Advantages of 430cc vs 460cc driver

[hypergolf]

Some articles mention that smaller driver head increases swing speed.

 

Whilst other articles counter argue that 460cc has a larger sweet spot hence speed gained from smaller driver head is nullified. 

 

I would like to hear your thoughts as quite a lot of golfers do perform well (or even better) with small headed 3 wood off the tee.

 

What are the pros and cons of using 430cc vs 460cc driver head?

[zdtallan]

I currently play a 430cc driver (TS4) and will soon put a 460cc (Sim2) driver in the bag.  With my gamer shaft in each, I swing them at an almost identical speed.  Some swings a little faster, some slower but they all average out to about the same figures.  The disadvantage of say a 430cc driver is exactly that, it's smaller and thus has a smaller "sweet spot" making it less forgiving across the face than say a 460cc driver with better MOI.  With my TS4 the tradeoff is lower spin compared to some other more forgiving/larger drivers.  I don't hit it all over the face that much so it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make., 

 

As to why some swing a 3-wood better, I don't think it has anything to do with head size but rather the fact that people's mechanics often break down when you give them a longer club and throw a ball on a tee. 

[Titleist_PT23]

The 430 cc / lower MOI head is good if you make contact above the centre line and need to kill spin due to swing mechanics.  Personally, I have also found that I can play more loft in these heads and just feel better looking down at this (I am indifferent to the head size or shape).  I don't disagree with the theory that you can get the same launch conditions with the 460 cc head and the right shaft.  But I also don't have a tour van available to test everything under the sun.  I've played 2016 M2, G400 MAX, 915 D4 and TS4 the most over the last few years.  The fairways hit % and penalty shots off the tee never changed over the course of 50 rounds with any of the clubs.  Of course, I may have never found the right combo with the more forgiving heads or could just be telling myself whatever to justify the Titleist models...

[Stuart_G]

15 hours ago, hypergolf said:

I would like to hear your thoughts as quite a lot of golfers do perform well (or even better) with small headed 3 wood off the tee.

 

It's pretty simple.   It's really all (well 99%) about the shorter playing length, not the head size.

Although for some there is a different mentality in the swing between the driver and 3wd.  They don't try to swing out of their shoes with the 3wd like they do with the driver.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Myherobobhope]

15 hours ago, hypergolf said:

 

Some articles mention that smaller driver head increases swing speed

 

Grab the regular weight speed stick and see how much more clubhead speed you have with it than your driver... it’s about as optimized as you can get in terms of aerodynamics... it shouldn’t be that much faster.

 

the whole aerodynamic argument for driver doesn’t make much sense to me... you just aren’t generating that much drag.

[phizzy30]

I prefer a smaller cc head which is why the FT-9TA and R11 dot heads were my all time favorite.  460cc just looks gaudy at address and doesn't fit my eye.  Also, 30cc isn't significant of a difference to reduce ss dramatically.  I got some of my best ball speeds with the smaller head drivers.  

[Golfingfanatic]

I'd say it is mostly aesthetics. 

[Nessism]

Heads can't be judged based on size alone.  It's the shape, CG position, etc. which determine it's function.  

 

Case in point, if you read though the articles on the internet (which I'm not allowed to link) on driver CG position you will see drastic differences between heads of the same size.  So while a 460 head has a theoretical advantage in the ability to increase MOI compared to the smaller head, there is no guarantee the MOI will actually be higher.

 

In terms of visuals, it's possible to make a flattish pancake looking head that will appear huge compared to other heads of the same size.  The Ping Max heads for example look larger than many others.  Typically though, when manufacturers decide to make a smaller head they do it specifically to make the head look smaller.  And there in lies the biggest real difference in my opinion.

 

 

[Nard_S]

Over last 6 years, in order played  460, 390, 450 & 435 cc clubs. The distance king was the 390. The king of consistency was the 450. The most enjoyable to swing was the 435. I'm going for 430 on the next one but I'm pretty sure the results I got had more to do with shaft and configuration than head size.

[Jace_bkr]

 

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

It's pretty simple.   It's really all (well 99%) about the shorter playing length, not the head size.

Although for some there is a different mentality in the swing between the driver and 3wd.  They don't try to swing out of their shoes with the 3wd like they do with the driver.

 

Agree'd, I would say 90% of the average male golfers play a driver that is too long for them.. Having most all big box manufacturers producing them @ 45.5 and 45.75 off the rack people seem to think this must be what i need or they wouldn't sell them this length which simply isn't the case..  Drivers are sold that length to sell drivers IMO.. Guy goes in and rips 2 out of 10 and he's sold as the extra length does in fact increase swing speed but at the expense of consistency/ accuracy (hence inconsistent contact all over the face).

 

Same golfer fit into the correct length & shaft to suit their swing would undoubtedly produce more consistent contact producing higher ball speeds which equals more distance, better dispersion, consistent spin/launch.. 

 

 

[NRJyzr]

Ironically, the club that's regarded by many/most to be the least forgiving 460cc driver in recent memory has a 430cc companion model thats actually more forgiving than the larger sibling.  Referring to the SLDRs.

 

Personally, the aesthetics are what have me looking smaller than 460cc.  Some of that is likely due to my preferred driver club length, but it's not the entire answer.

 

[Titleist_PT23]

25 minutes ago, Jace_bkr said:

 

 

Agree'd, I would say 90% of the average male golfers play a driver that is too long for them.. Having most all big box manufacturers producing them @ 45.5 and 45.75 off the rack people seem to think this must be what i need or they wouldn't sell them this length which simply isn't the case..  Drivers are sold that length to sell drivers IMO.. Guy goes in and rips 2 out of 10 and he's sold as the extra length does in fact increase swing speed but at the expense of consistency/ accuracy (hence inconsistent contact all over the face).

 

Same golfer fit into the correct length & shaft to suit their swing would undoubtedly produce more consistent contact producing higher ball speeds which equals more distance, better dispersion, consistent spin/launch.. 

 

 

May be true but people said the same thing when we went from 43.5 to 44.0 (or perhaps 45.0).  Or that pros use < 45 inch drivers until they don't (i.e. right now).  Now, people will claim "they're pros," which they are.  But they also fail to admit that the original premise that < 45 was the optimal length appears to be wrong.  The same holds for the people that said can't go longer than 43.5 for ams but now say 44-44.5 is "OK" for ams.

 

Said another way, if you give every 12 year old kid a 46 inch driver I'd bet they will hit it just fine by the time they are 16-18 years old (grown adult frame).  The "shorter driver" theory, which has data behind it, has a huge bias in that you are testing what someone has swung 10,000 times to something new that feels different/awkward.  I do agree that many likely hit the shorter driver better today but the conclusion that this is the best length on average for all (specifically new players) is flawed IMO.  Just look at all of the young tour players.  They play longer drivers than their predecessors.  Their predecessors were also pros. the "current players are pros" theory/exclusion pretty much flops.  I believe the key is people that don't have the built in bias  (i.e. familiar with a shorter driver) can reach a different conclusion.

[puttingmatt]

Playing a smaller headed driver is just preferable for myself, I have better overall results.  Performance  is slightly longer  off the tee since I square the face easier with the under 460 cc heads.  And that is with  a 44.50 playing length on both sized drivers 

Edited May 30, 2021 by puttingmatt

[JermWRX]

1 hour ago, Nessism said:

Heads can't be judged based on size alone.  It's the shape, CG position, etc. which determine it's function.  

 

 

 

I’ve been telling my wife this for years...

[Double Dodger]

19 hours ago, zdtallan said:

I currently play a 430cc driver (TS4) and will soon put a 460cc (Sim2) driver in the bag.  With my gamer shaft in each, I swing them at an almost identical speed.  Some swings a little faster, some slower but they all average out to about the same figures.  The disadvantage of say a 430cc driver is exactly that, it's smaller and thus has a smaller "sweet spot" making it less forgiving across the face than say a 460cc driver with better MOI.  With my TS4 the tradeoff is lower spin compared to some other more forgiving/larger drivers.  I don't hit it all over the face that much so it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make., 

 

As to why some swing a 3-wood better, I don't think it has anything to do with head size but rather the fact that people's mechanics often break down when you give them a longer club and throw a ball on a tee. 

Three wood has less loft therefore less side spin. Not to mention it’s shorter. So many hit a three wood ‘better’. 
 

My thoughts on this are that I have never seen a more forgiving hammer. I’m just speculating but maybe more mass near the sweet spot increases force applied to the ball. 

[TTRacer]

For me it's mostly just a looks preference, I found most 430 heads are a little rounder and deeper than a flatter pancake profile.  Of course this varies from model to model, I'm mostly thinking TaylorMade stuff.

[Jace_bkr]

27 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

May be true but people said the same thing when we went from 43.5 to 44.0 (or perhaps 45.0).  Or that pros use < 45 inch drivers until they don't (i.e. right now).  Now, people will claim "they're pros," which they are.  But they also fail to admit that the original premise that < 45 was the optimal length appears to be wrong.  The same holds for the people that said can't go longer than 43.5 for ams but now say 44-44.5 is "OK" for ams.

 

Said another way, if you give every 12 year old kid a 46 inch driver I'd bet they will hit it just fine by the time they are 16-18 years old (grown adult frame).  The "shorter driver" theory, which has data behind it, has a huge bias in that you are testing what someone has swung 10,000 times to something new that feels different/awkward.  I do agree that many likely hit the shorter driver better today but the conclusion that this is the best length on average for all (specifically new players) is flawed IMO.  Just look at all of the young tour players.  They play longer drivers than their predecessors.  Their predecessors were also pros. the "current players are pros" theory/exclusion pretty much flops.  I believe the key is people that don't have the built in bias  (i.e. familiar with a shorter driver) can reach a different conclusion.

Not doubting anyone could eventually get used to added length in any club and produce somewhat descent shots consistently after thousands of shots but at what cost? Adjusting setup, swing, ect for 1 club affecting your entire bags consistency?

 

A 45.5-45.75 (OEM standards now) length driver is extremely long when you consider the average 3 wood is only 43". That's a big length change between clubs, especially considering an entire iron set of 4-PW is only separated by 3 inches (35.5" PW &to 38.5" 4i).  I'd venture a guess that if you were to ask 100 people that struggle off the tee upwards of half that number would be swinging a driver that's 2.5-2.75" longer than their 3 wood and they would almost all say they hit their 3 wood better than their driver.

 

 

 

 

[Titleist_PT23]

2 hours ago, Jace_bkr said:

Not doubting anyone could eventually get used to added length in any club and produce somewhat descent shots consistently after thousands of shots but at what cost? Adjusting setup, swing, ect for 1 club affecting your entire bags consistency?

 

A 45.5-45.75 (OEM standards now) length driver is extremely long when you consider the average 3 wood is only 43". That's a big length change between clubs, especially considering an entire iron set of 4-PW is only separated by 3 inches (35.5" PW &to 38.5" 4i).  I'd venture a guess that if you were to ask 100 people that struggle off the tee upwards of half that number would be swinging a driver that's 2.5-2.75" longer than their 3 wood and they would almost all say they hit their 3 wood better than their driver.

 

 

 

 

I don't think they need to change much.  The biggest thing they need to change is their mindset.  90%+ of people that can't hit a longer driver well think they can't hit a longer driver well when standing over the ball.  If I told them this is the only length you can play or you must quit the game, a lot would adjust just fine within a reasonable amount of time.

 

I would say I think it is likely that the average length between driver and 3 wood has increased for the pros over time.  Just like the average length from longest iron to first hybrid/fairway has also increased (for pros and ams).  Eventually there is a length where the benefit goes down but the increased length delta itself exists elsewhere (although not at the longest club in the bag).

 

Nevertheless you are probably right on the part in bold.  I have always wondered whether this is a) shaft length or b) swing mentality when hitting 3 wood.  It's impossible to separate the two but a lot of the time better contact comes from a controlled swing with a 3 wood.  From from a conclusion but I was not any more accurate with a 42.5 inch 13 degree 3 Deep than a 45 inch Driver over the course of 30-40 rounds using both as my exclusive tee shot club.  I am far from a super accurate driver but I do try to make a controlled swing with a driver.  It is also possible I was trying to hit the 3 Deep "harder" when it was my only club off the tee vs. when you pull out a 3 wood to "hit the fairway" on a short or tight par 4.

[Stuart_G]

13 hours ago, agolf1 said:

I don't think they need to change much.  The biggest thing they need to change is their mindset.  90%+ of people that can't hit a longer driver well think they can't hit a longer driver well when standing over the ball.  If I told them this is the only length you can play or you must quit the game, a lot would adjust just fine within a reasonable amount of time.

 

There is a flaw in that thinking.   95% of the ams out there don't have a clue about playing length.  They only play off the shelf drivers at the longer length and always have.  They've never experienced a shorter driver, never even know that it's an option.  Yet there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a large number have not been able to adjust (even the ones that go get lessons) as you suggest they should be able to.  And when they come here for help, going shorter helps many of them.    Some can certainly manage but that basically suggests there is much more to it than an over simplified idea that they just need to  "get used to it".

 

It's well known for a long time that playing length amplifies the effects of swing flaws.   It's also well known that it take a lot more than time to fix those flaws.  It takes proper direction, dedication, properly focused time and effort with proper feedback, and even a certain amount of athletic ability.    Some ams will manage that type of approach but many wont whether from inability or lack of interest.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Titleist_PT23]

32 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

There is a flaw in that thinking.   95% of the ams out there don't have a clue about playing length.  They only play off the shelf drivers at the longer length and always have.  They've never experienced a shorter driver, never even know that it's an option.  Yet there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a large number have not been able to adjust (even the ones that go get lessons) as you suggest they should be able to.  And when they come here for help, going shorter helps many of them.    Some can certainly manage but that basically suggests there is much more to it than an over simplified idea that they just need to  "get used to it".

 

It's well known for a long time that playing length amplifies the effects of swing flaws.   It's also well known that it take a lot more than time to fix those flaws.  It takes proper direction, dedication, properly focused time and effort with proper feedback, and even a certain amount of athletic ability.    Some ams will manage that type of approach but many wont whether from inability or lack of interest.

 

 

 

 

Maybe.  But I'd bet your 95% figure is way high.  Regardless, my point isn't everyone should play a longer driver.  What I disagree with is the blanket statement "shorter is better and longer is the problem" and how often the concept is blindly pushed for people.

 

You preach data.  And I don't dispute a random sample today will show many people hit it better this moment with shorter.  But as I've mentioned, the data has a huge bias in it.  Do an informal survey of all the people here that say "shorter is better, I tried and can't go longer than 44.x.". I'd bet the vast majority of them are 40-50+ year old guys that have been swinging shorter for their entire life.

 

I think the fact that younger tour players continually play longer and longer drivers shows when you remove the bias you see a different conclusion.  I've seen prior quotes here (not you) again stressing playing length for pros they've fit.  But now the WITB shows a lot of guys playing longer than 45.  Why if 45 was some natural law of physics (hint, it isn't which is my point).

 

Again, I don't blame "fitting" or "fitters.". And I agree some recreational golfers that don't have time to practice should stick with what they hit better today (which is shorter).  But the blanket idea that you can't go longer because "I have proof of it" is not for all.

 

It's not just driver length.  Many people swear they just hit long irons better.  They aren't accustomed to a 7 wood, make 10 swings with it, and quit.  But now that tour players use them, people are willing to try / practice with it more and they reach a different conclusion.  It's not the club design or playing length.  It's the idea standing over the ball that "this isn't for me" which makes people hit it bad.   Most people quit before giving it a fair chance.  Partly due to the reinforcement that is asked for and given here.

 

[Stuart_G]

6 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

You preach data.  And I don't dispute a random sample today will show many people hit it better this moment with shorter.  But as I've mentioned, the data has a huge bias in it.  Do an informal survey of all the people here that say "shorter is better, I tried and can't go longer than 44.x.". I'd bet the vast majority of them are 40-50+ year old guys that have been swinging shorter for their entire life.

 

My main point was that no, the data does not have any bias in it.   Even for those that may have started playing at shorter lengths, the vast majority of those people have not been playing shorter lengths their whole life.  They've been playing the off the shelf longer lengths for almost 20 years now.   That's plenty long enough to make whatever they may have started at completely irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

I think the fact that younger tour players continually play longer and longer drivers shows when you remove the bias you see a different conclusion.  I've seen prior quotes here (not you) again stressing playing length for pros they've fit.  But now the WITB shows a lot of guys playing longer than 45.  Why if 45 was some natural law of physics (hint, it isn't which is my point).

 

You keep going back to what the tour players are doing.  That's meaningless to amateurs.  Tour players have a much higher level of athletic ability, much better instruction and a much better work ethic to improve their game.   Any recommendation for amateurs that's based on tour player specs has no validity to it.

 

 

6 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Again, I don't blame "fitting" or "fitters.". And I agree some recreational golfers that don't have time to practice should stick with what they hit better today (which is shorter).  But the blanket idea that you can't go longer because "I have proof of it" is not for all.

 

And you should already know by know that I've never advocated that people can't go longer.   And none of the quality fitters here feel that way either.    It's all about 1) helping each person finding the best length that they can control and 2) helping them understand that it's not just about length.  There is an important relationship between playing length, static weight and head weight that all need to work together to get the best results.

 

There will always be less informed people in a public forum that echo a specific recommendation targeted to particular individuals as if it will be a good idea for everyone.  That's just a normal part of a public forum like this.    That's a poor basis for making any conclusions on what "everyone" thinks or is advocating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Titleist_PT23]

1 minute ago, Stuart_G said:

 

My main point was that no, the data does not have any bias in it.   Even for those that may have started playing at shorter lengths, the vast majority of those people have not been playing shorter lengths their whole life.  They've been playing the off the shelf longer lengths for almost 20 years now.   That's plenty long enough to make whatever they may have started at completely irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep going back to what the tour players are doing.  That's meaningless to amateurs.  Tour players have a much higher level of athletic ability, much better instruction and a much better work ethic to improve their game.   Any recommendation for amateurs that's based on tour player specs has no validity to it.

 

 

 

And you should already know by know that I've never advocated that people can't go longer.   And none of the quality fitters here feel that way either.    It's all about 1) helping each person finding the best length that they can control and 2) helping them understand that it's not just about length.  There is an important relationship between playing length, static weight and head weight that all need to work together to get the best results.

 

There will always be less informed people in a public forum that echo a specific recommendation targeted to particular individuals as if it will be a good idea for everyone.  That's just a normal part of a public forum like this.    That's a poor basis for making any conclusions on what "everyone" thinks or is advocating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, the idea that pros play < 45 so you should too has basically been proven wrong.  I don't see you admitting that.  If you want to argue ams are not pros, that's fine.  But the part of the argument that pros don't do it has crumbled.

[Titleist_PT23]

5 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

My main point was that no, the data does not have any bias in it.   Even for those that may have started playing at shorter lengths, the vast majority of those people have not been playing shorter lengths their whole life.  They've been playing the off the shelf longer lengths for almost 20 years now.   That's plenty long enough to make whatever they may have started at completely irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep going back to what the tour players are doing.  That's meaningless to amateurs.  Tour players have a much higher level of athletic ability, much better instruction and a much better work ethic to improve their game.   Any recommendation for amateurs that's based on tour player specs has no validity to it.

 

 

 

And you should already know by know that I've never advocated that people can't go longer.   And none of the quality fitters here feel that way either.    It's all about 1) helping each person finding the best length that they can control and 2) helping them understand that it's not just about length.  There is an important relationship between playing length, static weight and head weight that all need to work together to get the best results.

 

There will always be less informed people in a public forum that echo a specific recommendation targeted to particular individuals as if it will be a good idea for everyone.  That's just a normal part of a public forum like this.    That's a poor basis for making any conclusions on what "everyone" thinks or is advocating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are missing the point on the data.  Give a GI guy blades or a blade guy GIs and ask each to see what they hit better right now.  Many will hit what they are familiar with better right now.  But many may be better suited to the other club if they approach it with an open mind and practice a bit.  It's the same as the 7 wood example.  Or hybrid, or driver length.

 

Familiarity has a huge impact on how we swing this minute.  Concluding that a better outcome cannot be reached over time is the issue I have.

 

I once mentioned Tiger had problems with a graphite shafted, 45 inch, larger headed driver.  He was more familiar with his 43.5 inch X100 975D.  Do you think he should have stuck with this driver through last year because that's what he hit "best" at any moment in time?  Yes, he's a pro but I'm trying to show that the "fixed mindset" can be very limiting.  Apologies but I don't think you ever replied to this one before.

 

 

[Titleist_PT23]

16 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

My main point was that no, the data does not have any bias in it.   Even for those that may have started playing at shorter lengths, the vast majority of those people have not been playing shorter lengths their whole life.  They've been playing the off the shelf longer lengths for almost 20 years now.   That's plenty long enough to make whatever they may have started at completely irrelevant.

Further, there are plenty of guys here that say "I always cut down my new driver to X because I can't hit anything longer."

 

This is a huge bias.  They either don't even try the longer playing length or play 1 round with it and quit.  IMO, this is far from saying they cannot do better with a longer driver.  It only says they hit a shorter driver (which they are familiar with) better right now.  This is why I think the conclusion drawn from data is biased.  At least the conclusion that a better outcome cannot be reached over time.

 

You obviously know more than me about club fitting. But sometimes experts long held belief is actually their limitation.  Or I may be wrong and change my mind back to shorter is better later.

 

 

[Stuart_G]

52 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Again, the idea that pros play < 45 so you should too has basically been proven wrong.  I don't see you admitting that.  If you want to argue ams are not pros, that's fine.  But the part of the argument that pros don't do it has crumbled.

 

I've never used what pros do as a basis for any recommendation or argument.

 

43 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

 

Familiarity has a huge impact on how we swing this minute.  Concluding that a better outcome cannot be reached over time is the issue I have.

 

 

No you're missing my point.  The familiarity you suggest is an influence doesn't exist and hasn't for a long time now.

 

 

28 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Further, there are plenty of guys here that say "I always cut down my new driver to X because I can't hit anything longer."

 

No.  That's not a bias, that's an equipment choice based on actual results.   The way equipment choices should be made.   Proper fitting takes a lot of time and effort (and sometimes cost) as well as availability of a quality fitter if they don't feel comfortable taking on the job themselves.  So there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to something that they know works well for them and can give them confidence.

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Stuart_G

[Titleist_PT23]

36 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I've never used what pros do as a basis for any recommendation or argument.

 

 

No you're missing my point.  The familiarity you suggest is an influence doesn't exist and hasn't for a long time now.

 

 

 

No.  That's not a bias, that's an equipment choice based on actual results.   The way equipment choices should be made.   Proper fitting takes a lot of time and effort (and sometimes cost) as well as availability of a quality fitter if they don't feel comfortable taking on the job themselves.  So there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to something that they know works well for them and can give them confidence.

 

 

 

I once mentioned Tiger had problems with a graphite shafted, 45 inch, larger headed driver.  He was more familiar with his 43.5 inch X100 975D.  Do you think he should have stuck with this driver through last year because that's what he hit "best" at any moment in time?  Yes, he's a pro but I'm trying to show that the "fixed mindset" can be very limiting.  Apologies but I don't think you ever replied to this one before.

[dekez]

I'm not sure, a1.  Could the argument then be extended to say that the standard pitching wedge should be 38" instead of 36"?  Of always thought there was science behind the things that drive fitting.  Now, a good part of it can be convention too ("that's the way it's always been").  But generally speaking, being closer to the ball is easier I presume.  Could be wrong.  

[Titleist_PT23]

48 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

No.  That's not a bias, that's an equipment choice based on actual results.   The way equipment choices should be made.   Proper fitting takes a lot of time and effort (and sometimes cost) as well as availability of a quality fitter if they don't feel comfortable taking on the job themselves.  So there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to something that they know works well for them and can give them confidence.

Just look at the Tiger Woods 43.5 inch driver or 7 wood example.  Either people were playing with something worse (Tiger 43.5 inch driver, 3-irons) or they practiced, and realized something else was better.

 

You cannot conclude that 44 is the best driver length for someone when they've played this length for the last 10 years and made 10 swings with a 46 inch driver.  You can conclude it (44 inch) is the best driver length for the today. 

 

To truly run the experiment, you would need to give a new golfer both a 44 inch driver and a 46 inch driver, tell them to practice with both equally for a year and then conclude what is best.  Giving them both today, saying they hit the 44 right now is hardly a conclusion.  I could cut my 5 iron down 2 inches to 35.75 and with the proper adjustments I'd hit the center more often than with it at 37.75 or swing faults would not be amplified as much.

[Titleist_PT23]

4 minutes ago, dekez said:

I'm not sure, a1.  Could the argument then be extended to say that the standard pitching wedge should be 38" instead of 36"?  Of always thought there was science behind the things that drive fitting.  Now, a good part of it can be convention too ("that's the way it's always been").  But generally speaking, being closer to the ball is easier I presume.  Could be wrong.  

Why don't we have 40 inch drivers then?  Convention = people anchor to what they think is right.

 

I'd be really interested to see how many fitters have the golfer hit balls with a driver many inches shorter than 43.5 -44.5?  Or, they assume based on their expert knowledge that 43.5 - 44.5 or so is right and stop there.  Often times, it may be correct.  But the flaw has been exposed (likely justified on cost benefit analysis.  Takes time to hit everything and sw can become an issue).

[Stuart_G]

38 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

I once mentioned Tiger had problems with a graphite shafted, 45 inch, larger headed driver.  He was more familiar with his 43.5 inch X100 975D.  Do you think he should have stuck with this driver through last year because that's what he hit "best" at any moment in time?  Yes, he's a pro but I'm trying to show that the "fixed mindset" can be very limiting.  Apologies but I don't think you ever replied to this one before.

 

Is there some reason you're completely ignoring what I already said about using Pros as an example for am's to base their decisions on?