Jump to content

Cwebb

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    7,053
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Cwebb

  1. Agreed. This modern obsession with "the leading edge" is making chipping a lot more complicated than it needs to be
  2. I don't believe that Mickelson's theory and the way he actually chips, is the best method for most players. Keeping in mind that he is one of the most talented short game players of all time
  3. It has the potential to reduce the rotation of the club face in your swing. For some players this helps to minimize a draw/pull/hook. Whether a bigger grip actually helps your impact pattern on the face and your shot results, is something you have to test for yourself
  4. There are some players that have an address position and swing that will "chase" their lie angles. One of the reasons that many good instructors insist that their students do not play with extra upright lie angles, even when a dynamic lie test currently suggests that they "should"
  5. I think the reason that some of the data through the decades may seem off, concerns the Rearward COG. Maltby explains it in his book, in that there is an Rcog that they use for calculating the AVCOG....and then there is another measurement that is used for additional factors, such as how much influence there can be on the shaft leading to more dynamic loft at impact. What they use for the MPF calculation is the distance between the COG and the "intersection point of the face plane with the ground line". The factor in Rcog that can effect the shaft and dynamic loft, is the distance between the COG and the centerline of the hosel
  6. The MPF places a high value on the horizontal COG or what they call "C-dimension", because it creates a wider area on the face for a relatively solid strike. The reason for this is that a strike that is outside or toeside of the COG (sweet-spot) will twist the head more than a strike that is inside or heelside of it. All else equal, a strike that is 1/4" outside of the COG is going to twist the head more than a strike that is 1/4" inside of it. So irons with really short C-dimensions (think long hosel, short blade length), usually have a very small amount of space to work with between the edge of the hosel and the COG (sweet-spot) for a relatively solid strike. This is why all good players from back in the day, learned to develop an impact pattern that was inside of center. Ping was the first company to design irons that didn't require this for pure contact, because they had much longer C-dimensions than anything else in that era
  7. An incredible close to the season by Jin Young Ko. I don't think anybody thought that Korda could be caught after the summer
  8. I hope you realized this was the case a while ago. Was this ever in question?
  9. Weird. That's not even close to what I've measured for the standard DG and Modus 120 in the butt section
  10. Compared to 'standard' Dynamic Gold. If the 120 DG is really that soft in the butt, then it is not even close to the standard version in the butt section. I haven't measured it myself, but question a measurement that shows it being that soft
  11. It's fairly common to see a larger yardage gap in your highest loft clubs, even if the actual loft difference is the same. Has to do with a more glancing strike with extra loft. This is why we don't want to always rely on exact loft gaps, when trying to be precise with a setup
  12. If you go up a full flex in the Modus 120, that could be true for some players, depending on their swing characteristics. A Modus 120 'X' is still softer in the butt and middle vs a DG 'S' flex
  13. The rest of the story is that the DG 'R' weighs more
  14. Yeah, that's because the bend profile of the Modus 120 'S' is nearly identical to an 'R' flex Dynamic Gold
  15. I don't really consider it a "grind". It's just a traditional full sole. Basically in irons, you'd want to look for a similar sole width, with close to the same bounce for your first iron (PW, 9i). Generally stay away from low bounce, which won't offer you any "help" through impact
  16. It's only a little bit weird in appearance, if the wedge profile at address is larger than your 9 iron. If it works best, doesn't matter
  17. Just incredible. Hard to imagine. After coming off two rounds with bad back pain. Might be the lowest score of all time by someone his age. If Furyk doesn't win this tournament, Langer will likely finish as the top player on that tour, again. Mind boggling, with the talent out there
  18. Have you tried a softer flex in your whole set? Not every player who has enough speed for 'X' flex, actually gets the best performance from that. Maybe you're better off with an 'S' flex in your set of irons/wedges...or something between S & X
  19. Sounds good. Maltby and the Golfworks have not claimed that an iron can't be struck pure from a tight lie, if it's Actual Vertical COG is above .840". It certainly can, if we hit down and through it enough. The point is that for the vast majority of players, it greatly reduces the percentage of pure contact and makes an iron more difficult to play...especially from down and tighter lies. It's all about stacking all the details in our favor, when trying to find an ideal club. Sweet-spot (COG) location is just one of many details. An important one, however
  20. About the lowest lie you can find these days is 56*. With very few options in that. You're at 58*, so 2* less in a driver isn't going to be your solution. It would be nice to have something flatter though
  21. If you're hitting it too high on the face, especially towards the toe, that can produce a very low spin diving hook. I would start by trying to improve that. Make sure you're not teeing it too high, if your AOA doesn't work with that tee height for a good impact pattern. Practice a lot with impact spray on the face. I would also try a more open face at address. Don't let the head just sit "square" or wherever it wants to. Grip it at the exact angle you want/need and keep it there. Sure, it's nice to have a driver that sits at the exact angle we need, but don't rely on it. Lots of top players through history have addressed the ball with an open face. If the open face starts to get the face more square to your path and it produces a push. Just set your alignment a little left and play it
  22. Have you done detailed impact pattern testing on your driver face? Figure out exactly where you tend to strike most shots and go from there. Maybe a combination of things, in which a very upright lie for you, could accentuate the pull/hook,....but the first priority would be impact pattern combined with your path/face angle relationship. If you're very inside out with path, you have to be closed with the face, which can lead to lots of hooks. Unless you were to get the face more open and play for a push, with your alignment more left
  23. The precise impact point on the face and the vertical spot in which a wear mark eventually forms for a good player and even a tour player, is always lower on the face than the height of the Actual Vertical COG. This doesn't mean that most shots are being hit "thin" with the COG coming in above the center of the ball. Here is an article from Ralph Maltby on this. Notice the bottom image on the right hand side. The highlighted area on the face is the area that a wear mark will form for tour player.... https://www.golfworks.com/playability-factor-2007-analyzing-ball-impact-wear-spot-of-a-tour-player/a/404/ As a sweeper, have you ever tested an iron design that has been measured to have a real low Actual Vertical COG? Something at or below about .750". Would be one of the most interesting tests you could do
  24. The glaring difference between those and the widely popular original Tommy Armour 845's was height of the COG. The 845's are .759" vs the Ti-100 at .986". The smaller head size being the easier one to hit. The basic point that many have not understood, is that just because an iron is larger in size with a bigger cavity back, does not necessarily mean that it will be easier to hit or "more playable". It's a hard thing to get through, that it is possible and common for a smaller iron head size to be an easier one to play for many players. The challenge and issue with a larger iron design, is that a larger head usually means a taller face height....and the face height has the most influence on the Actual Vertical COG (sweet-spot height). A COG above the center of the ball equals a more difficult iron to play from normal to tighter lies for most players. No matter what the size of the head, the details for COG (sweet-spot) location need to be precise, with the impact relationship of the COG relative to the center of the ball fully understood by the designer,... otherwise it's left up to chance as to whether it will be a good performing head or not I have to assume based on the measurements we've seen over a long period of time, that not everyone who is involved in designing irons understands that a pure strike with an iron, requires that the COG comes into impact below the center of the ball
×
×
  • Create New...