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

[ode1]

[quote name='square' timestamp='1389335909' post='8433677']
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.

[/quote]

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. [b]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.[/b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[Ri_Redneck]

MAN! The temp's rising in THIS discussion room!

Anyway, I have played what you folks refer to as "shorter" drivers (and FWs) since I began the game back in the 70s. I tried longer lengths and super-light shafts and I never saw the CHS gains that would justify dealing with them. To this day, I have only found a couple of 65gm shafts that I liked. The vast majority of shafts I prefer are in the 85 to 90 gm range. I can typically get the feel I want by bringing the head weight up to around 210 gms. If weights are available, I use them. If not, I just drill a hole in the sole and use polyfill and a bit of tungsten powder if necessary. Plug the hole with the tip of a shaft plug and I'm good to go. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do this and it gives you that good old "click" at impact too.

I've been on many LMs too and I can attest to you that an inch or two in length doesn't do squat for your swing speed. The balance of the club is what will allow you to swing correctly and get the max CHS of which you are capable. Thats another reason I like the polyfill. You can add and remove till you have it just right, then plug the hole and never mess with it again.

Food for thought.

BT

[tembolo1284]

Great thread. I'm sure Tom will bring the hammer down when he gets a chance. All in good fun and for us to learn of course.

[sheffield]

[quote name='Wordmixer' timestamp='1389329210' post='8433237']
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.
[/quote]

I have something similar:
TM 300 9.5* (300cc) with Blueboard plays at 44"
Mizuno Pro 300s (300cc) 9* plays at 43" (current being reshafted)
The Mizuno has a fairly deep face and is very low spin so its like a "1Deep" - lots of fun to hit.

[RogerinNewZealand]

Sheffield, you have the Hot New Model !

My TM 200 9.5 driver and 15 3 wood just arrived mid week!
The Driver is a bit low launching, is 275cc but the 3 wood is A WEAPON!
I had a Titleist 975d 2 years ago....nothing like the TM 200!. Looking for a 10.5 now!

[gjunky]

I'm 6'4" and play my irons +1/2.

I play my driver at 44.5" 3 wood at 42 1/2" and 5 wood stock at 42". I have played this setup for 5 years and when I originally made the change the results were amazing for me.

I play the Cally RFX Driver because of the weight ports so I can easily get it back to a D3 swing weight without all the lead tape. It also happens to be a great driver :-)

[Sean2]

I'm kind of tall, with relatively short arms (6'5"). I tried a 44-inch driver, but when I set-up to it, I feel like I'm holding a 5-iron with a huge head on in. It's very awkward. As to fairway woods, I'm partial to TM not only because the perform well for me, but because they are a bit longer. With other fairway woods, I feel like I have to squat too much as because they are too short.

Perhaps I should try it again? I don't know. But it all feels off and awkward at the length Tom recommends. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying Tom is wrong, I'm just saying it feels awkward for me.

[Kylekoz17]

I am so glad I am not obsessed with swing weight. I have cut down every driver I've tried and never had a problem. Never noticed a difference in weight. If it feels good, who cares what the swing weight is? Thankfully, not me..

[DL4Golf]

I've been playing 43 to 44 inch drivers since 1970. I seem to have to make a different swing with a 45" driver than I make with the other clubs. My current driver, which I will be replacing soon (9.5 is too high a loft for me), is a 445cc Tourstage at 43.75" with a Prolite BiMatrx stiff shaft. You can easily put a 6 to 10 gram plug (1SW is 1.6grams) in a Bimatrx tip. The longest driver I've played is the 983K (365cc with stiff Fuji 757). I have 5 drivers in my office now (including a 7.5 983K) that I will be testing this winter at around 43.5". It is also very easy to put a large amount of lead in the bottom of a bore-thru driver hosel.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='square' timestamp='1389312491' post='8431315']
After some experimentation with length, shafts, and head weight, the best results for me were 80 gram shaft, 217 gram head weight, 44" finished length. The swing weight of my driver is D4.

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1389308786' post='8430927']
I had a j33r with an AxivCore Tour Green 85 which played at 44 inches. Axiv Green felt like it was tip weighted, so it didn't really feel like the swing weight was off by much. Just a strip or two of lead tape and it was good to go. Also had an L4Vx/Pype 80x combo at 44 inches. That was sick - shouldn't have gotten rid of it! L4 was a heavier head. I think that is part of what makes it all work.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Yeah, my L4 combo came out to something like D8. It was fun!

[ck25]

Tom brings wealth of information and knowledge in the forum and I've learned immensely from his posts and articles. I really hope some trolls won't discourage him from posting further like what happened to the instructions forums......

I too play a 44.25" driver and own a Wishon 919 driver. I've personally not hit a better performing driver that is built to such a high quality which puts all OEM offerings to shame!

I will never go back to a 45"+ driver.

[Chef Otto]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1389399446' post='8438363']
I'm kind of tall, with relatively short arms (6'5").
[/quote]
Sean I think you can safely drop the "kind of" from that statement.

[Hstead]

I am over 6 feet tall and play my irons +1/2", but I have known for years I hit a 44.5" driver straighter and farther. The first time I was ever on a launch monitor, probably over ten years ago, we figured out I hit the middle of the face better, had a higher smash with a 44.5" vs 45" driver. The swing speed was almost the same, maybe one or two mph less, but the higher average smash factor equaled longer and straighter.

[That Bob Guy]

[quote name='erock9174' timestamp='1389307888' post='8430837']
I have a G25 12*, head weighs 200g. shaft adapter another 5grams with two shafts playing at 44".
Stock TFC swing weights at C4 and the Diamana S+ shaft I have is a C8. To be honest I can't feel a lick of difference between them when swinging the club.
So SW feel really depends on the golfer.

I also have a Rapture V2 13.5* shortened to 44". Stock shaft. This one is pretty neat to hit. Towering balls that don't balloon.

Also somebody mentioned that most amateurs would do better with a shorter, high lofted driver.
Hireko Golf always offers a "Thriver" club in their Acer line that does just this.
While I haven't tried it, it's built to 44", 65g shaft, with a 210g head and 14* of loft.
Most reviews say it doesnt launch as high as one would expect. The nice thing is the price, around $100-$110 range. So cheap experiment.
[/quote]
I've built several for people. Beginners to single digit cappers, all of whom have become very comfortable with them. I've used lighter shafts, so I've had to add rubber tungsten tip weights to achieve target swingweights.

[That Bob Guy]

[quote name='square' timestamp='1389367722' post='8434897']
[quote name='GLF4EVR' timestamp='1389366646' post='8434783']
Have a hard time with many of these posts. To me it like Larry, Moe, & Curly explaining physics to Albert Einstein.
[/quote]

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).

[quote name='GLF4EVR' timestamp='1389366646' post='8434783']
Have a hard time with many of these posts. To me it like Larry, Moe, & Curly explaining physics to Albert Einstein.
[/quote]
[/quote]
OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark.

[Colej]

[quote name='square' timestamp='1389366569' post='8434767']
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.

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1389365850' post='8434677']
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 [i]meme[/i] come from anyway? The one about "I can't make my driver shorter because then a 460cc clubhead looks too big"?
[/quote]
[/quote]

It seems like the majority of your posts are formed from opinion or experience with what you like.

[WilCox]

I agree with everyone's right to state their opinions/beliefs. However when it comes to club building I'm sticking with Tom Wishon's guidance.

[mantan]

[quote name='Kylekoz17' timestamp='1389403212' post='8438649']
I am so glad I am not obsessed with swing weight. I have cut down every driver I've tried and never had a problem. Never noticed a difference in weight. If it feels good, who cares what the swing weight is? Thankfully, not me..
[/quote]

I do think some of swingweight is mental. I had a TaylorMade R5 cut to 44.5 that I loved. Hit it great, longer straighter than the original version. Thinking a little more could do even more wonders, I had it cut to 44 inches. I hit it well, but not as well as I did at 44.5. I took it to different clubbuilder who told me the swingweight was really low (C7?). Suddenly it was in my head that swingweight was an issue.

I don't know how much of it as placebo effect at my skill range, but I've ordered 44.5 inch drivers at the D2 swingweight since. When it was 44.5 inches it was probably lower than that...but when I didn't know it didn't bother me.

I tend to think that unless swingweight is really high or really low, most golfers won't know the difference. PING sells a boatload of irons at lower swingweights than most OEM's. While they are happy to custom order them at higher SW's, I'd bet 90% don't change.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Chef Otto' timestamp='1389431270' post='8440297']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1389399446' post='8438363']
I'm kind of tall, with relatively short arms (6'5").
[/quote]
Sean I think you can safely drop the "kind of" from that statement.
[/quote]

I have a tendency to understate things Otto. :-)

[TomWishon]

[quote name='square' timestamp='1389366569' post='8434767']
#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.

[/quote]

#1: It is not true that designers created larger volume driver heads with the expectation that they would be played with longer playing lengths. The quest in the 90s to keep making larger and larger volume driver heads was triggered by, a) the knowledge that bigger driver heads meant a higher MOI which meant more off center hit forgiveness; b) bigger head volume brought with it a bigger face area, which also made it a whole lot easier to get the COR to the USGA limit without having to use more expensive beta titanium alloys. This meant max COR drivers could be manufactured for less cost, which meant more profit to the companies. c) And yes, the other motivation was the fact that every company on the planet knew that the marketing claim of "bigger is better" was a VERY easy point to cement in to consumers' minds so as to keep driving consumers to buy the next larger size driver head.

How do I know this other than the fact that as a designer I lived and worked in this era? Back in the 90s, I was a member of the old Golf Digest Technical Advisory Panel. This panel was made up of either the head of product development or one of the key product development people within all the major golf equipment companies. GD got all of us together a couple of times a year to discuss equipment trends so the GD editors could know more about golf equipment to plan their articles. These above points came out repeatedly in discussions among all of us on the Panel.

So no, the push to keep designing larger size driver heads had nothing to do with length. Not at all.

#2: I completely respect your opinion that you and several other golfers prefer smaller size heads, or prefer smaller size heads with shorter driver lengths. I certainly can see how you and some other golfers may feel that way, and that is totally fine. No opposition from me on that. All I can add to that is the simple fact that the day the golf companies start to hear a majority of the golfers in their marketing focus groups indicate a desire for smaller driver heads is the day you will see smaller driver heads come on the market to sell to golfers. Thus far, that hasn't happened. Believe me, these companies do NOT embark in any new direction for production design unless their polling and study of golfer opinions tells them that the golfers will be receptive to the new design direction. So the fact you still see 430-460cc drivers almost exclusively these days tells you that the golfers who want smaller driver heads are still in the minority by far.

#3: You may feel this way based on your experience, and that again is totally fine, and wonderful that you may have discovered you can swing better with a smaller driver head on the end of the shaft. If so it is a psychological origin, and of course that is superb if you have discovered this about your own swing and manner of play. But from a pure research standpoint I can tell you that there is absolutely no type of technical relationship between golfer swing consistency or golfer swing timing and driver head size. Between golfer swing consistency or golfer swing timing and driver LENGTH - yes for sure that relationship most definitely exists for sure and can be explained and proven from a scientific basis.

TOM

[SeekonkHolen1]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1389463914' post='8441781']
[quote name='square' timestamp='1389366569' post='8434767']
#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.

[/quote]

#1: It is not true that designers created larger volume driver heads with the expectation that they would be played with longer playing lengths. The quest in the 90s to keep making larger and larger volume driver heads was triggered by, a) the knowledge that bigger driver heads meant a higher MOI which meant more off center hit forgiveness; b) bigger head volume brought with it a bigger face area, which also made it a whole lot easier to get the COR to the USGA limit without having to use more expensive beta titanium alloys. This meant max COR drivers could be manufactured for less cost, which meant more profit to the companies. c) And yes, the other motivation was the fact that every company on the planet knew that the marketing claim of "bigger is better" was a VERY easy point to cement in to consumers' minds so as to keep driving consumers to buy the next larger size driver head.

How do I know this other than the fact that as a designer I lived and worked in this era? Back in the 90s, I was a member of the old Golf Digest Technical Advisory Panel. This panel was made up of either the head of product development or one of the key product development people within all the major golf equipment companies. GD got all of us together a couple of times a year to discuss equipment trends so the GD editors could know more about golf equipment to plan their articles. These above points came out repeatedly in discussions among all of us on the Panel.

So no, the push to keep designing larger size driver heads had nothing to do with length. Not at all.

#2: I completely respect your opinion that you and several other golfers prefer smaller size heads, or prefer smaller size heads with shorter driver lengths. I certainly can see how you and some other golfers may feel that way, and that is totally fine. No opposition from me on that. All I can add to that is the simple fact that the day the golf companies start to hear a majority of the golfers in their marketing focus groups indicate a desire for smaller driver heads is the day you will see smaller driver heads come on the market to sell to golfers. Thus far, that hasn't happened. Believe me, these companies do NOT embark in any new direction for production design unless their polling and study of golfer opinions tells them that the golfers will be receptive to the new design direction. So the fact you still see 430-460cc drivers almost exclusively these days tells you that the golfers who want smaller driver heads are still in the minority by far.

#3: You may feel this way based on your experience, and that again is totally fine, and wonderful that you may have discovered you can swing better with a smaller driver head on the end of the shaft. If so it is a psychological origin, and of course that is superb if you have discovered this about your own swing and manner of play. But from a pure research standpoint I can tell you that there is absolutely no type of technical relationship between golfer swing consistency or golfer swing timing and driver head size. Between golfer swing consistency or golfer swing timing and driver LENGTH - yes for sure that relationship most definitely exists for sure and can be explained and proven from a scientific basis.

TOM
[/quote]

Tom,

Thanks for always taking the time to post reply's in your usual unbiased and professional manner. I am certain that many of the other professionals in your industry refrain from participating in these discussions because they can get pretty heated, but you always have a way with being able to discern posts that are made based off of personal preference and provide details that enlighten the community to how things really work. I can honestly say that in all of my years on this forum I have never had lengthy discussions with a company owner/president through personal messages other than you. That to me speaks volumes about the type of person that you are and that your passion isn't about the sale it's about the game and making it easier for all of us to play! In my opinion the knowledge you share with us exceeds anything tht could ever be expected from a golfwrx member, let alone a man who is clearly as busy as you are. Thank you for always contributing to our message boards!!

[Pigems]

[quote name='SeekonkHolen1' timestamp='1389465628' post='8441907']
[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1389463914' post='8441781']
[quote name='square' timestamp='1389366569' post='8434767']
#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.

[/quote]

#1: It is not true that designers created larger volume driver heads with the expectation that they would be played with longer playing lengths. The quest in the 90s to keep making larger and larger volume driver heads was triggered by, a) the knowledge that bigger driver heads meant a higher MOI which meant more off center hit forgiveness; b) bigger head volume brought with it a bigger face area, which also made it a whole lot easier to get the COR to the USGA limit without having to use more expensive beta titanium alloys. This meant max COR drivers could be manufactured for less cost, which meant more profit to the companies. c) And yes, the other motivation was the fact that every company on the planet knew that the marketing claim of "bigger is better" was a VERY easy point to cement in to consumers' minds so as to keep driving consumers to buy the next larger size driver head.

How do I know this other than the fact that as a designer I lived and worked in this era? Back in the 90s, I was a member of the old Golf Digest Technical Advisory Panel. This panel was made up of either the head of product development or one of the key product development people within all the major golf equipment companies. GD got all of us together a couple of times a year to discuss equipment trends so the GD editors could know more about golf equipment to plan their articles. These above points came out repeatedly in discussions among all of us on the Panel.

So no, the push to keep designing larger size driver heads had nothing to do with length. Not at all.

#2: I completely respect your opinion that you and several other golfers prefer smaller size heads, or prefer smaller size heads with shorter driver lengths. I certainly can see how you and some other golfers may feel that way, and that is totally fine. No opposition from me on that. All I can add to that is the simple fact that the day the golf companies start to hear a majority of the golfers in their marketing focus groups indicate a desire for smaller driver heads is the day you will see smaller driver heads come on the market to sell to golfers. Thus far, that hasn't happened. Believe me, these companies do NOT embark in any new direction for production design unless their polling and study of golfer opinions tells them that the golfers will be receptive to the new design direction. So the fact you still see 430-460cc drivers almost exclusively these days tells you that the golfers who want smaller driver heads are still in the minority by far.

#3: You may feel this way based on your experience, and that again is totally fine, and wonderful that you may have discovered you can swing better with a smaller driver head on the end of the shaft. If so it is a psychological origin, and of course that is superb if you have discovered this about your own swing and manner of play. But from a pure research standpoint I can tell you that there is absolutely no type of technical relationship between golfer swing consistency or golfer swing timing and driver head size. Between golfer swing consistency or golfer swing timing and driver LENGTH - yes for sure that relationship most definitely exists for sure and can be explained and proven from a scientific basis.

TOM
[/quote]

Tom,

Thanks for always taking the time to post reply's in your usual unbiased and professional manner. I am certain that many of the other professionals in your industry refrain from participating in these discussions because they can get pretty heated, but you always have a way with being able to discern posts that are made based off of personal preference and provide details that enlighten the community to how things really work. I can honestly say that in all of my years on this forum I have never had lengthy discussions with a company owner/president through personal messages other than you. That to me speaks volumes about the type of person that you are and that your passion isn't about the sale it's about the game and making it easier for all of us to play! In my opinion the knowledge you share with us exceeds anything tht could ever be expected from a golfwrx member, let alone a man who is clearly as busy as you are. Thank you for always contributing to our message boards!!
[/quote]

I think we have an early front runner for "Post of the Year" right here...
Well said my friend.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='SeekonkHolen1' timestamp='1389465628' post='8441907']

Thanks for always taking the time to post reply's in your usual unbiased and professional manner. I am certain that many of the other professionals in your industry refrain from participating in these discussions because they can get pretty heated, but you always have a way with being able to discern posts that are made based off of personal preference and provide details that enlighten the community to how things really work. I can honestly say that in all of my years on this forum I have never had lengthy discussions with a company owner/president through personal messages other than you. That to me speaks volumes about the type of person that you are and that your passion isn't about the sale it's about the game and making it easier for all of us to play! In my opinion the knowledge you share with us exceeds anything tht could ever be expected from a golfwrx member, let alone a man who is clearly as busy as you are. Thank you for always contributing to our message boards!!
[/quote]

Thank you very much. But it happens also because after ten books and hundreds of tech articles, I can type around 125 wpm these days ! So it doesn't take that much time to submit something and I can still get my work done at my company !!! HA!

[502 to Right]

This thread has been a very good read.


I fully appreciate the "shorter is better" advice for drivers but it hasn't worked for me.

In 2003 I cut my Cleveland 330 Launcher down to 44 inches (stock was 45 inches). I added lead tape to get back to D2. But the results were awful. I hit the ball all over the place. I had no consistency whatsoever. So I extended the club back to 45 inches, took off the lead tape, and everything was better. I hit the ball much more consistently at 45 inches.

In 2006 I was tempted again to see if I could get better results with a shorter driver so I cut my Cleveland 460 Launcher down to 44 inches (stock on that model was 45 inches). Added lead tape to get back to D2. Results again were terrible. So I went back to 45 and hit it much better.

Since 2006, I have played every driver at 45 inches. Several I've had to cut down to get to 45 inches. I don't know why, but [i]for me[/i], I hit the driver best at 45 inches.

[RogerinNewZealand]

Square....is where i want my clubface at Impact.

Open......I remain open minded on what can/can't work in Golf Club Design

Listen.......i'm in Sales...two ears....one mouth...

Calmness...... Only on a Golf Course do you see calm people self destruct !

Closed...........This Thread ! Vote for Tom Wishon and Shorter Clubs !

949MC 16.5 mine works great at 41 inches. Thanks Tom

[Pigems]

Thanks to Toms article I am the proud new owner of a new to me 9.5* Ping G20 Driver with PX 5.5 that is a full 1" shorter (44.5")than my previous driver, Diablo Octane 10.5 * with PX 6.0 (45.5"). The minute I picked it up it just felt good in my hands. I knew it felt shorter and the guy at the store was like no, it should be the same as the others(there was a few Demo Ping drivers in a bin) but it immediately felt better, even just to hold, and after a few smacks I was in. Especially after he told me I was getting it for free. After trade in I got the driver and a sleeve of ProV1's for $6.50

Edit: It's also shallower faced then the DO with a bigger footprint and I really liked that about the G20. I hit ten or so balls and afterwards I looked at the face and all the ballmarks were right around center, I NEVER hit that many that close to center, I think I'm gonna like this club, thanks Tom.

[pleepers303]

[quote name='skylargolf' timestamp='1389295867' post='8429415']
So if I'm using a 46" driver, am I crazy? Driving accuracy is a weak point in my game so maybe this could be a solution. Should I go straight to something around 44 1/2? or just take a little off so it's not so a big change? Also do I need to get a new shaft because it would throw off the swing weight?
[/quote]

Just start with 1/2 inch increments to begin. Going from 46 to 44.5 will be a big jump.

[square]

You keep asking for it, and with the hope you might learn something, I will continue to reply, for now , anyway.

#1 in the pursuit of distance claims branded OEM's took a path to longer shafts and larger heads.Sadly, the point of diminishing returns (44.5" finished length and roughly 375CC head size) was passed about 10 years ago. The 45" plus length shafts require a unique swing,which in itself is not an issue .However, a player needs to transition his swing from the extra long shaft to the rest of the clubs within the bag, and therein lies the problem. Understanding the diminishing returns of too large a head size is simply a matter of good sense. Too large means too bulky and bulky is never the best fit for good swings.

#2 I can't think of a single successful consumer product which was born from some "test marketing focus group" or "poll results" of any kind. Through the sixties and seventies Karsten Solheim
used his own thoughtful design ideas to create revolutionary, better performing products. And in the early 90's Callaway did the same thing, producing a game changing driver.. No customers asked for these products. It's not the customers job to know what he wants. That is backwards. It is the suppliers job to design and create innovative , great functioning products which the customers never knew they wanted but come to realize they must have.

Tom Wishon, you have a recognizable name within the industry and seem passionate about selling your fit story. My suggestion is to stop thinking about '"focus groups", "consumer polls", "industry meeting panels" , "what people are asking for" , or any of that other stuff. Instead, use your knowledge to create sensible products which best match your fit story. Hope this helps.

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1389463914' post='8441781']

#1: It is not true that designers created larger volume driver heads with the expectation that they would be played with longer playing lengths. The quest in the 90s to keep making larger and larger volume driver heads was triggered by, a) the knowledge that bigger driver heads meant a higher MOI which meant more off center hit forgiveness; b) bigger head volume brought with it a bigger face area, which also made it a whole lot easier to get the COR to the USGA limit without having to use more expensive beta titanium alloys. This meant max COR drivers could be manufactured for less cost, which meant more profit to the companies. c) And yes, the other motivation was the fact that every company on the planet knew that the marketing claim of "bigger is better" was a VERY easy point to cement in to consumers' minds so as to keep driving consumers to buy the next larger size driver head.

How do I know this other than the fact that as a designer I lived and worked in this era? Back in the 90s, I was a member of the old Golf Digest Technical Advisory Panel. This panel was made up of either the head of product development or one of the key product development people within all the major golf equipment companies. GD got all of us together a couple of times a year to discuss equipment trends so the GD editors could know more about golf equipment to plan their articles. These above points came out repeatedly in discussions among all of us on the Panel.

So no, the push to keep designing larger size driver heads had nothing to do with length. Not at all.

#2: I completely respect your opinion that you and several other golfers prefer smaller size heads, or prefer smaller size heads with shorter driver lengths. I certainly can see how you and some other golfers may feel that way, and that is totally fine. No opposition from me on that. All I can add to that is the simple fact that the day the golf companies start to hear a majority of the golfers in their marketing focus groups indicate a desire for smaller driver heads is the day you will see smaller driver heads come on the market to sell to golfers. Thus far, that hasn't happened. Believe me, these companies do NOT embark in any new direction for production design unless their polling and study of golfer opinions tells them that the golfers will be receptive to the new design direction. So the fact you still see 430-460cc drivers almost exclusively these days tells you that the golfers who want smaller driver heads are still in the minority by far.

#3: You may feel this way based on your experience, and that again is totally fine, and wonderful that you may have discovered you can swing better with a smaller driver head on the end of the shaft. If so it is a psychological origin, and of course that is superb if you have discovered this about your own swing and manner of play. But from a pure research standpoint I can tell you that there is absolutely no type of technical relationship between golfer swing consistency or golfer swing timing and driver head size. Between golfer swing consistency or golfer swing timing and driver LENGTH - yes for sure that relationship most definitely exists for sure and can be explained and proven from a scientific basis.

TOM
[/quote]

[poppman2142]

I play my 913d3 driver at 43.8 inches with a tp7hd and the blue color code weight from Titleist. It comes out at d6 swingweight. It has a Multicompound standard size grip. I feel that it has made me more consitent overall. The MOI measurement on it is 2810.

[square]

Your post makes sense. And driver shaft length absolutely influences the golf swing.
Consider Tiger Woods, who early in his career swung very well using a steel shafted, relatively small headed, , likely 43" to 43.5' driver. The weight and length of this driver assisted him in making good balanced, rhythmic swings, and was a good match for the rest of the clubs within his bag. Later in his career Tiger went to longer graphite- shafted, bigger headed drivers and this had a noticeable negative effect to his swing. For the first time we saw him make some out of balance, out of rhythm golf swings. However, when Tiger did take driver out of his bag, such as his last British open victory, and opted to play long irons or fairways woods off the tee boxes, his swing balance and rhythm was more reminiscent of the way he swung during his early pro years.
One factor which club designers and engineers often neglect is the effect that a club's head size, length, and weight may have on a player's golf swing.
[quote name='DL4Golf' timestamp='1389413903' post='8439593']
I've been playing 43 to 44 inch drivers since 1970. I seem to have to make a different swing with a 45" driver than I make with the other clubs. My current driver, which I will be replacing soon (9.5 is too high a loft for me), is a 445cc Tourstage at 43.75" with a Prolite BiMatrx stiff shaft. You can easily put a 6 to 10 gram plug (1SW is 1.6grams) in a Bimatrx tip. The longest driver I've played is the 983K (365cc with stiff Fuji 757). I have 5 drivers in my office now (including a 7.5 983K) that I will be testing this winter at around 43.5". It is also very easy to put a large amount of lead in the bottom of a bore-thru driver hosel.
[/quote]