X100 at the Majors

[mtg]

So you know X100 is still by far the predominant shaft on tour so you'll tell me I shouldn't be surprised by this - but why is it if your name isn't Spieth or McIlroy you really can't win a major without that shaft in your bag.

 

This year it was a clean sweep for the True Temper favorite: two for Koepka, as well as Reed and Molinari.

 

Last year it was 50/50 X100 taking two with JT and Koepka, Sergio played Modus 130 and Jordan with his PXs.

 

Previous year we saw four 1st time major winners - Willett, DJ, Stenson, Jimmy Walker. 3/4 used DG X100. Caveat - Walker used AMTs, but in fairness True Temper designed those to play as close to X100s as possible but in an MOI matched set. Stenson's and Sergio's lone major are the only two ever won with Nippon shafts for what thats worth.

 

Going back the previous two seasons you have Spieth and McIlroy dominating winning half the majors in '14 and '15. But of the other half... 3 out of 4 used X100 (Z. Johnson, Watson, Kaymer), with Jason day using a similar True Temper product in the X7.

 

2013 is the big outlier with 4 pretty random shafts (as far as winning majors goes) netting titles: Scott (KBS Tour), Rose (KBS C taper), Mickelson (KBS Tour V), and Dufner (think he played PXi).

 

2011 and 2012 was more of a mixed bag but X100 was by far the leader with 4/8 (Watson, Simpson, Schwartzel, Bradley). Again Rory makes up 2 of these (Project X), Els and Clarke win the British with KBS Tours and PX Monacos.

 

2010 saw three first time major winners in Oosthuizen, Kaymer, and McDowell. 2/3 used X100 with GMac using PXi. Phil I think had PXs in the bag back then.

 

The further back you go you should only find X100 being even more dominant than it is today as it and PX were really the only shaft before KBS came around about a decade ago.

 

Since then we've seen a great product in Nippon hit the stage. Graphite has made a splash on tour. PX has new products. With all the new tech and specialization if your name isn't McIlroy or Spieth (two of the great talents to play this game, who could probably win with broomsticks) the record since 2014 is 12-4 in the favor of the old standby. This is when specialization should be more and more apparent.

 

And if you're going to tell me oh they grew up playing it they're just used to it.. give me a break. These guys will change a driver shaft in a heartbeat - and in my opinion the driver shaft is much more particular. They've tested other iron shafts but continue to play X100 because its the best thing for their game. And its been proven out on the grandest stage.

 

I don't even have X100 in the bag right now. I grew up on it as most of us did. I've played a lot of iron shafts in recent years, currently in Modus 120. Its a nice shaft. But I still like X100 when I swing them - its no wonder why.

[Bonesaw]

X100 are good. Other shafts are good also.

 

I have x100. I hit alot of good iron shots. If I dont hit alot of good iron shots, I practice.

[Nixhex524]

Sounds like you need some X100!!!!

[mtg]

Sounds like you need some X100!!!!

X100 are good. Other shafts are good also.

 

I have x100. I hit alot of good iron shots. If I dont hit alot of good iron shots, I practice.

 

I agree other stuff is good, but nothing compares when you tally up the wins.

 

Maybe other people don't like data as much as I do. Apparently NixHex isn't amused. When other shafts do win a major its a guy who's underperformed, he's too good to not win, he should've won more than he has... Rose, Garcia, Stenson. When X100 wins its par for the course and any Tom, Dick, or Harry can bag a Wannamaker trophy with them... talking about you Keegan Bradley.

 

Its probably just a massive coincidence... again I just like data and find this set odd.

[Nixhex524]

Sounds like you need some X100!!!!

X100 are good. Other shafts are good also.

 

I have x100. I hit alot of good iron shots. If I dont hit alot of good iron shots, I practice.

 

I agree other stuff is good, but nothing compares when you tally up the wins.

 

Maybe other people don't like data as much as I do. Apparently NixHex isn't amused. When other shafts do win a major its a guy who's underperformed, he's too good to not win, he should've won more than he has... Rose, Garcia, Stenson. When X100 wins its par for the course and any Tom, Dick, or Harry can bag a Wannamaker trophy with them... talking about you Keegan Bradley.

 

Its probably just a massive coincidence... again I just like data and find this set odd.

 

For a guy that doesn't play them, you just sound very smitten.....

 

Call me crazy but, I just don't think it's an iron shaft that wins a major.

[mtg]

Sounds like you need some X100!!!!

X100 are good. Other shafts are good also.

 

I have x100. I hit alot of good iron shots. If I dont hit alot of good iron shots, I practice.

 

I agree other stuff is good, but nothing compares when you tally up the wins.

 

Maybe other people don't like data as much as I do. Apparently NixHex isn't amused. When other shafts do win a major its a guy who's underperformed, he's too good to not win, he should've won more than he has... Rose, Garcia, Stenson. When X100 wins its par for the course and any Tom, Dick, or Harry can bag a Wannamaker trophy with them... talking about you Keegan Bradley.

 

Its probably just a massive coincidence... again I just like data and find this set odd.

 

For a guy that doesn't play them, you just sound very smitten.....

 

Call me crazy but, I just don't think it's an iron shaft that wins a major.

 

Man... I thought my post was lame. I just happen to be a stats guy with nothing else to do on a monday night after putting my baby down . You're actually just trolling my lame a** post with low hanging fruit responses.

 

Ok, stats aren't your thing. I never said iron shafts win majors. I just pointed out a stark illustration regarding golf equipment, kinda what this forum is "geared" towards.

[WanLefty]

I mean this with no offence - but this is hardly stats,... you've merely just identified what shafts people used when winning a major. The count just happened to be higher for X100's

 

I think an important part of what is missing here is that X100/S300 havebeen around forever and majority of pros would have used them in their formative years, it wasn't even a consideration for most as to what shaft you should get when buying irons years ago.

 

PX, Nippon & KBS are new to the game for most and the next wave of people will use them from age 3 and you'll see the numbers start to shift.

 

Did you know Taylormade drivers have won the last 3 of 4 majors this year................................

[mtg]

Sounds like you need some X100!!!!

X100 are good. Other shafts are good also.

 

I have x100. I hit alot of good iron shots. If I dont hit alot of good iron shots, I practice.

 

I agree other stuff is good, but nothing compares when you tally up the wins.

 

Maybe other people don't like data as much as I do. Apparently NixHex isn't amused. When other shafts do win a major its a guy who's underperformed, he's too good to not win, he should've won more than he has... Rose, Garcia, Stenson. When X100 wins its par for the course and any Tom, Dick, or Harry can bag a Wannamaker trophy with them... talking about you Keegan Bradley.

 

Its probably just a massive coincidence... again I just like data and find this set odd.

 

For a guy that doesn't play them, you just sound very smitten.....

 

Call me crazy but, I just don't think it's an iron shaft that wins a major.

 

To respond to this directly though. I agree a shaft doesn't win anything. But if we break down the game of golf a bit. The driver is probably used 10-12 times per round, maybe long irons or fairways off the other non-par 3 tee shots. Putting is maybe 30 shots per round for tour players. So if you figure scoring average or 70, for round numbers sake. 40 shots are non-putts. We can probably agree the shaft of a putter isn't pivotal. Can't remember any putter shaft threads on here (though I wouldn't be surprised!).

 

That leaves 40 shots where you are putting some force on the shaft, where the shaft deflects and plays a role in the outcome of the shot (if it weren't for that then this website would be a lot less robust). If you hit a couple fairway woods on par 5s maybe we get to 15 shots played with shafts other than your iron shaft. So it is the sole piece of equipment that plays a majority role in game from tee to green.

[WanLefty]

Sounds like you need some X100!!!!

X100 are good. Other shafts are good also.

 

I have x100. I hit alot of good iron shots. If I dont hit alot of good iron shots, I practice.

 

I agree other stuff is good, but nothing compares when you tally up the wins.

 

Maybe other people don't like data as much as I do. Apparently NixHex isn't amused. When other shafts do win a major its a guy who's underperformed, he's too good to not win, he should've won more than he has... Rose, Garcia, Stenson. When X100 wins its par for the course and any Tom, Dick, or Harry can bag a Wannamaker trophy with them... talking about you Keegan Bradley.

 

Its probably just a massive coincidence... again I just like data and find this set odd.

 

For a guy that doesn't play them, you just sound very smitten.....

 

Call me crazy but, I just don't think it's an iron shaft that wins a major.

 

To respond to this directly though. I agree a shaft doesn't win anything. But if we break down the game of golf a bit. The driver is probably used 10-12 times per round, maybe long irons or fairways off the other non-par 3 tee shots. Putting is maybe 30 shots per round for tour players. So if you figure scoring average or 70, for round numbers sake. 40 shots are non-putts. We can probably agree the shaft of a putter isn't pivotal. Can't remember any putter shaft threads on here (though I wouldn't be surprised!).

 

That leaves 40 shots where you are putting some force on the shaft, where the shaft deflects and plays a role in the outcome of the shot (if it weren't for that then this website would be a lot less robust). If you hit a couple fairway woods on par 5s maybe we get to 15 shots played with shafts other than your iron shaft. So it is a majority of the game, by a decent margin.

 

You're again oversimplifying things and missing what's important. - Look up shots to the hole.

 

You say you hit driver 10-12 times per round... Brooks was +5 strokes gained off the tee. I'd argue those 10-12 shots are quite important.

[mtg]

 

You're again oversimplifying things and missing what's important. - Look up shots to the hole.

 

You say you hit driver 10-12 times per round... Brooks was +5 strokes gained off the tee. I'd argue those 10-12 shots are quite important.

 

LOL.. oversimplification?? That's called cherry picking the data. With zero backup. He hit laser iron all weekend from what I remember.

 

What about Zach Johnson's win, Charl Schwartzel's, Kaymer's 2, Watson's pair, Reed, etc. etc. etc.

 

Point to another shaft that can compare. KBS hasn't won since 2013.

 

And I'm just not buying this they play it because they're used to it. That doesn't pass muster. They've surely tested other stuff and haven't adopted. And yet they change driver shafts every other year, when that shaft is more likely to affect ball flight. And according to you the driver isn't to be underestimated (I agree) so they should only be playing what they grew up on.

[mtg]

Welp wish I hadn't posted. Leave it to the curmudgeons around here to take empirical data and tell you not to believe your lying eyes.

 

Listen I don't play the shaft. Maybe I should. Just noting that it wins a whole heck of a lot. And I'm supposed to believe these guys never test anything else and blindly go ahead week after week, year after year with 10 or 11 of their clubs shafted up with something that might not be perfectly suited for them. Even though they have every opportunity to put whatever they want in their irons and wedges.

[WanLefty]

What they grew up on was Persimmons and 975Ds...

 

I was merely pointing out that you can't draw conclusions from what was used by major champions.

 

Shaft deflection is getting into an area I don't want to play around in - I'm off to get a set of X100's so I can win the 2019 Masters

[Valtiel]

Occam's Razor; X100s are good shafts that were also the only game in town for long enough to develop both user familiarity and market dominance. You say "The further back you go you should only find X100 being even more dominant than it is today" and I say the reverse; the further forward you go the more of a mixed bag you see. People change graphite shafts more often because the technology is evolving and changing for use in a club that is more and more being optimized with launch monitor technology. Not so with irons or iron shafts. Pros aren't trying to squeeze every yard out of the irons each year and many have even hung on to older models likely against the wishes of their contract holders. Its a consistency game with irons and changing shafts is not conducive to that. Find something that works and stick with it.

 

Also, stop saying that shafts are winning tournaments, they aren't. For someone touting to be data driven its a pretty silly thing to say.

[mtg]

Occam's Razor; X100s are good shafts that were also the only game in town for long enough to develop both user familiarity and market dominance. You say "The further back you go you should only find X100 being even more dominant than it is today" and I say the reverse; the further forward you go the more of a mixed bag you see. People change graphite shafts more often because the technology is evolving and changing for use in a club that is more and more being optimized with launch monitor technology. Not so with irons or iron shafts. Pros aren't trying to squeeze every yard out of the irons each year any many have even hung on to older models likely against the wishes of their contract holders. Its a consistency game with irons and changing shafts is not conducive to that. Find something that works and stick with it.

 

Also, stop saying that shafts are winning tournaments, they aren't. For someone touting to be data driven its a pretty silly thing to say.

 

But the data doesn't back up your viewpoint. At least with the data we have. The shaft has been more dominant the past 5 years than it was the previous.

 

If consistency is so important then why do they change driver and fairway wood shafts constantly? Don't tell me the product is better now. Apparently familiarity isn't important off the tee.

 

Tell me why I shouldn't use who wins with what equipment as pertinent data please. I'm a believer its the Indian not the arrow. But if we take that viewpoint to where you want what on Earth are we doing on this forum?

[Valtiel]

I literally said "Its a consistency game with irons" so why are you asking me about fairway woods and drivers? I said those clubs belong to a realm of club technology that is changing; shaft and head. The product IS better now, why else would they be changing? Steel iron shaft technology hasn't changed in decades because it hasn't needed to, its a dirt simple design that does exactly what it needs to do. Graphite shaft technology however has changed significantly in the last 10 years, let alone the last 20, hence the changes. If it wasn't better then you'd still see guys on tour playing Grafalloy Prolites/Proforces right along side their Dynamic Golds. Really, these are two vastly different technologies being applied very differently here and they should not be compared.

 

With regards to why you shouldn't use who wins with what equipment as pertinent data, its because as you said, its the Indian not the Arrow and golf is an extremely personal sport when it comes to equipment and the only reason Dynamic Gold tour usage would be statistically significant would be if all shaft options were equally available from the beginning, THEN you'd have an interesting piece of data and THAT is what we are doing here. Look up the posting history of guys like Tom Wishon, Stuart G, and Howard Jones among several others; people that are helping to dispel marketing myths and helping educate people on how to make informed equipment related decisions both on their own and with professionals.

[Howard_Jones]

Most of you follow this players tighter than i do, but i cant accept that DGX is played "because they always played it" in lack of other options when they grew up. That might be right for old farts like me, but what about all those young talents who play DGX? They did have the option to play other shafts than DG, even PX is older than many of this players, so its not because "they always played DG" they keep playing it, but because they found it to perform better for them.

 

I always said that shafts should be chosen by Weight, Feel and Dispersion, and even 5 grams matters here, and could be the reason some of them dont play PX 6.5 at 125, its to light, and 7.0 up at 130 grams to harsh feeling, so to put DG up against other options, it would have to be done in the 130 grams class, and not against other weight classes, and what ever feels and works the best is the best for the actual player, and DG seems to fit more players than the others, so for them, DGX is a better shaft, for the others its not.

 

The most impressive thing about DGX is how long the Dynamic model has been on the marked, and that its still the most common shaft on the Tour despite other more "modern" options.

[TheInfidel]

Most of you follow this players tighter than i do, but i cant accept that DGX is played "because they always played it" in lack of other options when they grew up. That might be right for old farts like me, but what about all those young talents who play DGX? They did have the option to play other shafts than DG, even PX is older than many of this players, so its not because "they always played DG" they keep playing it, but because they found it to perform better for them.

 

I always said that shafts should be chosen by Weight, Feel and Dispersion, and even 5 grams matters here, and could be the reason some of them dont play PX 6.5 at 125, its to light, and 7.0 up at 130 grams to harsh feeling, so to put DG up against other options, it would have to be done in the 130 grams class, and not against other weight classes, and what ever feels and works the best is the best for the actual player, and DG seems to fit more players than the others, so for them, DGX is a better shaft, for the others its not.

 

The most impressive thing about DGX is how long the Dynamic model has been on the marked, and that its still the most common shaft on the Tour despite other more "modern" options.

 

I think this is spot on.

 

You've got to think that all of the tour players, even if it's in secret (not on a tour range), are testing everything to get that competitive edge.

 

When Rory was struggling with the Nike Driver and ball combo they closed off a range, backed up a truck of drivers and had him narrow it from 100+ driver/shaft combinations to 2/3. To a lesser extent this must happen alot.

 

If TTDG X100 is still the post popular it's because it delivers the best results for the most players. But at the tour pro level the margins are very small. It's like a top end Ferrari versus a top end Lambo, they're all going fast out there.

[Howard_Jones]

Does anyone knows who was the designer of The American Fork and Hoes Dynamic? i dont but wants to know.

It was launched to the marked back in 1942, the time of the Willys jeep and WW2, and its still ruling, so what else do we got on this Globe where the product is the same as the 1940s? nothing as far as i know, so its not only a impressive lifespan for a golf shaft, it seems to be the longest living product on the marked no matter what products we talk about, but there might be others products thats older, but not something that has been ruling in the marked for 76 years or more.

 

https://golfweek.com...ames-achenbach/

[Nixhex524]

According to the "data" given here, it looks like the X100 wins about half the time... A lot of guys play them so I would expect that. Why do a lot of guys play them? I do think it s familiarity thing, plus a combo of flex and weight that has been tried and proven to be reliable over many years. Why not also pull data from the LPGA and see what shafts are winning over there, or pull from regular season tournaments on the PGA and factor all those other wins in as well...

 

I'm not saying X100 is not a good shaft, I just don't think it gets the credit for "winning majors". These same kinds of threads pop up when TM driver guys start winning a few tournaments in a row and even a AP2 thread popped up when Spieth won 2 and ZJ won the third major using them. At the end of the day it's always going to come down to the guy swinging them, especially at that level.

[j.b.newton]

I mean this with no offence - but this is hardly stats,... you've merely just identified what shafts people used when winning a major. The count just happened to be higher for X100's

 

I think an important part of what is missing here is that X100/S300 havebeen around forever and majority of pros would have used them in their formative years, it wasn't even a consideration for most as to what shaft you should get when buying irons years ago.

 

PX, Nippon & KBS are new to the game for most and the next wave of people will use them from age 3 and you'll see the numbers start to shift.

 

Did you know Taylormade drivers have won the last 3 of 4 majors this year................................

 

And Nike Apparel won ALL 4.... Gotta be the shoes, Mike.

[Whit1969]

Personally I think that irons shafts for these guys are all about familiarity for them. I am sure there are a ton of pros that tinker a lot with golf equipment, but for the most part, those that are at the top of the leaderboards consistently and winning pretty much stick with what works. Case in point, Woods has 79 wins and 14 majors with X100s in his irons and he could be playing anything. I'm not saying X100s are the best, I'm just saying that the majority of tour pros stick with what works for them in their irons and are slow to change if they change at all. Also, the percentages are in favor of X100 as it is the most played iron shaft on tour.

[Cwebb]

I think it's bend profile and full weight is the reason. The bend profile is very stiff in the tip, stiff in the middle, and with relatively softer flex in the butt. This provides a shaft that plays very "stable" in it's release through impact, but doesn't feel too "boardy", because there is some "load" and flex in the butt section....so it has some "feel".

 

Also note that I have found in my own measurements that the X100 does not have a softer tip than the S300. It's actually stiffer in the tip, which is what we would assume....until some bend profile measurements were posted on this forum. I'm not sure who actually did the measurements, but it this case I found them to be a mistake.

 

Many tour players have no need or desire for lighter weight and want a shaft that provides a consistent "penetrating trajectory".

 

A steel shaft is just a tube with a bend profile and weight. Once you find one that fits, there's not much if anything that technology can do to improve it

[PureDivots]

They care about one thing typically and that’s feel. If DG X100’s is the feel they like then whatever fitter will work with them to get the correct numbers with that shaft.

[disk]

Correlation does not imply causation.

[sixtysevensixtyseven]

It's just an iron shaft. Pros tend to keep it simple in their irons rather than optimizing their numbers. They want something they like the feel of and that gives them consistency. If there were pros who wanted to get perfect numbers with their irons we would see more of them, well any of them, using graphite but they just don't. It's about familiarity and consistency.

 

DG is a staple out there, it's always been available, and it is a great product. It's just that simple.

[BigHook25]

Personally I think that irons shafts for these guys are all about familiarity for them. I am sure there are a ton of pros that tinker a lot with golf equipment, but for the most part, those that are at the top of the leaderboards consistently and winning pretty much stick with what works. Case in point, Woods has 79 wins and 14 majors with X100s in his irons and he could be playing anything. I'm not saying X100s are the best, I'm just saying that the majority of tour pros stick with what works for them in their irons and are slow to change if they change at all. Also, the percentages are in favor of X100 as it is the most played iron shaft on tour.

 

I agree with the above sentiment. I also don't don't get the impression all these professionals mess around with iron shafts a lot of the time. I struggle playing lighter shafts, so I stick to 125 to 130 gram weight irons shafts, so that limits what iron shafts I decide to play. I've played X100 and now play modus 125x, which I think is similar to DG, but a better feeling shaft than DG. I've also played project x. I did a fitting and was recommended steelfiber 125x because the fitter thought they had the best numbers for me. I ended up playing some of my worst golf with them (hit my irons worse on average than ever before). So I switched to something that I felt more comfortable with. I'm definitely no pro, but if someone like me is that sensitive to what shafts they play, the vast majority of pro golfers in my opinion would be even more sensitive to the feel and what they are familiar with.

 

From what I've seen Nippon (being a Japanese company also) is very popular on the Asian tour. There might be a more common or bigger push to Nippon over there as its still easier to find and hit clubs with DG over here.

[PostandGhost]

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

That was my psychology professor's favorite saying even though I never took psychology.

[grochol17]

To the OP... it reads pretty awkward when you call yourself a "stats guy" but then leave out how many people in the field play each kind of shaft, which is absolutely necessary to deciding whether or not your claim about DG X100 is true. If, for example, 75% of the field in each major was using X100s, then you'd expect most majors to be won with them in the bag and there'd be nothing statistically significant about those results. So, until you do number counts for everyone in the field and figure out what percentage of shaft sets were DG X100 vs the number of wins, you've only reported some interesting numbers, not a useful statistic about how important X100s are to winning majors.

[A.Princey]

Not to pick on anyone or seem off-color, but this is the same as saying most major winners are Caucasian, purely due to the overwhelming majority of golfers being exactly that. Aren't X100s the most widely used iron shaft on tour still, seems very likely then that shaft used by major champions would comprise that same statistical percentage?

 

If 95% of tour players wear hats on the course, there's a 95% chance the man holding the tournament trophy at day's end will be donning one too.

[DBake]

So you know X100 is still by far the predominant shaft on tour so you'll tell me I shouldn't be surprised by this - but why is it if your name isn't Spieth or McIlroy you really can't win a major without that shaft in your bag.

 

This year it was a clean sweep for the True Temper favorite: two for Koepka, as well as Reed and Molinari.

 

Last year it was 50/50 X100 taking two with JT and Koepka, Sergio played Modus 130 and Jordan with his PXs.

 

Previous year we saw four 1st time major winners - Willett, DJ, Stenson, Jimmy Walker. 3/4 used DG X100. Caveat - Walker used AMTs, but in fairness True Temper designed those to play as close to X100s as possible but in an MOI matched set. Stenson's and Sergio's lone major are the only two ever won with Nippon shafts for what thats worth.

 

Going back the previous two seasons you have Spieth and McIlroy dominating winning half the majors in '14 and '15. But of the other half... 3 out of 4 used X100 (Z. Johnson, Watson, Kaymer), with Jason day using a similar True Temper product in the X7.

 

2013 is the big outlier with 4 pretty random shafts (as far as winning majors goes) netting titles: Scott (KBS Tour), Rose (KBS C taper), Mickelson (KBS Tour V), and Dufner (think he played PXi).

 

2011 and 2012 was more of a mixed bag but X100 was by far the leader with 4/8 (Watson, Simpson, Schwartzel, Bradley). Again Rory makes up 2 of these (Project X), Els and Clarke win the British with KBS Tours and PX Monacos.

 

2010 saw three first time major winners in Oosthuizen, Kaymer, and McDowell. 2/3 used X100 with GMac using PXi. Phil I think had PXs in the bag back then.

 

The further back you go you should only find X100 being even more dominant than it is today as it and PX were really the only shaft before KBS came around about a decade ago.

 

Since then we've seen a great product in Nippon hit the stage. Graphite has made a splash on tour. PX has new products. With all the new tech and specialization if your name isn't McIlroy or Spieth (two of the great talents to play this game, who could probably win with broomsticks) the record since 2014 is 12-4 in the favor of the old standby. This is when specialization should be more and more apparent.

 

And if you're going to tell me oh they grew up playing it they're just used to it.. give me a break. These guys will change a driver shaft in a heartbeat - and in my opinion the driver shaft is much more particular. They've tested other iron shafts but continue to play X100 because its the best thing for their game. And its been proven out on the grandest stage.

 

I don't even have X100 in the bag right now. I grew up on it as most of us did. I've played a lot of iron shafts in recent years, currently in Modus 120. Its a nice shaft. But I still like X100 when I swing them - its no wonder why.

 

Are these guys using standard x100 or the tour issued?