Who is going to build a shorter driver based on Wishon article?

135678
8

Comments

  • malelee21malelee21 Members  1525WRX Points: 101Posts: 1,525 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #62
    For those who have cut the shaft, did you have SW adjusted? I've been playing for a year with 44.5" (1.5" shorter) on my RBZ driver, but never adjusted SW.
    Posted:
    Ping G SFT 10*
    Ping G400 SFT 3W
    Callaway XR16 5W
    Ping G 4H
    Cobra F7 EL 4i
    Ping G400 6-SW
    Ping Glide 2.0 60ES
    Cleveland TFI Eldorado 33”
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • PigemsPigems Members  10890WRX Points: 222Handicap: 8.8Posts: 10,890 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #63
    Jeckert07 wrote:


    I've been wanting to use a shorter shaft in my driver for awhile now, I guess the article helped solidify the decision...




    +1 image/superman.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':superman:' />
    Posted:
    910D2 9.5*- RIP Alpha 70x
    910f 17*- Diamana D+ 82x
    910h 20* Hybrid - S400
    712 CB 4i-Pw - S300
    SM5 51*, 55*- S300
    TVD 59* M - S300
    Studio Select NP2
  • 502 to Right502 to Right Badds Members  8110WRX Points: 2Handicap: 8.3Posts: 8,110 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Jan 9, 2014 #64


    Not necessarily true. If you cut a 45" driver down to 44" then you have a 6 swingweight difference to make up. Heavier shaft will get you 1-2 swingweights max. So now you would have to add enough lead tape to make up 4 swingweights? That's a massive amount of lead tape. Not really feasible. If you are starting out with a 45.75" inch driver then just forget about it. Now you are talking 8-9 swingweights. Its impossible to make that up.




    Not true. 4 SW points is about 8 grams. That is far from a "massive" amount of lead tape. As options you also have tipweights, hotmelt, or just switching weights if you have a driver with moveable weights.
    Posted:
  • gsrjcgsrjc TOC Members  1855WRX Points: 575Posts: 1,855 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #65
    I got fitted for my driver at 45" and 3 wood at 43"
    Posted:
  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors  3663WRX Points: 115Posts: 3,663 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #66
    square wrote:




    Unfortunatlely the manufacturers, including Wishon Golf, don't offer the components (head size and especially head weight) which make a shorter than 45" driver easily attainable.






    Sigh. . . . I do wish that you would take the time to do a little research before you post something like this that is not true and which can end up being very misleading to others who read your post.



    The std headweight of my 919THI driver heads is 202g with a +/-2g tolerance. Every 919THI is made with a weight bore below the shafting bore that can accept up to a 9 gram weight. Therefore it is easily possible to achieve normal swingweight ranges when building the 919THI to lengths of 44.5, 44, 43.5.



    With our other driver model, the 739CCG, it has two weight screw ports which both can accept up to as much as a 16g weight screw in each port. Optional weight screws come in 2.5g, 6.5g, 9g, 13g and 16g. It also has a weight bore in the hosel that also can accept up to a 9g weight. The 739's open port headweight starts at 188g. So with the 2.5g weight screws in each port the 193g headweight allows assembly to lengths of 45 to 46" - but using the other weight screws or even the 9g weight bore in the hosel, you can build the 739 to normal swingweights for any length all the way down to as short as 42" if desired.



    Please do your homework before you lump my company in with those who do not pay attention to golfers' fitting needs.



    TOM
    Posted:
  • PigemsPigems Members  10890WRX Points: 222Handicap: 8.8Posts: 10,890 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #67
    TomWishon wrote:

    square wrote:




    Unfortunatlely the manufacturers, including Wishon Golf, don't offer the components (head size and especially head weight) which make a shorter than 45" driver easily attainable.






    Sigh. . . . I do wish that you would take the time to do a little research before you post something like this that is not true and which can end up being very misleading to others who read your post.



    The std headweight of my 919THI driver heads is 202g with a +/-2g tolerance. Every 919THI is made with a weight bore below the shafting bore that can accept up to a 9 gram weight. Therefore it is easily possible to achieve normal swingweight ranges when building the 919THI to lengths of 44.5, 44, 43.5.



    With our other driver model, the 739CCG, it has two weight screw ports which both can accept up to as much as a 16g weight screw in each port. Optional weight screws come in 2.5g, 6.5g, 9g, 13g and 16g. It also has a weight bore in the hosel that also can accept up to a 9g weight. The 739's open port headweight starts at 188g. So with the 2.5g weight screws in each port the 193g headweight allows assembly to lengths of 45 to 46" - but using the other weight screws or even the 9g weight bore in the hosel, you can build the 739 to normal swingweights for any length all the way down to as short as 42" if desired.



    Please do your homework before you lump my company in with those who do not pay attention to golfers' fitting needs.



    TOM




    image/Schooled.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':Schooled:' />
    Posted:
    910D2 9.5*- RIP Alpha 70x
    910f 17*- Diamana D+ 82x
    910h 20* Hybrid - S400
    712 CB 4i-Pw - S300
    SM5 51*, 55*- S300
    TVD 59* M - S300
    Studio Select NP2
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • mantanmantan Members  2669WRX Points: 249Handicap: 13.5Posts: 2,669 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #68
    Another person who read the book years ago and have played a 44.5 inch driver for a long time. I custom ordered my current driver from PING to be built at a D2 SW.



    A side bonus is that it significantly reduced my old habit of frequently changing drivers. Hitting a stock 45.75 inch driver doesn't feel right, even when I choke down.
    Posted:
    WITB (as of 2/18/20)
    PING G400 Max 10.5*
    PING G400 5-Wood
    Cleveland Launcher Turbo 22* Hybrid
    Srixon Z565 5-PW
    Cleveland CBX 2 50*
    Cleveland CBX 2 54*
    PING Glide ES 58*
    Cleveland Frontline Elevado
    Bridgestone Tour B RX/RXS
  • OBbogey5OBbogey5 Falconer Members  1058WRX Points: 187Posts: 1,058 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  edited Jan 9, 2014 #69
    I'm going back to a sub 45" this weekend too when I have my irons tweaked. I played with a 44" driver from the 975D through a couple of Taylormade drivers, a wicked Tour Edge Proto, and a 905R.



    About five and a half years ago I remember taking the 905R into Golfsmith in Pasadena and crushing three straight 300 yd + drives no more than 4 yards off the center line. I mean I didn't even take a practice swing. It took less than a minute for me to walk through the door, nod to a tech, point to my driver and then to the swingvision/trackman/launch monitor thing as if to say, Here comes trouble.



    He pulls the rip cord and starts the Unidentified Ball Monitoring Gizmo (UMBG), I throw down a crap ball on a tee, address that b*#%h, and swoooossshhhhh. I was 30 and really in my prime, and found the slot very easily and consistently. The tech literally said, "I've never seen that before." My buddy, who's an 18 hdcp and really admires my game, told him, "He plays with a 44" driver." I mean, can I get a...Somebody call 911. This guy just murdered three golf balls...???



    Nope, the techie looks at me and literally verbally ponders in my direction, "Why?", as if it was really really dumb that I cut an inch of my driver. I put the head of my 905R in my right hand and pointed the grip end of that stick at the computer screen and stated, "That's. Why."



    God I wish that last part was true... You have no idea how many times I wish I thought to say that on the spot. In reality, I just modestly said I like the feel. I didn't want to continue a conversation with someone who didn't understand the value of those three drives on a dry run.



    Yes, I know the UBMG is majorly juiced. And I'm going back to a sub 45 incher.
    Posted:
  • WordmixerWordmixer Members  164WRX Points: 0Posts: 164
    Joined:  #70
    I’m wondering if my recent experience will sound familiar to decent amateur golfers with swing speeds in the 100mph range. I’m 50 but in good shape, 6’ and 160 pounds, with a SS of 100 – 102 and an index of 2. When I hit my strong 3-wood (a Sonartec SS-07, which is a deep face, very high CoG model with 13* of loft) the average distance came within 5 yards of my Adams 45” driver, albeit with a lower, more draw-biased flight.



    I considered playing with just the strong 3-wood—43” length—but thought the head size offered too little forgiveness. But on the flip side, a 460cc head on a short shaft starts to look and feel too jumbo-sized. So I tried to imagine “the middle ground,” a smaller driver head played at 44,” and found a nearly new Titleist 975L-FE, which I believe is 350cc. I installed a Purple Ice 65x shaft and added five strips of lead tape to the back of the club head. Swingweight is now D-3. This thing is THE most consistent, best feeling driver I’ve ever swung, and center-face hits have increased.



    It’s old school, yes, but it’s also a good conversation piece on the first tee: “Is that, um . . . some kind of 2-wood, or what?”



    Thank you for your contributions to club fitting, Tom. Very informative.
    Posted:
  • squaresquare Members  3203WRX Points: 3Posts: 3,203 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #71
    Tom,



    I stand by my statement. You do a lot of writing about how beneficial shorter length drivers are, but you don't seem to back it up with sensible product offerings. For example, your 919 model driver

    is a 202 gram, head weight with the capacity to add 9 grams . So, if I understand correctly, 211 max head weight and the added weight is confined to the shaft bore area.

    Your 739 model uses screws, and with that the capacity for more weight, but the location of the screw ports is questionable. Some players prefer to have at least some of the added weight forward, towards the face.

    Before you accuse accuse me of "not doing homework", consider the possibility that you may not know everything., and that your product line could be improved. Hope this helps.


    TomWishon wrote:

    square wrote:




    Unfortunatlely the manufacturers, including Wishon Golf, don't offer the components (head size and especially head weight) which make a shorter than 45" driver easily attainable.






    Sigh. . . . I do wish that you would take the time to do a little research before you post something like this that is not true and which can end up being very misleading to others who read your post.



    The std headweight of my 919THI driver heads is 202g with a +/-2g tolerance. Every 919THI is made with a weight bore below the shafting bore that can accept up to a 9 gram weight. Therefore it is easily possible to achieve normal swingweight ranges when building the 919THI to lengths of 44.5, 44, 43.5.



    With our other driver model, the 739CCG, it has two weight screw ports which both can accept up to as much as a 16g weight screw in each port. Optional weight screws come in 2.5g, 6.5g, 9g, 13g and 16g. It also has a weight bore in the hosel that also can accept up to a 9g weight. The 739's open port headweight starts at 188g. So with the 2.5g weight screws in each port the 193g headweight allows assembly to lengths of 45 to 46" - but using the other weight screws or even the 9g weight bore in the hosel, you can build the 739 to normal swingweights for any length all the way down to as short as 42" if desired.



    Please do your homework before you lump my company in with those who do not pay attention to golfers' fitting needs.



    TOM
    Posted:
  • squaresquare Members  3203WRX Points: 3Posts: 3,203 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #72
    Try thinking sometime, you might like what happens.


    Pigems wrote:






    image/Schooled.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':Schooled:' />
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • Russ757Russ757 Chesapeake, VAMembers  7745WRX Points: 201Posts: 7,745 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #73
    I didn't build it based on a book., but years ago I used an MFS 3 wood shaft in my R9 420 and had the best driving found of my life. For some dumb reason took it out and continued to struggle. Fast forward to this past year and do the same with an ad di. Instant improvement. Ended up settling in a D+ 72 at 44" and I still choke down about half inch.
    Posted:

    Driver: Ping G400 Max 10.5* Rogue Black 60

    FW: Ping G400 14.5* Rogue Black 80

    Hybrid: Ping G400 19* Rogue Black 85

    DI: Srixon U65 KBS Proto 85 or Cleveland 588 MT 4i Steelfiber 80

    Irons: Srixon 565/765 4-9 Steelfibers 110

    Wedges: Cleveland RTX 4 48*, 52*, 56*, 60* Steelfiber 125

  • mgcfcmgcfc Members  263WRX Points: 35Posts: 263 Bunkers
    Joined:  #74
    I currently use a Cobra S3 with stock Blur S-flex shaft. It is 45.5" long with a SW of D5. The stock shaft is 65g and the stock grip is around 50g.



    So in theory if I cut the shaft so it plays 44" what are my options to adjust Swingweight back up into the D3-D4 range? including a shaft change if necessary.
    Posted:
  • PigemsPigems Members  10890WRX Points: 222Handicap: 8.8Posts: 10,890 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #75
    square wrote:


    Try thinking sometime, you might like what happens.


    Pigems wrote:


    image/Schooled.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':Schooled:' />





    I was only playing dawg, I've always wanted to use that smiley but everyone on here is so polite all the time, this is nothing like the Hockey site I go on lol
    Posted:
    910D2 9.5*- RIP Alpha 70x
    910f 17*- Diamana D+ 82x
    910h 20* Hybrid - S400
    712 CB 4i-Pw - S300
    SM5 51*, 55*- S300
    TVD 59* M - S300
    Studio Select NP2
  • trhodetrhode Fitter / Builder Members  2041WRX Points: 163Posts: 2,041 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #76
    square wrote:


    Tom,



    I stand by my statement. You do a lot of writing about how beneficial shorter length drivers are, but you don't seem to back it up with sensible product offerings. For example, your 919 model driver

    is a 202 gram, head weight with the capacity to add 9 grams . So, if I understand correctly, 211 max head weight and the added weight is confined to the shaft bore area.

    Your 739 model uses screws, and with that the capacity for more weight, but the location of the screw ports is questionable. Some players prefer to have at least some of the added weight forward, towards the face.

    Before you accuse accuse me of "not doing homework", consider the possibility that you may not know everything., and that your product line could be improved. Hope this helps.


    TomWishon wrote:

    square wrote:




    Unfortunatlely the manufacturers, including Wishon Golf, don't offer the components (head size and especially head weight) which make a shorter than 45" driver easily attainable.






    Sigh. . . . I do wish that you would take the time to do a little research before you post something like this that is not true and which can end up being very misleading to others who read your post.



    The std headweight of my 919THI driver heads is 202g with a +/-2g tolerance. Every 919THI is made with a weight bore below the shafting bore that can accept up to a 9 gram weight. Therefore it is easily possible to achieve normal swingweight ranges when building the 919THI to lengths of 44.5, 44, 43.5.



    With our other driver model, the 739CCG, it has two weight screw ports which both can accept up to as much as a 16g weight screw in each port. Optional weight screws come in 2.5g, 6.5g, 9g, 13g and 16g. It also has a weight bore in the hosel that also can accept up to a 9g weight. The 739's open port headweight starts at 188g. So with the 2.5g weight screws in each port the 193g headweight allows assembly to lengths of 45 to 46" - but using the other weight screws or even the 9g weight bore in the hosel, you can build the 739 to normal swingweights for any length all the way down to as short as 42" if desired.



    Please do your homework before you lump my company in with those who do not pay attention to golfers' fitting needs.



    TOM





    Tom actually did respond to your statement, which mentioned nothing of the placement of added weight.



    You can always use hot melt instead of hosel weights and put it where you like. Of course, 9 grams is not enough to effect the COG of the head. So for your request of more weight toward the face, the starting head weight would have to be much lighter for there to be a real effect regarding placement of weight, assuming a reasonable swing weight range. But, I'm sure you already knew this.



    FYI, the KZG G4 head in your WITB signature moves weight around the perimeter, not lower and toward the face. If you're going to spout statements to manufacturers about offering more current designs, you may want to get that 12 year old driver technology out of your bag.
    Posted:
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers  24815WRX Points: 1,489Posts: 24,815 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Jan 10, 2014 #77
    trhode wrote:

    square wrote:


    Tom,



    I stand by my statement. You do a lot of writing about how beneficial shorter length drivers are, but you don't seem to back it up with sensible product offerings. For example, your 919 model driver

    is a 202 gram, head weight with the capacity to add 9 grams . So, if I understand correctly, 211 max head weight and the added weight is confined to the shaft bore area.

    Your 739 model uses screws, and with that the capacity for more weight, but the location of the screw ports is questionable. Some players prefer to have at least some of the added weight forward, towards the face.

    Before you accuse accuse me of "not doing homework", consider the possibility that you may not know everything., and that your product line could be improved. Hope this helps.


    TomWishon wrote:

    square wrote:


    Unfortunatlely the manufacturers, including Wishon Golf, don't offer the components (head size and especially head weight) which make a shorter than 45" driver easily attainable.






    Sigh. . . . I do wish that you would take the time to do a little research before you post something like this that is not true and which can end up being very misleading to others who read your post.



    The std headweight of my 919THI driver heads is 202g with a +/-2g tolerance. Every 919THI is made with a weight bore below the shafting bore that can accept up to a 9 gram weight. Therefore it is easily possible to achieve normal swingweight ranges when building the 919THI to lengths of 44.5, 44, 43.5.



    With our other driver model, the 739CCG, it has two weight screw ports which both can accept up to as much as a 16g weight screw in each port. Optional weight screws come in 2.5g, 6.5g, 9g, 13g and 16g. It also has a weight bore in the hosel that also can accept up to a 9g weight. The 739's open port headweight starts at 188g. So with the 2.5g weight screws in each port the 193g headweight allows assembly to lengths of 45 to 46" - but using the other weight screws or even the 9g weight bore in the hosel, you can build the 739 to normal swingweights for any length all the way down to as short as 42" if desired.



    Please do your homework before you lump my company in with those who do not pay attention to golfers' fitting needs.



    TOM





    Tom actually did respond to your statement, which mentioned nothing of the placement of added weight.



    You can always use hot melt instead of hosel weights and put it where you like. Of course, 9 grams is not enough to effect the COG of the head. So for your request of more weight toward the face, the starting head weight would have to be much lighter for there to be a real effect regarding placement of weight, assuming a reasonable swing weight range. But, I'm sure you already knew this.



    FYI, the KZG G4 head in your WITB signature moves weight around the perimeter, not lower and toward the face. If you're going to spout statements to manufacturers about offering more current designs, you may want to get that 12 year old driver technology out of your bag.




    And he says nothing about why he thinks even the 211 gram isn't 'enough' for playing at the shorter lengths despite implying it. The 'standard' 3wd head is only 210 gms and that's almost universally played without any SW issues for shorter lengths than been suggested for the drivers.
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • neilcneilc Members  1663WRX Points: 0Posts: 1,663
    Joined:  edited Jan 10, 2014 #78
    square wrote:


    I play a 44" driver because I was able to find a head size (425CC) and head weight (weight screws). TM offered this in their 425 model, which came out about 2006.

    43.5' to 44.5" are great. Unfortunatlely the manufacturers, including Wishon Golf, don't offer the components (head size and especially head weight) which make a shorter than 45" driver easily attainable.




    I've only gone as short as 44.5" in the past. Tempted to build something at 44" this year. Still having a hard time believing that the change in swingweight won't be a problem.





    edit.point already covered
    Posted:
  • squaresquare Members  3203WRX Points: 3Posts: 3,203 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #79
    For years I expect everyone who has participated in an internet golf forum is well aware that led tape, hot melt, and tip weights are an option for adding weight to golf club heads. But not especially good ones.

    The reason I've directed a few posts at Tom, last week and last night, is to suggest that making smaller heads, and making the addition of head weight easier, would be in harmony with his promotion of 43" to 44" finished length drivers.

    FYI, the 425CC R7425 , and the KZG Gf4, weight screw ports, do move the weight towards the face.These two drivers, very similar in design, have 2 weight ports centered and back, while the other 2 weight ports (heel and toe area) position the weight towards the club face. You are right my driver is "8 year old technology", but as I wrote in my first post of this thread, those looking to play shorter driver lengths may be best served by smaller heads (390CC to 430CC size) and easy addition of head weight. As far as I know the TM R7 425 and KZG GF4 are the only drivers heads which meet this criteria..




    trhode wrote:






    Tom actually did respond to your statement, which mentioned nothing of the placement of added weight.



    You can always use hot melt instead of hosel weights and put it where you like. Of course, 9 grams is not enough to effect the COG of the head. So for your request of more weight toward the face, the starting head weight would have to be much lighter for there to be a real effect regarding placement of weight, assuming a reasonable swing weight range. But, I'm sure you already knew this.



    FYI, the KZG G4 head in your WITB signature moves weight around the perimeter, not lower and toward the face. If you're going to spout statements to manufacturers about offering more current designs, you may want to get that 12 year old driver technology out of your bag.
    Posted:
  • RichieHuntRichieHunt Members  4029WRX Points: 725Posts: 4,029 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #80
    I am 6'4" tall and play a 44-3/8" long driver. I did this based on reading Wishon's books and forum.



    It's a bit tricky to do because of the weight issue. So many drivers these days are built to be at least 45.5" long in order to get the right heft and balance, you will need to find a heavier shaft and get the head weight right. But, I've done it and it's the best I've hit a driver since my junior golf days.













    RH
    Posted:
  • Fourmyle of CeresFourmyle of Ceres Unregistered  7829WRX Points: 6Posts: 7,829 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #81
    Let's see...you prefer smaller driver heads and the ones Tom Wishon sells aren't small enough for you...so therefore everything Tom Wishon says on the subject is wrong.



    Got it. Thanks for your input.



    Where does that meme come from anyway? The one about "I can't make my driver shorter because then a 460cc clubhead looks too big"? image/WTF.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':WTF:' />
    Posted:
  • tembolo1284tembolo1284 Boom Boom Banned  20715WRX Points: 1Handicap: BeefPosts: 20,715 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #82
    I already have long ago. Normal club is 44.75"



    shorter driver for more accuracy is 43.875 and has 0.8 degrees more loft on it.
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • squaresquare Members  3203WRX Points: 3Posts: 3,203 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #83
    Where did I write "everything Tom Wishon says on the subject is wrong"? Please stop misquoting me.

    #1 I believe that the engineers and designers who created 460CC heads did so with the expectation that these drivers would be played at 45" (or longer) finished length.

    #2 I believe, and several others here have posted the same, that a 460cC head appears to large when fitted to be a 44.5" (or shorter) finished driver.

    #3 I believe there is a functional playability benefit to swinging not only a 44' driver but also a smaller (390CC to 430CC) size head.. Specifically, it is easier to make balanced swings and more in harmony with the rest of the clubs within the bag.



    Tom Wishon disagrees with much of the above, So what ? A forum is supposed to be a place where information is exchanged and a range of perspectives expressed.




    Let's see...you prefer smaller driver heads and the ones Tom Wishon sells aren't small enough for you...so therefore everything Tom Wishon says on the subject is wrong.



    Got it. Thanks for your input.



    Where does that meme come from anyway? The one about "I can't make my driver shorter because then a 460cc clubhead looks too big"? image/WTF.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':WTF:' />
    Posted:
  • GLF4EVRGLF4EVR Members  849WRX Points: 83Posts: 849 Golden Tee
    Joined:  #84
    Have a hard time with many of these posts. To me it like Larry, Moe, & Curly explaining physics to Albert Einstein.
    Posted:
  • ClarkGrswld4ClarkGrswld4 Members  1763WRX Points: 131Posts: 1,763 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #85
    people on this site are obsessed with swingweight...
    Posted:
  • squaresquare Members  3203WRX Points: 3Posts: 3,203 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #86
    GLF4EVR wrote:


    Have a hard time with many of these posts. To me it like Larry, Moe, & Curly explaining physics to Albert Einstein.




    Try questioning authority. Over the years most of the club makers and teaching professionals I have known have one distinct thing in common. They struggle to break 80. My point is that are relatively very few club makers (or instructors) capable of actually helping a player get better performing clubs (or swings).


    GLF4EVR wrote:


    Have a hard time with many of these posts. To me it like Larry, Moe, & Curly explaining physics to Albert Einstein.
    Posted:
  • TomWishonTomWishon Sponsors  3663WRX Points: 115Posts: 3,663 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Jan 10, 2014 #87
    square wrote:


    I stand by my statement. You do a lot of writing about how beneficial shorter length drivers are, but you don't seem to back it up with sensible product offerings. For example, your 919 model driver

    is a 202 gram, head weight with the capacity to add 9 grams . So, if I understand correctly, 211 max head weight and the added weight is confined to the shaft bore area.

    Your 739 model uses screws, and with that the capacity for more weight, but the location of the screw ports is questionable. Some players prefer to have at least some of the added weight forward, towards the face.

    Before you accuse accuse me of "not doing homework", consider the possibility that you may not know everything., and that your product line could be improved. Hope this helps.






    Many, many times tests have been conducted, not just by me, but by many in the business, to confirm that the addition of up to 9 grams of weight in the heel end of a golf club (or in the toe end too if you like) cannot change the center of gravity nor any other aspect of a clubhead enough to cause any possible problems with performance. Period, that's a fact. Actually it takes more than 12g to even begin to have an effect on the shot. And at 12g a slight draw bias begins to happen but one which is detectable only to very, very consistent ball strikers. So at 9g in the heel, whether that is done by putting a weight into a hosel weight bore or with a tip weight in the end of the shaft, that 9g addition on the heel side of a clubhead does nothing to performance from the standpoint of what it does to the CG. If you cling to the notion that weight added in the heel of a head hurts performance, you are wrong.



    An interesting side note is that in the 919THI, putting 9g into the hosel weight bore increases the MOI of the head by
    On -, @280 g cm2. So it could actually be said that adding weight in the heel area of the head helps its performance in terms of a slight increase in off center hit performance.




    The forward screw hole on the 739CCG driver is there to allow clubmakers and golfers to put more weight closer to the face to decrease launch and spin if desired. That forward screw hole on the 739 is plenty close enough to allow movement of the CG toward the face when a heavier weight is installed in the forward screw hole. And the rear screw hole on the 739 is there to allow weight to be put farther from the face should a little higher launch and spin be desired. This option to move the CG forward or back was always a part of this design from day one of its concept.



    In your other post you mentioned that this being a forum, it is a place for an exchange of different ideas and information. That it is for sure true and that is a major positive benefit. When you posted to me some time ago suggestions for different size heads, I may not have agreed based on my career experience and personal career work feelings, but at the same time, I do respect your right to that opinion.



    But in this case when you make statements that are wrong about my driver designs not being able to be built to shorter lengths or not having a forward weight addition capability for moving CG forward, that's different than an opinion and as such that misinformation needs to be corrected so that incorrect, wrong information is not dispensed to others.



    TOM
    Posted:
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • Fourmyle of CeresFourmyle of Ceres Unregistered  7829WRX Points: 6Posts: 7,829 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #88
    square wrote:


    #2 I believe, and several others here have posted the same, that a 460cC head appears to large when fitted to be a 44.5" (or shorter) finished driver.




    Right. You think it looks too big. That's your the point you are making. Then you restate it as...


    #3 I believe there is a functional playability benefit to swinging not only a 44' driver but also a smaller (390CC to 430CC) size head.. Specifically, it is easier to make balanced swings and more in harmony with the rest of the clubs within the bag.




    Yeah, you think it looks too big and it affects your "balance" and "harmony". That's nothing to do with the driver, it's just that you don't like it because it looks too big.


    Tom Wishon disagrees with much of the above, So what ? A forum is supposed to be a place where information is exchanged and a range of perspectives expressed.




    There's nothing there to disagree with. Nobody on this forum doubts that you're telling the honest truth. You think a 460cc clubhead looks too big.



    No worries. We understand you completely. Thank you for sharing your perspective. You can find guys on any numbers of "blades" threads with similar hangups about looking down and see a 5-iron clubhead that's too large. So you are not alone.
    Posted:
  • trhodetrhode Fitter / Builder Members  2041WRX Points: 163Posts: 2,041 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #89
    square wrote:


    For years I expect everyone who has participated in an internet golf forum is well aware that led tape, hot melt, and tip weights are an option for adding weight to golf club heads. But not especially good ones.

    The reason I've directed a few posts at Tom, last week and last night, is to suggest that making smaller heads, and making the addition of head weight easier, would be in harmony with his promotion of 43" to 44" finished length drivers.

    FYI, the 425CC R7425 , and the KZG Gf4, weight screw ports, do move the weight towards the face.These two drivers, very similar in design, have 2 weight ports centered and back, while the other 2 weight ports (heel and toe area) position the weight towards the club face. You are right my driver is "8 year old technology", but as I wrote in my first post of this thread, those looking to play shorter driver lengths may be best served by smaller heads (390CC to 430CC size) and easy addition of head weight. As far as I know the TM R7 425 and KZG GF4 are the only drivers heads which meet this criteria..




    trhode wrote:






    Tom actually did respond to your statement, which mentioned nothing of the placement of added weight.



    You can always use hot melt instead of hosel weights and put it where you like. Of course, 9 grams is not enough to effect the COG of the head. So for your request of more weight toward the face, the starting head weight would have to be much lighter for there to be a real effect regarding placement of weight, assuming a reasonable swing weight range. But, I'm sure you already knew this.



    FYI, the KZG G4 head in your WITB signature moves weight around the perimeter, not lower and toward the face. If you're going to spout statements to manufacturers about offering more current designs, you may want to get that 12 year old driver technology out of your bag.





    I totally understand what you are saying about the visual size of the club head. I have always preferred them as well.

    I think what you're not understanding is how much weight it takes to actually effect the COG in a club head. It's close to 30g. What mostly happens when you move weights around in the r7425 and G4 heads is a change in the feel of the club. Moving a 10g weight from the heel to the toe will effectively change the swing weight which translates to feel.

    I have played both heads you have referred to and was a KZG dealer for about 3 years. I dropped KZG because the tolerance on the driver heads was no where close to consistent. I would get 2 of the same heads and they would be 3* in loft apart and different face angles. Sorry, don't mean to rant.



    Tom has offered many smaller cc designs in the past. Just because he doesn't offer them now doesn't mean he won't again. It seems to be a cycle. Most of the smaller heads I see now a days have less forgiveness in them with less roll and buldge. So you have to really be consistent to hit the sweet spot every time.



    Oh, btw, I am a club builder and hold a 1.7 handicap.
    Posted:
  • cardoustiecardoustie haha, we don't play for 5's Tasmania to CanadaMembers  13517WRX Points: 2,388Handicap: 1.6Posts: 13,517 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #90
    I read Tom's book a long time ago, great read



    I am a tallish guy at 6'2" tall and I have played 44.5" driver with heavier shafts for years



    The 910 looks like an oversized toy head on a shorter shaft. Love that you can load up heavy weights on the Titleist 910 and 913 heads



    I have a tip for you to try as well. Crank your swing weight up to D6, D8 etc and see what you think .. MAGIC babies. Recall that old school irons of the 60's and 70's had large swingweights before the short lived featherweight iron craze arrived (and then crashed)
    Posted:

    Ping G400 LST 11* Blueboard Matte 53x
    Ping G400 3w 13.9* Blueboard OG 63x
    Ping G400 5w 16.5* Blueboard Ion 73x
    Callaway Apex 4h 23* VTS Red 100Hx
    Callaway Apex 5h 26* GD Tour AD DI 105x
    Mizuno 919 Tour 6 - PW UST 95 Recoil
    Ping Glide SS 50* & 54* wrx 110 Recoil
    Ping Glide ES 59* wrx UST 110 Recoil
    Callaway PM grind 64* UST 110 Recoil 
    Piretti Matera Elite 

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

    Advertisement
  • ode1ode1 Members  3051WRX Points: 232Posts: 3,051 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #91
    square wrote:


    Tom,



    I stand by my statement. You do a lot of writing about how beneficial shorter length drivers are, but you don't seem to back it up with sensible product offerings. For example, your 919 model driver

    is a 202 gram, head weight with the capacity to add 9 grams . So, if I understand correctly, 211 max head weight and the added weight is confined to the shaft bore area.

    Your 739 model uses screws, and with that the capacity for more weight, but the location of the screw ports is questionable. Some players prefer to have at least some of the added weight forward, towards the face.

    Before you accuse accuse me of "not doing homework", consider the possibility that you may not know everything., and that your product line could be improved. Hope this helps.



    Unfortunatlely the manufacturers, including Wishon Golf, don't offer the components (head size and especially head weight) which make a shorter than 45" driver easily attainable.






    I don't know how you could stand by your original statement, it's false!



    Your original statement=



    I play a 44" driver because I was able to find a head size (425CC) and head weight (weight screws). TM offered this in their 425 model, which came out about 2006.

    43.5' to 44.5" are great. Unfortunatlely the manufacturers, including Wishon Golf, don't offer the components (head size and especially head weight) which make a shorter than 45" driver easily attainable.





    1) head size has nothing to do with the ability to make a sub 45" driver "attainable". Head size is personal preference!

    2) All of Wishon's drivers are easy to add weight to the head, especially the 739.



    Your other post references two drivers, the r7 425 and KZG gf4, which both have 4 weight port screws. What are the stock weights of the heads? and what are the max weights of the heads w/ adding the heaviest screws?



    In looking at both heads, i don't see how they place weight closer to the "face" as you say. It's really splitting hairs as to which head you could actually do that w/ vs. the two heads you mentioned and the 739, which would allow for 16 grams on the sole port, which is close to the face. The two heel/toe weigts might be marginally closer to the face, but it's not clear to me by the pics. In addition, the hosel port would be closer to the "face" then eithe of the two rear screws on either head you mentioned.



    Is it easier to add weight w/ two screw ports and a hosel port or four screw ports? legit question. And w/ the two heads you mentioned, can you adjust more than 36 grams to either head w/ the screw ports (factoring in two 2.5 gram screws on their own w/ the 739 vs. two 16 gram screws and one 9 gram hosel weight 41-5=36)?



    Also, in one of your posts you suggested that the position of the screw ports in the 739 were questionable. Why is it questionable.
    Posted:
8

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.