Oceans Eleven Confessions to break a man's heart....

[Michael C.]

So, I decided to play with the slo-mo option on my phone. Found out something.

 

My swing looks EXACTLY like it did a year ago.

 

Is this good?

 

No.... I wanted to make some changes.

 

OR

 

Yes....because I'm hitting it well. If you watch until the end, I didn't realize I did it but, there's a nice spin and catch.

 

 

MC. Really liking that swing Sir. Very nice! I think if you're hitting it well, ride the train. Tinkering can sometime have the opposite of the desired effect.

 

Confession: I was working on creating a GIF of your twirl and catch, but it was too big to upload. I'll have another go tomorrow, but that move is pure Tour Sauce.

 

Thanks, Mr. Wolf. I'm fairly happy with the swing in general. I ABHOR the way my arms fold up in the backswing.

[DeNinny]

MC that is a fine swing. You maybe sway in the backswing just a bit. But that finishing pose is nice! And a good reason is because you swing the club on the most ideal swing plane. I like it!

[Michael C.]

MC that is a fine swing. You maybe sway in the backswing just a bit. But that finishing pose is nice! And a good reason is because you swing the club on the most ideal swing plane. I like it!

 

Thanks, Ninja! There must be something right going on. 9i past parallel and across the line. Lol. A lot of compensating going on. Not used to compensating. ;)

[DeNinny]

MC that is a fine swing. You maybe sway in the backswing just a bit. But that finishing pose is nice! And a good reason is because you swing the club on the most ideal swing plane. I like it!

 

Thanks, Ninja! There must be something right going on. 9i past parallel and across the line. Lol. A lot of compensating going on. Not used to compensating. ;)

 

You are talking to the king of past parallel. On the way down you correct the cross the line and get the entire swing on a nice plane. The way I see the physics of the swing is that you cannot have a nice natural finish like that UNLESS the downswing plane was ideal. Don't ever change your swing such that it changes that finish!

 

Compensation is a nebulous term. One swing's compensation is another's key.

 

Also just curious, do you struggle with your lead arm positioning and how much to set it straight at address? Do you think your very strong lead hand grip plays into it?

[Michael C.]

MC that is a fine swing. You maybe sway in the backswing just a bit. But that finishing pose is nice! And a good reason is because you swing the club on the most ideal swing plane. I like it!

 

Thanks, Ninja! There must be something right going on. 9i past parallel and across the line. Lol. A lot of compensating going on. Not used to compensating. ;)

 

You are talking to the king of past parallel. On the way down you correct the cross the line and get the entire swing on a nice plane. The way I see the physics of the swing is that you cannot have a nice natural finish like that UNLESS the downswing plane was ideal. Don't ever change your swing such that it changes that finish!

 

Compensation is a nebulous term. One swing's compensation is another's key.

 

Also just curious, do you struggle with your lead arm positioning and how much to set it straight at address? Do you think your very strong lead hand grip plays into it?

 

That's an interesting couple of questions. My strong top hand grip has been there since nearly the beginning. I was a huge slicer and was trying to fix it with my grip. As my swing evolved, I just never changed it.

 

The lead arm thing has a two fold answer. Part one is simply "The Little Red Book". The forward press is from the "swing the bucket" chapter in that book. It's my trigger. The other thing that press does is raise the handle. It's a compensation my brain is doing to help me get my hands in a better position. Which in turn, my brain also compensates for my forward press in the backswing. It's almost like the chicken or the egg thing. I do one thing to trigger and compensate THEN compensate for the whole damn thing. But, it works because it's exactly the same every time.

[Matt J]

Curious how others feel about the importance of the finish? I was actually working on that today. I seem to hit a good shot or have a nice finish, but rarely both :)

 

Wolf, I wasn't referring to you at all... I just feel like some of the posters in that thread are working the equation backwards. They have results in mind and they want to justify them with "science." I sometimes question some of DeNinny's postulates but I don't think he's doing this exactly. I think he starts with an observation and then "proves" why. I generally agree with the observation and so the proof interests me. I think some others start with marketing b.s. and then end up with a proof. Very different to me.

 

You can't have it both ways. We all know that forgiving is the opposite of workability, so don't try and sell me both.

 

Pigems, if you get that bending vise buttoned down real well it will work great. Worse case scenario you could just bolt it to the floor. The bending bar is what can mar the hosel, but it has more to do with the condition of the brass shims and how soft the hosel material. Always try and bend the iron as close to the bottom as possible. I have definitely made a few indentions in the hosels, but on my own irons I don't care. If they're for someone else, I tell them it's a possibility and if they say "no" that would bother me, I say "perfect" take them to someone else!

 

BTW, Ninja, I can't understand how there's arguing about where the mass is on the club effecting trajectory and spin. If it wasn't true then a blade, cb, and muscle back with the same mass would all create the same shots with the same swings. Patently not true. Thickness of the club directly behind contact is obviously a big part of club design. Me personally, I like a blade, CB, and muscle back under certain circumstances, but I simply would not play any of those irons with the slots and trampoline faces or any kind of different density material like plastic elastomers, but that's just me. I'd play a hybrid up to a seven iron if that's what my swing speed dictated was necessary, but I don't need hybrids masquerading as an iron.

[Conrad1953]

MC that is a fine swing. You maybe sway in the backswing just a bit. But that finishing pose is nice! And a good reason is because you swing the club on the most ideal swing plane. I like it!

 

Thanks, Ninja! There must be something right going on. 9i past parallel and across the line. Lol. A lot of compensating going on. Not used to compensating. ;)

 

You are talking to the king of past parallel. On the way down you correct the cross the line and get the entire swing on a nice plane. The way I see the physics of the swing is that you cannot have a nice natural finish like that UNLESS the downswing plane was ideal. Don't ever change your swing such that it changes that finish!

 

Compensation is a nebulous term. One swing's compensation is another's key.

 

Also just curious, do you struggle with your lead arm positioning and how much to set it straight at address? Do you think your very strong lead hand grip plays into it?

 

That's an interesting couple of questions. My strong top hand grip has been there since nearly the beginning. I was a huge slicer and was trying to fix it with my grip. As my swing evolved, I just never changed it.

 

The lead arm thing has a two fold answer. Part one is simply "The Little Red Book". The forward press is from the "swing the bucket" chapter in that book. It's my trigger. The other thing that press does is raise the handle. It's a compensation my brain is doing to help me get my hands in a better position. Which in turn, my brain also compensates for my forward press in the backswing. It's almost like the chicken or the egg thing. I do one thing to trigger and compensate THEN compensate for the whole damn thing. But, it works because it's exactly the same every time.

 

That swing looks familiar! I think I saw it last year!

 

Ya know the strong lead hand helps keep the handle leading and helps

create a little more leverage through impact. Harvey promoted a grip with

both hands more on top the handle and the grip held in the fingers.

 

After reading his thoughts and some of a few others, I began to grip with

a strong lead hand and weak trail hand; which essentially puts both hands

more on top the grip. That really shoots that "palms must be facing" conventional

wisdom all to he**, lol.

 

I wish I could have high hands at the top like you do. No can do anymore. My swing

feels like it stops at about 10 o'clock...unless I let my arms runoff and collapse, lol.

 

I'm glad you're swinging your swing. Looking good my friend.....club twirl included.

[Conrad1953]

Speaking of trampoline faces I don't think Ping ever had one on any of their

irons until this new G iron came out.

 

Ping irons always felt very solid to me. I never had any issues with distance

control, flyers or any of the other complaints I've read about concerning CBs.

The Ping faces were always reinforced to promote a solid feel and shot

predictability.

 

My old Cobra irons had hollow backs from 7i to 4i. They had a much different

feel to them compared to the Pings.

[DeNinny]

Curious how others feel about the importance of the finish? I was actually working on that today. I seem to hit a good shot or have a nice finish, but rarely both

 

You can hit a good shot with a terrible finish, but man when you are doing both well, that is the best feeling. Almost every pro has a good finish.

 

I sometimes question some of DeNinny's postulates but I don't think he's doing this exactly. I think he starts with an observation and then "proves" why. I generally agree with the observation and so the proof interests me.

 

Matt J the only reason I'm not exact is because we have to be on the exact same page about the math and all the laws I'm using to back up my "proofs". Plus, I am trying to explain things as simply as possible and not bring in the math. If I had a chalkboard and we were face to face it would be much different than me typing the words to describe it all.

 

Again, all I can tell you if you don't agree with me is that I'm trying to help you. I would have no issue discussing anything I've stated with the top PhD physicists from any university and with the top club designers from any club manufacturer. The reason is because I can back everything I state with the laws of science and derive the answers from first principles, and no "expert" will be able to deny this. I won't (and haven't yet) make a statement unless I can back it up.

 

You can't have it both ways. We all know that forgiving is the opposite of workability, so don't try and sell me both.

 

This is exactly what I was explaining about the cavity face in the other thread. You can't have both and you also get a little worse dispersion when you go more and more CB. This is exactly why the sweetspot gets continually more and more reinforced as you go from SGI club to blade. This is the physical change that makes the club more "forgiving" and less workable.

 

But also note that forgiving is not really forgiving when the dispersion is worse because of the very same physics that make it less workable. Forgiveness comes at a price so is it really forgiving?

 

BTW, Ninja, I can't understand how there's arguing about where the mass is on the club effecting trajectory and spin. If it wasn't true then a blade, cb, and muscle back with the same mass would all create the same shots with the same swings. Patently not true. Thickness of the club directly behind contact is obviously a big part of club design. Me personally, I like a blade, CB, and muscle back under certain circumstances, but I simply would not play any of those irons with the slots and trampoline faces or any kind of different density material like plastic elastomers, but that's just me. I'd play a hybrid up to a seven iron if that's what my swing speed dictated was necessary, but I don't need hybrids masquerading as an iron.

 

So I'm glad you're on board. Of course the shape and design of the head matters and also the thickness of the face. And again it is all based on the fact that when two objects collide, at the molecular level the molecules are not rigid objects. This applies to ALL the materials involved in the collision. It's just most important at the face of the club where the ball contacts it. This is where the forces are the greatest. And so to me it is very obvious that wall thickness matters at this point. And also if it didn't matter then why do the manufacturers keep adding reinforcement behind the sweetspot the more player's club you go? And then the blade is on the end of the spectrum of the thickest wall thickness and the SGI club is at the other end with the thinnest wall thickness. And then observe there is also a clear distinction on how "forgiving" and workable these clubs are. Hmmm...I wonder if the face wall thickness has anything to do with this...?

 

...and yes it does and it is proven in the math definition of those moduli (Young's, bulk, and shear) that I mentioned.

[DeNinny]

Speaking of trampoline faces I don't think Ping ever had one on any of their

irons until this new G iron came out.

 

Ping irons always felt very solid to me. I never had any issues with distance

control, flyers or any of the other complaints I've read about concerning CBs.

The Ping faces were always reinforced to promote a solid feel and shot

predictability.

 

My old Cobra irons had hollow backs from 7i to 4i. They had a much different

feel to them compared to the Pings.

 

That reinforcement most definitely matters. You can do it with solid metal like with a blade or you can do it with plastic, "custom tuning ports", "eyes", a secondary metal...it doesn't matter. The more the face is reinforced, the more of a consistent surface the ball has to rebound against. This is a good thing! The ball spin is also more consistent from shot to shot this way.

[Michael C.]

I hit several shots today with my jpx and 68 9i. The jpx is 2* stronger. Both the same length. Shaft in the jpx is TT gp s300. The 68 PX 6.0 flighted. From what I understand that makes it play a 6.5 or xstiff.

 

The jpx on a good strike flew a touch higher and farther. The trajectory wouldn't be that noticeable unless you were looking for it and the distance difference could be explained by the stronger loft and less spin. I can tell how much spin is on a shot by the way it acts in flight. I couldn't tell you exact rpm's but I do know the difference by looking. If I explained how I can tell then you would have to understand how many golf balls I've hit in my life. If I told you all how many you may think I was either lying or just plain nuts.

 

On shots that weren't hit on the "sweetspot". There was a difference. The jpx flew straighter and though it loss distance, it wasn't as much relative to the percentage of distance lost on the 68.

 

Now, I didn't measure the difference but the range was picked just before I arrived. So, I could tell by where the balls ended up that there was a relative difference.

 

These are my findings. Not scientific. No explanation needed. YMMV. IMHO. LMAO. Lesson for me is to hit whatever club on the sweetspot if at all possible. OH...the sample size was 10 balls per each club. Switching every two balls. Didn't mishit anything on purpose but could tell when I did.

 

MJ, I never worry about my finish. Only worried about how my swing in its entirety looked the last few years. It was always getting the ball to do what I wanted...or at least trying. Lol. On a full shot, I have a full finish. Don't mean to....just do. Grew up on skates. Because of that, I have a pretty ingrained ability to find balance.

[Pigems]

Nice machine there pigs the loft lie machine I use at my club is so old the standard pw loft on it is 51* lol.

 

How often do you check your set? How often do they usually need to be adjusted?

[Pigems]

Curious how others feel about the importance of the finish? I was actually working on that today. I seem to hit a good shot or have a nice finish, but rarely both :)

 

Pigems, if you get that bending vise buttoned down real well it will work great. Worse case scenario you could just bolt it to the floor. The bending bar is what can mar the hosel, but it has more to do with the condition of the brass shims and how soft the hosel material. Always try and bend the iron as close to the bottom as possible. I have definitely made a few indentions in the hosels, but on my own irons I don't care. If they're for someone else, I tell them it's a possibility and if they say "no" that would bother me, I say "perfect" take them to someone else!

 

Thanks for the bending tips Matt, much appreciated Sir!! I have been working on the finish a bit lately myself, my back swing feels really good now and I'm learning the different feels between taking it back Straight, to the inside or to the outside. Same goes for the follow through, Come through straight, to the outside or to the inside. That nice looking finishing pose isn't the easiest to fall into after a swing lol, my weight keeps wanting to roll over(my front foot) to my toes instead of to my heel side?? I'm starting to believe it doesn't matter what happens "After Impact" as its just the club going with the forces from what we did to get it do the right position "At Impact". But i know basically NOTHING about the swing other than how to hit a golf ball so take anything I say with a Grain of Salt lol

[Qqq123xx]

Wolf, you seem to bring a classy voice of dissension when you mix it up. I just don't understand why the axe to grind? It reminds me of the classic English novel by Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy. Every one has a hobby-horse, but if you ride it peaceably along the King's highway (or something along those lines) then they can even bring us together as something interesting and fun to talk about - like here in the Confessions. But, when our Hobby-horses start becoming obsessions, we become anti-social and illogical.

 

 

Tristam Shandy! I love that book. It's a bit of a slog, but interesting. I enjoyed the film too.

 

In terms of axes to grind, I'm not sure if you're referring to me or the other party in that exchange? I don't personally have an axe to grind. I'm a bit more relaxed about the blades Vs cb thing, but I do feel the need to challenge stupidity now and again, such as in that thread. I consider it something of a moral duty actually. Then again, we could be dealing with a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

Either way I see you and DeNin have taken over the reigns in that thread. Nice work both of you. Made me laugh, especially the stuff about him not playing Ping Karstens. LOL.

 

LOL I confess that DavePelz4 is my source of learning the Dunning Kruger effect. Well played.

 

LOL you chummed the waters in that thread and got me smelling blood. I couldn't help myself, but now I just disengaged.

 

"Must not go back. Must not go back. Must not go back."

 

(Ok I'm good now.)

It has been proven countless times, and you can tell DP4 this, that the Diane Kruger effect is far superior to that Dunning dunster effect bro.

[Qqq123xx]

So, I decided to play with the slo-mo option on my phone. Found out something.

 

My swing looks EXACTLY like it did a year ago.

 

Is this good?

 

No.... I wanted to make some changes.

 

OR

 

Yes....because I'm hitting it well. If you watch until the end, I didn't realize I did it but, there's a nice spin and catch.

 

[media=]http://youtu.be/kLTe12dX4yQ[/media]

 

[media=]http://youtu.be/hPWXmU_Tjog[/media]

Nice swing. Especially like the high finish and wrap around. And qurious on backswing is your left knee stiff.? Cause it looks like on bs your left knee locks some, pushing your left hip up a bit. Take that with a thousand grains of salt.

[Qqq123xx]

Curious how others feel about the importance of the finish? I was actually working on that today. I seem to hit a good shot or have a nice finish, but rarely both

 

You can hit a good shot with a terrible finish, but man when you are doing both well, that is the best feeling. Almost every pro has a good finish.

 

I sometimes question some of DeNinny's postulates but I don't think he's doing this exactly. I think he starts with an observation and then "proves" why. I generally agree with the observation and so the proof interests me.

 

Matt J the only reason I'm not exact is because we have to be on the exact same page about the math and all the laws I'm using to back up my "proofs". Plus, I am trying to explain things as simply as possible and not bring in the math. If I had a chalkboard and we were face to face it would be much different than me typing the words to describe it all.

 

Again, all I can tell you if you don't agree with me is that I'm trying to help you. I would have no issue discussing anything I've stated with the top PhD physicists from any university and with the top club designers from any club manufacturer. The reason is because I can back everything I state with the laws of science and derive the answers from first principles, and no "expert" will be able to deny this. I won't (and haven't yet) make a statement unless I can back it up.

 

You can't have it both ways. We all know that forgiving is the opposite of workability, so don't try and sell me both.

 

This is exactly what I was explaining about the cavity face in the other thread. You can't have both and you also get a little worse dispersion when you go more and more CB. This is exactly why the sweetspot gets continually more and more reinforced as you go from SGI club to blade. This is the physical change that makes the club more "forgiving" and less workable.

 

But also note that forgiving is not really forgiving when the dispersion is worse because of the very same physics that make it less workable. Forgiveness comes at a price so is it really forgiving?

 

BTW, Ninja, I can't understand how there's arguing about where the mass is on the club effecting trajectory and spin. If it wasn't true then a blade, cb, and muscle back with the same mass would all create the same shots with the same swings. Patently not true. Thickness of the club directly behind contact is obviously a big part of club design. Me personally, I like a blade, CB, and muscle back under certain circumstances, but I simply would not play any of those irons with the slots and trampoline faces or any kind of different density material like plastic elastomers, but that's just me. I'd play a hybrid up to a seven iron if that's what my swing speed dictated was necessary, but I don't need hybrids masquerading as an iron.

 

So I'm glad you're on board. Of course the shape and design of the head matters and also the thickness of the face. And again it is all based on the fact that when two objects collide, at the molecular level the molecules are not rigid objects. This applies to ALL the materials involved in the collision. It's just most important at the face of the club where the ball contacts it. This is where the forces are the greatest. And so to me it is very obvious that wall thickness matters at this point. And also if it didn't matter then why do the manufacturers keep adding reinforcement behind the sweetspot the more player's club you go? And then the blade is on the end of the spectrum of the thickest wall thickness and the SGI club is at the other end with the thinnest wall thickness. And then observe there is also a clear distinction on how "forgiving" and workable these clubs are. Hmmm...I wonder if the face wall thickness has anything to do with this...?

 

...and yes it does and it is proven in the math definition of those moduli (Young's, bulk, and shear) that I mentioned.

I think you should start a Thrillhouse Jr. thread. Again take that with a thousand grains of salt.

[Pigems]

Wolf, you seem to bring a classy voice of dissension when you mix it up. I just don't understand why the axe to grind? It reminds me of the classic English novel by Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy. Every one has a hobby-horse, but if you ride it peaceably along the King's highway (or something along those lines) then they can even bring us together as something interesting and fun to talk about - like here in the Confessions. But, when our Hobby-horses start becoming obsessions, we become anti-social and illogical.

 

 

Tristam Shandy! I love that book. It's a bit of a slog, but interesting. I enjoyed the film too.

 

In terms of axes to grind, I'm not sure if you're referring to me or the other party in that exchange? I don't personally have an axe to grind. I'm a bit more relaxed about the blades Vs cb thing, but I do feel the need to challenge stupidity now and again, such as in that thread. I consider it something of a moral duty actually. Then again, we could be dealing with a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

Either way I see you and DeNin have taken over the reigns in that thread. Nice work both of you. Made me laugh, especially the stuff about him not playing Ping Karstens. LOL.

 

LOL I confess that DavePelz4 is my source of learning the Dunning Kruger effect. Well played.

 

LOL you chummed the waters in that thread and got me smelling blood. I couldn't help myself, but now I just disengaged.

 

"Must not go back. Must not go back. Must not go back."

 

(Ok I'm good now.)

It has been proven countless times, and you can tell DP4 this, that the Diane Kruger effect is far superior to that Dunning dunster effect bro.

 

I've heard DP4 talked about the Dunning Kruger effect but forget what it is?

 

Edit: Just looked it up LOL

[Pigems]

Swings looking Great MC!!! Nice to see another Lefty swinging for once haha

[Qqq123xx]

Wolf, you seem to bring a classy voice of dissension when you mix it up. I just don't understand why the axe to grind? It reminds me of the classic English novel by Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy. Every one has a hobby-horse, but if you ride it peaceably along the King's highway (or something along those lines) then they can even bring us together as something interesting and fun to talk about - like here in the Confessions. But, when our Hobby-horses start becoming obsessions, we become anti-social and illogical.

 

 

Tristam Shandy! I love that book. It's a bit of a slog, but interesting. I enjoyed the film too.

 

In terms of axes to grind, I'm not sure if you're referring to me or the other party in that exchange? I don't personally have an axe to grind. I'm a bit more relaxed about the blades Vs cb thing, but I do feel the need to challenge stupidity now and again, such as in that thread. I consider it something of a moral duty actually. Then again, we could be dealing with a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

Either way I see you and DeNin have taken over the reigns in that thread. Nice work both of you. Made me laugh, especially the stuff about him not playing Ping Karstens. LOL.

 

LOL I confess that DavePelz4 is my source of learning the Dunning Kruger effect. Well played.

 

LOL you chummed the waters in that thread and got me smelling blood. I couldn't help myself, but now I just disengaged.

 

"Must not go back. Must not go back. Must not go back."

 

(Ok I'm good now.)

It has been proven countless times, and you can tell DP4 this, that the Diane Kruger effect is far superior to that Dunning dunster effect bro.

 

I've heard DP4 talked about the Dunning Kruger effect but forget what it is?

 

Edit: Just looked it up LOL

Lol let me know cause I have no idea. Don't tell anyone okay.....

[Pigems]

I've heard DP4 talked about the Dunning Kruger effect but forget what it is?

 

Edit: Just looked it up LOL

Lol let me know cause I have no idea. Don't tell anyone okay.....

 

NQ PrQblem Q...I'll keep it on the DL ;)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Pigems]

What a Mega Score this morning!! The fella with the LL machine turned out to be an old club pro and a super nice guy!! We got to chatting about gear and the machine as he was showing me how to use it(he had a well worn in Ben Hogan Blade on hand, I knew I was in good company lol). By the end, he ended up throwing in a GolfSmith shaft extractor And a shaft cut off saw!! All for less than the asking price on that add, I'm so effing Happy right now!!! :)

[Conrad1953]

What a Mega Score this morning!! The fella with the LL machine turned out to be an old club pro and a super nice guy!! We got to chatting about gear and the machine as he was showing me how to use it(he has a well worn in Ben Hovan Blade on hand, I k ew I was in good company lol). By the end he ended up throwing in a GolfSmith shaft extractor And a shaft cut off saw!! All for less than the asking price on that add, I'm so effing Happy right now!!! :)

 

That is awesome Pigs! LL Machine Porn haha.

 

Come on down and get my Macs all spec'd up please. :)

[Matt J]

Very cool Pigems!

 

I've been looking for an inexpensive extractor and swingweight scale. I've got a chop box with a metal saw. Heck, you just stumbled into a small home business, not to mention a great home shop.

 

Good things often happen to good people. I'm sure he is pleased to know his tools are going to someone who would use, enjoy, and take good care of them.

 

Ninja, you know I'm on board. The only thing I've ever 100% disagreed with you about is bounce. I was actually just looking at the difference between high and low bounce and trying to figure out a way to represent it as a percentage of total mass of the club head. I think that's the rub. Lower center of gravity. Blunt leading edge and lower center of gravity I should say.

 

Most of my relative experience with equipment design comes from whitewater kayaks. I think I've mentioned it before, but everyone always wants a more "user-friendly" design just like golf clubs. Not going to happen. You can only take material away or add it. The materials themselves are practically identical. There have certainly been a couple of very innovative design changes, true game changers, during my tenure paddling, but they are few and far between. Everything you change does in fact change performance, but none of it makes anything "easier." The exact same debate happens constantly as with golf clubs. Is it better to master a more "difficult to hit" design or just accept the "benefits" of a different design.

[Conrad1953]

Curious how others feel about the importance of the finish? I was actually working on that today. I seem to hit a good shot or have a nice finish, but rarely both

 

You can hit a good shot with a terrible finish, but man when you are doing both well, that is the best feeling. Almost every pro has a good finish.

 

I sometimes question some of DeNinny's postulates but I don't think he's doing this exactly. I think he starts with an observation and then "proves" why. I generally agree with the observation and so the proof interests me.

 

Matt J the only reason I'm not exact is because we have to be on the exact same page about the math and all the laws I'm using to back up my "proofs". Plus, I am trying to explain things as simply as possible and not bring in the math. If I had a chalkboard and we were face to face it would be much different than me typing the words to describe it all.

 

Again, all I can tell you if you don't agree with me is that I'm trying to help you. I would have no issue discussing anything I've stated with the top PhD physicists from any university and with the top club designers from any club manufacturer. The reason is because I can back everything I state with the laws of science and derive the answers from first principles, and no "expert" will be able to deny this. I won't (and haven't yet) make a statement unless I can back it up.

 

You can't have it both ways. We all know that forgiving is the opposite of workability, so don't try and sell me both.

 

This is exactly what I was explaining about the cavity face in the other thread. You can't have both and you also get a little worse dispersion when you go more and more CB. This is exactly why the sweetspot gets continually more and more reinforced as you go from SGI club to blade. This is the physical change that makes the club more "forgiving" and less workable.

 

But also note that forgiving is not really forgiving when the dispersion is worse because of the very same physics that make it less workable. Forgiveness comes at a price so is it really forgiving?

 

BTW, Ninja, I can't understand how there's arguing about where the mass is on the club effecting trajectory and spin. If it wasn't true then a blade, cb, and muscle back with the same mass would all create the same shots with the same swings. Patently not true. Thickness of the club directly behind contact is obviously a big part of club design. Me personally, I like a blade, CB, and muscle back under certain circumstances, but I simply would not play any of those irons with the slots and trampoline faces or any kind of different density material like plastic elastomers, but that's just me. I'd play a hybrid up to a seven iron if that's what my swing speed dictated was necessary, but I don't need hybrids masquerading as an iron.

 

So I'm glad you're on board. Of course the shape and design of the head matters and also the thickness of the face. And again it is all based on the fact that when two objects collide, at the molecular level the molecules are not rigid objects. This applies to ALL the materials involved in the collision. It's just most important at the face of the club where the ball contacts it. This is where the forces are the greatest. And so to me it is very obvious that wall thickness matters at this point. And also if it didn't matter then why do the manufacturers keep adding reinforcement behind the sweetspot the more player's club you go? And then the blade is on the end of the spectrum of the thickest wall thickness and the SGI club is at the other end with the thinnest wall thickness. And then observe there is also a clear distinction on how "forgiving" and workable these clubs are. Hmmm...I wonder if the face wall thickness has anything to do with this...?

 

...and yes it does and it is proven in the math definition of those moduli (Young's, bulk, and shear) that I mentioned.

I think you should start a Thrillhouse Jr. thread. Again take that with a thousand grains of salt.

 

I'm on board. I think he should start an "Ask DeNinny" thread in the equipment forum. :)

[Michael C.]

What a Mega Score this morning!! The fella with the LL machine turned out to be an old club pro and a super nice guy!! We got to chatting about gear and the machine as he was showing me how to use it(he had a well worn in Ben Hogan Blade on hand, I knew I was in good company lol). By the end, he ended up throwing in a GolfSmith shaft extractor And a shaft cut off saw!! All for less than the asking price on that add, I'm so effing Happy right now!!! :)

 

Nice setup, Pigems. The guy was probably just happy that his tools were going to someone who'll use and appreciate them. I know we'd rather sell stuff cheap or give it away than have it sitting around collecting dust because we no longer use it.

[Pigems]

What a Mega Score this morning!! The fella with the LL machine turned out to be an old club pro and a super nice guy!! We got to chatting about gear and the machine as he was showing me how to use it(he had a well worn in Ben Hogan Blade on hand, I knew I was in good company lol). By the end, he ended up throwing in a GolfSmith shaft extractor And a shaft cut off saw!! All for less than the asking price on that add, I'm so effing Happy right now!!! :)

 

Nice setup, Pigems. The guy was probably just happy that his tools were going to someone who'll use and appreciate them. I know we'd rather sell stuff cheap or give it away than have it sitting around collecting dust because we no longer use it.

 

TYVM Sir, Those were his words almost exactly!! What a super nice fella :)

[Michael C.]

Curious how others feel about the importance of the finish? I was actually working on that today. I seem to hit a good shot or have a nice finish, but rarely both

 

You can hit a good shot with a terrible finish, but man when you are doing both well, that is the best feeling. Almost every pro has a good finish.

 

I sometimes question some of DeNinny's postulates but I don't think he's doing this exactly. I think he starts with an observation and then "proves" why. I generally agree with the observation and so the proof interests me.

 

Matt J the only reason I'm not exact is because we have to be on the exact same page about the math and all the laws I'm using to back up my "proofs". Plus, I am trying to explain things as simply as possible and not bring in the math. If I had a chalkboard and we were face to face it would be much different than me typing the words to describe it all.

 

Again, all I can tell you if you don't agree with me is that I'm trying to help you. I would have no issue discussing anything I've stated with the top PhD physicists from any university and with the top club designers from any club manufacturer. The reason is because I can back everything I state with the laws of science and derive the answers from first principles, and no "expert" will be able to deny this. I won't (and haven't yet) make a statement unless I can back it up.

 

You can't have it both ways. We all know that forgiving is the opposite of workability, so don't try and sell me both.

 

This is exactly what I was explaining about the cavity face in the other thread. You can't have both and you also get a little worse dispersion when you go more and more CB. This is exactly why the sweetspot gets continually more and more reinforced as you go from SGI club to blade. This is the physical change that makes the club more "forgiving" and less workable.

 

But also note that forgiving is not really forgiving when the dispersion is worse because of the very same physics that make it less workable. Forgiveness comes at a price so is it really forgiving?

 

BTW, Ninja, I can't understand how there's arguing about where the mass is on the club effecting trajectory and spin. If it wasn't true then a blade, cb, and muscle back with the same mass would all create the same shots with the same swings. Patently not true. Thickness of the club directly behind contact is obviously a big part of club design. Me personally, I like a blade, CB, and muscle back under certain circumstances, but I simply would not play any of those irons with the slots and trampoline faces or any kind of different density material like plastic elastomers, but that's just me. I'd play a hybrid up to a seven iron if that's what my swing speed dictated was necessary, but I don't need hybrids masquerading as an iron.

 

So I'm glad you're on board. Of course the shape and design of the head matters and also the thickness of the face. And again it is all based on the fact that when two objects collide, at the molecular level the molecules are not rigid objects. This applies to ALL the materials involved in the collision. It's just most important at the face of the club where the ball contacts it. This is where the forces are the greatest. And so to me it is very obvious that wall thickness matters at this point. And also if it didn't matter then why do the manufacturers keep adding reinforcement behind the sweetspot the more player's club you go? And then the blade is on the end of the spectrum of the thickest wall thickness and the SGI club is at the other end with the thinnest wall thickness. And then observe there is also a clear distinction on how "forgiving" and workable these clubs are. Hmmm...I wonder if the face wall thickness has anything to do with this...?

 

...and yes it does and it is proven in the math definition of those moduli (Young's, bulk, and shear) that I mentioned.

I think you should start a Thrillhouse Jr. thread. Again take that with a thousand grains of salt.

 

I'm on board. I think he should start an "Ask DeNinny" thread in the equipment forum. :)

 

I have a question or two: What are the chances of getting in before the lock?.. AND...What's the over/under on postings before the lock happens?

[Pigems]

Very cool Pigems!

 

I've been looking for an inexpensive extractor and swingweight scale. I've got a chop box with a metal saw. Heck, you just stumbled into a small home business, not to mention a great home shop.

 

Good things often happen to good people. I'm sure he is pleased to know his tools are going to someone who would use, enjoy, and take good care of them.

 

Ninja, you know I'm on board. The only thing I've ever 100% disagreed with you about is bounce. I was actually just looking at the difference between high and low bounce and trying to figure out a way to represent it as a percentage of total mass of the club head. I think that's the rub. Lower center of gravity. Blunt leading edge and lower center of gravity I should say.

 

Most of my relative experience with equipment design comes from whitewater kayaks. I think I've mentioned it before, but everyone always wants a more "user-friendly" design just like golf clubs. Not going to happen. You can only take material away or add it. The materials themselves are practically identical. There have certainly been a couple of very innovative design changes, true game changers, during my tenure paddling, but they are few and far between. Everything you change does in fact change performance, but none of it makes anything "easier." The exact same debate happens constantly as with golf clubs. Is it better to master a more "difficult to hit" design or just accept the "benefits" of a different design.

 

I had similar thoughts on the way home lol, I could just set up shop now with a few more things and some time to learn how to use it all and get good at it :)

 

He has more stuff there too, he told me to come back anytime lol. Said hes got a shed full of old clubs and grips, Mostly rh stuff but said he had some lefty gear too, hes gonna have a look through and let me know what he's got. i told him I've got buddies who like the old Ben Hogan gear R or L handed ;)

 

Curious how others feel about the importance of the finish? I was actually working on that today. I seem to hit a good shot or have a nice finish, but rarely both

 

You can hit a good shot with a terrible finish, but man when you are doing both well, that is the best feeling. Almost every pro has a good finish.

 

I sometimes question some of DeNinny's postulates but I don't think he's doing this exactly. I think he starts with an observation and then "proves" why. I generally agree with the observation and so the proof interests me.

 

Matt J the only reason I'm not exact is because we have to be on the exact same page about the math and all the laws I'm using to back up my "proofs". Plus, I am trying to explain things as simply as possible and not bring in the math. If I had a chalkboard and we were face to face it would be much different than me typing the words to describe it all.

 

Again, all I can tell you if you don't agree with me is that I'm trying to help you. I would have no issue discussing anything I've stated with the top PhD physicists from any university and with the top club designers from any club manufacturer. The reason is because I can back everything I state with the laws of science and derive the answers from first principles, and no "expert" will be able to deny this. I won't (and haven't yet) make a statement unless I can back it up.

 

You can't have it both ways. We all know that forgiving is the opposite of workability, so don't try and sell me both.

 

This is exactly what I was explaining about the cavity face in the other thread. You can't have both and you also get a little worse dispersion when you go more and more CB. This is exactly why the sweetspot gets continually more and more reinforced as you go from SGI club to blade. This is the physical change that makes the club more "forgiving" and less workable.

 

But also note that forgiving is not really forgiving when the dispersion is worse because of the very same physics that make it less workable. Forgiveness comes at a price so is it really forgiving?

 

BTW, Ninja, I can't understand how there's arguing about where the mass is on the club effecting trajectory and spin. If it wasn't true then a blade, cb, and muscle back with the same mass would all create the same shots with the same swings. Patently not true. Thickness of the club directly behind contact is obviously a big part of club design. Me personally, I like a blade, CB, and muscle back under certain circumstances, but I simply would not play any of those irons with the slots and trampoline faces or any kind of different density material like plastic elastomers, but that's just me. I'd play a hybrid up to a seven iron if that's what my swing speed dictated was necessary, but I don't need hybrids masquerading as an iron.

 

So I'm glad you're on board. Of course the shape and design of the head matters and also the thickness of the face. And again it is all based on the fact that when two objects collide, at the molecular level the molecules are not rigid objects. This applies to ALL the materials involved in the collision. It's just most important at the face of the club where the ball contacts it. This is where the forces are the greatest. And so to me it is very obvious that wall thickness matters at this point. And also if it didn't matter then why do the manufacturers keep adding reinforcement behind the sweetspot the more player's club you go? And then the blade is on the end of the spectrum of the thickest wall thickness and the SGI club is at the other end with the thinnest wall thickness. And then observe there is also a clear distinction on how "forgiving" and workable these clubs are. Hmmm...I wonder if the face wall thickness has anything to do with this...?

 

...and yes it does and it is proven in the math definition of those moduli (Young's, bulk, and shear) that I mentioned.

I think you should start a Thrillhouse Jr. thread. Again take that with a thousand grains of salt.

 

I'm on board. I think he should start an "Ask DeNinny" thread in the equipment forum. :)

 

But...We like Den better when is NOT banned!!! :rofl:

[Conrad1953]

Curious how others feel about the importance of the finish? I was actually working on that today. I seem to hit a good shot or have a nice finish, but rarely both

 

You can hit a good shot with a terrible finish, but man when you are doing both well, that is the best feeling. Almost every pro has a good finish.

 

I sometimes question some of DeNinny's postulates but I don't think he's doing this exactly. I think he starts with an observation and then "proves" why. I generally agree with the observation and so the proof interests me.

 

Matt J the only reason I'm not exact is because we have to be on the exact same page about the math and all the laws I'm using to back up my "proofs". Plus, I am trying to explain things as simply as possible and not bring in the math. If I had a chalkboard and we were face to face it would be much different than me typing the words to describe it all.

 

Again, all I can tell you if you don't agree with me is that I'm trying to help you. I would have no issue discussing anything I've stated with the top PhD physicists from any university and with the top club designers from any club manufacturer. The reason is because I can back everything I state with the laws of science and derive the answers from first principles, and no "expert" will be able to deny this. I won't (and haven't yet) make a statement unless I can back it up.

 

You can't have it both ways. We all know that forgiving is the opposite of workability, so don't try and sell me both.

 

This is exactly what I was explaining about the cavity face in the other thread. You can't have both and you also get a little worse dispersion when you go more and more CB. This is exactly why the sweetspot gets continually more and more reinforced as you go from SGI club to blade. This is the physical change that makes the club more "forgiving" and less workable.

 

But also note that forgiving is not really forgiving when the dispersion is worse because of the very same physics that make it less workable. Forgiveness comes at a price so is it really forgiving?

 

BTW, Ninja, I can't understand how there's arguing about where the mass is on the club effecting trajectory and spin. If it wasn't true then a blade, cb, and muscle back with the same mass would all create the same shots with the same swings. Patently not true. Thickness of the club directly behind contact is obviously a big part of club design. Me personally, I like a blade, CB, and muscle back under certain circumstances, but I simply would not play any of those irons with the slots and trampoline faces or any kind of different density material like plastic elastomers, but that's just me. I'd play a hybrid up to a seven iron if that's what my swing speed dictated was necessary, but I don't need hybrids masquerading as an iron.

 

So I'm glad you're on board. Of course the shape and design of the head matters and also the thickness of the face. And again it is all based on the fact that when two objects collide, at the molecular level the molecules are not rigid objects. This applies to ALL the materials involved in the collision. It's just most important at the face of the club where the ball contacts it. This is where the forces are the greatest. And so to me it is very obvious that wall thickness matters at this point. And also if it didn't matter then why do the manufacturers keep adding reinforcement behind the sweetspot the more player's club you go? And then the blade is on the end of the spectrum of the thickest wall thickness and the SGI club is at the other end with the thinnest wall thickness. And then observe there is also a clear distinction on how "forgiving" and workable these clubs are. Hmmm...I wonder if the face wall thickness has anything to do with this...?

 

...and yes it does and it is proven in the math definition of those moduli (Young's, bulk, and shear) that I mentioned.

I think you should start a Thrillhouse Jr. thread. Again take that with a thousand grains of salt.

 

I'm on board. I think he should start an "Ask DeNinny" thread in the equipment forum. :)

 

I have a question or two: What are the chances of getting in before the lock?.. AND...What's the over/under on postings before the lock happens?

 

It could be the most awesome thread in WRX history if the mods let it run!

[Conrad1953]

Very cool Pigems!

 

I've been looking for an inexpensive extractor and swingweight scale. I've got a chop box with a metal saw. Heck, you just stumbled into a small home business, not to mention a great home shop.

 

Good things often happen to good people. I'm sure he is pleased to know his tools are going to someone who would use, enjoy, and take good care of them.

 

Ninja, you know I'm on board. The only thing I've ever 100% disagreed with you about is bounce. I was actually just looking at the difference between high and low bounce and trying to figure out a way to represent it as a percentage of total mass of the club head. I think that's the rub. Lower center of gravity. Blunt leading edge and lower center of gravity I should say.

 

Most of my relative experience with equipment design comes from whitewater kayaks. I think I've mentioned it before, but everyone always wants a more "user-friendly" design just like golf clubs. Not going to happen. You can only take material away or add it. The materials themselves are practically identical. There have certainly been a couple of very innovative design changes, true game changers, during my tenure paddling, but they are few and far between. Everything you change does in fact change performance, but none of it makes anything "easier." The exact same debate happens constantly as with golf clubs. Is it better to master a more "difficult to hit" design or just accept the "benefits" of a different design.

 

I had similar thoughts on the way home lol, I could just set up shop now with a few more things and some time to learn how to use it all and get good at it :)

 

He has more stuff there too, he told me to come back anytime lol. Said hes got a shed full of old clubs and grips, Mostly rh stuff but said he had some lefty gear too, hes gonna have a look through and let me know what he's got. i told him I've got buddies who like the old Ben Hogan gear R or L handed ;)

 

Curious how others feel about the importance of the finish? I was actually working on that today. I seem to hit a good shot or have a nice finish, but rarely both

 

You can hit a good shot with a terrible finish, but man when you are doing both well, that is the best feeling. Almost every pro has a good finish.

 

I sometimes question some of DeNinny's postulates but I don't think he's doing this exactly. I think he starts with an observation and then "proves" why. I generally agree with the observation and so the proof interests me.

 

Matt J the only reason I'm not exact is because we have to be on the exact same page about the math and all the laws I'm using to back up my "proofs". Plus, I am trying to explain things as simply as possible and not bring in the math. If I had a chalkboard and we were face to face it would be much different than me typing the words to describe it all.

 

Again, all I can tell you if you don't agree with me is that I'm trying to help you. I would have no issue discussing anything I've stated with the top PhD physicists from any university and with the top club designers from any club manufacturer. The reason is because I can back everything I state with the laws of science and derive the answers from first principles, and no "expert" will be able to deny this. I won't (and haven't yet) make a statement unless I can back it up.

 

You can't have it both ways. We all know that forgiving is the opposite of workability, so don't try and sell me both.

 

This is exactly what I was explaining about the cavity face in the other thread. You can't have both and you also get a little worse dispersion when you go more and more CB. This is exactly why the sweetspot gets continually more and more reinforced as you go from SGI club to blade. This is the physical change that makes the club more "forgiving" and less workable.

 

But also note that forgiving is not really forgiving when the dispersion is worse because of the very same physics that make it less workable. Forgiveness comes at a price so is it really forgiving?

 

BTW, Ninja, I can't understand how there's arguing about where the mass is on the club effecting trajectory and spin. If it wasn't true then a blade, cb, and muscle back with the same mass would all create the same shots with the same swings. Patently not true. Thickness of the club directly behind contact is obviously a big part of club design. Me personally, I like a blade, CB, and muscle back under certain circumstances, but I simply would not play any of those irons with the slots and trampoline faces or any kind of different density material like plastic elastomers, but that's just me. I'd play a hybrid up to a seven iron if that's what my swing speed dictated was necessary, but I don't need hybrids masquerading as an iron.

 

So I'm glad you're on board. Of course the shape and design of the head matters and also the thickness of the face. And again it is all based on the fact that when two objects collide, at the molecular level the molecules are not rigid objects. This applies to ALL the materials involved in the collision. It's just most important at the face of the club where the ball contacts it. This is where the forces are the greatest. And so to me it is very obvious that wall thickness matters at this point. And also if it didn't matter then why do the manufacturers keep adding reinforcement behind the sweetspot the more player's club you go? And then the blade is on the end of the spectrum of the thickest wall thickness and the SGI club is at the other end with the thinnest wall thickness. And then observe there is also a clear distinction on how "forgiving" and workable these clubs are. Hmmm...I wonder if the face wall thickness has anything to do with this...?

 

...and yes it does and it is proven in the math definition of those moduli (Young's, bulk, and shear) that I mentioned.

I think you should start a Thrillhouse Jr. thread. Again take that with a thousand grains of salt.

 

I'm on board. I think he should start an "Ask DeNinny" thread in the equipment forum. :)

 

But...We like Den better when is NOT banned!!! :rofl:

 

No, we don't want our man banned, lol, but the thread cold serve as a "troll

clearing house", TCH and we could wipe out a bunch of them in one thread, haha.