Jump to content

MOI of a golf club, where did it go?

Recommended Posts

I used to follow clubfitting about 10 years ago. Back then there was so much talk about MOI'ing golf clubs. Saying that it was far superior to swing weight etc.


Over the past 8 or so years I have not heard people talking about MOI like they used to. Definitely have not heard the term MOI used in the professional game.


WHat if anything am I missing? Is it still relevant, or have things like single length irons taken over?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi guys, Great thread and discussion! I am just an amateur golfer and club builder, but a structural engineer by trade. I started trying to find a better way to build a set of irons because constant

The spreadsheet will account for both "aux weight" and "backweight", but it only provides a place to enter the weight and the CG. To determine the CG of the weight alone you need to use the same meth

It still has its proponents in the custom clubmaker community. Beyond that, it has not caught on in any real way.

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. :)

M4 Driver D-type
sometimes 5W, sometimes 3 hybrid

4,5,6 hybrids (22,25,28 degrees)  Adams
4, 6-GW basic GI irons, weak lofts and +1/2" for more speed and launch
58º Wedge
Odyssey Jailbird Mini
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's part of the equation, but not the end all be all.

Callaway Speed 9° Velcore Blue 6X
Callaway Apex 2H Speeder 904X
Callaway Apex 4H Speeder 904X
Miura CB301 4-5 iCWT Proto 105X
Miura CB1008 6-9 iCWT Proto 105X
 Miura HG 4606 iCWT Proto 105X
Miura HG 5210 iCWT Proto 105X
Miura HG 5810 iCWT Proto 105X
Miura HB 6416 iCWT Proto 105X
Garage Palm Beach Stability 1.0X
Link to post
Share on other sites

its technically a superior method of achieving a similar “feel” throughout the set. I think the reason it hasn’t become mainstream is two fold:

1) swingweight has been around for 90 years (even though the goal of it was to do what MOI measuring does, but there had to be some shortcuts because the instruments to accurately measure MOI weren’t available).

2) any time you start throwing around terms from physics class, people’s eyes start to glaze over. Most think this means just the customer/player...it goes for club builders too. Most are not engineers or physicists. So if can’t / won’t spend the time to understand, they’re not going to sell the customer on it either, especially when #1 is true.

For me, it’s a better measure. Not only in that it gives an actual measurement (absolute) and SW is derived (relative), but from a results standpoint, I simply like how my own clubs feel when I can MOI match.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the industry itself. Manufacturers continue to propagate the use of swingweight in ways it was never meant to be used. As noted in a previous post, it's only a relative measurement, meaning that it's only meaningful across the same set of clubs using the same components. It should never have been called swingweight since it's not a measure of weight at all, but instead of balance. As a balance measure, it's significantly lacking since it uses an assumed fulcrum of 14" inches that really has no basis in the physics of a swing.

MOI is the real absolute measure of the dynamic heft needed to swing the club, but it also falls short of providing the true quantity that golfers define as the feel of the club when swung. For the feel to be duplicated, the balance of the weight distribution of the components must be measured and compared. MOI Balance Index (MBI) provides a calculated value that does provide a way to compare the feel of the weight distribution across different clubs. The MOI of the club taken along with the MBI provides the only true absolute measure of the club's swing effort and "feel". MBI needs more validation to truly understand it's value in club fitting, but it does provide a calculated value that represents how head-heavy a club will feel compared to another.


Link to post
Share on other sites

MOI is used more and more, but NOT in the OEM world, but they never offered true Custom fitting either, they have actually given that term a bad reputation because they really dont offer it and their Customers has no clue.

We really dont know why the SW system is like it is, it could have been a mechanical short cut to MOI. Compared to MOI it is a progressive resistance system, and from SL clubs it seems to be the way many players is swinging their clubs. If thats the "nature" of it all, or if its because this players comes from a SW matched set....make your best guess...

All players is individuals, so if we wants to make this right for them, we have to build the shortest and longest club and tune them up for head weight without even looking at numbers at all. When this 2 clubs is tuned up, we draw the slope between them. That could be a flat MOI value, or a progressive MOI value like the SW system delivers, but we have 14 options totally here from MOI to SW so many fits to play a progressive resistance system, but not identical with the SW system, but something in-between SW and MOI.

We can also debate whats the actual point of rotation, and we know for sure its NOT 14" inch from the butt, and its not the end of the club either, but most likely about 4 inch down from the butt. The problem is, no matter fulcrum we might choose, we cant overrule the individual and how he actually swing each club, so in the end, each club is a fitting object of its own, but the correct short cut to a full set is to go by the shortest and longest club and draw the slope between them.

The SW scale itself is a very handy instrument if we just know its limitation and how to take advantage of what it can do for us, but there is way more misuse and misunderstandings than knowledge and correct use, so the lack of knowledge and the SW scale combined has made more harm than good. Both length and Total weight is more important, but the "hard core" SW scale users often overlook both if they understand them at all, and thats why they want make it right unless its by pure luck since their focus is a certain SW value they dont even understand what represent, and think that value is transferable to another club with another total weight or length, but it never is, unless they are in control of those factors and know what resistance slope they seek.

So MOI or true custom fitting is still limited to Custom Club makers, i doubt we will see any of them from OEMs, and if we do, it will be a short cut "light" options, but thats the nature of their business concept where everything has to go fast and be done by a fixed standard, and thats the opposite of Custom fit.

Exceptions to this does exist, some OEM dealers does a decent fitting and club making, and in the end thats what its all about, its not MOI vs SW, both and at least 12 others in between is all options, but only a true custom fitting will find whats right for each player and each club.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swing weight, but it really does not matter what method we use, in the end its not about values like "D3" or "2900 grams cm2", but total weight and feel of head weight, and the Tour vans hardly ever build SETs of clubs like a set of irons, they repair or build single clubs for the most. Ive been working with quite a few PGA and LPGA players, and build MOI matched irons to many of them, SW matched sets to some of them, and others with a very personal resistance slope(progressive SW slope, but NOT MOI or "poor mans MOI match". its all a question of what actual resistance or progression of resistance that fits each player for the actual club, since each club really is a fitting object of its own, so its not "MOI or SW", but what fits the player and the actual club, and then it does not matter what tools we use to measure it, since thats done AFTER we are done with a fitting, and those specs is for repair reference. Its also worth to know, that many of this players has no clue or simply dont have any interest of what specs they play as long as it works. A example of that is the Danish PGA pro Soren Kieldsen who is member of the same Golf club as i was (his home town). He changed a X100 shaft in his iron himself, but did not check loft or lie or SW, and was asked why? He replied, if it dont feel right or work as it should, i will adjust it....he dont care about "specs", but how it works, and that goes for many of them, so if you start talking MOI or SW to them,...they start walking against the first tee or the bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a consumer's standpoint, I used to find the idea of MOI matching attractive, until I saw the recommendation by a major commercial MOI proponent that woods, hybrids, irons, wedges should be separately matched to different MOIs. To me that demonstrated a shortcoming in the theory, and I was no longer interested after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No , you simply do NOT understand what matching is all about and why we do it, and when its not useful, so its not the system thats "wrong" or comes to short.

If we have 2 clubs we swing the same, we can and should match them (MOI), but if we dont swing them the same, we should NOT match them...so now i ask you a question, do you swing your driver and your Irons the same? nobody does, so its no reason to match them to the same MOI value either, it makes no sense to do that.

We only MOI match clubs in groups who we swing the same (MOI), but players who play their irons with progressive more power the longer the club is, is better off using a progressive resistance, MAYBE like the SW system works, others close to that. Players who use the same SW value for ALL clubs dont understand the SW system either, so those aint matched if you think they are, even when all has the value of lets say "D3".

Back in the 30s when Adams invented the Lorry scale, the instrument we now call the SW scale, they did NOT match the irons or woods to the same SW value, even if all clubs was with Hickory shaft, but build the woods in average 2 SWP higher than irons. Does that means the SW system did not work from the beginning? NO, it tells us that they did not swing their woods like they was swinging their irons, so even if the SW system gives a higher progressive resistance the longer the club is, that system could NOT be used into a new group of clubs where the use of power was quite a bit higher than their irons.

Again, it only make sense to MOI match clubs in groups where we use the same power for all clubs in that group, thats what "MOI matching" is all about, the idea was never to use the same MOI value for 13 clubs in the bag, thats a big misunderstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea (or perhaps misunderstanding) of using the same MOI for 13 (or even 14) clubs would be attractive to me (if it worked). Your mention of players who swing their irons progressively with more power through their iron set makes this proposition unattractive. So I will be waiting until something better comes along, perhaps your progressive fittings mentioned earlier in the thread are it. Good luck with further developing those, and thank you for your reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really following your logic here. I don’t think you quite understand what’s being said. The points Howard made are:

• SW is not an actual measurement

• SW is misunderstood and misused by just about everyone

• MOI is actually a measurement

• The club is still the club. It will still have both an MOI and SW value.

• When doing a fitting, you don’t start with the “numbers” or “values”, you start with clubs (ideally shortest and longest).

• When those two clubs are set, to find the length and weight of those in between, it’s as simple as drawing the slope between them

• What the “results” are afterwards can be 1 of basically 14 combinations - SW matched, MOI matched, or somewhere in between. It’s up to the player. How they react to the clubs. This depends on the results of how the short iron and long iron were fit.

You say an MOI value can’t be used throughout the set so you’ll skip it. I’m curious what you will use then. Certainly not SW because you fundamentally don’t understand the concept if you think an entire set can be SW matched. Again, SW isn’t even a measurement...and you can have 2 clubs that are the same SW and they play totally different because weight and balance are totally different.

Edit: trying to think of a quick analogy to put in context...it’s not great, but may help.

Say you’re framing out a house. One guy measures the 2x4s for one wall by using his feet, counting steps and marking boards (I know, but just assume it for now). Think of this as SW. Another framer uses his tape and gets an exact measurement to mark it. Think of this as MOI.

Now, these two approaches both represent “something”. However, neither one can just then take those measurements and make every other wall frame those same lengths. You need to look at the plans. Think of this as the fitting. You can’t just say “I measured the studs for this wall 10ft, 2 1/4in” and then make every other stud in the house that length. So some will have shorter lengths, others longer lengths.

What Howard is trying to explain is that there’s no 1 master blueprint that’s the same for every house. Some houses may have 4 walls that are all the same. Some have progressive differences. There’s no right or wrong, it’s just what the plan (the player vis a vis the fitting) called for.

So moral of the story is that whatever approach you use, you can’t just assume that one measurement or value for one item is valid for the rest. Sometimes that may work, most times it will lead to disaster so why consider that the panacea? I think the issue you’re hung up on is the idea of “matching”

Oh, one last thing to wrap up the analogy. The guy that walks off his lengths is stuck. He may have been good with his method, but he can’t tell one of the other guys “Mark it off at 10 steps”. This is SW...it isn’t relevant, nor was it ever intended to be, across any club that has different components. So not only can you not a D3 iron, make a D3 wood and expect it to feel the same, you can’t take your D3 7iron, then make my 7iron D3 and expect them to feel the same. Different components.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the reply.

My initial reply - intended for the OP - was meant to indicate that this consumer is not sold on MOI matching, and perhaps I am not the only one. Case in point, MOI matching was sold as an improved method to match an iron-set, but in this thread it is stated that this does not produce a satisfactory result for some golfers.

The progressive fitting between 2, or preferably more (to take care of potential non-linearity), data-points would be an easier sell to me.

Also, yes SW has its limitations, but so does MOI, if there is uncertainty about the axis of rotation. If that is 4" off, as indicated above, that is rather significant: Hence my preference for more than 2 data-points.


Link to post
Share on other sites

A forum like this clearly caters to more of the "enthusiast" type golfers than just the casual hackers. We're all here to learn more and help each other enjoy this sport. It's great to have some of the participants that regularly post on these technical topics. I've learned a lot over the years and have developed what I believe to be a deeper level of understanding of what's really happening with club building and fitting. So if you're interested in the "secret sauce" then read on...

Swingweight is a measurement of relative balance taken about a 14" fulcrum. When typical iron sets are swingweight matched and then measured on an MOI machine, you'll see that the MOI progressively increases as the clubs get longer. This means that the clubs take more dynamic effort to swing as they get longer. Most golfers are used to their clubs feeling/working this way. So swingweight matching works well for a lot of golfers. Where those golfers "go wrong" is when they try to use the same swingweight value across different club sets as if it is an absolute measurement that is meaningful in that context, It is not. So please don't fool yourself into using swingweight in that manner with modern clubs that have can have vastly different head and shaft designs (and grip weights).

When MOI matching starting catching on almost a decade ago, the intention was to try to use MOI to match the "feel" of a club when swung across all the clubs in a set. What was soon realized, was that MOI alone does not provide a measurement of the feel, but rather only the dynamic effort to swing the club. Much of the "feel" comes from a combination of the overall weight, length, and the distribution of the weight across the components. So a new measurement was needed to quantify the feel of a club when swung. This measurement had to take into account the weight, length, and MOI at a minimum. What was developed was the measurement we now call MOI Balance Index (MBI). This measurement provides an absolute value that represents the relative balance of the club; whether the club feels more head-heavy or more balanced across shaft+grip. MBI hasn't been fully vetted in the world of club fitting, but it is the only actual measurement that can quantify the weight distribution while taking into account the club length and component MOI values. A club that is designed and built to a specific MOI/MBI combination does represent one where the "feel" can then be duplicated with different components if the MOI/MBI match between the 2 clubs. Shaft flex is the only parameter that isn't really accounted for in the MOI/MBI match, but we have EI profiles to cover that aspect.

So when fitting the clubs, the "secret sauce" is to use a methodology that will help you arrive at the optimal values where your swing speed and center hit accuracy are maximized. If you go into a fitting and aren't testing vastly different builds while comparing your swing speed and on-center accuracy, then you're cheating yourself out of truly finding what's best for your swing (and your game). I have a fleet of test clubs that are built with many variations of

--. So an example would be a H-L-M build; which has a heavy head paired with a light shaft that has a resulting medium MOI. I won't get into the details here, but the point is that the overall weight and the balance of the individual component weights is what a golfer's swing will dynamically react to. The combinations will produce different results; some better than others. The key is to find the combination that provides excellent on-center accuracy with good head speed.

Typical club fitting is what I call a "trial and error" fitting. It's a hit or miss proposition where components are just swapped out until the numbers on the LM look good. There really is no attempt to truly approach the fitting in a scientific manner to find the most optimal combination; so you just get the best out of what is tested.

The moral of the story is that MOI should be considered and not discounted, but it needs to be understood for what it is (and what it is not). :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard has shown that MOI matching can be achieved with the same set of heads used in a swingweight-matched set of irons, simply by modest adjustments in shaft length. So an OEM could pretty easily offer an MOI-matched option for an iron set. I’m surprised none have done this.

Callaway Rogue 10.5°
Ping G410 2, 3 Hybrid
Ping G410 3, 4 Crossover 
Ping G410 5-UW
Vokey spin milled 54/14
SC Studio Select Newport 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont be surprised, the Golf industry dont seems to care about "how it can be done" (or "should be done"), or maybe they simply dont understand what they do? just look at Cobra F9 SL as example.

The idea of SL clubs is not only the same length for all irons (and wedges), but the same total weight, the same Lie angle, and when total wgt and length is the same, and we use the same head weight/SW value, they become MOI matched if we like it or not.

Cobra has "messed around" with everything but the length and head weight, so they are still MOI matched, but when we see they are using the same shafts as standard sets, independent of head weight, AND a progressive slope for lie angle, and we read their explanation for that, they dont seems to understand neither SW or MOI or the options in-between them, and they dont seems to understand ball flight either, (yes im drop death serious about what im writing here, its not a joke from my side)

Their explanation for the progressive LIE angle is a combination of shafts that has a progressive flex,(from soft stepped about 3x in the "longest club" to about HS2 in the "shortest") and that their findings say their players is using more power on the "long clubs" than "the short", and in that case MOI matching is NOT the right choice, so ask why dont they make this set with progressive resistance when everything else they have messed with has made all other parameter as "progressive" except the length?

It seems like they dont care, or simply dont understand how it should be done for shafts or resistance, so they are IMO mis-using and messing with one parameter to fix a issue with another and ends up with something that actually goes against the whole concept and idea about SL.

In the end, there is no system for anything thats ideal for all (one size fits all), and it never will be, and the SW system is the most misunderstood parameter on Golf clubs, but it seems like we cant do much about it when so many desperately want "the system" (or a chart) to take care of their needs instead of finding what they actually needs.


If i was working for Cobra, i would NOT have gone to the extreme with shafts like they have, they want and cant feel right when its done that way, both flex and profile is to far off for that, and its not needed either. I understand their thinking,(Flighted) since softer lower bend point shafts does adds dynamic loft in the long end, but the ball has no clue where loft comes from, and for bounce its also the same if the shaft adds lets say 2* dynamic loft or we simply go 2* weak on static lofts. Both options will have the same loft and bounce at impact, so its no reason to mess with shaft profiles and feel of flex to get ball flight right, since feel of flex is way more important than how loft gaps looks on the paper.

Resistance, call it SW or MOI as you like, if we use progressive more power the longer the club is (or lower the head number is in this case), its very easy to solve that. The clubs resistance is "the swings dancing partner", so the more power we use, the more resistance we need to be able to stabilize our swing and make a good impact. That means its silly easy to improve this, even the SW system can be used if we understand how it works, but the BEST is always to find the needed MOI/SW/resistance for the longest and the shortest club, and draw the slope between them, and that goes for ALL types of fitting and building of clubs. So you might ask, why have they gone as far as using progressive lie angles on a SL set, but have NOT "matched" the actual resistance to the way they say their players swing their clubs?

They dont seems to care, or they dont understand what each parameter does and what its for, and i think its the first...its easier for production, thats my only explanation for this lack of logic since they have messed with everything else to make it work, but left this one out.


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY......why do you so desperately want "the number value" to be equal for all, before you find it attractive? Do you want to play a set where driver to lob wedge has the same play length for all, and maybe the same lofts too? i dont think so, so you have to do better and try to understand what we have up for debate, or you will fail no matter approach.

Like ive been trying to explain, if we have a classic set, lets say 3-PW all with the SW value D2, then more than 99% of golfers would think that "feel of head weight" or "resistance" is the same for all clubs, but its not. The SW system gives a slightly higher resistance pr club as we go longer, MAYBE because thats how they felt was natural to swing a golf club 90 years ago. The issue with this system is that the progression rate it has "built in", DOES NOT fit all players, like the same MOI value for all irons dont fit all players either. The need for resistance is personal, and related to how the actual player swings THIS Club.

Every golfer has noticed that many players struggles, and cant play a #3 iron, some cant play their #4 either, and its not all about loft and shaft length, the SW system itself is a big part of the problem since this 2 clubs might have a actual resistance thats over and beyond what the player is able to handle as a iron. To see that possible issue, we can use MOI. A classic MP60 with DGS300 at standard length and D2 have a MOI value for the #9 iron thats 2667 and the #3 iron is 2714. The difference 47 MOI points is about the same i have from irons all the way to the driver, the club in the bag with the highest need for resistance, but this 47 or 50 points im using is personal for ME, not for everyone, but it tells that the SW system in many cases has a progression of resistance thats to steep.

You want a "system" where "the value" is the same, but the resistance slope shall fit you....maybe thats the "official scale" with a 12 inch fulcrum instead of 14"? it might be just right for you in irons, but i can promise you that even if that was the case, "the value" for irons will NOT fit you for the driver, and you are making that to be a problem, "the value must be the same is your need"...thats OCD and cant be taken seriously because NO system or chart is able to know how YOU swing the actual club, so no matter how strait the lines look like "on the chart", they want feel right in use, and thats where it matters, NOT how it looks like on the paper to please OCD.

Sorry, no offence, but it seems like you still have not cached what we really talks about, and its absolutely NOT to please a piece of paper, or make a nice chart,(or to please OCD) but to fit a individual player and his needs for how it feels and works, and since all of us is different, there will never be a one size fits all, thats not possible, the only parameter we can safely use "equal on all" clubs in the bag is the grip size we play.

MOI or SW is not like Republicans or Democrats either, its simply 2 systems where one of them has a build in fixed rate progressive resistance, the other has not, and we have at least 12 options in-between them, and i dont care what opinions players has about "the system", all i want is to make it fit each player, so sometimes i use flat SW, sometimes MOI, and in many cases something else since its about good fit, NOT the system or values.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have measured many stock iron sets on my MOI machine and found that they almost always have a progression of MOI values that range about 50-60 points. 50 points is a huge amount of MOI difference when it comes to the effort required to swing the club. The MOI effort to swing the club is what most golfers sense when trying to determine which club is actually "heavier". I have many examples of clubs in my testing fleet that have high MOI values, but lower total weight than clubs with lower MOI values, but higher total weight. Most golfers will swear that the higher MOI clubs weigh more when they're swinging them. This all gets back to the weight distribution across the components. Even if a club weighs less than another, if more of the available weight is positioned at the head end of the club, it's going to feel heavier when swung than a club with more of the weight in the shaft.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Is there an article somewhere that describes how to build an MBI set? Can it be done without an MOI measuring machine?

M4 Driver D-type
sometimes 5W, sometimes 3 hybrid

4,5,6 hybrids (22,25,28 degrees)  Adams
4, 6-GW basic GI irons, weak lofts and +1/2" for more speed and launch
58º Wedge
Odyssey Jailbird Mini
Link to post
Share on other sites

The best info I know of is directly in Monte Doherty's GCPv2.5 spreadsheet that is available if you search for it. There's a theory section that describes MBI in much more detail.

However, it does not provide any kind of road map for a poor man's MBI build. What I can provide is some general guidance though. The key characteristic in an MBI matched build is that the shaft+grip weight must increase along with the head weight as the clubs get shorter. This is why flighted shafts (descending weight) and constant weight sets do not get the job done without significant "hacking". So start with an ascending weight shaft set (AMT, AWT, or AMC) and perform the static weight percentage calculation of the head weight versus the shaft+grip weight. The more constant you can keep that percentage across the irons in the set, the closer you would be to an MBI matched build. Note that this static assessment of the weight distribution will not achieve a perfect MBI match, but it's much, much closer than any other build approach. Note that you must also MOI match the set, but there's plenty of info on how to do that without a machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention that when using ascending weight shaft sets, most manufacturers manipulate the shaft balance point so that the shafts still will work well in traditional 0.5" length increment swingweight matched builds. That means that when using this type of shaft, the suggested 0.5 swingweight points progression for a poor man's MOI build will NOT work. Based on the MOI/MBI matched builds I have done (using AMT, AWT, and AMC shafts), the swingweight progression is actually only about 1 point from the #5 to #PW (using 3/8" length increment). A 1 point progression makes it more challenging to use a traditional "analog" swingweight scale to get the job done since 1 point across many clubs needs a more granular progression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@Noodler Thanks for the info. I checked my PC and see that I do have his spreadsheet. I looked at this several years ago but never attempted to do it. I've never been sure of the concept. I'll read the notes, instructions, and theory he published. My recollection from the past is that it still wasn't clear to me what is happening to the balance points versus a normal SW or MOI build. I'll see if I can figure it out. I'm presuming the idea is that as clubs get shorter, the BP doesn't move lower as quickly.

M4 Driver D-type
sometimes 5W, sometimes 3 hybrid

4,5,6 hybrids (22,25,28 degrees)  Adams
4, 6-GW basic GI irons, weak lofts and +1/2" for more speed and launch
58º Wedge
Odyssey Jailbird Mini
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not alone. What little that is put out on the theory is pretty weak and based on just that, there is no actual basis in dynamics for what MBI is trying to accomplish.

But that doesn't mean it might not work so couldn't really hurt to try if you're not happy with what you got and feel like experimenting with something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have about 7 or 8 MBI matched builds under my belt now. As I gain more experience with how an MBI matched set feels and plays compared to matching only MOI, I personally think Monte nailed it. We just need more builders and golfers to provide testing and feedback. I have spent a good amount of time digesting the info and mulling over the physics and I truly believe that the MBI equation fully achieves the goal of accounting for the key critical variables that make up the "feel" of a golf club; shaft flex not withstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Our picks

    • 2021 FARMERS WITB & Equipment Photos- Links and comments
      We are back on the ground at the 2021 Farmers PGA Tour event. Please add you comments in this thread. Here are links to all the galleries:
      Special galleries:
      2021 Farmers - Tuesday #1
      2021 Farmers - Tuesday #2
      2021 Farmers - Tuesday #3
      2021 Farmers - Tuesday #4
      2021 Farmers - Tuesday #5
      2021 Farmers - Tuesday #6
      2021 Farmers - Tuesday #7
      Cameron putters - Farmers 2021
      Odyssey 2-ball Ten - Farmers 2021
      Project X Even Flow RipTide MX & LX proto shafts - Framers 2021
      TaylorMade putter cover for Torrey Pines - Farmers 2021
      Sling Shot training aid - Farmers 2021
      • 40 replies
    • 2021 American Express WITB & Equipment Photos- Links and comments
      We are back on the ground at the American Express PGA event.
      Here are links to all the galleries:
      Cameron putters - 2021 American Express
      PXG Gen 4 prototype drivers - new putters
      UST Maymiya LinQ shafts - American Express 2021
      Mitsubishi Kaili & MMT shafts - American Express 2021
      Titleist TSi 2 & TSi 3 hybrids - American Express 2021
      TaylorMade putter cover for Palm Springs/Palm Desert - American Express
      New Aldila Synergy, Ascent & prototype shafts - American Express 2021
      Callaway Apex Pro iron, Epic Driver and fairway, Apex iron & hybrid - American Express 2021
      New Perfect Practice training aids - American Express 2021
      New KBS prototype shafts - American Express 2021
        • Like
      • 17 replies
    • Kevin Na WITB: 2021 Sony Open Winner (pics and specs)
      Kevin Na's What's In The Bag?
      Specs are on the front-page as well-
      Driver- Callaway GBB Epic (9 degrees) Graphite Design Tour AD GP 6 TX
      3w- Callaway Epic Flash Sub Zero (13.5 degrees) Mitsubishi Diamana RF 70 TX
      5w- Callaway Epic Flash Sub Zero (18 degrees) Mitsubishi Diamana RF 80 TX
      Hybrid- PXG 0317 X Gen 2 (19 degrees) Graphite Design Tour AD DI 95X
      Irons- Callaway Rogue Pro (4), Callaway Apex Pro 16 (5-PW) True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400
      Wedges- Callaway Mack Daddy 4 (54), Vokey Design prototype (’18) (60-06K ) True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400
      Putter- Odyssey Toulon Madison
      Grips- Golf Pride Tour Velvet Plus4
      Ball- Titleist Pro V1x

        • Like
      • 54 replies
    • SIM up close
      Here some pictures up close of the SIM only for now.  
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 175 replies
    • 2021 EQUIPMENT LAUNCHES (Running thread of all our launch pieces)
      A continually updated table of contents of our front page 2021 equipment launch stories for your reading pleasure. 

      Apex irons, Apex Pro irons, Apex DCB irons Apex hybrids, Apex Pro hybrids  
      MCraft putters
      G425 driver G425 fairway woods, hybrids and crossover G425 irons
      PXG 0211 series
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 60 replies

  • Create New...