Butt-end Soft/Tip Stiff Iron Shafts

[rbpwrx]

On 3/31/2022 at 2:51 PM, Stuart_G said:

 

I don't think you're reading the chart correctly.  The top column is distance from the tip where the frequency is measured.  So the butt frequencies are the ones on the left of the chart.  It's flipped from the EI charts that you're used to.   That means the data shows that the only shaft stiffer in the butt end than the c-taper is the PX.

 

 

As I mentioned above it's the tip that's only slightly different, not the butt.   Although 30 cpm's at the 11" mark is actually quite small of a difference in feel.  Most wouldn't even notice it.   The further from the butt end (smaller the distance from the tip) the more of a cpm change you need for the difference to be noticeable.  While 4-5 cpm might be noticeable at the 36" mark.

 

 

You may be right. The chart you posted did not indicate what the numbers were, so I assumed frequency, which would typically be higher at the butt end. Hence my assumption that the right hand side was the butt end.

Are you saying the chart measures deflection? I can't imagine what other value would be smaller at the handle. In which case, this chart would show the KBS Tour to be much stiffer, esp at the tip, than any of the other shafts. So that can't be right.

 

OR are you saying the shaft is clamped at different points and frequency is then being measured at each different clamping point? And measured where? At the tip?

 

It would be nice to see the full source for this data. Do you have a link? Would be good to understand how these numbers are being generated before being able to speak further about it.

 

 

 

[rbpwrx]

On 3/23/2022 at 9:14 AM, Awainer1 said:

DG x7 is as stiff a tip as it gets 

But not at all soft at the handle! 🙂

[rbpwrx]

On 3/30/2022 at 8:56 PM, Stuart_G said:

 

It's really not.  Those EI charts are useless because you can't get a valid comparison against other shafts.

 

 

Assuming these are CPM numbers, reclamped every 5" along the shaft, and they are distance from the *tip*, then PX is still significantly stiffer upper mid to lower mid, AND the tip, than CT. Virtually identical at handle and upper tip. Weird that CT actually comes out softer at the very tip than everything except KBS Tour. Would be good to see the measurements for X-flex versions of these profiles...

Feel is strange. PX 7.0 definitely feels boardier to me than C-Taper 130x. PX 6.5 feels strangely 'rubbery.' Whatever the explanation in terms of materials, wall thickness, construction process, etc, some swings definitely prefer the CT, some prefer the PX.

But it WOULD be good to have some objective measurements to explain WHY, so that we could all shop for matching profiles in other clubs and other brands with more confidence.

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

THAT is true, and the only reason I am looking for a similar-feeling alternative 😞

 

I have a set sitting here, only installed one or two as a test.  After all the tip bending reports, couldn't bring myself to use them.

 

And now I've aged out of them.

 

Such is the life of a golf ho  😉

 

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

 

You may be right. The chart you posted did not indicate what the numbers were, so I assumed frequency, which would typically be higher at the butt end. Hence my assumption that the right hand side was the butt end.

 

They are frequencies - but you're missing the point that higher frequency is only a representation of a stiffer shaft IF the length being tested is the same.  It's the shorter length of the vibrating section that is the reason the numbers increase from butt to tip and the tip numbers are much higher than the butt numbers.  Not because the stiffness is greater.

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

OR are you saying the shaft is clamped at different points and frequency is then being measured at each different clamping point? And measured where? At the tip?

 

Yes the shaft is clamped at different points along the shaft.  The top column is the distance from the clamp to the tip.   But it doesn't matter where the frequency is measured, once it's vibrated, the frequency is the same along the full free length of the shaft.

 

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

It would be nice to see the full source for this data. Do you have a link? 

 

It's from Wishon's shaft profiling software.  He discusses a little about his methods in this article:

 

https://www.golfwrx.com/73753/wishon-shaft-frequency-can-be-misleading/\

 

 

-

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

PX is still significantly stiffer upper mid to lower mid, AND the tip, than CT.

 

Yes, although I'd phrase it as "likely noticeably".  Whether it's significant or not will depend on the individual.

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

Weird that CT actually comes out softer at the very tip than everything except KBS Tour. Would be good to see the measurements for X-flex versions of these profiles...

 

It's not quite a bad as it may seem.  It takes a 40 cpm change at the tip to give a noticeably different feel for the more sensitive players.

 

Sorry, don't have the x flex data.  Maybe someone else with Tom's software can add them.

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

Feel is strange.

 

No doubt about that.  🙂

 

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

But it WOULD be good to have some objective measurements to explain WHY, so that we could all shop for matching profiles in other clubs and other brands with more confidence.

 

True - but don't hold your breath for that info.  Objective measurement of a subjective phenomena is almost a contradiction in terms.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Stuart_G

[rbpwrx]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

They are frequencies - but you're missing the point that higher frequency is only a representation of a stiffer shaft IF the length being tested is the same.  It's the shorter length of the vibrating section that is the reason the numbers increase from butt to tip and the tip numbers are much higher than the butt numbers.  Not because the stiffness is greater.

 

 

Yes the shaft is clamped at different points along the shaft.  The top column is the distance from the clamp to the tip.   But it doesn't matter where the frequency is measured, once it's vibrated, the frequency is the same along the full free length of the shaft.

 

 

 

It's from Wishon's shaft profiling software.  He discusses a little about his methods in this article:

 

https://www.golfwrx.com/73753/wishon-shaft-frequency-can-be-misleading/\

 

 

-

 

Yes, although I'd phrase it as "likely noticeably".  Whether it's significant or not will depend on the individual.

 

 

It's not quite a bad as it may seem.  It takes a 40 cpm change at the tip to give a noticeably different feel for the more sensitive players.

 

Sorry, don't have the x flex data.  Maybe someone else with Tom's software can add them.

 

 

No doubt about that.  🙂

 

 

 

True - but don't hold your breath for that info.  Objective measurement of a subjective phenomena is almost a contradiction in terms.

 

 

 

 

Thanks! I truly appreciate the depth of the reply.

 

And of course it now makes sense that clamping at different locations would give you much higher frequency in the shorter sections, regardless of diameter. Tuning forks, and all that.

 

So the value here is that you can compare shafts against each other, at multiple bend points. It would be interesting to have the clamping going the other direction, too. Close to the handle, and working toward the tip, vibrating the grip end.

[Stuart_G]

2 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Thanks! I truly appreciate the depth of the reply.

 

No problem.  Glad to help.

 

2 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

So the value here is that you can compare shafts against each other, at multiple bend points.

 

Exactly.  Very similar to the EI profiles (since EI and freq are directly related) but Tom's software allowed for better comparisons than is available for the lower cost subscription at the GSR site since you can plot multiple shafts on the same graph.

 

2 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

It would be interesting to have the clamping going the other direction, too. Close to the handle, and working toward the tip, vibrating the grip end.

 

Interesting yes - but wouldn't really gain you anything in terms of comparison info and would be very impractical.   Combine the high stiffness of the butt section with a much shorter length and you'd need a huge weight to get enough vibration to be measurable.

[rbpwrx]

On 4/2/2022 at 9:29 PM, Stuart_G said:

 

No problem.  Glad to help.

 

 

Exactly.  Very similar to the EI profiles (since EI and freq are directly related) but Tom's software allowed for better comparisons than is available for the lower cost subscription at the GSR site since you can plot multiple shafts on the same graph.

 

 

Interesting yes - but wouldn't really gain you anything in terms of comparison info and would be very impractical.   Combine the high stiffness of the butt section with a much shorter length and you'd need a huge weight to get enough vibration to be measurable.

Further question on measurement technique: you are keeping the weight at the tip end, but progressively moving the clamp toward the handle end, correct?

 

Have you ever done experiments moving the weight toward the handle and along with the clamp? So that you maintain a constant distance between clamp and weight? Seems like that might give you more information about the specific section of the shaft between the clamp and the weight.

 

Another way to get information on each section might be to do a static droop test instead of a frequency test. Where you measure deflection  from the clamp to the weight, maybe over a 1 foot section of the shaft or so.

 

Also, how close do you get to the handle? Do you clamp it all the way at the far end? Because some shafts are designed to be a little softer toward the butt of the grip. (That happens to be my preference.)

 

 I find it hard to imagine that, with the clamp all the way at the grip end, and the weight all the way at the tip end, vibrating the shaft for frequency, with so many contributions from so many different sections of the shaft, that you're getting the specific information about the hande end that you might want.

 

Thoughts? 

[Stuart_G]

12 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Further question on measurement technique: you are keeping the weight at the tip end, but progressively moving the clamp toward the handle end, correct?

 

First of all, they aren't my methods or data.  I'm just borrowing them from posts Tom (and others who had the software) made sharing the information when he was active here.  But that's my understanding of the method.

 

12 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Have you ever done experiments moving the weight toward the handle and along with the clamp? So that you maintain a constant distance between clamp and weight? Seems like that might give you more information about the specific section of the shaft between the clamp and the weight.

 

As I said, I haven't done any of the measuring - but not sure that would really make that much difference in the amount of information given.  But I'd have to go back and dig through my beam theory texts to say for sure. 

 

 

12 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Another way to get information on each section might be to do a static droop test instead of a frequency test. Where you measure deflection  from the clamp to the weight, maybe over a 1 foot section of the shaft or so.

 

Correct.  EI information can be determined though both deflection and frequency.  Although discrete deflection tests over different parts of the shaft would be more useful than total deflection.   That's what Russ uses for the EI charts on his web site.   

 

https://www.golfshaftreviews.info/technical-stuff/measuring-the-golf-shaft/

 

 

12 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Also, how close do you get to the handle? Do you clamp it all the way at the far end? Because some shafts are designed to be a little softer toward the butt of the grip. (That happens to be my preference.)

 

Due to the large diameter, the butt is the stiffest part of the shaft.   You'd have to ask Tom for verification but it wouldn't make any sense to me to test any higher than he already is.  Even Russ' charts don't go any higher than Tom's in terms of measuring from what I've seen.  So I suspect that that "soft" part you are referring to is actually further down the shaft than you seem to think and not really right in the handle.

 

12 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

 I find it hard to imagine that, with the clamp all the way at the grip end, and the weight all the way at the tip end, vibrating the shaft for frequency, with so many contributions from so many different sections of the shaft, that you're getting the specific information about the hande end that you might want.

 

Good question. 

 

There is no question that the weight distribution along the free section of the shaft will influence the resulting frequencies.   But my first impression is that the boundary condition at the clamped end and the stiffness there will play the major part in the frequency determination.  But beam theory was a long time ago so will stay a bit open minded until I get a chance to do some more detailed digging.

 

However,  don't overlook that the whole point of the data is to compare shafts.  And more specifically to really to look for similar shafts more than get too detailed in the differences.   The data can't tell you what will be a good fit or not, that has to be done on the range or in a bay swinging and hitting balls.   Once a good fit is found for stiffness feel, the point is to find other similar shafts that can also be tested (maybe with different weight properties).   So the exact nature of what the different data means isn't as important as one might think at first.  

 

The relationship between the objective stiffness data and the changes in feel from those differences is way too subjective to make the details all that important.     Despite the fact that many attempt it (or want to be able to).  There is really no way for a fitter to accurately use in detail what a subject describes as a problem with the feel to come up with an alternative profile.  They can only generalize at best and though trial and error testing dial in to the best fit.    So again, the exact nature of the data is not really as important as it is that it's a valid relative evaluation between different shafts.

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Stuart_G

[rbpwrx]

10 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

Due to the large diameter, the butt is the stiffest part of the shaft.   You'd have to ask Tom for verification but it wouldn't make any sense to me to test any higher than he already is.  Even Russ' charts don't go any higher than Tom's in terms of measuring from what I've seen.  So I suspect that that "soft" part you are referring to is actually further down the shaft than you seem to think and not really right in the handle.

That is likely true for most steel shafts. Although swaging will decrease wall thickness as it increases diameter. (I'm thinking specifically about Tour Concept and Black Gold, which were designed with softer handles.)

Graphite shafts, of course, can be much more specifically engineered for different bend profiles in different sections. So it's theoretically possible to have a softer handle section than tip, even though the diameter is much larger.

 

Clamping further toward the butt end with *that* shaft would yield increasing droop/ lower frequencies.

And since where many of us *feel* bend/ flex is with the last two fingers of our lead hand, that butt end section might be the *most* important to understand in detail.

Anyway, the more info the better, in my book. Thanks!

[Stuart_G]

3 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Graphite shafts, of course, can be much more specifically engineered for different bend profiles in different sections. So it's theoretically possible to have a softer handle section than tip, even though the diameter is much larger.

 

I won't say it's impossible but still unlikely without making the fiber layers so thin that there is a high risk of breakage.   But that's just based on intuition, not any hard data.

 

 

3 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

And since where many of us *feel* bend/ flex is with the last two fingers of our lead hand, that butt end section might be the *most* important to understand in detail.

 

What you interpret as the part of the shaft bending is not always in sync with reality.  The shaft doesn't bend at only one place at a time.  When it does load, it loads over the entire length of the shaft virtually all at once.   The only thing we actually feel as loading is the "delay" of the feedback we get of the head resisting being accelerated.  And that's always a function of the total deflection and the rate of deflection for the whole shaft, not the deflection of just one part of the shaft.   I don't doubt there might be some combination of the mechanics that might result in subtle differences in feel from different profiles - but they are likely too subtle to be very reliable.

 

Another way to put it is that our minds are really good at making up stuff to help us try and understand what's happening but it's rarely very good at it since there is no way to really refine that sense.  It's an open ended loop with no feedback to allow us to correct and refine the interpretation.

 

According to Tom Wishon, based on a lot of testing, the vast majority of players can not really feel the difference between the butt stiffness and mid stiffness.   Difference in tip vs butt/mid is more discernible but only for those with a late release.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

 

Anyway, the more info the better, in my book.

 

No argument there.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Stuart_G

[rbpwrx]

On 4/5/2022 at 8:25 PM, Stuart_G said:

What you interpret as the part of the shaft bending is not always in sync with reality.  The shaft doesn't bend at only one place at a time.  When it does load, it loads over the entire length of the shaft virtually all at once.   The only thing we actually feel as loading is the "delay" of the feedback we get of the head resisting being accelerated.  And that's always a function of the total deflection and the rate of deflection for the whole shaft, not the deflection of just one part of the shaft.   I don't doubt there might be some combination of the mechanics that might result in subtle differences in feel from different profiles - but they are likely too subtle to be very reliable.

Of course the entire shaft is loading and bending! But the idea that we can't feel *where* a shaft is loading/ bending *more*, compared to other shafts? Yeah, I really disagree on that.

Don't forget, we are evolved to chase wild boars through jungles leaping over bushes wielding spears with such fine dexterity that for hundreds of thousands of years we have not gone starving.

Feel is very real. We can sense the difference not only between different brands and shafts but between different shafts of the same make and model! At least some of us can. (Think of Tiger and his one famous putter, or his endless search for a wood shaft that matches his beloved X100s. Or Phil and his collection of vintage PX satin 7.0s...)

And the proof is data sets like Wishon's, which *confirm* the differences that pros and some of us ams have always been able to feel. (Same with musicians, who scour the earth for one particular Steinway or Gibson of the same model and year, etc.)

Anyway, it's an academic point. But I think it's a mistake for fitters to dismiss testimony from their clients, just as it is for doctors to dismiss testimony from their patients.

Feel is subjective. And often inaccurate, compared to laboratory machines. But it's very real.

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

Of course the entire shaft is loading and bending! But the idea that we can't feel *where* a shaft is loading/ bending *more*, compared to other shafts? Yeah, I really disagree on that.

 

But think about how one could?  The only part of the shaft we're touching  and getting feedback from is the very butt end.   We have no contact with any other part of the shaft.  

 

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

Don't forget, we are evolved to chase wild boars through jungles leaping over bushes wielding spears with such fine dexterity that for hundreds of thousands of years we have not gone starving.

 

It has nothing to do with dexterity.    It's all about the physics of how feel is or can be transmitted through the shaft to the butt end.  It's not completely independent of the bend profile but at best it can only be a very foggy picture.

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

 

Feel is very real. We can sense the difference not only between different brands and shafts but between different shafts of the same make and model! At least some of us can. (Think of Tiger and his one famous putter, or his endless search for a wood shaft that matches his beloved X100s. Or Phil and his collection of vintage PX satin 7.0s...)

 

I'm not questioning the ability to feel differences.   I'm questioning the ability to process that difference in feel and interpret or equate that to very specific EI changes in the shaft.   Just because we know the end result is a good fit and what we want, doesn't mean we understand why it is.   If that were the case it wouldn't be that hard to duplicate it and those clubs wouldn't end up being nearly as "beloved" as they are.

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

And the proof is data sets like Wishon's, which *confirm* the differences that pros and some of us ams have always been able to feel. (Same with musicians, who scour the earth for one particular Steinway or Gibson of the same model and year, etc.)

 

Wishon himself came to the conclusion after significant testing that the vast majority of players can not feel the difference between a change in stiffness of the butt section vs the mid section.  It's easy to see what you want to see or fool yourself into thinking something different after fact when you see the data.   You need a lot more detailed BLIND testing to before you can call it proof of anything.

 

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

Anyway, it's an academic point.

 

I agree.  Very little downside to it as long as the process is managed correctly.  That's what's important.  This is more along the lines of a intriguing tangent at best.

 

 

1 hour ago, rbpwrx said:

But I think it's a mistake for fitters to dismiss testimony from their clients, just as it is for doctors to dismiss testimony from their patients.

 

Of course it is,  I agree 100%.   I never implied anything different.   Feedback from the person being fit is a critical part of the fitting process - just as important as the numbers on the LM - many times even more important.   But that's a lot different then saying that the players interpretation of the underlying root cause of what they are feeling is correct.  That's the only thing I was referring to.

 

To take your analogy a step further,  the patient really is the best source for getting information about all the symptoms and that information certainly is critical to the rest of the process.  But he isn't always very good at coming up with what tests might be needed, determining an accurate diagnosis or understanding what the best cure might be.  That's usually best done by the doctor.  Well assuming they are a good doctor - I don't want to turn this into a discussion on the state of the health care system 🙂

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Stuart_G

[rbpwrx]

On 4/7/2022 at 8:17 AM, Stuart_G said:

the patient really is the best source for getting information about all the symptoms and that information certainly is critical to the rest of the process.  But he isn't always very good at coming up with what tests might be needed, determining an accurate diagnosis or understanding what the best cure might be.

 

That's a really good analogy. Agreed. (Although occasionally the patient makes a better doctor than the doctor, because they have only one body to deal with, and they are living in it 24/7.)

 

On 4/7/2022 at 8:17 AM, Stuart_G said:

It's all about the physics of how feel is or can be transmitted through the shaft to the butt end.  It's not completely independent of the bend profile but at best it can only be a very foggy picture.

 

I've been thinking about this. Yes, of course, you're right. Everything we feel in the shaft is coming THROUGH the handle. It's the only thing we are in contact with.

 

AND. That doesn't mean we can't feel a tremendous amount, in great detail, about the shaft, the head, the ball, the strike, the ground, even the air, through our highly-evolved hands.

 

Think of a fly fisherman. They are only in contact with the rod at the handle. But do we really believe an experienced fisherman can't feel the slightest shift in current, wind, nibble on the end of the line, bend and whip of the bamboo rod, all through one hand on the handle end? Hardly 'foggy.'

 

Or think of one of those TXG guys, calling their strike point. "That one felt a little toe-y." Naming, accurately, where they feel a little more bend in the shaft, a little more 'board.'

 

I won't bore everyone with all my trials and tribulations comparing and contrasting shafts. It's been a multi-decade study. But I feel tremendous differences between shafts of supposedly identical 'flexes.' All through that handle end. And I'm not even a fisherman. 🙂

Edited April 8, 2022 by rbpwrx

[Stuart_G]

34 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

 

AND. That doesn't mean we can't feel a tremendous amount, in great detail, about the shaft, the head, the ball, the strike, the ground, even the air, through our highly-evolved hands.

 

Not disputing most of that.

 

 

34 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

Think of a fly fisherman. They are only in contact with the rod at the handle. But do we really believe an experienced fisherman can't feel the slightest shift in current, wind, nibble on the end of the line, bend and whip of the bamboo rod, all through one hand on the handle end? Hardly 'foggy.'

 

But how much will that ability change if they make a slight change to the stiffness of the rod.   I suspect their ability to detect those things is actually pretty independent of the stiffness profile of the rod.  

 

There is no doubt we can feel things through the shaft.  Some more than others - but still many with a high degree of sensitivity.   But that's very different from feeling what's actually going on in the shaft between the tip where the input happens and where our hands receive that input.

 

 

34 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

I won't bore everyone with all my trials and tribulations comparing and contrasting shafts. It's been a multi-decade study. But I feel tremendous differences between shafts of supposedly identical 'flexes.'

 

Not surprising - especially considering there is no standard for flex.  So two shafts with the same flex - or most of the other stiffness descriptors used by the shaft manufacturers - doesn't mean anything about how similar they really are.   There is no doubt we can detect general differences in stiffness, that's not what I'm talking about.   It's really about at what level of granularity about how the stiffness changes over the length for the shaft we can detect those changes.

 

When a body is accelerated, it resists that acceleration thanks to Newton's second law.   In terms of our swing accelerating the club head, the shaft acts a bit like springs in the cars suspension when driving over a bump.  As it bends, it absorbs some of that force and spreads out what we feel over a longer period of time - relative to what we might feel if it didn't have any elasticity.   Some call it softer, some call it less harsh but it's about the same thing.  So it makes perfect sense that we can feel stiffness.   But the question is whether we can really tell the difference between that bending or energy absorption happening in one part of the shaft vs another given the level of absorption is the same.

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Stuart_G

[rbpwrx]

On 4/8/2022 at 12:58 PM, Stuart_G said:

The question is whether we can really tell the difference between that bending or energy absorption happening in one part of the shaft vs another given the level of absorption is the same.

Sure. And the answer is cleary yes, at least on the part of most pros. Agreed? Very sensitive to even slight differences in flex at every point in the shaft. Very particular abou how and where the shaft bends.

 

Now the rest of us may not have pro swings or short games or putting strokes or mental games. But we might have similar levels of FEEL, especially multiple decades into the game. Just like we might not have the voice of an opera singer. But we might have a similarly discerning ear. No?

[Stuart_G]

22 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Sure. And the answer is cleary yes, at least on the part of most pros. Agreed?

 

Not at all.

 

22 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Very sensitive to even slight differences in flex at every point in the shaft. Very particular abou how and where the shaft bends.

 

Sensitive to different profiles and telling that there is some difference, even a small one? yes.  Sensitive enough to to know exactly where on the shaft it's happening?, no.   I've never seen any evidence to support that - or even suggest it's a possibility. 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by Stuart_G

[rbpwrx]

On 4/17/2022 at 2:48 PM, Stuart_G said:

 

Not at all.

 

 

Sensitive to different profiles and telling that there is some difference, even a small one? yes.  Sensitive enough to to know exactly where on the shaft it's happening?, no.   I've never seen any evidence to support that - or even suggest it's a possibility. 

 

 

I am truly baffled by this idea. I am no pro, and for me these differences in shaft profile are pretty striking and obvious. Same for several golf buddies.
 

Don't we all go back-and-forth about how some shafts are "too boardy" for many, meaning too firm at the handle end (an original  Project X satin, for example), and some shafts are "too whippy," meaning too soft at the tip end (a Modus 120, for example)?

 

I know that with a tip-soft shaft, I have a very clear feeling and image of the head twisting and moving at impact, with corresponding results, where a tip-stiff shaft both feels and 'looks' (in my mind's eye) like it transmits energy more directly, without defamation.

 

Same if the bend point is more at the handle, upper mid, lower mid, etc.

 

Again, I have done my own seat-of-the-pants study, of a couple dozen different X steel shafts in 7 irons, over a couple decades, and the differences are stark and very noticeable. And, for me, the winners keep coming up the same, year after year.

 

To each their own.

 

Interestingly, I was just reading Tom Wishon's own comments in a thread on his site, and I found his dismissal of nuance and detailed perceptions on the part of players really strange in such a celebrated club maker. Perhaps it's something he doesn't credit because it's something he doesn't personally feel? But it seemed like a pretty big blind spot for him.

 

Another interesting tidbit: Tiger Woods played cut down X100s as a kid. Really cut down! He said he never felt the shaft flex until he sprouted as a teenager and was all of a sudden 6 feet tall.

 

And it was a very strange sensation for him! He would catch  flyers when the shaft happened to whip, or bleeders if it stayed open, etc. He said he learned how to time it, but any kind of flex at all, and these were X100s, was a very noticeable thing for him.

 

I found that fascinating. Explained some of the dynamics of how he swings, his preferences with wood shafts, his delay switching to graphite, etc. Just interesting that arguably the greatest golfer who ever lived, with reputedly the most sensitive hands in the game by far - he can feel differences of 1000th of an inch, or 100th of a gram - has a foundation in the game of zero shaft flex. Total baseball bats.

 

Oh well! Onward ho. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by rbpwrx

[Stuart_G]

3 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Don't we all go back-and-forth about how some shafts are "too boardy" for many, meaning too firm at the handle end (an original  Project X satin, for example), and some shafts are "too whippy," meaning too soft at the tip end (a Modus 120, for example)?

 

Those are interpretations of overall stiffness feel.   There is no common meaning about where that stiffness difference is coming from.  I don't doubt people have tried to do that but I do doubt anyone has ever done a proper validation of those interpretations.   Actual blind testing with a big enough sample size to be statistically significant.

 

FWIW, Tip stiffness is easy to pick up, especially tip soft shats.  That's because no other part of the shaft can become even remotely close to how soft the tip can be.   So if the overall stiffness becomes soft enough, that level of softness has to come from the tip.  

 

 

3 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

I know that with a tip-soft shaft, I have a very clear feeling and image of the head twisting and moving at impact, with corresponding results, where a tip-stiff shaft both feels and 'looks' (in my mind's eye) like it transmits energy more directly, without defamation.

 

But what have you actually validate that those feels are real?     In this case it's pretty clear that it's not.  Shaft stiffness has nothing to do with how much energy is transferred from the head to the ball.   The change in feel can potentially effect the way you deliver the head into the ball and therefore the results.  But if you're able to deliver the head with the same velocity and get the same face impact position - the energy transfer will be identical - despite the fact that it might feel different to you.

 

It's very easy for the mind to create interpretations for what we feel.  It's almost automatic.   But the original source of this interpretation is commonly from our imagination, not reality.  And w/o any way to properly validate those interpretations, there is no way to refine those interpretations and get them to actually come close to reality.  Worse, poor validation attempts can actually skew those interpretations further from reality, not closer.

 

Classic example is that the forum is full of cases where people have blamed longitudinal stiffness feel difference on the torque specs - because that's the only spec they were able to look up.

 

Of course, when it comes to finding a good fitting shaft or getting good results,  how accurate those interpretations might be isn't important.   As long as we end up with the shaft that feels or works the best, neither the details of why its' the best choice or the accuracy of our interpretation doesn't matter.   Only the actual results matter.   Which is one reason I think that such misconceptions or mis-persceptions can persist.

 

 

3 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Same if the bend point is more at the handle, upper mid, lower mid, etc.

 

Side note - bend point is a useless metric for the stiffness profile.  It doesn't even really very much more than an inch or two across shafts with very different bend profiles.

 

 

3 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Interestingly, I was just reading Tom Wishon's own comments in a thread on his site, and I found his dismissal of nuance and detailed perceptions on the part of players really strange in such a celebrated club maker. Perhaps it's something he doesn't credit because it's something he doesn't personally feel? But it seemed like a pretty big blind spot for him.

 

Considering the amount of testing he's done in his career and his understanding of how things need to be tested in order to validate any ideas (or dismiss them).  I'm sorry (really not trying to be disrespectful) but I think it's much more likely the blind spot is located elsewhere.

 

 

3 hours ago, rbpwrx said:

Another interesting tidbit: Tiger Woods played cut down X100s as a kid. Really cut down! He said he never felt the shaft flex until he sprouted as a teenager and was all of a sudden 6 feet tall.

 

And it was a very strange sensation for him! He would catch  flyers when the shaft happened to whip, or bleeders if it stayed open, etc. He said he learned how to time it, but any kind of flex at all, and these were X100s, was a very noticeable thing for him.

 

Not surprising at all and really not all that uncommon even among amateurs for the timing to have a strong relationship with the overall stiffness feel of the shaft and the two being very dependent on each other.

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Stuart_G

[rbpwrx]

On 4/19/2022 at 12:13 PM, Stuart_G said:

When it comes to finding a good fitting shaft or getting good results,  how accurate those interpretations might be isn't important.   As long as we end up with the shaft that feels or works the best, neither the details of why its' the best choice or the accuracy of our interpretation doesn't matter.   Only the actual results matter.

Amen. And I'm happy to leave it there.

The only thing I would add is that, in my own *blind* tests, same swing, same iron, I would *definitely* feel much greater tip softness or firmness, firmer handle or softer, same upper and lower middle, etc, *notate* all that, and have it "confirmed" by looking up the EI curves of the various shafts, and see that, indeed, the satin PX had a firmer handle than the X100, the Modus Tour a softer tip than the C-Taper, etc.

Now, if you're saying that EI curves (or some other more comprehensive method of shaft measurement) could be more detailed, accurate, and standardized, I could not agree with you more.

At long last, onward ho?

[Stuart_G]

24 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

Amen. And I'm happy to leave it there.

The only thing I would add is that, in my own *blind* tests, same swing, same iron, I would *definitely* feel much greater tip softness or firmness, firmer handle or softer, same upper and lower middle, etc, *notate* all that, and have it "confirmed" by looking up the EI curves of the various shafts, and see that, indeed, the satin PX had a firmer handle than the X100, the Modus Tour a softer tip than the C-Taper, etc.

 

Well if you were testing yourself there's no way it could be blind - but I do believe you did your best to try to make it objective.  It's just not as easy to do as it might seem.

 

 

24 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

Now, if you're saying that EI curves (or some other more comprehensive method of shaft measurement) could be more detailed, accurate, and standardized, I could not agree with you more.

 

It's not what I was saying but I certainly agree with it 🙂

 

Another problem is finding shafts that only differ in one small part of the shafts.   The more differences there are between two shafts, the more difficult it is to prove where the change in feel might have come from.

 

24 minutes ago, rbpwrx said:

At long last, onward ho?

 

Sounds good to me.  I think we've exhausted this topic - for a while at least 😉

 

[rbpwrx]

7 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

Well if you were testing yourself there's no way it could be blind

My best golf buddy was the scientist. He noted and disguised all the shafts (masking tape down the visible side) to hid finish, step pattern (if any), and any other cues I could possibly see. Convinced we got accurate results for me (and, again, my perceptions matched the shafts specs, as far as they are published).

 

He got similar results when we switched, except that, in addition to naming every shaft, with eyes closed (yes), he also called every shot (fade, draw, traj, etc), except one. Clanker off the heel. He said it hit the hundred yard sign, was actually the nearby corner of the ball tractor. 🙂