Jump to content

BackNineCollapse

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

BackNineCollapse's Achievements

24

Reputation

  1. There's not a universal answer. In general weight is more associated with stiffness in graphite compared to steel, but there's other ways to effect stiffness (resin material, layup, etc.) separate from weight. The only manufacturer that I can think of off the top of my head that uses the same layup, just more, is KBS (they do the same with their steel shafts). So for them, weight does straight up equal stiffness (they don't even label their TGI shafts with a 'stiffness', just list the weight). MMTs on the other hand use a combination of different layups and more material. The 105 TXs (113g weight) are significantly stiffer than the 125 Ss (124g), but not as stiff as the 125 TXs.
  2. Very unlikely they will feel how you seem to like. Titleist has always made a 'crisper' feeling forged club, likely on purpose to differentiate. Miura/Mizuno at one end, Titleist at the other with the rest somewhere in between (the Japanese forgings, i.e. Srixon and old Nike's feel very soft while Callaway/Cobras are more middle ground). The biggest difference between Titleist and Mizuno for turf interaction comes from the pre-worn leading edge Titleist does (as opposed to the sharper leading edge Mizunos have).
  3. NIppon Modus 120s and to a lesser extent, TT Elevate line (ETS is closer).
  4. I have TGIs in one of my sets. It's a very smooth feeling shaft. They say it's the same profile as the steel Tour shaft, but it's really closer to the C-Taper light (which is by far KBS' best selling shaft). The only issue with the TGI is like all KBS shafts, weight equals stiffness. I'm very shaft insensitive, shafts don't really change my ball flight appreciably, so I go almost exclusively by feel. As such, the fact that the TGI 110s I have are as stiff as a C-Taper 130gs (in the same ballpark as DG X7, PX 7.0) is fine for me, even though my normal 7 iron speed is 'only' 90mph (they recommend 95+mph 7 iron for the 110, per their recommendations I'd be between a 90 and 100). KBS knows the market, which is why they released a lighter version (TGI Max). They must not feel the market justifies a heavier version (say 15g heavier that the TGI Tours, so a S comes in at 105, S+ at 115 and X at 125g instead of 90/100/110 in the TGI Tour). Most recently I've played Nippon shafts, again for the smooth feel. I played the Modus 120 and 130, basically same results, overall I liked the feel of the 130 more. My other current set has Elevate ETS shafts, which also feel great to me (and in our lab reduce vibrational energy to a very similar degree as 'heavier' graphite shafts.
  5. They feel like crap. Seriously, that's it. There are other options that most people will get similar results from that feel much better. Plus (not that the shaft really matters that much) guys are hitting the ball much higher than even 5 years ago. It's much easier to have a stock high shot and knockdown when needed than the other way around. Everyone always quotes this: https://blog.trackmangolf.com/trackman-average-tour-stats/ That's way out of date. Iron apex is closer to 40yds now and several guys average over 50yds apex with their driver.
  6. People in general are very off on what a forgiving club actually does. Forgiving designs have very little effect on left/right dispersion (excluding cases where a weight bias can counteract a swing flaw, which can be an independent feature separate from a high MOI 'forgiving' design). Yes, a higher MOI club (iron or driver) will, all other things being equal, have a slightly lower face closure rate. But in practice that's almost never the case as the difference in moment force is miniscule compared to the forces actually in play. Plus, even for people that do see a significant effect on face closure rate (not as in a big effect, but one that is actually statistically measurable), it's just as likely to be a detriment as a bonus (in practice it's more commonly a detriment as most amateurs leave the face too open). Forgiving clubs improve distance dispersion by preserving ball speed on non-centered hits. So the question isn't would you rather be in the rough with your drive or miss the green left/right with your iron. The question is when you miss the sweetspot would you rather hit your drive or approach shot 10 yards shorter. The difference between a blade and a SGI club in terms of forgiveness is how far it flies when you catch it 3mm low, 5mm toe side (as an example, that happens to be the most common miss for 5-10 HC golfers), compared to when you flush it. On on a robot using 35degree club, a typical blade loses 10% distance, typical SGI looses 2% So say a perfect shot goes 155, that means on this slight mishit, the blade goes 140, while the SGI goes 152. Compared to a drive going 250 vs. 240 which would you choose? Of course sole design, offset, CG all play a role also (offset works by giving more time for the face to close, it typically has a much bigger effect on face closure than MOI), but it still mainly comes down to front-back dispersion. The biggest impact on driver left/right forgiveness comes from backspin. You reduce curvature by neutralizing spin axis, the easiest way to do that is increase backspin (it's easier than fixing face/path). High MOI drivers tend (but not always) to have CGs that are further back, thus produce more spin. But this is not universal, and there are ways to increase backspin (and thus decrease curvature) with a more forward CG (i.e. loft, AOA...). If you are missing lots of fariways and not curving the ball very much, you have a significant path or alignment issue that probably isn't best remedied with a driver (a weight bias driver can help, but is often a temporary bandaid, weight biases are best used to mitigate a two way curvature miss.) Again looking at 5-10 HC golfers, hitting their drive 10 yards farther, regardless of direction (the scenario where mishits are protected, so not really farther in this case, but loose less yardage) improves score by 1.1 strokes (note this is if every drive is 10 yards longer, or not 10 yards shorter as is the case here). Coming up short of the green on a single approach shot adds 0.6 strokes on average. Certainly not every short approach shot (5-10 HCs come up short of their target on almost 2/3 of their approach shots, not all of which miss the green) is due to a poor strike, poor club selection certainly plays a role also (it's 153 to carry the water, ok, I hit my 7 iron 160 (148 carry, 12 yards roll), perfect club...). But it's also unlikely all 14 drives will be, or need to be, protected. Add to that that the consequences of a 10 yard shorter drive are rarely catastrophic for your score, while coming up 10% short with a 7 iron can be a round killer. And the last thing to keep in mind is there really aren't any un-forgiving drivers anymore. Not only have companies become much more adapt at positioning the CG (to maximize the benefits/compromises of MOI), but face technology has also led to significantly improved ball speed retention independent of MOI. Compare that to irons where their really hasn't been any significant improvement in MOI (there are exceptions, but there have always been exceptions). And while iron face technology (cup face, suspended faces with/without foam, speed slots, etc.) has also advanced, the magnitude of possible benefit is much, much smaller due to size limitations.
  7. True Temper doesn't really make a comparable shaft in terms of profile or feel. TT doesn't really have a soft butt/tip, firm (relative) middle shaft. That's not to say there isn't a TT shaft that will produce similar results to KBS Tour for you. TT is certainly marketing (indirectly) the elevate line as an alternate for the KBS Tour, but profile and overall stiffness wise is most similar to the $-Taper. Their VSS is the real deal though, does what it says (reduces vibration considerably more than graphite shafts, with a 3-4g permanent insert).
  8. People seem to take as a given that graphite has advantages beyond a better stiffness/weight ratio. While it's true graphite can transmit less vibration, there is no objective evidence that is in any way better for joints. The amount of actual energy transmitted to the hands when hitting the ground/ball is essentially identical between graphite and steel. The high frequency energy graphite tends to attenuate (compared to flex matched steel, and that's important, flex has a big effect on transmitted energy), is easy to identify, but the actual magnitude is miniscule. Graphite allows complex flex and weight profiling, but most pros like the profiles and weights what are available in steel. 'Tour' graphite shafts, like the MMT 125TX you have in your sig, can mimic the weight and flex profile pros like, but all it really offers is a different feel, which for many pros is the exact opposite of what they want. Graphite is amazing for being able to replicate the profile/flex of steel shafts people are used to, at a much lower weight. That's graphite's real advantage, but only some people consider that an advantage. As you said in your second post, it may well be that as younger players grow up playing graphite it will eventually take over, especially if they grow up playing lighter weight shafts. Lighter weight is an objective advantage in the golf swing, for everyone, including tour level players. But most are not used to it, and as a result do worse with lighter weight clubs. EDIT: An example is doing push up leaning against a running washing machine. If you put a yoga mat or something between your hands and the washing machine, you won't feel the vibrations as much, but the main issues for your hands/wrists/elbows are the forces involved in the push up, that doesn't change at all. 2nd EDIT: An example of what can be done is the KBS TGI shaft. KBS was able to produce a shaft that is essentially identical (overall flex and flex profile) to steel shaft they make, with the graphite shaft being 20-25g lighter.
  9. The study was designed specifically to test the effect of expectation on results. We do robot testing to quantify the actual effect of shaft properties on launch parameters (spoiler, there's almost no effect regardless of CHS/release pattern, etc.) For a vast majority of golfers, nearly all of the changes in launch parameters are due to how they react to a shaft (by changing their delivery based on kinesthetic feedback), and not from the shaft itself altering clubhead orientation. Shafts do have an effect, but it's very small (which is not to say it's not important, just that the magnitude is vastly overestimated by basically everyone). People vary in how sensitive they are to shaft differences. Some people are very sensitive, some are closer to robots. This too is malleable. We did a study where after collecting baseline data, people were randomized to seeing our robot data vs. not. The people that saw the robot data (showing shafts have very little effect), subsequently had much less variation in their launch parameters when swinging markedly different shaft profiles. Being shaft sensitive is a good thing, it opens up fitting options. And based on our data, I apologize for this post, as you are probably less sensitive now.
  10. Just to expand on what Stuart said, we did a study where we compared expectation vs. shaft design. After a warm up, we had people 'get a baseline' by hitting two different shafts (single manufacturer, marketed as high and low launch, same weight and flex rating) telling them they were the same shaft (changed clubs, shafts were unmarked.) We were using a GC4 LM, and justified the change by saying the clubhead stickers weren't reading, so needed to swap clubs. We then had them hit the same shaft (changed clubs, shafts were unmarked) telling them one was high launch the other low. The difference in dynamic loft delivered between the high and low launch scenario was 2.2 times larger when hitting the same shaft (with the expectation they were different) compared to hitting different shafts (with the expectation they were the same). Participants were also asked to rate how the shafts felt in each scenario. In the first scenario, there was almost no reported difference in feel between the actual high and low launch shafts, while in the second (actually identical shaft), typical comments were made (i.e. low launch shaft was more 'stout', 'stable', 'firm', etc.). We have done the same with flex, and the results were similar, though not as pronounced. We suspect that markedly different flexes (we compared R and X) provide more proprioceptive feedback than different flex profiles, leading to more adaptive changes. It is notable though that launch parameters still changed more when hitting the same shaft (expecting them to be different) than when hitting the different shafts (R to X).
  11. 425 max CG is slightly fade biased with the weight centered, and has the largest CG movement of any of the movable weight drivers (so putting weight in the toe makes it quite fade biased). The 400 max CG is slightly draw biased. In terms of lateral CG location, the 425 max is slightly more toe side than the 425 LST with weight in toe on both. The difference is the LST comes 1 degree open stock compared to the max which comes square, and the LST CG is more forward resulting in lower overall spin. You need to try it, but on paper the 425 Max was made for you.
  12. Don't sole the club, square the face. Loft/faced angle are the same adjustment. Depending on how you set up to the ball lowering the 'loft' by 1.5 degrees can lower the loft by 1.5 degrees without changing the face angle at all, open the face by 1.5 degrees without changing loft at all, or some combination of less than 1.5 degrees to each (that add up to 1.5). If you have a Callaway driver this is super simple as the grip orientation doesn't change. Get a GP align grip, grip the club the same way and face angle will never change when you change hosel setting.
  13. Different shafts provide different kinesthetic feedback. People vary a lot on how much they are effected by that feedback. Highly sensitive players will change their delivery significantly as flex/weight changes, resulting in significantly different results. Less sensitive players will make more or less the same swing, and get more or less the same result regardless of flex/weight. A robot produces essentially identical results once shaft droop is accounted for (this is what causes low strikes with more flexible shafts, the shaft is not kicking forward appreciably, there is more droop which effectively shortens the shaft). There really isn't a 'debate' here. Crossfield is absolutely correct that shafts make very little difference for him, as are the people in this thread who state shafts make a huge difference. Both are true, because when you change the shaft, the variable is not the shaft, but how the person responds to the shaft.
  14. I play T100S 6-GW, 1 degree weak with T200 5-6 one degree strong then a Callaway X-Forged UT 21 degree one degree strong. Tried various different combos of T100/T100S/T200 and this gave me the best gapping. The only 'issue' is the difference in offset is pretty dramatic between the 6 irons (T100S' bent weak leaves very little, T200 bent strong increases the already significant offset). I've only hit the wrong 6 iron a couple of times (they look very different, I'm just oblivious at times...). On the plus side, my course has 2 par 3s where I usually hit one of the 6 irons, and it messes with my playing partners when they ask what club I hit.
×
×
  • Create New...