Clubhouse Grille (*** NO LIV DISCUSSIONS ***) (*** NO POLITICS/RELIGION ***)

[BIG STU]

Another layer of skepticism orbits around modern golf equipment.

 

In a nutshell, I don't get it when it comes to injecting hunks of plastic behind the face of irons (and now even drivers).

 

Here's why. The ball squishes (compresses) when struck by the metallurgy of a clubhead. Modern polymer technology can behave in structural and dynamic ways that are surprisingly like or even better than metals.

 

Why am I to suddenly believe my clubs are under-performing if they lack some mythical combo of metal clubhead with polymer inserts? Why would such inserts be buried back behind or inside the outer shell of metals I already rely on to squish the ball? And if these polymers are so good at doing what they do, why not go ahead and make the entire clubhead out of this miracle material?

 

Putter inserts trot that nonmetal material right out in the sunshine - where the clubface impacts the ball. The old persimmon drivers had a plastics face insert - right where the rubber meets the road.

 

Now, I'm suddenly supposed to accept "something" buried behind/inside the metal clubface actually changes things in measurable ways? Sorry but that one smells funky to me personally.

 

Color me confused. Call me skeptical. And, make no mistake about it, I've yet to perform any side-by-side performance testing by switching back/forth between my gamers and these polymer inserted sticks. So what do I know? Just really having trouble with the whole premise behind it. Tend to believe "if" they're actually better/straighter/longer, it's got more to do with the distribution and properties of metallurgy ahead of scientific features/benefits of any plastic. As said, if the plastic is the secret weapon, the whole clubhead would spit out of a mold and metals wouldn't need to be in the mix at all. At a minimum, metal inserts would be found in plastic heads rather than the other way around.

On the new TM drivers that polymer is injected to actually tone it down to legal standards. TM claims that it was designed that way. Personally I call BS on that someone screwed up royally and this was a inexpensive fix. Of course Bear has one. I told him it would not be long before someone finds some kind of polymer eating chemical pull the screws out inject that stuff and WOLA you have a non conforming hot driver. Funny thing is the price of the M-2s and M-3s have went down drastically. A few months ago they were in the 400 500 dollar range. Yesterday my assistant pro was trying to sell his M-2 to me for $75. Which like I told him the shaft and adaptor were worth that. It was too much shaft for me anyhow besides I have 3 drivers I can hit just as well. He is wanting the new M-5 or M-6 evidently he is not on a TM club deal. I did tell him if he sold the shaft and adaptor I would give him $20 for the head. I can buy an aftermarket adaptor and I have several shafts I can try in it. I will play with my older stuff rusty wedges rusty Scotty and all. And BTW do not let my "new" signature fool you those KZG irons are 1 st generation and at least 12 to 15 years old the shafts were discontinued about 5 years ago and those irons are Kyoei forged. In true OGA fashion they are non conforming either.

[BIG STU]

Last one and I'll STFU. :)

 

Golf ball sits on the ground. Clubhead strikes it. Ball flight lawyers break out their compasses and protractors.

 

At the end of the day, there are four and only four variables in play as that clubhead travels through the space occupied by the ball. FOUR! Not one. Not fourteen. Not nine thousand. FOUR!

 

* path

* squareness (or not) of the club face relative to path

* steepness or shallowness in the angle of attack as that clubhead performs it's touch and go landing on the deck.

* a WAY over complicated and misunderstood critter called the "D" plane - which amounts to nothing more than how high or low the handle is through impact.

 

If you wanted to get picky, there's a 5th one... Speed/acceleration. But that one (IMO) is a given just as much as holding the skinny end and hitting the ball with the fat end.

 

Of those true four, the biggest rabbit hole (IMO) with the most banana peels is Angle of Attack. The "stuff" of endless debate. Rife with so much complex, confusing, nebulous crapola, that it stands out as the messiest of they messy.

 

All of the following are "true":

 

1). A shallower angle of attack increases the opportunity for the clubhead's energy to smack that ball without hitting it fat.

 

2). Despite this, a golfer "can" chop down hard at the ball - steep AoA - take big chunky divots - and possibly play well/consistently

 

3). It "seems" logical that the wider away from the body the club travels during the downswing (which might tempt us to sway), the shallower the AoA, and faster the clubhead speed would be traveling on the downswing. In reverse, in "seems" logical that setting the hands and handle too close to the trail side shoulder at the top is a fast ticket to a steep "V-shaped" downswing. In short, the long wide take-away, getting the hands/handle WAY back and AWAY "appears" to be the way to fly. Otherwise, no true shallow AoA is possible. (It's true this "seems" logical but it's a TOTAL banana peel to fall in love with. You'll end up fighting your own setup posture while feeling more tension at the top of your backswing than you can measure).

 

So then, amid all this conflicting logic, how do we let that airplane approach the ground nice and shallow but avoid all manner of stress and strain on the body to achieve it???? And if #2 above is true, why bother considering it at all.

 

Dirty little secret - the hands and handle don't have to swing WAY back there, or WAY high up over the head - They are far from being the ONLY major contributors.

 

To turn a steep "v" shaped angle of attack into more of a "u" shape, oil up those wrists! LET the arms relax and LET that clubhead FLY past the butt end of the handle. The handle might just barel beat that clubhead to the ball, but those oily wrists allow and encourage that clubhead to release from waist-high before the to waist-high after the ball where that trail hand-arm flatten out and extend to that handshake position. Oily wrists in transition actually drops that shat closer to your trail shoulder to start the downswing. Duruing the backswing, It's OK to SLIGHTLY open that club face and feel like your setting the hands/handle a little closer to your trail shoulder. (Straight-ish lead arm going back is good but locked dead stiff iand over extended is BAD).

 

Oil those wirists up gents!

 

The hardest thing to tell a hooker to do is to release those wrists! Scares him to death! Until he releases he's been swinging his arms hard - rather than releasing those oily wrists. He "gets it" when he relaxes his arms and starts using his wrists to swing that clubhead rather than the butt end and handle.

 

The hardest thing for a slicer to believe is allowing his club and shaft to move along his lead arm plane all the way down to waist-high and let that clubhead fly past his hands into that handshake. He'll look at you like you must be crazy!

 

Both get a nice AoA when the light bulb turns on. Ball goes far. Golfer goes the happy happy joy joy dance. Other golfers pretend they don't know him.

 

But he's ok with it. He knows the dirty little secret. He demystified the AoA without really trying.

 

Thank you for flying Reason Airlines.

You pretty much got it dialed in there. On #5 the speed and acceleration thing it depends on how strong the golfer is and interaction of the turf with the sole of the particular club. BTW I do tend to get steep but normally I am steep anyhow one of the reasons I play narrow soled irons with butter knife edges. I am the guy that tends to take beaver pelt sized divots with everything from a 7 iron to a 56* wedge. On the handle thing I can and have blown quite a few students of the swing minds over the years. My wrist angle depends on if I am hitting a soft floater cut or trying to deloft it some for extra distance. But like I tell folks I am no textbook example. Blew some guys mind today in the practice area. I was hitting short flops with my 56* and doing the loop thing which I deliberately do. Some old fart snowbird asked me "if I knew I was doing a figure 8 loop? yep I told him. Would you like to see the textbook method and would you like to have a chip off for $1 a ball? He promptly STFU and went to the far area.

[SixtySomePing]

We went to Columbus tonite to one of those endless modern shopping/restaurant town (they are always called something 'Town Center' even though they themselves are not a town per se) things. We've got 2 or 3 of these Town Center things, you might have them too. So we took our son out to a nice restaurant for his birthday. BJ's Brewhouse Town Center in Columbus. Lest you think Polaris is a town it's not. Columbus is. Polaris is a place where a field was when I was growing up as a little kid. Now there's a bunch of stores there, with a bunch of plastic mannequins in the windows and other stores that sell tea pots for $300. Then there's restaurants. You give it a fancy name, add 'Town Center', and people will come. On Saturday nights they will drive around in circles for hours trying to find their way out and honk a lot. My DW knows how to get out, she just goes, then thanks them for things they didn't know they let her do in traffic. She can be fun to ride with sometimes...

Anyway, our son now is studying for his IFR or instrument certification for flying. Should take about 6 months, then he wants to become a flight instructor on the side besides his regular job. Should be quite interesting.

https://www.bjsrestaurants.com/

 

Took a look at BJ's website. Two locations in Pittsburgh, both in wealthy suburbs. I'm about 15-20 miles from the one in McCandless, a bit farther in Upper St. Clair. I'm sure there's some normal wage earners in the two communities, but one thinks of the beautiful people in their $1+ million estates. Loved the picture of the couple in the t shirts. Years ago, jacket and tie would be required. Rib eye steak, $24, etc. I'll make my own.

 

I'll buy a package of Filet Mignons, at around $8-10, usually two or three small in the package. I'll cut up one or two in small pieces, and sautee with onions. Bake a potato, maybe a vegetable. Or Hungry Jack instant potatoes, much better than in years past. Freeze the remaining piece of steak for another meal. (Wife rarely eats steak, so it's just me and Penny and the filet. Less than $10 for the meal.)

 

Most restaurants are casual...That means the guy and gal in the next table look like they've been doing yard work all day. Usually, guys nowadays don't even remove their stained ball cap.

 

I'm not really knocking the casual attire. But, I always liked to wear a jacket and tie for something special, like a $24 rib eye. Makes the occasion much more special.

 

I guess I'm old school, but a lady in a dress and pearls, and a guy in a jacket and tie was something to aspire to.

 

Glad you had a nice time.

Here you go Wrigs, I watched a whole bunch of these when I was off this week. Remember when people dressed up like this on TV? They still had a good time too, they got very funny when the bellmaker came on. It was just natural clean humor.

[Reasonability]

Another layer of skepticism orbits around modern golf equipment.

 

In a nutshell, I don't get it when it comes to injecting hunks of plastic behind the face of irons (and now even drivers).

 

Here's why. The ball squishes (compresses) when struck by the metallurgy of a clubhead. Modern polymer technology can behave in structural and dynamic ways that are surprisingly like or even better than metals.

 

Why am I to suddenly believe my clubs are under-performing if they lack some mythical combo of metal clubhead with polymer inserts? Why would such inserts be buried back behind or inside the outer shell of metals I already rely on to squish the ball? And if these polymers are so good at doing what they do, why not go ahead and make the entire clubhead out of this miracle material?

 

Putter inserts trot that nonmetal material right out in the sunshine - where the clubface impacts the ball. The old persimmon drivers had a plastics face insert - right where the rubber meets the road.

 

Now, I'm suddenly supposed to accept "something" buried behind/inside the metal clubface actually changes things in measurable ways? Sorry but that one smells funky to me personally.

 

Color me confused. Call me skeptical. And, make no mistake about it, I've yet to perform any side-by-side performance testing by switching back/forth between my gamers and these polymer inserted sticks. So what do I know? Just really having trouble with the whole premise behind it. Tend to believe "if" they're actually better/straighter/longer, it's got more to do with the distribution and properties of metallurgy ahead of scientific features/benefits of any plastic. As said, if the plastic is the secret weapon, the whole clubhead would spit out of a mold and metals wouldn't need to be in the mix at all. At a minimum, metal inserts would be found in plastic heads rather than the other way around.

On the new TM drivers that polymer is injected to actually tone it down to legal standards. TM claims that it was designed that way. Personally I call BS on that someone screwed up royally and this was a inexpensive fix. Of course Bear has one. I told him it would not be long before someone finds some kind of polymer eating chemical pull the screws out inject that stuff and WOLA you have a non conforming hot driver. Funny thing is the price of the M-2s and M-3s have went down drastically. A few months ago they were in the 400 500 dollar range. Yesterday my assistant pro was trying to sell his M-2 to me for $75. Which like I told him the shaft and adaptor were worth that. It was too much shaft for me anyhow besides I have 3 drivers I can hit just as well. He is wanting the new M-5 or M-6 evidently he is not on a TM club deal. I did tell him if he sold the shaft and adaptor I would give him $20 for the head. I can buy an aftermarket adaptor and I have several shafts I can try in it. I will play with my older stuff rusty wedges rusty Scotty and all. And BTW do not let my "new" signature fool you those KZG irons are 1 st generation and at least 12 to 15 years old the shafts were discontinued about 5 years ago and those irons are Kyoei forged. In true OGA fashion they are non conforming either.

 

I hear what you guys are saying. Makes all the sense in the world to me.

 

Weight gets redistributed. Springy hot-faced drivers get dampened.

 

My head scratch is basically about "Why?". If I build me a metallic golf club head, what would I have to be smoking the day I decided some plastic buried inside of it actually changed how it performs? Wouldn't I leave the cavity unfilled? Make the face less thin?

 

At the end of the day a person either is or isn't on-board with this whole "trampoline" effect. Guess my puny brain looks for the ball to compress and restore on the club face more so than for the clubface to "spring" then "spring back". And even if I convinced myself of this trampoline effect, what polymer, at what clubhead speed works the same way up and down through the bag and for all half, 3/4, and full swings????

 

My brain is too small to understand it. Lol

[tolmij]

We went to the theatre to watch phantom, as it was an evening performance in Posh venue we dressed formally, me in a Tux and DW dressed up to the nines. Nearly everyone dressed the same but two families were dressed for the beach, you could tell they were uncomfortable. Very pleasant evening brilliant show.

 

Before this we went to see Cats, this was in a big top in a fairly rural area. As was our way we dressed up for the night, tent or not it was theatre. Once again most people dressed up but this time the non dressed were in their I am digging the garden attire. They only thing that mattered is how they behaved, perfect, so the dress was not a problem, what ever you want, what ever suits you, does not matter as long as the behaviour is good. We like dressing up, some don’t, not a problem it’s the individuals choice, as long as they smell good.

[Conrad1953]

pl

[Conrad1953]

pl

[Conrad1953]

pl

[scotee]

pl

pl

 

Pl pl please let us help you Conrad with that stammer :)

[tolmij]

pl

pl

 

 

Sixty said it, now you have it in stereo.

 

Plural.

 

[Reasonability]

Takes a certain amount of guts to do a cover.

 

More guts to record it.

 

More to take on a classic.

 

Rule #1. If you're going to record a cover of a classic, do it really really well. Like this:

 

[Reasonability]

We went to the theatre to watch phantom, as it was an evening performance in Posh venue we dressed formally, me in a Tux and DW dressed up to the nines. Nearly everyone dressed the same but two families were dressed for the beach, you could tell they were uncomfortable. Very pleasant evening brilliant show.

 

Before this we went to see Cats, this was in a big top in a fairly rural area. As was our way we dressed up for the night, tent or not it was theatre. Once again most people dressed up but this time the non dressed were in their I am digging the garden attire. They only thing that mattered is how they behaved, perfect, so the dress was not a problem, what ever you want, what ever suits you, does not matter as long as the behaviour is good. We like dressing up, some don’t, not a problem it’s the individuals choice, as long as they smell good.

 

Somewhere awhile ago back - you mentioned a preference for trombones.

 

May I present you the following of then and now:

 

[scotee]

Takes a certain amount of guts to do a cover.

 

More guts to record it.

 

More to take on a classic.

 

Rule #1. If you're going to record a cover of a classic, do it really really well. Like this:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Exceptional !

[Conrad1953]

Another layer of skepticism orbits around modern golf equipment.

 

In a nutshell, I don't get it when it comes to injecting hunks of plastic behind the face of irons (and now even drivers).

 

Here's why. The ball squishes (compresses) when struck by the metallurgy of a clubhead. Modern polymer technology can behave in structural and dynamic ways that are surprisingly like or even better than metals.

 

Why am I to suddenly believe my clubs are under-performing if they lack some mythical combo of metal clubhead with polymer inserts? Why would such inserts be buried back behind or inside the outer shell of metals I already rely on to squish the ball? And if these polymers are so good at doing what they do, why not go ahead and make the entire clubhead out of this miracle material?

 

Putter inserts trot that nonmetal material right out in the sunshine - where the clubface impacts the ball. The old persimmon drivers had a plastics face insert - right where the rubber meets the road.

 

Now, I'm suddenly supposed to accept "something" buried behind/inside the metal clubface actually changes things in measurable ways? Sorry but that one smells funky to me personally.

 

Color me confused. Call me skeptical. And, make no mistake about it, I've yet to perform any side-by-side performance testing by switching back/forth between my gamers and these polymer inserted sticks. So what do I know? Just really having trouble with the whole premise behind it. Tend to believe "if" they're actually better/straighter/longer, it's got more to do with the distribution and properties of metallurgy ahead of scientific features/benefits of any plastic. As said, if the plastic is the secret weapon, the whole clubhead would spit out of a mold and metals wouldn't need to be in the mix at all. At a minimum, metal inserts would be found in plastic heads rather than the other way around.

On the new TM drivers that polymer is injected to actually tone it down to legal standards. TM claims that it was designed that way. Personally I call BS on that someone screwed up royally and this was a inexpensive fix. Of course Bear has one. I told him it would not be long before someone finds some kind of polymer eating chemical pull the screws out inject that stuff and WOLA you have a non conforming hot driver. Funny thing is the price of the M-2s and M-3s have went down drastically. A few months ago they were in the 400 500 dollar range. Yesterday my assistant pro was trying to sell his M-2 to me for $75. Which like I told him the shaft and adaptor were worth that. It was too much shaft for me anyhow besides I have 3 drivers I can hit just as well. He is wanting the new M-5 or M-6 evidently he is not on a TM club deal. I did tell him if he sold the shaft and adaptor I would give him $20 for the head. I can buy an aftermarket adaptor and I have several shafts I can try in it. I will play with my older stuff rusty wedges rusty Scotty and all. And BTW do not let my "new" signature fool you those KZG irons are 1 st generation and at least 12 to 15 years old the shafts were discontinued about 5 years ago and those irons are Kyoei forged. In true OGA fashion they are non conforming either.

 

I hear what you guys are saying. Makes all the sense in the world to me.

 

Weight gets redistributed. Springy hot-faced drivers get dampened.

 

My head scratch is basically about "Why?". If I build me a metallic golf club head, what would I have to be smoking the day I decided some plastic buried inside of it actually changed how it performs? Wouldn't I leave the cavity unfilled? Make the face less thin?

 

At the end of the day a person either is or isn't on-board with this whole "trampoline" effect. Guess my puny brain looks for the ball to compress and restore on the club face more so than for the clubface to "spring" then "spring back". And even if I convinced myself of this trampoline effect, what polymer, at what clubhead speed works the same way up and down through the bag and for all half, 3/4, and full swings????

 

My brain is too small to understand it. Lol

 

It doesn't have to be complicated. The simple answer is........................distance. What a big surprise, lol.

 

Of course the USGA freaked out about this "trampoline" effect many years ago and placed a limit

on it............measured as coefficient of restitution or COR. COR .83 or less, which means you must

lose at least 17% of the energy when a club head collides with a ball.

 

That lost energy is a loss of linear distance but since energy can't really be "lost" a small part is

converted to heat and most converted to spin when the ball is compressed.

 

To get around this "spin" problem, manufacturers have been finding other ways to reduce energy

lost to spin by moving weight around, move COG around, etc. since the late 90s. And, of course,

tweaking golf balls.

 

By their very nature blade irons create the most inefficient energy transfer; having more energy

transferred to spin and less to linear distance in comparison to a cavity back iron. Some see that

as a positive though as they prefer more spin over more distance. This is where it just becomes

a personal choice.

[Conrad1953]

pl

pl

 

Pl pl please let us help you Conrad with that stammer :)

 

plOops :)

[Reasonability]

Another layer of skepticism orbits around modern golf equipment.

 

In a nutshell, I don't get it when it comes to injecting hunks of plastic behind the face of irons (and now even drivers).

 

Here's why. The ball squishes (compresses) when struck by the metallurgy of a clubhead. Modern polymer technology can behave in structural and dynamic ways that are surprisingly like or even better than metals.

 

Why am I to suddenly believe my clubs are under-performing if they lack some mythical combo of metal clubhead with polymer inserts? Why would such inserts be buried back behind or inside the outer shell of metals I already rely on to squish the ball? And if these polymers are so good at doing what they do, why not go ahead and make the entire clubhead out of this miracle material?

 

Putter inserts trot that nonmetal material right out in the sunshine - where the clubface impacts the ball. The old persimmon drivers had a plastics face insert - right where the rubber meets the road.

 

Now, I'm suddenly supposed to accept "something" buried behind/inside the metal clubface actually changes things in measurable ways? Sorry but that one smells funky to me personally.

 

Color me confused. Call me skeptical. And, make no mistake about it, I've yet to perform any side-by-side performance testing by switching back/forth between my gamers and these polymer inserted sticks. So what do I know? Just really having trouble with the whole premise behind it. Tend to believe "if" they're actually better/straighter/longer, it's got more to do with the distribution and properties of metallurgy ahead of scientific features/benefits of any plastic. As said, if the plastic is the secret weapon, the whole clubhead would spit out of a mold and metals wouldn't need to be in the mix at all. At a minimum, metal inserts would be found in plastic heads rather than the other way around.

On the new TM drivers that polymer is injected to actually tone it down to legal standards. TM claims that it was designed that way. Personally I call BS on that someone screwed up royally and this was a inexpensive fix. Of course Bear has one. I told him it would not be long before someone finds some kind of polymer eating chemical pull the screws out inject that stuff and WOLA you have a non conforming hot driver. Funny thing is the price of the M-2s and M-3s have went down drastically. A few months ago they were in the 400 500 dollar range. Yesterday my assistant pro was trying to sell his M-2 to me for $75. Which like I told him the shaft and adaptor were worth that. It was too much shaft for me anyhow besides I have 3 drivers I can hit just as well. He is wanting the new M-5 or M-6 evidently he is not on a TM club deal. I did tell him if he sold the shaft and adaptor I would give him $20 for the head. I can buy an aftermarket adaptor and I have several shafts I can try in it. I will play with my older stuff rusty wedges rusty Scotty and all. And BTW do not let my "new" signature fool you those KZG irons are 1 st generation and at least 12 to 15 years old the shafts were discontinued about 5 years ago and those irons are Kyoei forged. In true OGA fashion they are non conforming either.

 

I hear what you guys are saying. Makes all the sense in the world to me.

 

Weight gets redistributed. Springy hot-faced drivers get dampened.

 

My head scratch is basically about "Why?". If I build me a metallic golf club head, what would I have to be smoking the day I decided some plastic buried inside of it actually changed how it performs? Wouldn't I leave the cavity unfilled? Make the face less thin?

 

At the end of the day a person either is or isn't on-board with this whole "trampoline" effect. Guess my puny brain looks for the ball to compress and restore on the club face more so than for the clubface to "spring" then "spring back". And even if I convinced myself of this trampoline effect, what polymer, at what clubhead speed works the same way up and down through the bag and for all half, 3/4, and full swings????

 

My brain is too small to understand it. Lol

 

It doesn't have to be complicated. The simple answer is........................distance. What a big surprise, lol.

 

Of course the USGA freaked out about this "trampoline" effect many years ago and placed a limit

on it............measured as coefficient of restitution or COR. COR .83 or less, which means you must

lose at least 17% of the energy when a club head collides with a ball.

 

That lost energy is a loss of linear distance but since energy can't really be "lost" a small part is

converted to heat and most converted to spin when the ball is compressed.

 

To get around this "spin" problem, manufacturers have been finding other ways to reduce energy

lost to spin by moving weight around, move COG around, etc. since the late 90s. And, of course,

tweaking golf balls.

 

By their very nature blade irons create the most inefficient energy transfer; having more energy

transferred to spin and less to linear distance in comparison to a cavity back iron. Some see that

as a positive though as they prefer more spin over more distance. This is where it just becomes

a personal choice.

 

VERY cool answer. As in VERY VERY cool. Thank you.

 

So the next assumption I make/infer is... more spin may not bring more distance?? Might balloon it higher but possibly shorter, no? Meanwhile, the typical Trackman ball-flight lawyer wants less spin on the driver, not more. OK - that part makes sense, I suppose. Stayed in a Holiday Inn Express or two so that sinks in. LOL

 

Any clue as to how much added distance comes from the modern ball versus a spring-faced club? Lets say a guy goes out and buys the hottest ball and driver. His buddy buys only one of the two - lets say driver. A third player buys a hot ball and games his five-year old driver. If their swings were somehow identical, who hits it farther and by how much? Not a loaded question. I honestly do not know which is the greater contributor to "more" distance. (I suspect it's the ball but I can't say that with any authority whatsoever).

 

LMAO - No doubt about it. It's time to bungee a GI Joe to the back of my irons! (kidding)

[Conrad1953]

Another layer of skepticism orbits around modern golf equipment.

 

In a nutshell, I don't get it when it comes to injecting hunks of plastic behind the face of irons (and now even drivers).

 

Here's why. The ball squishes (compresses) when struck by the metallurgy of a clubhead. Modern polymer technology can behave in structural and dynamic ways that are surprisingly like or even better than metals.

 

Why am I to suddenly believe my clubs are under-performing if they lack some mythical combo of metal clubhead with polymer inserts? Why would such inserts be buried back behind or inside the outer shell of metals I already rely on to squish the ball? And if these polymers are so good at doing what they do, why not go ahead and make the entire clubhead out of this miracle material?

 

Putter inserts trot that nonmetal material right out in the sunshine - where the clubface impacts the ball. The old persimmon drivers had a plastics face insert - right where the rubber meets the road.

 

Now, I'm suddenly supposed to accept "something" buried behind/inside the metal clubface actually changes things in measurable ways? Sorry but that one smells funky to me personally.

 

Color me confused. Call me skeptical. And, make no mistake about it, I've yet to perform any side-by-side performance testing by switching back/forth between my gamers and these polymer inserted sticks. So what do I know? Just really having trouble with the whole premise behind it. Tend to believe "if" they're actually better/straighter/longer, it's got more to do with the distribution and properties of metallurgy ahead of scientific features/benefits of any plastic. As said, if the plastic is the secret weapon, the whole clubhead would spit out of a mold and metals wouldn't need to be in the mix at all. At a minimum, metal inserts would be found in plastic heads rather than the other way around.

On the new TM drivers that polymer is injected to actually tone it down to legal standards. TM claims that it was designed that way. Personally I call BS on that someone screwed up royally and this was a inexpensive fix. Of course Bear has one. I told him it would not be long before someone finds some kind of polymer eating chemical pull the screws out inject that stuff and WOLA you have a non conforming hot driver. Funny thing is the price of the M-2s and M-3s have went down drastically. A few months ago they were in the 400 500 dollar range. Yesterday my assistant pro was trying to sell his M-2 to me for $75. Which like I told him the shaft and adaptor were worth that. It was too much shaft for me anyhow besides I have 3 drivers I can hit just as well. He is wanting the new M-5 or M-6 evidently he is not on a TM club deal. I did tell him if he sold the shaft and adaptor I would give him $20 for the head. I can buy an aftermarket adaptor and I have several shafts I can try in it. I will play with my older stuff rusty wedges rusty Scotty and all. And BTW do not let my "new" signature fool you those KZG irons are 1 st generation and at least 12 to 15 years old the shafts were discontinued about 5 years ago and those irons are Kyoei forged. In true OGA fashion they are non conforming either.

 

I hear what you guys are saying. Makes all the sense in the world to me.

 

Weight gets redistributed. Springy hot-faced drivers get dampened.

 

My head scratch is basically about "Why?". If I build me a metallic golf club head, what would I have to be smoking the day I decided some plastic buried inside of it actually changed how it performs? Wouldn't I leave the cavity unfilled? Make the face less thin?

 

At the end of the day a person either is or isn't on-board with this whole "trampoline" effect. Guess my puny brain looks for the ball to compress and restore on the club face more so than for the clubface to "spring" then "spring back". And even if I convinced myself of this trampoline effect, what polymer, at what clubhead speed works the same way up and down through the bag and for all half, 3/4, and full swings????

 

My brain is too small to understand it. Lol

 

It doesn't have to be complicated. The simple answer is........................distance. What a big surprise, lol.

 

Of course the USGA freaked out about this "trampoline" effect many years ago and placed a limit

on it............measured as coefficient of restitution or COR. COR .83 or less, which means you must

lose at least 17% of the energy when a club head collides with a ball.

 

That lost energy is a loss of linear distance but since energy can't really be "lost" a small part is

converted to heat and most converted to spin when the ball is compressed.

 

To get around this "spin" problem, manufacturers have been finding other ways to reduce energy

lost to spin by moving weight around, move COG around, etc. since the late 90s. And, of course,

tweaking golf balls.

 

By their very nature blade irons create the most inefficient energy transfer; having more energy

transferred to spin and less to linear distance in comparison to a cavity back iron. Some see that

as a positive though as they prefer more spin over more distance. This is where it just becomes

a personal choice.

 

VERY cool answer. As in VERY VERY cool. Thank you.

 

So the next assumption I make/infer is... more spin may not bring more distance?? Might balloon it higher but possibly shorter, no? Meanwhile, the typical Trackman ball-flight lawyer wants less spin on the driver, not more. OK - that part makes sense, I suppose. Stayed in a Holiday Inn Express or two so that sinks in. LOL

 

Any clue as to how much added distance comes from the modern ball versus a spring-faced club? Lets say a guy goes out and buys the hottest ball and driver. His buddy buys only one of the two - lets say driver. A third player buys a hot ball and games his five-year old driver. If their swings were somehow identical, who hits it farther and by how much? Not a loaded question. I honestly do not know which is the greater contributor to "more" distance. (I suspect it's the ball but I can't say that with any authority whatsoever).

 

LMAO - No doubt about it. It's time to bungee a GI Joe to the back of my irons! (kidding)

 

 

My guess is the 3 golfers with the 3 different scenarios hit the ball about the same distance. My opine

is that any recent increases in distance likely come from more precise fitting and tuning of equipment

and golf specific physical training. The USGA has ensured that the equipment hasn't essentially

changed in many years; despite all these claims by the manufacturers.

[scotee]

My current driver is the only club that was "fit" for me. On the indoor launch monitor I was told that I had too little spin. I know the trend is for low spin on drivers but if you don't have 100+ speed it is likely you will not have too much spin. My best was mid to high 90's so it was recommended that I have a shaft with lower kick point and that I did not need the head with the adjustable front to back weights. Also a higher spin ball like a Pro V is fine for me as well. I still hit driver pretty well with good distance for my age but not like I did 10 or 15 years ago. I can one hop into the fence at the range where I used to flirt with the top of the net. Rad can you call somebody and get me some pills? :)

[scotee]

We went to the theatre to watch phantom, as it was an evening performance in Posh venue we dressed formally, me in a Tux and DW dressed up to the nines. Nearly everyone dressed the same but two families were dressed for the beach, you could tell they were uncomfortable. Very pleasant evening brilliant show.

 

Before this we went to see Cats, this was in a big top in a fairly rural area. As was our way we dressed up for the night, tent or not it was theatre. Once again most people dressed up but this time the non dressed were in their I am digging the garden attire. They only thing that mattered is how they behaved, perfect, so the dress was not a problem, what ever you want, what ever suits you, does not matter as long as the behaviour is good. We like dressing up, some don’t, not a problem it’s the individuals choice, as long as they smell good.

 

Somewhere awhile ago back - you mentioned a preference for trombones.

 

May I present you the following of then and now:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Cool! Reasey I passed this on to my lil bro. He played Trombone in HS band. That guy is really good. It takes a lot of air to play that thing. His highs are high and he has great tone. I was a trumpet and guitar guy along with a little piano. I could pick up most instruments and make decent sound but I was the jack of all trades and master of none.

[SixtySomePing]

pl

[tolmij]

We went to the theatre to watch phantom, as it was an evening performance in Posh venue we dressed formally, me in a Tux and DW dressed up to the nines. Nearly everyone dressed the same but two families were dressed for the beach, you could tell they were uncomfortable. Very pleasant evening brilliant show.

 

Before this we went to see Cats, this was in a big top in a fairly rural area. As was our way we dressed up for the night, tent or not it was theatre. Once again most people dressed up but this time the non dressed were in their I am digging the garden attire. They only thing that mattered is how they behaved, perfect, so the dress was not a problem, what ever you want, what ever suits you, does not matter as long as the behaviour is good. We like dressing up, some don’t, not a problem it’s the individuals choice, as long as they smell good.

 

Somewhere awhile ago back - you mentioned a preference for trombones.

 

May I present you the following of then and now:

 

 

 

Beautiful music Reasy, love the phantom songs, waiting for it to come round again and we will be there shoes blacked, front row. The trombone rendition is excellent really well played.

[tolmij]

Takes a certain amount of guts to do a cover.

 

More guts to record it.

 

More to take on a classic.

 

Rule #1. If you're going to record a cover of a classic, do it really really well. Like this:

 

 

Wow Reasy, you sure are finding them today, lovely rendition, excellent band. More More.

[scomac2002]

On the distance front, my guess is that the bulk of the gain is with the ball. I say this because i have yet to hit a driver that i can consistently hit further than my old TM R7 425 which is pushing on 14 years old now. Further to that, the longest drive I have ever hit was with a now nearly 25 year old club in a small steel headed Callaway Big Bertha War bird and i actually hit that drive in the past five years.

 

Now that's not to say that there hasn't been some advances in the newer clubs, but as Rad alluded to; once the maximum head size and COR were set, that was going to be it for a flushed hit on the sweet spot. What has changed in more recent years with drivers is the ability to fine tune to a repeatable swing, hence the apparent gains that we're seeing with the pros, although after watching yesterday they aren't really hitting it quite as far as these commentators are letting on.

 

The modern clubs are also more forgiving as in the sweet spots are bigger and you're going to get a better distance result from a mishit. Whether that is helpful on the golf course is another matter. In most cases I suspect that it is for the typical player as they rarely hit the sweet spot, so as long as the club face is square to target the added forgiveness is going to be a bonus. Will it lower your score? Maybe. More than likely it will just convince you not to move up a tee box as you will continue to think that you haven't really lost the distance that you have as we all get older.

 

As for the ball; well they're not all created equal either as I'm beginning to find out in my recent putting practices, but that's the subject for another post...

[Wriggles]

We went to the theatre to watch phantom, as it was an evening performance in Posh venue we dressed formally, me in a Tux and DW dressed up to the nines. Nearly everyone dressed the same but two families were dressed for the beach, you could tell they were uncomfortable. Very pleasant evening brilliant show.

 

Before this we went to see Cats, this was in a big top in a fairly rural area. As was our way we dressed up for the night, tent or not it was theatre. Once again most people dressed up but this time the non dressed were in their I am digging the garden attire. They only thing that mattered is how they behaved, perfect, so the dress was not a problem, what ever you want, what ever suits you, does not matter as long as the behaviour is good. We like dressing up, some don’t, not a problem it’s the individuals choice, as long as they smell good.

 

Never attended a theatre show. Only thing close was a Duke Ellington/Dizzy Gillespie concert back in 1976. A pal talked me and another guy into attending. We had dinner at Johnny Garneau's Golden Spike restaurant, and across the street Heinz Hall for the concert. Cab Calloway conducted the Duke's band. Never was a fan of Dizzy, though.

 

People were dressed up, some in tuxes, ladies in gowns, one guy was in some leopard print tux, and some, like us, in business suits and ties. A nice evening, all in all.

 

Back around 20 years ago, the missus wanted to see Phantom. It was in Toronto, Canada. Toronto isn't that far from Pittsburgh, so we started making plans. MIL made a big issue about it, and she said we'd disappear if we went there. A guy I golfed with stated how bad the traffic was, and how the only way to go, would be a bus trip. Enough said, we never did go.

 

A few years back, the missus went to Las Vegas with her three sisters, and they saw Phantom there. She said it was great. She bought a CD of the music, she never played it since, though.

 

Anyhow, now, I have no desire to go to concerts and such. As a boy, I used to dream of such things. One year, I wanted to attend a "science camp" at Buhl Planetarium in Pittsburgh. Buhl might as well have been on Mars; (pun intended) the idea vetoed by Mom.

 

Happy you and the wife had a great time.

[scomac2002]

Takes a certain amount of guts to do a cover.

 

More guts to record it.

 

More to take on a classic.

 

Rule #1. If you're going to record a cover of a classic, do it really really well. Like this:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Wow Reasy, you sure are finding them today, lovely rendition, excellent band. More More.

 

Not bad for a bunch of Russian guys (and gal) working from a make-shift studio with second-hand/knock-off instruments. There's no question that they've got talent! Hell, it's daunting thought exercise to even get your mind around the language barrier initially having to first be fluent in English before you could even attempt to sing the song so well. Another fine example of the Indian versus the arrow argument.

[Wriggles]

Been whistling the theme to "My Favorite Martian" since posting the science camp comment.

 

I must be completely losing my mind.

[scomac2002]

More snow this morning. It's almost a shock to get a quick moving front coming through that wasn't predicted well ahead of time. These are often the ones that can have a big impact if they amount to a lot more than predicted. So far we're on the light end of accumulations. The worst of it is that this fresh snow is sitting on top of an inch or so of ice, so caution will be warranted driving even getting out the driveway. The good news is that a thaw is coming our way by next weekend and hopefully that will be enough to deal with the ice problem.

 

-----------------------------

 

With the crummy road conditions, most noticeably the ice accumulations I have been reduced to mall walking to get my daily exercise in. I probably only go three times a week, trying to get enough out of the to and fro running errands and the like other times. If you walk the malls enough, you start to notice a few things. Most noticeably is the familiar face of other mall walkers with the silent nod as you pass by each other when recognized. There's also the hello or smile from store employees when they're standing by the entrance just waiting for a potential customer to enter. It must be a boring existence for some as weekday mornings see plenty of walkers, but few in the way of actual customers. It's the senior crowd just looking for a warm place to move about with a sure surface under foot. The fashion, jewelry and cell phone stores offer little in the way of enticements as we all have plenty of each. Ah, but come the weekend and things are different...

 

Sunday afternoon at the malls is the realm of the millennial and generation Xer. The young couples often with small children that are there to shop. While other groups may have the disposable income, this is the group that seems most likely to spend it. I'm quite certain that Sunday is probably the best day at the malls for sales based on this winter's experience. And it's quite different than through the week as the line-up at Booster Juice is liable to be at least as long as the Tim Horton's lineup.

 

I'm not sure what this says about me that I'm to the point of commenting on goings on at a typical suburban indoor mall. Boredom I guess. Winter seems so long, this year in particular.

[scomac2002]

Been whistling the theme to "My Favorite Martian" since posting the science camp comment.

 

I must be completely losing my mind.

 

I wouldn't worry about it. You've got company! :wacko:

[SixtySomePing]

Check out this first guest on What's My Line in 1960. He didn't have enough facial recognition yet that they knew who he was...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcw5hU48t_4

[Conrad1953]

pl