I watched the tournament this weekend

[Boricua Golf]

I have to say that the weather in Hawaii (the wind to be exact) was not normal at all, during the "Hawaii winter" the wind changes directions and at Kapalua some holes that they were almost driving it to the green, if the wind was blowing, they wouldn't be close, without the wing you get to -30 scoring (I lived, caddied and played in Hawaii for the last 6 years), the same can be said about Waialae, no wind, so they were tearing it up, yes the equipment has a huge part on it as well...they have all of their equipment taylored to their swing and with "forgiving" clubs from top to bottom, you will see low scores, ok, Kapalua and Waialae are not the toughest courses in Hawaii, but do get set up a bit tougher for the tournament...

[scomac2002]

...yes the equipment has a huge part on it as well...they have all of their equipment taylored to their swing and with "forgiving" clubs from top to bottom, you will see low scores...

 

This more or less confirms what many of us on this board believe; that forgiving equipment in the engineering sense has greater value to the professional/competitive amateur player where slight misses can have a big impact. The swings of your typical handicap golfer aren't consistent enough to take advantage of the cumulative gains that have occured over the past 5, 10, 15 or even twenty years. Handicap indexes have dropped by two strokes in that time. The ball will be largely responsible for most of that and the rest attributed to the large headed titanium driver. In exchange for that we get to watch circus golf on TV!

[Boricua Golf]

...yes the equipment has a huge part on it as well...they have all of their equipment taylored to their swing and with "forgiving" clubs from top to bottom, you will see low scores...

 

This more or less confirms what many of us on this board believe; that forgiving equipment in the engineering sense has greater value to the professional/competitive amateur player where slight misses can have a big impact. The swings of your typical handicap golfer aren't consistent enough to take advantage of the cumulative gains that have occured over the past 5, 10, 15 or even twenty years. Handicap indexes have dropped by two strokes in that time. The ball will be largely responsible for most of that and the rest attributed to the large headed titanium driver. In exchange for that we get to watch circus golf on TV!

 

I hear you, I experienced it first hand, I saw drives that really made no sense, especially at Kapalua, I mean average driving distance in in the 290s and low 300s and I thought I was long, compared to these guys we are average at best, again, they all customized equipment, we get "fitted" and at best we can improve a few strokes...plus we don't play on the manicured courses they do, some of us are lucky to do so, but on average they would destroy our courses...case in point, Tommy Gainey and other pros came to play at Navy Marine GC in Honolulu for a separate Pro Am put togehter by the military and they destroyed the course record which was 60. Gainey (I was in his Pro Am group) shot 56 from specially mowed tees (furhter back from tips), he constantly statetd that his equipment gave him extra yards with every club...

[NRJyzr]

he constantly statetd that his equipment gave him extra yards with every club...

 

 

Of course it does. If tour pros care to spend the time to do it, and it's said some do not, they have access to customization about which we can only dream. One of the aspects of that customization is achieving absolutely perfect conditions with respect to distance, for their swings.

 

Each of us would likely see gains, were we to undertake a similar process.

 

Were we to hit balls as often as pros do, frequency as well as number of swings, we'd all also gain about a club of distance. I've seen hints of this with my own game over the past 10-15 years, from time to time, when I was playing and practicing reasonably often.

 

As for the forgiveness... the only place that comes into play is the driver. The modern jumbo driver allows pros the ability to go after tee shots harder than they could with the 170-ish cc clubhead they would have been using 30 years ago.

 

There's also mindset at play. I mentioned earlier that bomb and gouge are not all that new, but the mindset to play that way above accuracy took some time to become more accepted, and permeate the thinking of the average pro. Could also be an aspect of the aging of the pro tours; those pros brought up with the "accuracy is premium" mantra have largely moved on, and the young guns now have been weaned on bomb and gouge as a viable plan. See: Daly, John. ;)

 

And there's goes my calendar reminder, time to go to the chiropractor :)

[Boricua Golf]

he constantly statetd that his equipment gave him extra yards with every club...

 

 

Of course it does. If tour pros care to spend the time to do it, and it's said some do not, they have access to customization about which we can only dream. One of the aspects of that customization is achieving absolutely perfect conditions with respect to distance, for their swings.

 

Each of us would likely see gains, were we to undertake a similar process.

 

Were we to hit balls as often as pros do, frequency as well as number of swings, we'd all also gain about a club of distance. I've seen hints of this with my own game over the past 10-15 years, from time to time, when I was playing and practicing reasonably often.

 

As for the forgiveness... the only place that comes into play is the driver. The modern jumbo driver allows pros the ability to go after tee shots harder than they could with the 170-ish cc clubhead they would have been using 30 years ago.

 

There's also mindset at play. I mentioned earlier that bomb and gouge are not all that new, but the mindset to play that way above accuracy took some time to become more accepted, and permeate the thinking of the average pro. Could also be an aspect of the aging of the pro tours; those pros brought up with the "accuracy is premium" mantra have largely moved on, and the young guns now have been weaned on bomb and gouge as a viable plan. See: Daly, John. ;)

 

And there's goes my calendar reminder, time to go to the chiropractor :)

 

I agree 100%, it has been like that for a while now, pros hit it as hard and far as possible, even from the rough they can make birdie or save par, why?, because they have anywhere from 9i down on a 450y Par4 and are able to control the shot better, yes they are skilled, but equipment helps them to pull off those shots the we "the average guy" can only dream of or even pull off once in 20 rounds...but you are 100% correct...

[guisician]

 

The Pro Game is not going to change guys because the pro Game is what drives equipment sales. It's that basic.

 

Same thing with music equipment. It's no coincidence so many young bands you see have everyone playing Gibson or Fender guitars & basses or using all Marshall amps.

 

And when someone's playing a Steinway grand piano on TV, there always seems to be an added huge "Steinway" label on the side facing the audience.

[NRJyzr]

he constantly statetd that his equipment gave him extra yards with every club...

 

 

Of course it does. If tour pros care to spend the time to do it, and it's said some do not, they have access to customization about which we can only dream. One of the aspects of that customization is achieving absolutely perfect conditions with respect to distance, for their swings.

 

Each of us would likely see gains, were we to undertake a similar process.

 

Were we to hit balls as often as pros do, frequency as well as number of swings, we'd all also gain about a club of distance. I've seen hints of this with my own game over the past 10-15 years, from time to time, when I was playing and practicing reasonably often.

 

As for the forgiveness... the only place that comes into play is the driver. The modern jumbo driver allows pros the ability to go after tee shots harder than they could with the 170-ish cc clubhead they would have been using 30 years ago.

 

There's also mindset at play. I mentioned earlier that bomb and gouge are not all that new, but the mindset to play that way above accuracy took some time to become more accepted, and permeate the thinking of the average pro. Could also be an aspect of the aging of the pro tours; those pros brought up with the "accuracy is premium" mantra have largely moved on, and the young guns now have been weaned on bomb and gouge as a viable plan. See: Daly, John. ;)

 

And there's goes my calendar reminder, time to go to the chiropractor :)

 

I agree 100%, it has been like that for a while now, pros hit it as hard and far as possible, even from the rough they can make birdie or save par, why?, because they have anywhere from 9i down on a 450y Par4 and are able to control the shot better, yes they are skilled, but equipment helps them to pull off those shots the we "the average guy" can only dream of or even pull off once in 20 rounds...but you are 100% correct...

 

 

What I think is missed in the bomb and gouge discussion is: pros could have been doing this much earlier than John Daly's arrival on the scene. Or even DL3. They just didn't realize the advantage that length could have, they'd been brought up thinking "in the fairway above all else."

 

I think it's the advent of more advanced statistical analysis that helped show the way.

 

An example is one of the old truisms, laying up to full shot distance on par 5s to have a better chance to get close. It's been shown that shots from what are commonly referred to as awkward distances are, on average, finish closer than shots from something like full wedge distance.

 

The difference is perception.

 

When you're 40 yds away, you're thinking standard short game shots, getting up and down. If you don't, you see it as a failed effort. However, on average, a tour player will be considerably closer to the pin on a 40 yd shot than he would from 110 yds. I expect the same would be true for Mr/Ms Average Player. It may not result in the success of saving a stroke every time, but if you're closer on average, you'll theoretically cut a stroke here and there.

 

Obviously, it's also situational, hazards, design of the hole, that sort of thing. :)

[Golfingfanatic]

While I see the points you guys make, I'd like to mention a few counter-arguments, because I feel the only real difference is the golf ball

 

1. 460cc Drivers: I think what is often overlooked is how far pros can hit their 3-Wood of the tee. A guy like Rory can still hit that little thing anywhere from 270 to 300 yards.

 

2. Irons: Sure, many pros no longer play blades, but what sets them a part from us amateurs is where their misses go and their scrambling abilities.

 

3. Course conditions: Yes, most courses on tour are set up to allow low scoring. But some courses (like Kapalua or St. Andrews) depend on external factors such as wind, otherwise they are simply defenseless against those players.

 

4. Scoring Average: I think we sometimes focus too much on the leading scores, but forget that a lot of players also struggle. It is not like every player is finishing under par, far from it actually.

 

I think the bottom line is that the reason these guys go so low is in part due to the ball, but also has a lot to do with the amount they practice and the skill they have.

[jonnygrouville]

Sad, but true. Saying that, watching professional squash players using a red dot would be a joke. Slower ball means more skill. Different game, but one you aspire to. And you both play the same ball. Obviously.

 

Dial the ball back, spins less for professional tournaments. The longest driver would still be the longest driver.

 

And The Open should be played in March.

 

[maverick]

Now PM is complaining that a par 4 that was driver/wedge is now driver/5 iron. Isn't golf his profession? I never realized todays professional golfers have a problem hitting a 5 iron.

[TimV]

Well in his defence his 5 iron probably has the same loft as something between a 2 and a 3 iron from 35 years ago and more. I have trouble with a 2 or 3 at times. ;)

[NRJyzr]

PMick is famous for having played with strong lofts. Back in his Titleist days, and the PM731, his 6 iron was 29°. Not unusual now, but then it was something else.

 

That sort of delofting by pros happens more often than folks realize.

[mocokid]

I agree with Dan Jenkins who doesn't watch anything but the majors.

 

Week after week it's the fortune 500 CORPORATE open, with corporatized PGA pro bombing 300yds, hitting 7i 200yds, putting with star wars putter, for (yawn) birdie. If he misses the green, hit the mint fresh v@key lob to within 3 feet, then star wars putter for par.

 

Finchem formula traded Bob, Bing, Danny, Sammy for ATT, GM, CoCola, and corporate kazillions, and there you have it. Boring US star contends vs. boring International star. Mention millions raised for charity, and add a war vet to hold the US flag pin on #17. That's your formula. If you think I'm exaggerating ask Jordan Spieth.

 

ZZzz.

[stevemcgee99]

Par 4 should be driver 5 iron - at least 3 times. It should be drive 2/3 iron a couple of times (or even driver fairway wood), and only driver - short iron / wedge a couple times.

 

Lengthening courses to maintain the game is the stupid, myopic approach. Dialing back the ball and returning to solid material, small-headed drivers is the right way.

 

Baseball kept the rules for wooden bats. And so didn't re-build all the stadiums to fit 800-yard fly balls.

 

I mean, there's an R&A AND a USGA for cryin' out loud! What do they do all day??

[scomac2002]

I mean, there's an R&A AND a USGA for cryin' out loud! What do they do all day??

 

Yes and there's the IOC and FIFA too! :blind:

[scomac2002]

FWIW I thought the play-off at the Waste Management Open was compelling golf. Sure it was bomb and gouge driver/wedge every hole, but Fowler pushed his luck and lost. We just have to get used to the idea that winning golf is now birdie/eagle golf rather than par/birdie golf. Even the newest versions of automatic 300 yard plus drivers may not be a terrible thing when you start to see guys drive through greens into the drink. It will teach them course management without having to lengthen grand old tracks.

 

Sure it's still all too rah rah and hype, but whose fault is that? It's the networks and their obsession with creating drama out of thin air. It seems to be our need for instant gratification rather than letting events unfold as they should in their own time. It seems many thought the Super Bowl was a super bore, but for my tastes that was the most entertaining football I've watched in some time -- the struggle to succeed rather than the lets make it look easy track meet type of match. "It should be hard, otherwise everyone would do it. It's the hard that makes it great."

[mocokid]

Par 4 should be driver 5 iron - at least 3 times. It should be drive 2/3 iron a couple of times (or even driver fairway wood), and only driver - short iron / wedge a couple times.

 

Lengthening courses to maintain the game is the stupid, myopic approach. Dialing back the ball and returning to solid material, small-headed drivers is the right way.

 

Baseball kept the rules for wooden bats. And so didn't re-build all the stadiums to fit 800-yard fly balls.

 

I mean, there's an R&A AND a USGA for cryin' out loud! What do they do all day??

 

The USGA gave up after it cost them mucho $$$ fighting Ping's square groove case. I know, I used Ping Eye2, the offending club. After that it was the equipment manufacturers that made the rules.

Now the USGA appears to be mainly a golf merchandising organization, rather than the officiating body, after a look at their 2016 clothing catalog and the billions from FOX.

Anyone remember the USGA Journal, a great golf publication !!! PJ Boatwright would be rolling over in his grave !!

[NRJyzr]

Par 4 should be driver 5 iron - at least 3 times. It should be drive 2/3 iron a couple of times (or even driver fairway wood), and only driver - short iron / wedge a couple times.

 

Lengthening courses to maintain the game is the stupid, myopic approach. Dialing back the ball and returning to solid material, small-headed drivers is the right way.

 

Baseball kept the rules for wooden bats. And so didn't re-build all the stadiums to fit 800-yard fly balls.

 

I mean, there's an R&A AND a USGA for cryin' out loud! What do they do all day??

 

The USGA gave up after it cost them mucho $$$ fighting Ping's square groove case. I know, I used Ping Eye2, the offending club. After that it was the equipment manufacturers that made the rules.

Now the USGA appears to be mainly a golf merchandising organization, rather than the officiating body, after a look at their 2016 clothing catalog and the billions from FOX.

Anyone remember the USGA Journal, a great golf publication !!! PJ Boatwright would be rolling over in his grave !!

 

 

The fight with Ping over grooves shows they were already out of touch, and largely clueless, in the 80s. If there hadn't been a settlement, they would have lost in court. Karsten Solheim did them a favor.

 

That was just the beginning of a long period of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moves. Worrying about COR was silly. The groove rule is a joke. And the anchoring ban, the ultimate swing and miss.

 

If there's anything they missed on that might have been interesting, it's clubhead size. I don't think they thought it was even possible that driver clubheads could get as large as they did. Suddenly, the component world gave us the 400cc driver, made some noise, and the OEMs scrambled to catch up.

[scomac2002]

Well said, NRJyzr. Largely arbitrary moves in the name of condition of competition that have accomplished absolutely nothing.

[NRJyzr]

If they suddenly rolled back to persimmon woods, I really don't think it would affect much at all, other than Louisville Golf suddenly becoming much more popular. LOL

 

The pros would likely continue to use the shafts they're currently using, maybe going slightly shorter club length due to the smaller clubheads. They'd be optimized for their launch conditions, just as they are now.

 

The "50 year old clubs" test session with Padraig Harrington from 2009 showed there really wasn't much difference. He swung the shorter club slower, and didn't put enough spin on it; he'd be outfitted with a bit more loft, maybe a bit spinnier ball, at 44" or so, and off he'd go.

 

Which gets me to one of my soapbox moments (lol).... the modern tour pro is not the same guy we saw in Ye Olde Days. I think it's a mistake to blame everything on the equipment; they hit it farther because they swing that much faster; they are bigger and they are stronger. It's not the ball, which has already been rolled back (not many noticed). The clubheads may play a part, if only because of the forgiveness of a larger clubhead. They're just collectively longer than players of olde.

 

Hell, I'm an out of shape 52 year old and *I* hit it farther with persimmon than the tour average in 1980 (256.9 yds), which is the oldest season I can find on the PGA Tour. It's not much of a reach to think a physically fit, 25 years younger, player could hit it considerably farther, even with a 190cc persimmon head.

 

The irony, the lower spin of persimmon heads would probaby benefit the longer hitters. :)

/end soapbox

[llewol007]

You are correct where most tournaments do show us monstrous drives with wedges for the second shot. That is why I love the US OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP with their setups. 480+ par fours. More entertaining. Although, I myself play the back tees as often as I can and I have mid iron in to greens. Believe when I say, if a pro needed to hit a long iron into a green, they can. Skill level is on a different plane.

[maverick]

Golf balls have more effect than clubs or at least the same. There are ladies balls that are illegal to play with at a PGA tourney. Yes I thought the sudden death playoff was very interesting. But they all drive a par 4? It's gotten weird and is not helping golf.

Well in his defence his 5 iron probably has the same loft as something between a 2 and a 3 iron from 35 years ago and more. I have trouble with a 2 or 3 at times. ;)

 

They are professional golfers. Unless you are a professional golfer I would imagine those irons would be difficult. They can play any loft they want AFIK.

[minimal45]

I find the pga tour to be very boring. The courses are set up with distance and water as the only challenges. So many courses have become irrelevant because they aren't 7,400 yards. Here's an idea. Take away specialty clubs from the pros. As good as they are they don't need 14 clubs. I got it say certain lofts be restricted. Nothing more than 54° nothing less than 19*. Sorry I'm bursting with ideas.

[birly-shirly]

[...]

 

Which gets me to one of my soapbox moments (lol).... the modern tour pro is not the same guy we saw in Ye Olde Days. I think it's a mistake to blame everything on the equipment; they hit it farther because they swing that much faster; they are bigger and they are stronger. It's not the ball, which has already been rolled back (not many noticed). The clubheads may play a part, if only because of the forgiveness of a larger clubhead. They're just collectively longer than players of olde.

 

Hell, I'm an out of shape 52 year old and *I* hit it farther with persimmon than the tour average in 1980 (256.9 yds), which is the oldest season I can find on the PGA Tour. It's not much of a reach to think a physically fit, 25 years younger, player could hit it considerably farther, even with a 190cc persimmon head.

 

[...]

 

That modern tour pros are better conditioned than they were 30 or more years ago is probably true. But whether that level of conditioning is responsible for increased distance seems highly debatable.

 

Average clubhead speed on tour today is 113mph. But how fast could those guys swing a typical 30 year old driver? There are multiple tests which all tend to show a loss of clubhead speed in the 7 - 10 mph range.

 

Take the 7 - 10 mph that's attributable to modern driver technology away from today's bombers, and their clubhead speed is no more impressive than any of the long-driving persimmon era pros who were clocking 120mph and more with 43" steel shafted clubs.

 

As regards tour average, I believe that back in the day, midpack clubhead speed was more like 109mph.

 

Nicklaus (in Golf my Way) reckoned that his distance advantage over the tour average was 22 yards of carry. Although according to this source (http://www.golfdiges...he-distance-adv) Jack's estimate might be a little on the high side. Either way, the difference is not large enough to conclude that average pga tour clubhead speed was as low as 103 - 105mph.

 

If you're trying to explain the increase in clubhead speed over time, the changes in the driver are more than adequate. There is no need to look at changes in athleticism.

 

In fact, the irony is that I think the data points in a rather counter-intuitive direction - that in the persimmon/balata era, the top players were actually swinging harder at the ball than today's guys. That goes against everything we hear about "bomb and gouge", but think about it. If modern clubs and equipment mean that you rarely have anything more than a short iron or wedge into any par 4, where is the incentive to really go after your shots?

 

Compare that to the scenario in, say the 50s, where regulation par 4s could actually be out of range in 2 shots.

 

As regards the ball, the modern tour ball might only be a handful of yards longer than the balata ball that immediately preceded it. But the further back you go, the bigger the difference in performance becomes. The 1996 Tour Balata would outperform the 1980 equivalent, and the difference going back to the balls of the '60s is pretty stark.

 

Modern day driver and ball can achieve smash factors of up to 1.48. Persimmon and the ball of the late 60s would max out at 1.36. Far more of that change is due to the evolution of the ball than springface drivers.

[NRJyzr]

Another random thought spawned by Birly's post... something that needs to be taken into account in looking at modern distances is something attributable to loft creep, other than the usual application of that discussion.

 

During his peak years, David Duval gave an interview to one of the golf mags. At one point, the Sarazen 4 wood albatross at the Masters was discussed. Duval said something to the effect "it was a 4 wood then, but it's a 3 iron now," in talking about the relative length of shots, then and "now."

 

The interesting thing about that... a 4 wood in the 1930s likely had a loft of 20°. The 3 iron at the time of Duval's interview likely had a loft of 20°.

 

I've probably posted about that before, apologies for the possible repetition.

 

 

Modern day driver and ball can achieve smash factors of up to 1.48. Persimmon and the ball of the late 60s would max out at 1.36. Far more of that change is due to the evolution of the ball than springface drivers.

 

Some look at that paragraph and say the ball is now too hot. I look at it and say "why were golfers so accepting of a ball significantly shorter than allowed?" Meaning, the real problem with the ball isn't how long the modern ball is, but how short the older balls used by some as a base point were. :)

 

 

Average clubhead speed on tour today is 113mph. But how fast could those guys swing a typical 30 year old driver?

 

There's no hard and fast rule here, I'm afraid. Different people will react differently. I'm an example; in the fitting session I've mentioned many times in these parts, I swung a 43" steel shafted club 3 mph faster than my 44¼" graphite shafted driver (repeated efforts, not a single instance). Yet Padraig Harrington swung the 50 year old persimmon approx. 7 mph slower than his usual driver.

[birly-shirly]

 

Modern day driver and ball can achieve smash factors of up to 1.48. Persimmon and the ball of the late 60s would max out at 1.36. Far more of that change is due to the evolution of the ball than springface drivers.

 

Some look at that paragraph and say the ball is now too hot. I look at it and say "why were golfers so accepting of a ball significantly shorter than allowed?" Meaning, the real problem with the ball isn't how long the modern ball is, but how short the older balls used by some as a base point were. :)

 

It was the best ball available at the time. In the 80s and most of the 90s you could play a longer ball, but only by giving up spin and control. That's what sometimes gets missed when people talk about the Overall Distance Standard. The ODS was expressly designed so that all current balls including rock hard, two-piece distance balls, would conform, but the "players ball" remained a long way short of the limit. Most good players willingly gave up distance in order to be able to stop their ball on the green - but that trade off hardly needs to be made now with modern premium balls

 

Average clubhead speed on tour today is 113mph. But how fast could those guys swing a typical 30 year old driver?

 

There's no hard and fast rule here, I'm afraid. Different people will react differently. I'm an example; in the fitting session I've mentioned many times in these parts, I swung a 43" steel shafted club 3 mph faster than my 44¼" graphite shafted driver (repeated efforts, not a single instance). Yet Padraig Harrington swung the 50 year old persimmon approx. 7 mph slower than his usual driver.

 

Hope you won't take offence if I suggest that you're either an outlier, or else that your graphite shafted driver might be a poor fit for you.

 

Padraig's numbers are broadly consistent with Chad Campbell's (http://www.golfdigest.com/story/golf_equipment_distance_stachura), and the longer hitters in this test (http://www.milesofgolf.com/vintage-vs-technology/) and Andrew Rice (http://www.andrewricegolf.com/andrew-rice-golf/2012/10/which-driver-shaft-length), and my own experience.

 

If 1 in 100 good golfers could gain 3mph by switching to a shorter steel shaft, you'd see the evidence on tour. I don't believe the shaft manufacturers have anything like the budgets to keep that cat in the bag.

[EKELLY]

I watched a bit of the final round last night. I have to agree with the OP that it is getting to be a bit of a joke with a -30 winning total and a half a dozen under -20. It becomes a bit or a dog and pony show IMO especially with all the glad handing that takes place.

 

Either the courses aren't tough enough or the equipment needs to be reigned in. Probably a bit of both. Alas, there seems to be far too much power with the equipment lobby because of the amount of money at stake. It's noteworthy that it didn't take the curling bodies long to rule on the merits of the new broom pad material that came into use this season. At the professional level, they agreed not to use it because it has such an impact on the game through being able to manipulate the path of the rock. Amateurs are of course free to use it. Golf takes a different approach and they take forever to reach a decision.

From what I've seen in the last 20 years, the primary rough isn't anywhere as difficult as it once was. The U.S Open is the only course to utilize penalizing rough. Hence, par is a good score. Apparently that isn't any fun, because birdies sell tickets.....

[NRJyzr]

Hope you won't take offence if I suggest that you're either an outlier, or else that your graphite shafted driver might be a poor fit for you.

 

Padraig's numbers are broadly consistent with Chad Campbell's (http://www.golfdiges...stance_stachura), and the longer hitters in this test (http://www.milesofgo...-vs-technology/) and Andrew Rice (http://www.andrewric...er-shaft-length), and my own experience.

 

If 1 in 100 good golfers could gain 3mph by switching to a shorter steel shaft, you'd see the evidence on tour. I don't believe the shaft manufacturers have anything like the budgets to keep that cat in the bag.

 

 

No offense taken, good sir. :)

 

I should have added that I realize I don't reside in the fat part of the bell curve. ;) I just feel obliged to mention it to show there are weird exceptions to most (all?) of the truisms in this lovely game.

 

Strangely, in the early 2000s, I tested swingspeed with a friend at a local shop, saw an increase going from 43" to 44" to 45", but it stopped there; I saw no speed increase with a 46" club.

 

I'm not sure this will help explain some of it, but it may.... I am a not particularly small male person, being about 6 feet/182-183 cm tall, and weigh about 250 lbs/113 kg. I've always tended towards heavier shafts, both in woods and irons. (which is part of the impetus behind my having purchased a set of Nippon Super Peening Blue shafts for one of my iron sets; some have commented on their being on the heavy side)