Is Swing-weight the most important of all club specs?

[Howard_Jones]

> @JD3 said:

> Good explanation, thanks.

>

> Why is it graphite shafted irons (same head) are quoted lower SW even though shaft is lighter and often longer too?

 

Our club specs from OEM is based on the SW system, its a simple scale with a fulcrum at 14 inch. A shafts balance point (classic shafts like DG) has a balance point very close to the middle of the shaft, so added or reduced shaft weight would for the most, end up on the "head side" of the fulcrum, and by that either add or reduce SW value.

 

In the olden days there was a rule of thumb, still valid, but only for shafts with a neutral BP. 9 grams shaft weight = 1 SWP, so if we look at Steel vs Graphite and Graphite is lighter, this is the reason, the lower shaft weights influence on SW values (but dont believe them, shafts BP today is all over the place (not tolerances but options), so we can no longer use the rule of thumb with 9 grams = 1 SWP, but thats a good one for shafts with neutral BP, and explains how our instrument works..

 

..but when we look at how the clubs actual weight distribution became, when we ADD shaft weight, head weight as a % of total goes DOWN, and when we reduce shaft weight, head weight as % of total goes UP,

 

So dont get the Idea that since the Steel option at let say 110 grams was D2 and the Graphite option of 100 was D1,,,we should add head weight to the lightest club,(only trial and error should decide that).

 

its the clubs ACTUAL distribution of mass what makes it feel like it does, the SW scale is not a good instrument to quantify that when we change either total weight or play lengths. If Shaft weight is different, the same SW return value gives different feel of balance, since actual weight distribution is not the same.

 

By the rule of thumbs, the 120 gram option returns D2, 115 would be D1.5, the 110 option D1 and the 105 would be D0.5 and down at 100 grams D0 (theory)

 

But look at what happen to Head weight as % of the Total weight when we go lower on shaft weight...Thats why OEMs just let the values drop,that makes clubs with almost the same Balance, but different total weight, while if all was D2, bot total weight and balance would be very different as feel.

 

Thats why this SW values can fool us bad, go for the right feel of head weight, NOT a certain value, if we try to make ALL of this 5 options "D2", Head weight as a % becomes even more different depending on shaft weight, but a gain DONT navigate by this numbers, but what feels and works the best, then quantify it.

 

 

 

Example using this numbers and RESET SW value so all becomes D2...(2 grams = 1 SWP here). Look at Head weight as % of Total now,, this clubs DONT feel the same no matter what the SW scale say

 

 

 

The SW values "thats right", changes depending on Total weight....

[otw]

Here is a story for the shaft knowledgeable that I would never have believed except I was the subject. Ordered 2 wedges 2019 Callaway PM model 54 and 60 both with S 400 shaft + 1/4. Hitting full shots the 54 was constantly hurting lead elbow. Changed the shaft to Nippon Modus 125 wedge shaft . This is the wedge shaft from the set. It is 10 grams lighter with grip.

 

The result were not what I expected. i was hitting small hooks off the toe which was not happening with the s 400. After 3 days at the range of the same results put in an S 300 . The elbow pain went away and the strikes were center faced again with no hook.

[Z1ggy16]

It's just a value; you can trick yourself and/or the scale into getting that number where you want, but at the end of the day for me, _static weight_ is king. Furthermore, when you add a lot of head weight to any club and then a lot of butt end weight to offset that (to keep SW consistent) how does that now affect your shaft? You better stiffen that shaft up quite a bit because it's almost certainly going to flex more now.

 

For example, I can almost never play a Counter Balanced set up because I usually need to add 10 or even 15 grams shaft weight to ensure the shaft is stiff enough to handle the heavier head weight (usually the reason behind going CB'ed in the first place). I had a Cobra LTD that I measured to weigh 208g with out adapter. Thing was a beast of a head. I laughed when I put a 62g 60X shaft in it to try it out... it felt like Thor's hammer and the shaft felt like an R flex. The only way I could even remotely get the club to feel right was to cut it down to 44'', and use a 75X shaft tipped .5'', which was then too much static weight because I almost always tend to prefer middle weight X flex shafts in my woods. The swing weight of that last set up matched what I usually like but the club performed and felt horrible. It was ~D3 @ 44'' with a 75X shaft tipped .5''. My current set up is 45'' @ D2 with a 61g X flex shaft, untipped and head weight of about 198g. The overall static weight of the LTD build was about 20g more than I typically might play, even though SW was very similar.

 

This same principal holds up for putters, too. I have a Tyne that I play at 37'' with like 8g of lead tape on it, and I choke down to make it a little CB'ed in addition to the grip being a touch heavier. I really feel like on long putts, I can feel that middle of my putter shaft flexing at impact and my putting has really gotten worse using this set up. It may swing weight in a good range for me but the performance is not good and the static weight is probably way too high for me. I suspect even if I got a DeShampoo ultra stiff Matrix putter shaft in that kind of set up, I still would not like it. I know that regardless of SW numbers, I need to be roughly at a 355g head weight at 34'' with a ~80g grip. Anything much heavier or lighter than that would probably not work well, even if I matched components to get SW correct.

[JD3]

When KBS were first introduced I remember Kim said something like don't pay attention to SW as his shafts were producing different values than TT's. Something like adding weight here and there was compromising the inherent qualities of the shaft.

[JD3]

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > Good explanation, thanks.

> >

> > Why is it graphite shafted irons (same head) are quoted lower SW even though shaft is lighter and often longer too?

>

> Our club specs from OEM is based on the SW system, its a simple scale with a fulcrum at 14 inch. A shafts balance point (classic shafts like DG) has a balance point very close to the middle of the shaft, so added or reduced shaft weight would for the most, end up on the "head side" of the fulcrum, and by that either add or reduce SW value.

>

> In the olden days there was a rule of thumb, still valid, but only for shafts with a neutral BP. 9 grams shaft weight = 1 SWP, so if we look at Steel vs Graphite and Graphite is lighter, this is the reason, the lower shaft weights influence on SW values (but dont believe them, shafts BP today is all over the place (not tolerances but options), so we can no longer use the rule of thumb with 9 grams = 1 SWP, but thats a good one for shafts with neutral BP, and explains how our instrument works..

>

> ..but when we look at how the clubs actual weight distribution became, when we ADD shaft weight, head weight as a % of total goes DOWN, and when we reduce shaft weight, head weight as % of total goes UP,

>

> So dont get the Idea that since the Steel option at let say 110 grams was D2 and the Graphite option of 100 was D1,,,we should add head weight to the lightest club,(only trial and error should decide that).

>

> its the clubs ACTUAL distribution of mass what makes it feel like it does, the SW scale is not a good instrument to quantify that when we change either total weight or play lengths. If Shaft weight is different, the same SW return value gives different feel of balance, since actual weight distribution is not the same.

>

> By the rule of thumbs, the 120 gram option returns D2, 115 would be D1.5, the 110 option D1 and the 105 would be D0.5 and down at 100 grams D0 (theory)

>

> But look at what happen to Head weight as % of the Total weight when we go lower on shaft weight...Thats why OEMs just let the values drop,that makes clubs with almost the same Balance, but different total weight, while if all was D2, bot total weight and balance would be very different as feel.

>

> Thats why this SW values can fool us bad, go for the right feel of head weight, NOT a certain value, if we try to make ALL of this 5 options "D2", Head weight as a % becomes even more different depending on shaft weight, but a gain DONT navigate by this numbers, but what feels and works the best, then quantify it.

>

>

>

>

> Example using this numbers and RESET SW value so all becomes D2...(2 grams = 1 SWP here). Look at Head weight as % of Total now,, this clubs DONT feel the same no matter what the SW scale say

>

>

>

>

> The SW values "thats right", changes depending on Total weight....

 

Wow so interesting.

I recall years ago it seemed Ping was the leading proponent of lighter shafts and lower swingweights. Iirc Eye2's were as low as C9. Is that why? They made a conscious choice to keep headweights the same, and didn't concern themselves with SW when adding lighter shafts as stock.

[North Butte]

> @JD3 said:

> I recall years ago it seemed Ping was the leading proponent of lighter shafts and lower swingweights. Iirc Eye2's were as low as C9. Is that why? They made a conscious choice to keep headweights the same, and didn't concern themselves with SW when adding lighter shafts as stock.

 

No, Ping could have designed the headweights to be anything they liked. All their stock shafts were "lightweight" (at the time).

 

Karsten had a specific set of theories about how golfers would best be able to create clubhead speed and square up the clubface. All his choices (C9 swingweight, 100-ish gram shaft, stiff flexes) were made in services of his theories. He was an engineer through and through. You may not *agree* with his theories (I personally do not) but he was very thorough in making every element of the club suit his intended purpose.

 

And he couldn't have been totally off-base because the clubs were phenomenally successful at every level of golf for decades.

[JD3]

I had a lot of respect for ping back in the day when Karsten ran the show (not so much now). Ping anser was the inspiration for one of the most successful models of all time, and not just those made by ping, but also the Cameron knockoffs that tiger used.

 

What bugs me today is OEMs going to such great lengths to get internal head weighting just right with multi-material construction, and then fitters add a weight to the hosel to reach a certain swing weight (by either of their choosing or the customers). This imo would upset the balance the clubhead designer was after ...i.e. putting more weight into hosel to increase SW, is effectively adding more weight to the heel, also adds to the clubs closure rate.

[Stuart_G]

> @JD3 said:

> What bugs me today is OEMs going to such great lengths to get internal head weighting just right with multi-material construction, and then fitters add a weight to the hosel to reach a certain swing weight (by either of their choosing or the customers). This imo would upset the balance the clubhead designer was after ...i.e. putting more weight into hosel to increase SW, is effectively adding more weight to the heel, also adds to the clubs closure rate.

 

The "balance" of a head really isn't that sensitive. The head designers are not ignorant of SW practices. A few have come up with alternative approaches (Ping's weight ports and TM even had an adjustable weight in the back of the '11 TP iron head line). But there is no actual evidence that supports any better performance for that type of swing weight control = or any evidence that supports adding weight to the hosel reduces performance in any way.

 

And while the change in feel by adding weight can do any number of things based on how you react to the change in feel - adding weight to the heel (the axis of rotation for the face closure) has no actual effect on the MOI about that axis and the physics of how the face will close.

 

[platgof]

I do not like lighter clubs at all. I had a really bad experience yesterday to illustrate a point. I was playing CF 16 irons and decided to play the P790's I had stashed away. I forgot I have adjusted the CF16's to D4 and played horrible with the P790 irons, as I was all over the toe or topping them, characteristics of a light club for me. It was a brutal day to say the least, very frustrating. Steel shafted irons are usually D-2, and graphite @ D0. To me this is an injustice as I like the heavier irons. Does it happen because manufacturers do not want to make two different sets of heads, you bet. Then they add some length to get it closer. I have to have the heavier heads so I don't toe or blade it. I checked my Ping G irons and they are also too light, the usual D-0 swing weight.

[platgof]

Just changed the swing weight of my G irons to see what happens. The only irons I hit well right now are the CF16 @ D-4. I also varied the swing weight as shown H. Jones, lighter long and heavier short. I modified my swing weight scale to digital, so it now reads in grams, so it is hard to relate my readings. I am going from 142 6 iron to 152 PW. I did some chipping just to see where the sweet spot is now, and it looks very positive. Now I must play at least 9 holes to confirm this soon.

[Noodler]

> @platgof said:

> I do not like lighter clubs at all. I had a really bad experience yesterday to illustrate a point. I was playing CF 16 irons and decided to play the P790's I had stashed away. I forgot I have adjusted the CF16's to D4 and played horrible with the P790 irons, as I was all over the toe or topping them, characteristics of a light club for me. It was a brutal day to say the least, very frustrating. Steel shafted irons are usually D-2, and graphite @ D0. To me this is an injustice as I like the heavier irons. Does it happen because manufacturers do not want to make two different sets of heads, you bet. Then they add some length to get it closer. I have to have the heavier heads so I don't toe or blade it. I checked my Ping G irons and they are also too light, the usual D-0 swing weight.

 

This needs a emoji, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read this thread from the beginning. If you didn't, go back and read what swingweight really is. If you did, realize that there's no way you can guarantee that two different sets of heads from two different manufacturers have the same weights, thus you cannot compare swingweight values between them (even if you have the same shafts and grips in both sets). Swingweight is not a weight measurement, it's balance measurement. Actual swing heft feel is governed by the overall weight and the distribution of that weight along the club.

 

[platgof]

A light club is a light club, because it has a graphite shaft in it, and not a steel shaft. I know about variances, but it is lighter with the graphite shaft. I bet you don't play graphite in your irons? I'm sorry, having a rough day. Still upset about my round yesterday, because of light(swing weight) irons.

[mogc60]

I have graphite in my irons and a fairly light model of shaft at 100 grams. My clubs are not light by any means. But I added weight to the irons that need them and my grips have 5 extra wraps of tape under them. That tricks the swingweight scale so D0 or D1 “feels” very well balanced and plenty of headweight.

[Noodler]

Maybe this will be more helpful... I can build a set of clubs at D2 that will swing "heavier" than a set at D4. This is because swingweight isn't about weight, it's about balance. The D2 set would have a heavier overall static weight which would result in a higher MOI than the D4 set. The problem is that most golfers assume that there are standards the guide swingweight across the manufacturers, but that's just not the case. Yes, they're typically in the same ballpark, but when we're talking about head weights, a little goes a long way. 2g difference in head weight is noticeable.

[Howard_Jones]

> @Noodler said:

> Maybe this will be more helpful... I can build a set of clubs at D2 that will swing "heavier" than a set at D4. This is because swingweight isn't about weight, it's about balance. The D2 set would have a heavier overall static weight which would result in a higher MOI than the D4 set. The problem is that most golfers assume that there are standards the guide swingweight across the manufacturers, but that's just not the case. Yes, they're typically in the same ballpark, but when we're talking about head weights, a little goes a long way. 2g difference in head weight is noticeable.

 

Way to often we see players who thinks we can ADD weight on the grip side as Counter weight to get SW values right, but the moment we add total wgt, we fail, and even worse if we use heavy grips and reset SW values.

 

Example

A set thats D2 as STD but shall be played at plus 0.5" who makes them D5

If we add MID size or 10 grams grip side, the scale returns D3 as the lowest.

If target is D5, whis player will ADD 4 grams head weight, so his total is 4 grams head and 10 grams grip weight = plus 14 on total...That club want feel like the club with a standard grip at D5.

 

If we compare the club without added head weight, but one with MID or one with STD grip, we see D5 vs D3 and might think D5 would feel the most heavy of them, but it would be the club with D3 and MID size, since total wgt is higher.

 

To get the effect of Counterweight we must keep total wgt the same = start from a lower shaft weight, equal to the amount of grams needed or wanted as Counter weight, or we only fool our self and see values opposit of the feel they gives.

 

Here is a compare of Actual MOI vs SW values when we change weight grip side.

 

MOI without grip = 2409 / SW scale say C3

MOI with a 50.5 grams std OEM slip grip = 2415 / SW scale say B4

MOI with a 58.5 grams New Decade MID size = 2422 / SW scale say B3

MOI with a 123.6 grams Jumbo Max XL = 2439 / SW scale say A 0.5

 

From a standard grip to Jumbomax the SW value dropped 13.5 SWP, while MOI goes UP from 2415 to 2439 = 24 MOI points or equal to about 2.4 grams ADDED HEAD WEIGHT.

 

From STD to MID in this case MOI goes UP to MID with 7 MOI points or close tho the same effect as adding close to 1 grams of head weight, so again, resistance goes UP when we add total weight, NOT down.

 

Adding Total weight = higher actual resistance, even if we add it grip side,

 

[Stuart_G]

> @platgof said:

> A light club is a light club, because it has a graphite shaft in it, and not a steel shaft. I know about variances, but it is lighter with the graphite shaft. I bet you don't play graphite in your irons? I'm sorry, having a rough day. Still upset about my round yesterday, because of light(swing weight) irons.

 

I'd just be careful about making assumptions about weight based on the shaft material. Most off the shelf stock graphite shafts are light, but graphite iron shafts are available in a very wide range 60 gm all the way to 125 and 130 gm. Also, many off the shelf stock steel shafts are getting pretty light now and can be just as bad - they can go as low as 80 gm. And on top of that, how the shaft weight can effect the swing weight can vary quite a bit as well and not always in the ways one might expect. Same length and same head weight and same grip - I know of a particular 110 gm graphite shaft that will swing weight 4 points lighter than another particular 85 gm graphite shaft that I know of.

 

But FWIW, I also agree that many of the OEM practices are questionable particularly when it comes to graphite shafts. Although it's actually not as bad as it used to be. Many OEM's have reverted back to more similar specs for graphite and steel. But then it's never really a good idea to make any assumptions about how good a fit a stock, off the shelf set will be for anyone - graphite or steel. And for custom Swing weight orders , most wont make any guarantees and some wont even consider them (TM is one of the worst in that respect from what I've heard).

[Hammer22]

> @Noodler said:

> This needs a **palm to face** emoji, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read this thread from the beginning. If you didn't, go back and read what swingweight really is. If you did, realize that there's no way you can guarantee that two different sets of heads from two different manufacturers have the same weights, thus you cannot compare swingweight values between them (even if you have the same shafts and grips in both sets). Swingweight is not a weight measurement, it's balance measurement. Actual swing heft feel is governed by the overall weight and the distribution of that weight along the club.

>

This right here. So many average golfers get hung up on "heavy" and "light" rather than understanding SW as simply a balance that can be increased or decreased. If only there were ways to search the internet and get hundreds, if not thousands, of links and places of reference to learn more. Still, the same questions come up on golf forums over and over about the topic.

 

[Howard_Jones]

> @Hammer22 said:

> > @Noodler said:

> > This needs a **palm to face** emoji, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read this thread from the beginning. If you didn't, go back and read what swingweight really is. If you did, realize that there's no way you can guarantee that two different sets of heads from two different manufacturers have the same weights, thus you cannot compare swingweight values between them (even if you have the same shafts and grips in both sets). Swingweight is not a weight measurement, it's balance measurement. Actual swing heft feel is governed by the overall weight and the distribution of that weight along the club.

> >

> This right here. So many average golfers get hung up on "heavy" and "light" rather than understanding SW as simply a balance that can be increased or decreased. If only there were ways to search the internet and get hundreds, if not thousands, of links and places of reference to learn more. Still, the same questions come up on golf forums over and over about the topic.

>

Try a search, most info about the subject is misleading info, even club maker classes miss-lead their students ,like the idea of adding weight grip side to lower feel of head weight. it does not work, even if the SW scale return a value who give that impression. That means most dont understand what that instrument does and what factors that makes it to "go blind" and return values opposit of the direction of actual resistance.

 

SW scales is just like CPM readers, both is very handy tools to match 2 identical clubs, but both is close to useless to compare 2 different clubs, so if more users was aware of that, they would not make all the mistakes they do like when they let a SW scale or a CPM reader lead us when we build a club we never tried before. Non of this instruments can tell us how that club will feel, they can only do that if we compare 2 clubs that was suppose to be identical.

 

[North Butte]

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> SW scales is just like CPM readers, both is very handy tools to match 2 identical clubs, but both is close to useless to compare 2 different clubs,

 

That's the key point. Swingweight is one of those concepts that's only applies "when everything else is equal". And yet people try to use it in situations where NOTHING else is even close to equal.

 

I have literally heard people ask to have the swingweight of their driver adjusted to such-and-such a value because that's the swingweight of their irons. Nothing about swinging a 45" graphite-shafted 320g driver is like swinging a 37" steel-shafted iron that weighs a hundred grams more is anything like "equal".

 

[Hammer22]

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> Try a search, most info about the subject is misleading info, even club maker classes miss-lead their students ,like the idea of adding weight grip side to lower feel of head weight. it does not work, even if the SW scale return a value who give that impression. That means most dont understand what that instrument does and what factors that makes it to "go blind" and return values opposit of the direction of actual resistance.

>

> SW scales is just like CPM readers, both is very handy tools to match 2 identical clubs, but both is close to useless to compare 2 different clubs, so if more users was aware of that, they would not make all the mistakes they do like when they let a SW scale or a CPM reader lead us when we build a club we never tried before. Non of this instruments can tell us how that club will feel, they can only do that if we compare 2 clubs that was suppose to be identical.

>

I've seen plenty of what is out there, and there is a lot. While opinions may vary on the subject, it's easy to find documents that, in black-and-white, explain exactly how SW is effected by other changes in components. Most people still do not get those concepts when it's easy to find. In the end, it's not exact for each golfer and something too many get overly hung up on.

 

[Howard_Jones]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @"Howard Jones" said:

> > SW scales is just like CPM readers, both is very handy tools to match 2 identical clubs, but both is close to useless to compare 2 different clubs,

>

> That's the key point. Swingweight is one of those concepts that's only applies "when everything else is equal". And yet people try to use it in situations where NOTHING else is even close to equal.

>

> I have literally heard people ask to have the swingweight of their driver adjusted to such-and-such a value because that's the swingweight of their irons. Nothing about swinging a 45" graphite-shafted 320g driver is like swinging a 37" steel-shafted iron that weighs a hundred grams more is anything like "equal".

>

The very first Professional player i had as Customer came with that idea and thinking, ALL his clubs was D3 except his Sand and Lob wedge, and when i asked why, he replied its that value i play the best with....that VALUE, like it was a shaft weight or grip size we was talking about...

 

PS" He no longer plays D3....expect for a few clubs that happens to be D3, but thats because the value we end up with is NOT a target, and it should never be a target during fitting, SW values is only a target when we duplicate or repair clubs.

 

[Stuart_G]

> @Hammer22 said:

> I've seen plenty of what is out there, and there is a lot. While opinions may vary on the subject, **it's easy to find documents that, in black-and-white, explain exactly how SW is effected by other changes in components**. Most people still do not get those concepts when it's easy to find. In the end, it's not exact for each golfer and something too many get overly hung up on.

>

 

The problem (what turns that "black and white" to gray mush) is that there is a significant difference between how the components will effect what a swing weight scale will read and how the swing weight scale and concept was intended and designed to be used - or rather which of those changes it was actually intended to be used for and which changes it was not.

 

[Hammer22]

> @Stuart_G said:

> The problem (what turns that "black and white" to gray mush) is that there is a significant difference between how the components will effect what a swing weight scale will read and how the swing weight scale and concept was intended and designed to be used.

>

 

Definitely true. Still, it's good to know the basics in order to have a grasp of the concept. Personally, I'm of the mindset that it's about feel first, then the SW can be discovered later as a trivial matter (also to have a baseline if repairs or alterations are made, as Howard just commented on in the post right above yours). That definitely gets away from most people. In any case, this chart from one of Nike catalogs a few years back is a great reference point for anyone tinkering, and generally lays out the relationship nicely between components.

 

 

 

 

[Howard_Jones]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @Hammer22 said:

> > I've seen plenty of what is out there, and there is a lot. While opinions may vary on the subject, **it's easy to find documents that, in black-and-white, explain exactly how SW is effected by other changes in components**. Most people still do not get those concepts when it's easy to find. In the end, it's not exact for each golfer and something too many get overly hung up on.

> >

>

> The problem (what turns that "black and white" to gray mush) is that there is a significant difference between how the components will effect what a swing weight scale will read and how the swing weight scale and concept was intended and designed to be used.

>

 

Its all such a mess, and i tried to "fix that", by introducing 2 terms, "True Swing-weight" and "Play Swing -Weight", but it was not a success....True SW is what a club measure without grip when we subtract 9 SWP from return value.

We can use that value and trust it, and navigate in differences for flex or what ever if we use it that way.

Play SW is what return value the club give when we added the grips THIS club will be played with.

That value can be both higher or lower than "True SW", but i makes no difference to flex, only to total weight, so if we deal with them this way, at least we know what we are talking about, but since its all such a mess to start with, it seems like i made it even worse when i tried to set it right....

 

[Stuart_G]

FWIW @"Howard Jones" I don't think you ever made it worse.

 

Well - except maybe that iron shaft flex chart - but that was a long time ago - so the statute of limitations has long since expired :-) (I kid)

 

[JD3]

> @"Howard Jones" said:

> > @Hammer22 said:

> > > @Noodler said:

> > > This needs a **palm to face** emoji, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read this thread from the beginning. If you didn't, go back and read what swingweight really is. If you did, realize that there's no way you can guarantee that two different sets of heads from two different manufacturers have the same weights, thus you cannot compare swingweight values between them (even if you have the same shafts and grips in both sets). Swingweight is not a weight measurement, it's balance measurement. Actual swing heft feel is governed by the overall weight and the distribution of that weight along the club.

> > >

> > This right here. So many average golfers get hung up on "heavy" and "light" rather than understanding SW as simply a balance that can be increased or decreased. If only there were ways to search the internet and get hundreds, if not thousands, of links and places of reference to learn more. Still, the same questions come up on golf forums over and over about the topic.

> >

> Try a search, most info about the subject is misleading info, even club maker classes miss-lead their students ,like the idea of adding weight grip side to lower feel of head weight. it does not work, even if the SW scale return a value who give that impression. That means most dont understand what that instrument does and what factors that makes it to "go blind" and return values opposit of the direction of actual resistance.

>

> SW scales is just like CPM readers, both is very handy tools to match 2 identical clubs, but both is close to useless to compare 2 different clubs, so if more users was aware of that, they would not make all the mistakes they do like when they let a SW scale or a CPM reader lead us when we build a club we never tried before. Non of this instruments can tell us how that club will feel, they can only do that if we compare 2 clubs that was suppose to be identical.

>

 

I never thought it was the be-all and end-all. O only have it checked to make sure nothing crazy like C0 or E5 comes out. Then I think it's worth revisiting. However I don't agree that changing weight on grip end is "tricking" the scale. The clubhead will feel heavier with a lighter grip, and lighter with a heavier grip. Think of the bowling ball analogy: sticking one on the butt of the club and you won't feel the head at all. Of course the club won't be playable either. But that just speaks to there being other factors involved.

[Stuart_G]

> @JD3 said:

> Think of the bowling ball analogy: sticking one on the butt of the club and you won't feel the head at all. Of course the club won't be playable either.

 

It doesn't make the head feel any lighter, it just makes the rest of the club so heavy that how heavy the head feels becomes irrelevant.

 

 

 

[JD3]

I can live with that wording but either way point is you won't feel the head when you swing. > @Stuart_G said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > Think of the bowling ball analogy: sticking one on the butt of the club and you won't feel the head at all. Of course the club won't be playable either.

>

> It doesn't make the head feel any lighter, it just makes the rest of the club so heavy that how heavy the head feels becomes irrelevant.

>

>

>

 

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > Think of the bowling ball analogy: sticking one on the butt of the club and you won't feel the head at all. Of course the club won't be playable either.

>

> It doesn't make the head feel any lighter, it just makes the rest of the club so heavy that how heavy the head feels becomes irrelevant.

>

>

>

 

 

[Howard_Jones]

> @Stuart_G said:

> FWIW @"Howard Jones" I don't think you ever made it worse.

>

> Well - except maybe that iron shaft flex chart - but that was a long time ago - so the statute of limitations has long since expired :-) (I kid)

>

 

Yes, that chart should never been published, it became "the truth" for flex compare even if its anything but that....i had no clue about how it would be used, i though they who asked for it new its limitations, i payed the price for that years later when ive tried to convinced the readers how useless that chart is for what they try to use it for. This one is a classic of how we can fail when we think we can quantify "feel",just like with SW values, we need way more datas in both cases to get a idea of what the values means.

[Stuart_G]

> @JD3 said:

> I can live with that wording but either way point is you won't feel the head when you swing.

 

And my point (and the subtle distinction in wording) was that you can't always use the extremes to judge smaller changes.

 

I will say the relationship between static weight and head weight and feel is quite complex so no simple rules can be applied to everyone. "Feel" and "real" dont always sync together the way science says it should. There certainly will be some that think a bit of butt weight will make the head feel lighter. But for many others, it will not. In fact in a majority of cases, changing grip size by one (~10 gm of butt weight change) can usually be ignored as far as the need for any head weight adjustment goes.

 

However, the **real** point is that the swing weight scale and concept was not designed to manage grip weight changes in any way. So it's always going to be better to go by feel (testing) than by what happens to the swing weight scale value - or for that matter to even assume the grip weight change will not make a difference. The latter is a more likely generalization to work - but it's still a generalization.