intelligent individual - but Dechambeau didn't even finish his undergraduate degree - and swing dynamics are extremely complex - even for graduate students. Not sure how deep they go into it with a Physics degree - but in Mech Engineering - at least at my school - the basic dynamics undergrad class has one of the highest failure rates among the students. I think only the Fluid Dynamics classes were more difficult.

>

> As far as what to do about it? I'm not sure there is much more we can do that we are not already doing. Just keep doing our best to spread the word and help educate folks as best we can.

It's been a long time since I graduated, but I think a threw up in mouth a little bit when you mentioned Fluid Dynamics classes...I suffered through both undergraduate and graduate level....

I think the term "swingweight" and the combination of a letter and a number in an arbitrary scale "D7" all sounds just scientific and technical enough to make idiots think it means something. People just *love* it when a single measurement can describe everything they need to know about something and swingweight lets them pretend it does just that about golf clubs.

@Wkuo3

"I do believe a tool is as good as how it's applied to the task."

I could not have said this better, its how i see it. Tools is nice stuff, a SW scale is very handy, it helps us to duplicate spec if we need to repair a club, so we do need some tools for the job, but when we let the tools themselves take command, we end like you said it

"Over emphasize the journey of getting there overshadowed the destination."

But ok, there is cases where the journey itself is "the destination", (on a cruice ship or riding a motorcycle) but it should not be like that when we make golf clubs, unless we duplicate specs from one club to another, so even a Trackman should be under our control, not the other way, it can help us, but cant do the job for us.

Total weight and swingweight work together to affect the feeling of heft of a club, and if a person has a history of liking the feel of a club with certain numbers then I don't see any reason for them to deviate and add another variable into the fitting equation. Now, if one of the numbers changes, such as total weight as a result of moving to a lighter shaft, then swingweight needs may change as well. Personally though, I don't think there is anything overly wrong with keeping to a known starting point in regards to swingweight and then adjusting from there. For example, if someone chops off 1.5" from their driver I'd go straight to adding some weight to the head prior to testing. The person may be able to adjust to the lighter club but why bother? That may screw up their baseline for future club hoing purchases.

> @gripandrip said:

>

> It's been a long time since I graduated, but I think a threw up in mouth a little bit when you mentioned Fluid Dynamics classes...I suffered through both undergraduate and graduate level....

:-)

I absolutely HATED fluids as an undergrad - and the closest I got to it for grad school was continuum mechanics (which actually helped). Yet the irony is that now I work for the world wide leader in computation fluid dynamics software. Go figure.

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > > @"Howard Jones" said:

> > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > Why is it when shafts are pulled on custom orders that were set at standard D2 I never see adjustments made like tungsten powder or sleeve inserts etc? I'd think custom adjustments like 1/2" longer than standard would require adjustments to get SW back to standard

> > >

> > > Why do you think so? why do you think "D2" should be the value no matter play length?

> >

> > I didn't say I thought that. But they quote specs as "D2" for custom orders and I'm wondering how they get it to D2 given the changes like a longer shaft would effect swing weight. Yet as I said I never see signs of adjustments on their part to get to D2

>

> Some OEMs have, or used to have heads with different head weight (way beyond tolerances), like the old set of Callaway X-Tours i have.

> They was Custom ordered from Callaway as plus 1.0" from standard, so head weight is about 10 grams below STD, but it did not make them D3 as was the standard value for those clubs at standard play lengths. Mizuno is another OEM that often used "B weight" or heads with either 5 or 10 grams lighter for clubs who was made to 0.5" or longer, so "they do something" ('or did), but not to get back to the standard value itself, but to keep resistance down and closer to their "standard specs". Titleist also have (or had) this options, but im not up to date with any OEMs or what they offer now.

What about 1/4" longer? Is that considered enough to use a lighter head?

> @JD3 said:

> What about 1/4" longer? Is that considered enough to use a lighter head?

1/4" will increase swingweight by about 1.5 points. Do you feel that justifies different heads?

1/4" longer or shorter isn't a reason to do anything. That's trivial.

> @"North Butte" said:

> 1/4" longer or shorter isn't a reason to do anything. That's trivial.

What would an OEM do? If they make a set for custom order that's "trivial" like 1/4" that changes SW by +1.5, will they just use it or try to adjust for it with lighter head?

Ping supposedly uses their Custom Tuning Ports (on some models) to be able to tweak that sort of thing. Absent that sort of feature, I can't imagine an OEM using tip weights or stocking clubhead in 3g weight increments to deal with 1/4" length changes. But maybe some do.

You can't feel 1.5 points anyway. If you did, every time you choked up a inch on an unlevel like the club would feel horribly unbalanced, no?

> @JD3 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > 1/4" longer or shorter isn't a reason to do anything. That's trivial.

>

> What would an OEM do? If they make a set for custom order that's "trivial" like 1/4" that changes SW by +1.5, will they just use it or try to adjust for it with lighter head?

Most OEM's would do nothing. If the stock swingweight was D2 then they would ship you the clubs at D3.5. No big deal and 90% of the players would never notice. Mind you there are various OEM's that use tip weights, hosel weights, CTP weights, ect, and in those instances they might be able to keep the swingweight gain down to something minimal. It just depends.

A swingweight value is not the measurement most golfers believe it is. Swingweight is not an absolute measure of weight, but rather the "relative" measurement of the static balance of the club about a fixed fulcrum placed 14" from the butt of the club.

Most golfers refer to swingweight values as an absolute measurement, thinking that D4 for one club means the same for another, when nothing could be further from the truth. As a static balance measurement, a builder can achieve the exact same swingweight value through the addition/subtraction of weight on either side of the fulcrum. You can have a club that has an overall weight much less than another, but they both will measure at a D4 swingweight. When actually swung, these clubs will feel nothing alike when it comes to the "dynamic" swing heft.

Dynamic swing heft is what MOI measurements actually provide. MOI, unlike swingweight, actually is an absolute value measurement. It can be directly compared between different clubs. With swingweight, as a relative measurement, it only holds value when compared relatively across a set of clubs built from the same components (heads, shafts, grips). If any component is different between two clubs, then swingweight CANNOT be used to compare anything. It is totally meaningless in this context.

That's why those builders who do understand this are constantly frustrated by the golf industry which continues to put forth this farce. Even TXG, who I think are fantastic (and produce great videos), continue to spout this garbage (like in their most recent video on counterbalanced shafts). I really wish someone with a large "influencer" base in the golfing community would come out and state the truth about swingweight.

I believe much of the problem is rooted in the term "swingweight" itself. It leads golfers to believe that it is what they're feeling when a club is swung, but remember that it's just a static balance measurement of the distribution of the club weight about that fixed fulcrum. The distribution of weight in a club is hugely important. In fact I believe that many could argue that it is the most important aspect. You can infer this from many of the TXG videos where Matt Blois shows the impact of this weight distribution as Ian changes components of the head weighting. I just wish they would actually understand that it is MOI, or more specifically MBI (MOI Balance) that they are actually adjusting. Yes, the swingweight may be changing, but it's not directly comparable if they change a shaft, etc.

I have posted this information before... and I keep will keep posting it, somehow hoping that eventually more golfers will actually understand what swingweight really is.

Ive been trying to find the answer for why is was Lorry Adams "Lorry-scale" that ended up as the instrument we call Swing-weight scale, and back then in the 30s, they new about MOI, and there was scales with both 12" other fulcrums than 14", but for MOI the math was to complicated, but i suspect it was more to it, and simply the way they meant was right to swing a golf club. (more power the longer we want to move the ball)

When we compare a SW matched set on a MOI machine, we get to see that the SW system makes club with progressive higher resistance as they go longer, even if the value remains the same, so "maybe" thats was how they meant golf clubs should be played? i never found out, but i know this is one major factor for why many players cant handle their 3# and #4 irons, the actual resistance becomes to high, so the player cant gain the club speed progression needed, and impact becomes bad.

Ive made set thats was SW matched when that seems to be the best for the player, and lots of MOI matched set, but most of them somewhere between this 2 (some sets look like "flighted" on the paper with one value in the long, another in the mid, and 3 value for the short, so the way i see this, both flat SW or MOI is options, but none of them fits all like no SW value or MOI value fits all.

The SW scale itself is a handy tool when we know how it works and its limitations, the annoying part is this trace for a certain value when we build clubs we did not even try, so for some reason, this parameter has become something else than i think it was meant to be.

Back then the options in shafts was not even close to what we have today, so the instrument is more or less "out dated", but still good if we dont misuse it, or think its a oracle of some sort, its just a scale with a fixed fulcrum at 14", so we can fool that instrument badly, or fool our-self since non of us swing our clubs around a fulcrum thats 14" from the end, but maybe that fulcrum was the one that gave the resistance progression they wanted, for the way they meant was right to swing a golf club?

What i do notice is, that players who has many years on their back playing, has been forced to swing their clubs with progressive more power as they gets longer to make them work, so some of them cant "slow down" and play a set thats MOI matched and has equal resistance where all clubs should be swinged with the same amount of power, so im just hoping for a larger understanding of it all, so players stop tracing a value they dont even understand what really is.