My experience gaming clubs that were designed for my handicap range

[bodhi555]

> @pinestreetgolf said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > > The analogy is good. Another follow up question is, between a 1 inch diameter hammer and an 8 inch cast iron pan, what will the nail better if you're off center by 2 inches?

> > >

> > > Doesn't happen. EVER! I've been in the construction business for 30 years and NO ONE misses the nail EVER! Like NEVER! And in all these years with some talking about ideas to improve tools, NOT ONCE has anyone EVER mentioned the idea of a larger headed hammer. EVER! Never been an issue and never been a discussion. And this across all skill levels.

> > >

> > > And if anyone ever came to work with a frying pan, they would be escorted off the property immediately.

> > >

> > > This in an industry (like many) where time is money and precision matters.

> > >

> >

> > So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

>

> Good question. I played tennis in college. At no point did anyone suggest that we use a tennis racket with a head the size of a milk saucer to improve our focus. We used heart monitors to check if we were feeling pressure, we used sophisticated (for the time) technology to "map" our serves for velocity and spin, but nobody every suggested using inferior equipment to improve focus.

>

> We should have hired some of the guys in this thread as consultants: if I had practiced with a rock superglued to handle I could have won the national championship. I would have been focused AF.

 

Cool story bro. Not sure the relevance, given tennis is a completely different game. I'm sure of I had to hit a 7 iron with the ball bouncing at waist height then some shovels would be the way forwards, but I don't. So they aren't.

 

But if you must bring another sport into it pool would be a much better example. You can use the stubby cueues that the pub provide, or bring your own with a finer tip. Harder to use, but gives more control over the cueue ball for those who can.

[MelloYello]

> @bodhi555 said:

>

> Cool story bro. Not sure the relevance, given tennis is a completely different game. I'm sure of I had to hit a 7 iron with the ball bouncing at waist height then some shovels would be the way forwards, but I don't. So they aren't.

>

> But if you must bring another sport into it pool would be a much better example. You can use the stubby cueues that the pub provide, or bring your own with a finer tip. Harder to use, but gives more control over the cueue ball for those who can.

 

Have you cleared that with everyone here?

 

Are we sure pool is a sport?

[bodhi555]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @bodhi555 said:

> >

> > Cool story bro. Not sure the relevance, given tennis is a completely different game. I'm sure of I had to hit a 7 iron with the ball bouncing at waist height then some shovels would be the way forwards, but I don't. So they aren't.

> >

> > But if you must bring another sport into it pool would be a much better example. You can use the stubby cueues that the pub provide, or bring your own with a finer tip. Harder to use, but gives more control over the cueue ball for those who can.

>

> Have you cleared that with everyone here?

>

> Are we sure pool is a sport?

 

Given that I speak to a lot of people who aren't convinced golf is a sport I thought I'd stay away from that subject :lol:

[MelloYello]

> @bodhi555 said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @bodhi555 said:

> > >

> > > Cool story bro. Not sure the relevance, given tennis is a completely different game. I'm sure of I had to hit a 7 iron with the ball bouncing at waist height then some shovels would be the way forwards, but I don't. So they aren't.

> > >

> > > But if you must bring another sport into it pool would be a much better example. You can use the stubby cueues that the pub provide, or bring your own with a finer tip. Harder to use, but gives more control over the cueue ball for those who can.

> >

> > Have you cleared that with everyone here?

> >

> > Are we sure pool is a sport?

>

> Given that I speak to a lot of people who aren't convinced golf is a sport I thought I'd stay away from that subject :lol:

 

Golfers need someone to kick around, too!

[mahonie]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @bodhi555 said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @bodhi555 said:

> > > >

> > > > Cool story bro. Not sure the relevance, given tennis is a completely different game. I'm sure of I had to hit a 7 iron with the ball bouncing at waist height then some shovels would be the way forwards, but I don't. So they aren't.

> > > >

> > > > But if you must bring another sport into it pool would be a much better example. You can use the stubby cueues that the pub provide, or bring your own with a finer tip. Harder to use, but gives more control over the cueue ball for those who can.

> > >

> > > Have you cleared that with everyone here?

> > >

> > > Are we sure pool is a sport?

> >

> > Given that I speak to a lot of people who aren't convinced golf is a sport I thought I'd stay away from that subject :lol:

>

> Golfers need someone to kick around, too!

 

@bodhi555 will not what I’m on about when I say that Sir Bobby Charlton used to practice shooting with a tennis ball ;-)

[nsxguy]

> @bodhi555 said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > > > The analogy is good. Another follow up question is, between a 1 inch diameter hammer and an 8 inch cast iron pan, what will the nail better if you're off center by 2 inches?

> > > >

> > > > Doesn't happen. EVER! I've been in the construction business for 30 years and NO ONE misses the nail EVER! Like NEVER! And in all these years with some talking about ideas to improve tools, NOT ONCE has anyone EVER mentioned the idea of a larger headed hammer. EVER! Never been an issue and never been a discussion. And this across all skill levels.

> > > >

> > > > And if anyone ever came to work with a frying pan, they would be escorted off the property immediately.

> > > >

> > > > This in an industry (like many) where time is money and precision matters.

> > > >

> > >

> > > So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

> >

> > Good question. I played tennis in college. At no point did anyone suggest that we use a tennis racket with a head the size of a milk saucer to improve our focus. We used heart monitors to check if we were feeling pressure, we used sophisticated (for the time) technology to "map" our serves for velocity and spin, but nobody every suggested using inferior equipment to improve focus.

> >

> > We should have hired some of the guys in this thread as consultants: if I had practiced with a rock superglued to handle I could have won the national championship. I would have been focused AF.

>

> Cool story bro. Not sure the relevance, given tennis is a completely different game. I'm sure of I had to hit a 7 iron with the ball bouncing at waist height then some shovels would be the way forwards, but I don't. So they aren't.

>

> But if you must bring another sport into it pool would be a much better example. You can use the stubby cueues that the pub provide, or bring your own with a finer tip. Harder to use, but gives more control over the cueue ball for those who can.

 

Actually there's an excellent correlation of tennis rackets to golf irons.

 

Way back when (when there were only blades in golf) there were also only small, unforgiving "blade-like" (if you will) tennis rackets as well. Small and unforgiving.

 

Then someone realized that by making the rackets larger improved forgiveness and made the racket more powerful as well.

 

And larger still not only improved forgiveness even more but also made the racket even more powerful for seniors and other weaker players. For the pros however, as the oversize rackets were too powerful and hard to control, the mid-sized/"PCB" racket, turned out to be the best combination of power and accuracy.

 

Now, I hardly watch any tennis at all anymore but I'm betting that most, if not all pros and other highly skilled players, are playing mid-size/"PCB" type rackets. Possibly a few are playing oversize/"GI" type rackets. I doubt there are any "small/"blade" type racket on the Pro Tennis circuit.

[dubbelbogey]

Most everyone in tennis plays something that is at or near 100 sq inches or above. Nobody is even playing a sub 95 sq in "mid size" anymore, much less the small "standard" sizes from the wood frame era. This is largely not so much due to forgiveness, but instead pure power and spin generation potential. As one who played competitive tennis from the 1970s and still plays today, the game has drastically changed. Golf has changed, but not quite to the same extent, and certainly much less so in how irons are used. So tennis racquets are only a partially applicable analogy to golf, in my opinion. It's most applicable in the realm of drivers where it really is more of a power game.

 

This is a big stretch, but the closest tennis analogy I can come up with to iron play are the approach shots and volleys. And this aspect of tennis has all but disappeared (sadly). Tennis today is more like hitting driver on every shot. Or at least driver, 3w, strong hybrid.

[Nard_S]

 

> @dubbelbogey said:

> Most everyone in tennis plays something that is at or near 100 sq inches or above. Nobody is even playing a sub 95 sq in "mid size" anymore, much less the small "standard" sizes from the wood frame era. This is largely not so much due to forgiveness, but instead pure power and spin generation potential. As one who played competitive tennis from the 1970s and still plays today, the game has drastically changed. Golf has changed, but not quite to the same extent, and certainly much less so in how irons are used. So tennis racquets are only a partially applicable analogy to golf, in my opinion. It's most applicable in the realm of drivers where it really is more of a power game.

>

> This is a big stretch, but the closest tennis analogy I can come up with to iron play are the approach shots and volleys. And this aspect of tennis has all but disappeared (sadly). Tennis today is more like hitting driver on every shot. Or at least driver, 3w, strong hybrid.

 

Honest, Federer & Nadal are awesome but I really enjoyed Tennis in the woody days. I'll take McEnroe & Borg all day.

 

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @Nard_S said:

>

> > @dubbelbogey said:

> > Most everyone in tennis plays something that is at or near 100 sq inches or above. Nobody is even playing a sub 95 sq in "mid size" anymore, much less the small "standard" sizes from the wood frame era. This is largely not so much due to forgiveness, but instead pure power and spin generation potential. As one who played competitive tennis from the 1970s and still plays today, the game has drastically changed. Golf has changed, but not quite to the same extent, and certainly much less so in how irons are used. So tennis racquets are only a partially applicable analogy to golf, in my opinion. It's most applicable in the realm of drivers where it really is more of a power game.

> >

> > This is a big stretch, but the closest tennis analogy I can come up with to iron play are the approach shots and volleys. And this aspect of tennis has all but disappeared (sadly). Tennis today is more like hitting driver on every shot. Or at least driver, 3w, strong hybrid.

>

> Honest, Federer & Nadal are awesome but I really enjoyed Tennis in the woody days. I'll take McEnroe & Borg all day.

>

 

You cannot be serious!

 

[Nard_S]

> @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> >

> > > @dubbelbogey said:

> > > Most everyone in tennis plays something that is at or near 100 sq inches or above. Nobody is even playing a sub 95 sq in "mid size" anymore, much less the small "standard" sizes from the wood frame era. This is largely not so much due to forgiveness, but instead pure power and spin generation potential. As one who played competitive tennis from the 1970s and still plays today, the game has drastically changed. Golf has changed, but not quite to the same extent, and certainly much less so in how irons are used. So tennis racquets are only a partially applicable analogy to golf, in my opinion. It's most applicable in the realm of drivers where it really is more of a power game.

> > >

> > > This is a big stretch, but the closest tennis analogy I can come up with to iron play are the approach shots and volleys. And this aspect of tennis has all but disappeared (sadly). Tennis today is more like hitting driver on every shot. Or at least driver, 3w, strong hybrid.

> >

> > Honest, Federer & Nadal are awesome but I really enjoyed Tennis in the woody days. I'll take McEnroe & Borg all day.

> >

>

> You cannot be serious!

>

Not kidding. Loved Conners too. Still think clay court is the best. Those guys really grinded. There was point with the power game that it got pathetically boring. I stopped watching and playing it altogether. Think Nadal on clay in his prime was amazing stuff, Roger is all time great but something was lost with the 135 mph serve. Feel that way about the Pro golf game today but that's another thread I won't join in on. Your welcome :)

[BiggErn]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > @IamMarkMac said:

>

> >

> > Good question. I played tennis in college. At no point did anyone suggest that we use a tennis racket with a head the size of a milk saucer to improve our focus. We used heart monitors to check if we were feeling pressure, we used sophisticated (for the time) technology to "map" our serves for velocity and spin, but nobody every suggested using**_ inferior equipment to improve focus._**

> >

> > We should have hired some of the guys in this thread as consultants: if I had practiced with a rock superglued to handle I could have won the national championship. I would have been focused AF.

>

> Is blades considered Inferior equipment now? I didnt realize that.....

>

> Again here is the thing, YOUR interpretation of right or wrong is what dictates what others must do.

>

> Just because at no point did anyone suggest it... Would it be surprising to you that there is a coach or even a player out there that actually had a mini racket or USED a mini racket to help them focus better?

>

> This is the challenge with you and @MelloYello to which I dont want to be confrontational or even argumentative NOR disrespectful..... BUT I respect and understand all your points... period... Your comments above are just and make sense PERIOD.

>

> BUT people approach things with different ideas and methods. The methods that seems logical may NOT always be the one that works for ALL people. As edify is these dumb threads to begin with. I have heard ALL the lies as I have lied to myself. BUT the fact remains if that is the method that gets them to the next level. WHY is it wrong? A said it to @MelloYello we both reach single digits in our career. But it seems we reached it in totally different methods, AM i WRONG for the way I reached a 7 hdcp because it was not the most logical way????

>

> your point that all high handicapper should play Cavity backs WHILE sound and generally correct is NOT default. There are others out there that just wont respond well to Cavity backs and needs something else.

>

> Same with focus. WE can scream and pound the table and say why cant you FOCUS just as hard with the HUGE SGI head? But sorry to say..... some people out there just cant and want a small headed iron thats what works mentally for them.

>

>

 

Blades are inferior if you don’t hit the ball dead solid every time.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > >

> > > > @dubbelbogey said:

> > > > Most everyone in tennis plays something that is at or near 100 sq inches or above. Nobody is even playing a sub 95 sq in "mid size" anymore, much less the small "standard" sizes from the wood frame era. This is largely not so much due to forgiveness, but instead pure power and spin generation potential. As one who played competitive tennis from the 1970s and still plays today, the game has drastically changed. Golf has changed, but not quite to the same extent, and certainly much less so in how irons are used. So tennis racquets are only a partially applicable analogy to golf, in my opinion. It's most applicable in the realm of drivers where it really is more of a power game.

> > > >

> > > > This is a big stretch, but the closest tennis analogy I can come up with to iron play are the approach shots and volleys. And this aspect of tennis has all but disappeared (sadly). Tennis today is more like hitting driver on every shot. Or at least driver, 3w, strong hybrid.

> > >

> > > Honest, Federer & Nadal are awesome but I really enjoyed Tennis in the woody days. I'll take McEnroe & Borg all day.

> > >

> >

> > You cannot be serious!

> >

> Not kidding. Loved Conners too. Still think clay court is the best. Those guys really grinded. There was point with the power game that it got pathetically boring. I stopped watching and playing it altogether. Think Nadal on clay in his prime was amazing stuff, Roger is all time great but something was lost with the 135 mph serve. Feel that way about the Pro golf game today but that's another thread I won't join in on. Your welcome :)

 

Sorry, I was just quoting McEnroe's famous complaint. It was a big hit in Britain after Wimbledon in 198?. So much so, it even got parodied:

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=fd90m3xKfl8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd90m3xKfl8 "https://youtube.com/watch?v=fd90m3xKfl8")

 

[Nard_S]

> @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > >

> > > > > @dubbelbogey said:

> > > > > Most everyone in tennis plays something that is at or near 100 sq inches or above. Nobody is even playing a sub 95 sq in "mid size" anymore, much less the small "standard" sizes from the wood frame era. This is largely not so much due to forgiveness, but instead pure power and spin generation potential. As one who played competitive tennis from the 1970s and still plays today, the game has drastically changed. Golf has changed, but not quite to the same extent, and certainly much less so in how irons are used. So tennis racquets are only a partially applicable analogy to golf, in my opinion. It's most applicable in the realm of drivers where it really is more of a power game.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is a big stretch, but the closest tennis analogy I can come up with to iron play are the approach shots and volleys. And this aspect of tennis has all but disappeared (sadly). Tennis today is more like hitting driver on every shot. Or at least driver, 3w, strong hybrid.

> > > >

> > > > Honest, Federer & Nadal are awesome but I really enjoyed Tennis in the woody days. I'll take McEnroe & Borg all day.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You cannot be serious!

> > >

> > Not kidding. Loved Conners too. Still think clay court is the best. Those guys really grinded. There was point with the power game that it got pathetically boring. I stopped watching and playing it altogether. Think Nadal on clay in his prime was amazing stuff, Roger is all time great but something was lost with the 135 mph serve. Feel that way about the Pro golf game today but that's another thread I won't join in on. Your welcome :)

>

> Sorry, I was just quoting McEnroe's famous complaint. It was a big hit in Britain after Wimbledon in 198?. So much so, it even got parodied:

> [https://youtube.com/watch?v=fd90m3xKfl8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd90m3xKfl8 "https://youtube.com/watch?v=fd90m3xKfl8")

>

 

Has, sorry really tired, worked till 12:30am, should have caught that.

[Stuart_G]

> @Exactice808 said:

> Hey @Stuart_G

> Thanks! so as I evolve, more questions.

 

That's the way a scientific mind should work :-)

 

First thing I'm going to say is that I've not seen any data showing actual amounts of deformation in the face of any club or any studies on it's effects. I don't doubt the OEM R+D teams have done the work - but they haven't choosen to share it. That means a lot of what I'm about to say contains a lot of supposition and conjecture.

 

> The Center of the trampoline is the most efficient location as equal forces to the center will maximize energy transfer right? If we jump off center its less efficient and the transfer of energy is inconsistent as well as now the angle of flex would throw direction of as well.

 

I know it's frequently called the "Trampoline Effect" but for in depth science, the trampoline really isn't the best analogy when it comes to looking at the efficiency of the energy transfer. Largely because the elastic deformation in a trampoline is concentrated in the springs in the perimeter and not more uniform and distributed over the whole area like it would be for club face. And if it is using a more elastic mat - the polymers in such mats are not nearly as efficient as steel. Also there is considerably less elastic deformation (energy losses are a function of the amount of deformation) in the face - even for the thinner driver faces - than what you see in the coil springs of a trampoline. So the club face (especially for irons) is a significantly more efficient system in general so variations due to impact location will have much less significant effects on the total loss. Think of it this way - instead of a thinking of the differences with a person jumping on the trampoline, instead bounce a much smaller object - maybe a golf ball - in different locations on the trampoline mat. You wont see nearly as much variation in the rebound height (if any).

 

That's also why, when we are concerned about ball speed for irons - we really can't ignore the ball. The amount of energy lost due to elastic deformation is almost entirely happening in the ball. As I mentioned before, even in the thin driver/wood faces (where the loses might be higher) the designers are pushing the elastic deformation of the face to the max in order to max out the Total COR of the impact in various location on the face. I would love to see some actual numbers but I think it's a safe bet to say the inefficiency coming just from the face deformation losses in an iron will be pretty trivial.

 

Also, and more importantly, the trampoline is fixed to the ground - the head is (basically) a fee floating. For an off center hit, the energy lost that goes to rotating the face is significantly more and will over shadow any losses coming from the internal deformation of the steel in the face. And possibly even over shadow any changes to the deformation of the ball - although that's certainly a much more valid question to pursue - particularly in light of some of the results that's been seen with the toe/heel face slots.

 

That same face rotation is also going to have a much more significant effect on the accuracy (left/right starting line) than any change in shape of the face due to deformation. If there is any effect on the start line due to curvature of the face, if anything I would think it would act to help counter the offline component coming from the face rotation (so help with accuracy instead of hurt it).

 

So that keeps bringing us right back to MOI as one of the more dominant factors when it comes to off center performance of an iron both for ball speed and direction.

 

 

> it is the Increased MOI in which it resist twisting (or elasticity/deformation) that does not lose the transfer of energy.

 

Correct. That MOI is the primary "means" to the "end" that is more forgiving for ball speed and accuracy and consistency.

 

 

> Since MOI now to me is the tangent. Where does MOI become relevant, I mean 12 MOI vs 15 MOI rating of a MB vs Players GI does the 3 MOI increase make a difference on a "Good Strike" I mean its twisting, so if the clubs are struck similarly then the should not twist as much?

>

 

"It depends" - It will always make some difference - whether the amount is noticable or not - or acceptable or not is a decision each player has to make for themselves. There are too many variables to get any real clear quantitative answer to that. Swing speed, impact location and consistency, dynamic loft, face-to-path. Even the fact that everyone has different perspective on what amount of inconsistency in the results is acceptable or not.

 

 

 

> The only benefits then go back to the very basic points.

>

> MB are not more precise then CBs?

 

I'd agree from the standpoint of JUST looking at what happens at impact. Pre-impact (swing) dynamics and control of the face is one possible source of other differences that can effect the control the player has on the results - which many would see as effecting the accuracy of the club.

 

> MB due to mass have better ability to manipulate the ball only. And or affect spin axis better than CB's

 

That really hasn't been part of any of the discussions I'm involved in. But for some players with certain impact and swing characteristics, I can see a higher c.g. lending itself to that concept. I wouldn't treat it like any kind of universal truth or valid generalization that applies to everyone.

 

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

Agree with that /^^. For me it’s just about what works for the most lies and circumstances. I wished it was something that had a 2 inch sweet spot. > @bodhi555 said:

> > @dciccoritti said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > > > The analogy is good. Another follow up question is, between a 1 inch diameter hammer and an 8 inch cast iron pan, what will the nail better if you're off center by 2 inches?

> > > >

> > > > Doesn't happen. EVER! I've been in the construction business for 30 years and NO ONE misses the nail EVER! Like NEVER! And in all these years with some talking about ideas to improve tools, NOT ONCE has anyone EVER mentioned the idea of a larger headed hammer. EVER! Never been an issue and never been a discussion. And this across all skill levels.

> > > >

> > > > And if anyone ever came to work with a frying pan, they would be escorted off the property immediately.

> > > >

> > > > This in an industry (like many) where time is money and precision matters.

> > > >

> > >

> > > So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

> >

> > My guess is because they go after it. Drivers are not really intended to hit a specific distance or hit a pin location. With a driver if you can get an extra 10 to 20 yards it's better most of the time. However with an iron it's never better to get an extra 10 to 20 yards when firing at the flag. With an iron you need to hit the yardage and left to right dispersion needs to be very accurate. The more you go after something the better the chance your strike will be less consistent. Which by the way I believe is one of (not the only) reason blades doesn't work so well for some golfers.

> >

>

> I really do think you are on to something here - back in the day, when I was playing CB's and a wiry 22 year old, every swing I took was flat out. I'd grown up watching the WIld Thing, and even though this new Tiger fella was a better golfer, Daly could still hit it further so that's what I tried to do. After the switch to blades, I quickly figured out this was only going to end in a world of pain, so I quickly learned the value of the 90% strike - I'd only lose 5 - 10 yards or so, but my chances of making good contact doubled so I ended up hitting better shots.

>

> Now obviously I could have worked to get the same effect with any set of irons, but the shiny Nikes I treated myself to didn't really give me a choice. 15 years later my irons are one of the strongest parts of my game, so I don't feel I've made a poor decision in the slightest to play a less forgiving iron.

>

> IMO, YMMV, etc etc.

 

100%. Surgeon vs demolition expert. It’s hard to do surgery with a blunt object.

[Stuart_G]

> @bladehunter said:

> 100%. Surgeon vs demolition expert. It’s hard to do surgery with a blunt object.

 

So what you're saying is we should practice by trying to blade the ball with the leading edge of the club?

 

Sorry - couldn't resist :-)

 

 

[nostatic]

> @Stuart_G said:

> That really hasn't been part of any of the discussions I'm involved in. But for some players with certain impact and swing characteristics, I can see a higher c.g. lending itself to that concept. I wouldn't treat it like any kind of universal truth or valid generalization that applies to everyone.

 

I think the entire thread can/should be distilled down to this point. No universal truths, but there certainly are some trends that appear when you look at enough data. That combined with the psychological impact of the golfer on the process makes all of this inexact. But doesn't mean that the general trends are invalidated. You can have a lot of exceptions and still have a "rule" or trend.

[dpb5031]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > @IamMarkMac said:

>

> >

> > Good question. I played tennis in college. At no point did anyone suggest that we use a tennis racket with a head the size of a milk saucer to improve our focus. We used heart monitors to check if we were feeling pressure, we used sophisticated (for the time) technology to "map" our serves for velocity and spin, but nobody every suggested using**_ inferior equipment to improve focus._**

> >

> > We should have hired some of the guys in this thread as consultants: if I had practiced with a rock superglued to handle I could have won the national championship. I would have been focused AF.

>

> Is blades considered Inferior equipment now? I didnt realize that.....

>

> Again here is the thing, YOUR interpretation of right or wrong is what dictates what others must do.

>

> Just because at no point did anyone suggest it... Would it be surprising to you that there is a coach or even a player out there that actually had a mini racket or USED a mini racket to help them focus better?

>

> This is the challenge with you and @MelloYello to which I dont want to be confrontational or even argumentative NOR disrespectful..... BUT I respect and understand all your points... period... Your comments above are just and make sense PERIOD.

>

> BUT people approach things with different ideas and methods. The methods that seems logical may NOT always be the one that works for ALL people. As edify is these dumb threads to begin with. I have heard ALL the lies as I have lied to myself. BUT the fact remains if that is the method that gets them to the next level. WHY is it wrong? A said it to @MelloYello we both reach single digits in our career. But it seems we reached it in totally different methods, AM i WRONG for the way I reached a 7 hdcp because it was not the most logical way????

>

> your

> @nostatic said:

> > @Stuart_G said:

> > That really hasn't been part of any of the discussions I'm involved in. But for some players with certain impact and swing characteristics, I can see a higher c.g. lending itself to that concept. I wouldn't treat it like any kind of universal truth or valid generalization that applies to everyone.

>

> I think the entire thread can/should be distilled down to this point. No universal truths, but there certainly are some trends that appear when you look at enough data. That combined with the psychological impact of the golfer on the process makes all of this inexact. But doesn't mean that the general trends are invalidated. You can have a lot of exceptions and still have a "rule" or trend.

 

Good point. Given the nature of this game and the seemingly just subtle difference in equipment, the psychological impact could truly be the tipping point.

[revanant]

So, I'd like to ask a dumb question regarding lie angle.

 

I am definitely seeing a difference in the quality of my shots between the 716 CB and the MP-4, in the MP-4's favor. I tend to be able to take a practice swing, set up behind the ball, and make good contact from a cold start--which is closest to what I need to do reliably while playing golf. With the 716 CBs, the same process has me hitting more clunkers and the occasional top. It's similar to my contact issues with the AP-1.

 

Both irons have similar sole thickness. However, the MP-4s have a flatter lie angle, according to the factory specs. I know my MP-4s are accurate to factory specs on lie angle--but I haven't been able to check the 716s yet.

 

Basic question: can a few degrees of lie angle have that much of an effect on quality of contact?

 

If it's not lie angle differences, then my hypothesis would be that my MP-4s work as an excellent mental trigger to slow down and be more deliberate about my swing, which leads to a better strike. But if I can improve the performance of the 716 CBs with a lie angle tweak, I'd do that before returning them.

[Nard_S]

> @revanant said:

> So, I'd like to ask a dumb question regarding lie angle.

>

> I am definitely seeing a difference in the quality of my shots between the 716 CB and the MP-4, in the MP-4's favor. I tend to be able to take a practice swing, set up behind the ball, and make good contact from a cold start--which is closest to what I need to do reliably while playing golf. With the 716 CBs, the same process has me hitting more clunkers and the occasional top. It's similar to my contact issues with the AP-1.

>

> Both irons have similar sole thickness. However, the MP-4s have a flatter lie angle, according to the factory specs. I know my MP-4s are accurate to factory specs on lie angle--but I haven't been able to check the 716s yet.

>

> Basic question: can a few degrees of lie angle have that much of an effect on quality of contact?

>

> If it's not lie angle differences, then my hypothesis would be that my MP-4s work as an excellent mental trigger to slow down and be more deliberate about my swing, which leads to a better strike. But if I can improve the performance of the 716 CBs with a lie angle tweak, I'd do that before returning them.

 

2* can make a big difference, so it is possible. Take the 716, setup "toe up " a bit, see if that improves contact, do not be too concerned about line and such. You might get a better idea.

 

[IamMarkMac]

> @revanant said:

> So, I'd like to ask a dumb question regarding lie angle.

>

> I am definitely seeing a difference in the quality of my shots between the 716 CB and the MP-4, in the MP-4's favor. I tend to be able to take a practice swing, set up behind the ball, and make good contact from a cold start--which is closest to what I need to do reliably while playing golf. With the 716 CBs, the same process has me hitting more clunkers and the occasional top. It's similar to my contact issues with the AP-1.

>

> Both irons have similar sole thickness. However, the MP-4s have a flatter lie angle, according to the factory specs. I know my MP-4s are accurate to factory specs on lie angle--but I haven't been able to check the 716s yet.

>

> Basic question: can a few degrees of lie angle have that much of an effect on quality of contact?

>

> If it's not lie angle differences, then my hypothesis would be that my MP-4s work as an excellent mental trigger to slow down and be more deliberate about my swing, which leads to a better strike. But if I can improve the performance of the 716 CBs with a lie angle tweak, I'd do that before returning them.

 

In my case, I always notice lie angle. Going off of 7i, I can do 61.5 or 62. Outside of that it just looks wrong for me. I can adjust (and often do for rentals) but I can't say I don't notice and, if I don't adjust, the swings just aren't as good.

[mahonie]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @bodhi555 said:

> > > @pinestreetgolf said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @dciccoritti said:

> > > > > > @IamMarkMac said:

> > > > > > The analogy is good. Another follow up question is, between a 1 inch diameter hammer and an 8 inch cast iron pan, what will the nail better if you're off center by 2 inches?

> > > > >

> > > > > Doesn't happen. EVER! I've been in the construction business for 30 years and NO ONE misses the nail EVER! Like NEVER! And in all these years with some talking about ideas to improve tools, NOT ONCE has anyone EVER mentioned the idea of a larger headed hammer. EVER! Never been an issue and never been a discussion. And this across all skill levels.

> > > > >

> > > > > And if anyone ever came to work with a frying pan, they would be escorted off the property immediately.

> > > > >

> > > > > This in an industry (like many) where time is money and precision matters.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > So why do most all elite professional golfers use 460 cc or 450 cc driver heads? Say, as compared to something the size of a mini driver?

> > >

> > > Good question. I played tennis in college. At no point did anyone suggest that we use a tennis racket with a head the size of a milk saucer to improve our focus. We used heart monitors to check if we were feeling pressure, we used sophisticated (for the time) technology to "map" our serves for velocity and spin, but nobody every suggested using inferior equipment to improve focus.

> > >

> > > We should have hired some of the guys in this thread as consultants: if I had practiced with a rock superglued to handle I could have won the national championship. I would have been focused AF.

> >

> > Cool story bro. Not sure the relevance, given tennis is a completely different game. I'm sure of I had to hit a 7 iron with the ball bouncing at waist height then some shovels would be the way forwards, but I don't. So they aren't.

> >

> > But if you must bring another sport into it pool would be a much better example. You can use the stubby cueues that the pub provide, or bring your own with a finer tip. Harder to use, but gives more control over the cueue ball for those who can.

>

> Actually there's an excellent correlation of tennis rackets to golf irons.

>

> Way back when (when there were only blades in golf) there were also only small, unforgiving "blade-like" (if you will) tennis rackets as well. Small and unforgiving.

>

> Then someone realized that by making the rackets larger improved forgiveness and made the racket more powerful as well.

>

> And larger still not only improved forgiveness even more but also made the racket even more powerful for seniors and other weaker players. For the pros however, as the oversize rackets were too powerful and hard to control, the mid-sized/"PCB" racket, turned out to be the best combination of power and accuracy.

>

> Now, I hardly watch any tennis at all anymore but I'm betting that most, if not all pros and other highly skilled players, are playing mid-size/"PCB" type rackets. Possibly a few are playing oversize/"GI" type rackets. I doubt there are any "small/"blade" type racket on the Pro Tennis circuit.

 

When tennis turned into a power game it turned into a very boring spectacle to watch...pro golf is unfortunately going the same way.

 

Not wishing to open the ball debate, but it’s interesting that pro tennis has had to rein the ball in due to the power of modern racquets.

 

[Stuart_G]

> @revanant said:

> I am definitely seeing a difference in the quality of my shots between the 716 CB and the MP-4, in the MP-4's favor.

 

Is the head the only difference between the two sets? e.g. Same shaft in both sets? Same lengths? Same swing weight? Same grip?

 

> @revanant said:

> Basic question: can a few degrees of lie angle have that much of an effect on quality of contact?

>

> If it's not lie angle differences, then my hypothesis would be that my MP-4s work as an excellent mental trigger to slow down and be more deliberate about my swing, which leads to a better strike. But if I can improve the performance of the 716 CBs with a lie angle tweak, I'd do that before returning them.

 

For some it can matter - for others it will not. Fortunately, lie angles are very easy to check yourself. Use the method described in this thread. All you need is a dry erase marker (the face labels discussed are optional):

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1355102/open-source-face-labels-for-lie-angle-diy-lie-angle-testing/p1

 

 

[revanant]

Thanks for the lie label—I’ll see if I have a dry erase marker around somewhere.

 

Long story short, the two iron sets are very different. It’s not a control experiment. It’s literally just, “ I have two iron sets—which one do I hit better, with no to minimal additional monetary investment.”

 

According to the manufacturer websites, if both sets are stock, there’s 1.5 degree of difference in lie angle (more upright) with the 716 cb, and a quarter inch of additional length. Grips are different, though I prefer the 716 can with its standard golf pride velvet. Shafts are different as well—Aerotech i95 stiff in the 716 CB, vs Project X 6.0 in the MP-4. I couldn’t tell you what the swing weight is on each.

 

I do get to test on a simulator. I put the results up earlier in the thread. Long story short, ball flight and ball speed is pretty similar in my hands. There’s a slight uptick in swing speed of about 1 mph with the steel fibers—I would guess it’s due to the weight saving.

 

The only real difference I’ve noticed is that I might save the rare toe hit with the 716 cb, but those shots are pretty uncommon—maybe one or two in an hour of practice. The other item is the less consistent contact, where the 716 cb seems to fight my shallow swing a little—which was why I was thinking it might be a lie angle issue.

[pinestreetgolf]

> When tennis turned into a power game it turned into a very boring spectacle to watch...pro golf is unfortunately going the same way.

>

> Not wishing to open the ball debate, but it’s interesting that pro tennis has had to rein the ball in due to the power of modern racquets.

>

 

This is 100% true. Just like in golf drivers, technology in rackets made the serve (like the drive) overwhelmingly important and the sport is horrid to watch even for someone like me who took it very seriously for a long period of my life. The optimal way to play tennis (for most players) is not at all finesse, just like the best way to get around the golf course (for most) is not at all finesse.

[IamMarkMac]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @revanant said:

> > I am definitely seeing a difference in the quality of my shots between the 716 CB and the MP-4, in the MP-4's favor.

>

> Is the head the only difference between the two sets? e.g. Same shaft in both sets? Same lengths? Same swing weight? Same grip?

>

> > @revanant said:

> > Basic question: can a few degrees of lie angle have that much of an effect on quality of contact?

> >

> > If it's not lie angle differences, then my hypothesis would be that my MP-4s work as an excellent mental trigger to slow down and be more deliberate about my swing, which leads to a better strike. But if I can improve the performance of the 716 CBs with a lie angle tweak, I'd do that before returning them.

>

> For some it can matter - for others it will not. Fortunately, lie angles are very easy to check yourself. Use the method described in this thread. All you need is a dry erase marker (the face labels discussed are optional):

> https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1355102/open-source-face-labels-for-lie-angle-diy-lie-angle-testing/p1

>

>

 

Does lie angle not matter for some people because they will consciously or subconsciously adjust to a club's lie? Or is it because it literally doesn't matter what lie angle the club is at during impact?

[Tree Levino]

> @revanant said:

> Thanks for the lie label—I’ll see if I have a dry erase marker around somewhere.

>

> Long story short, the two iron sets are very different. It’s not a control experiment. It’s literally just, “ I have two iron sets—which one do I hit better, with no to minimal additional monetary investment.”

>

> According to the manufacturer websites, if both sets are stock, there’s 1.5 degree of difference in lie angle (more upright) with the 716 cb, and a quarter inch of additional length. Grips are different, though I prefer the 716 can with its standard golf pride velvet. Shafts are different as well—Aerotech i95 stiff in the 716 CB, vs Project X 6.0 in the MP-4. I couldn’t tell you what the swing weight is on each.

>

> I do get to test on a simulator. I put the results up earlier in the thread. Long story short, ball flight and ball speed is pretty similar in my hands. There’s a slight uptick in swing speed of about 1 mph with the steel fibers—I would guess it’s due to the weight saving.

>

> The only real difference I’ve noticed is that I might save the rare toe hit with the 716 cb, but those shots are pretty uncommon—maybe one or two in an hour of practice. The other item is the less consistent contact, where the 716 cb seems to fight my shallow swing a little—which was why I was thinking it might be a lie angle issue.

 

Can you post a swing video? I'd be interested in seeing. FWIW my 716 CB are 2 flat and the contact is much better than the AP2s I've had. Titleist stock lie angle is way too upright IMO.

[nostatic]

lie angle affects me as well. Stock Mizuno lie angles are just about right (may need to go 1* flatter), but some irons would need to be bent a fair amount for me to swing them well, e.g. Cobra F9. I think the more GI they get, the more they tend upright out of the box, similar to many hybrids.

[dpb5031]

Lie angle most definitely matters. Too flat and the heel will catch the ground and the face will close. To upright and the toe will catch and hold the face open.

 

Some players will intuitively sense it and adjust, but that's far from ideal. It's best to be fitted for lie angle unless your swing is really flawed and you are intent on fixing it. Many mid and high csppers will measure dynamically for more upright lie angles, but that's often because they goat hump (early extend) and are too steep.

[Tree Levino]

> @dpb5031 said:

> Lie angle most definitely matters. Too flat and the heel will catch the ground and the face will close. To upright and the toe will catch and hold the face open.

>

> Some players will intuitively sense it and adjust, but that's far from ideal. It's best to be fitted for lie angle unless your swing is really flawed and you are intent on fixing it. Many mid and high csppers will measure dynamically for more upright lie angles, but that's often because they goat hump (early extend) and are too steep.

 

How do you find the longer irons in your i200 set? I haven't played them for quite a while and just got a trial set. I think they feel decent despite not being forged. The longer paddle length on the 4 and 5 looks a bit funny and the offset is a bit strange. I seem to him them well I just wish the longer irons were a touch more compact and more onset. Have you tried the iBlade?