Would a lot of lead tape in the toe influence cog?

[Righty to Lefty]

10 hours ago, Cwebb said:

 

Always keep in mind that using counter weight to hit a swing-weight number, is not even close to the same as getting the head weight where it needs to be for that swing-weight.  It's correctly referred to as "tricking the scale".

 

Use counter-weight as a separate fitting variable.  Not for swing-weight scale numbers

But you are not tricking the scale though, you are increasing the head or total weight of the the club and then using a counter weight to bring it back to a preferred club head feel, which is all that swing weight is anyway.  If for instance I preferred D3 but my clubs were too light but measured D3 I could simply figure out what total weight I needed and then put half in the club head, and the other half in a counter weight in the butt end and the balance of that club is the exact same as it was at the lower weight. This could be replicated at any total weight. 

[Cwebb]

29 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

But you are not tricking the scale though, you are increasing the head or total weight of the the club and then using a counter weight to bring it back to a preferred club head feel, which is all that swing weight is anyway.  If for instance I preferred D3 but my clubs were too light but measured D3 I could simply figure out what total weight I needed and then put half in the club head, and the other half in a counter weight in the butt end and the balance of that club is the exact same as it was at the lower weight. This could be replicated at any total weight. 

 

Just getting the balance of a club to a certain spot, is not the most important thing for how the weight of a golf club actually swings.

 

For example, compare two clubs at the same length with the same shaft, but one has a heavier head and grip vs the other one that has a lighter grip and lighter head.  The heavier head and grip club will always swing heavier, even if the swing-weight scale says that they "balance" the same.

 

This is why an MOI machine is the most accurate way to measure how much force it takes to swing a club.  Any component that is heavier will create an increase in MOI, including a heavier grip (small increase)...but not a decrease like we see on a swing-weight scale

[Valtiel]

10 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

But you are not tricking the scale though, you are increasing the head or total weight of the the club and then using a counter weight to bring it back to a preferred club head feel, which is all that swing weight is anyway.  If for instance I preferred D3 but my clubs were too light but measured D3 I could simply figure out what total weight I needed and then put half in the club head, and the other half in a counter weight in the butt end and the balance of that club is the exact same as it was at the lower weight. This could be replicated at any total weight. 

 

10 hours ago, Cwebb said:

 

Just getting the balance of a club to a certain spot, is not the most important thing for how the weight of a golf club actually swings.

 

For example, compare two clubs at the same length with the same shaft, but one has a heavier head and grip vs the other one that has a lighter grip and lighter head.  The heavier head and grip club will always swing heavier, even if the swing-weight scale says that they "balance" the same.

 

This is why an MOI machine is the most accurate way to measure how much force it takes to swing a club.  Any component that is heavier will create an increase in MOI, including a heavier grip (small increase)...but not a decrease like we see on a swing-weight scale

In addition to this, saying " I preferred D3 but my clubs were too light but measured D3" then you don't prefer D3, because how could you if the club is too light? It sounds like you liked the "idea" of D3 for whatever reason, or have misinterpreted it as a measure of balance that needs to be arbitrarily maintained, but then went outside the normal parameters of swingweight to make D3 "work". This isn't using swingweight for anything other than an arbitrary point that is only significant within the parameters you have manipulated. That is to say your D3 that comes from extra weight at either end of the club has ceased to mean anything from a swingweight standpoint. This is the shortcoming of the swingweight system, it isn't designed and has zero parameters to account for anything outside of a static 50g of weight in the handle (grip) and a neutral balance point shaft of a fixed weight. The moment you start manipulating any of those parameters, you functionally break the swingweight system and can no longer use it for anything outside your specific club. 

To illustrate this breaking of the system, lets just keep adding weight to either end of your hypothetical club. The static weight will keep going up and up while still measuring D3 if you maintain the correct weight distribution (not 1:1 head/grip btw, 5g = 1SW point measured change in the grip while it is between 1.6 - 2.3 in the head depending on length). Eventually the club would become unswingable while still measuring D3, and this didn't just suddenly tip over the edge, it was getting heavier the whole time via increased static weight. Your D3 with extra weight at either end has nothing to do D3 anymore, static weight needs to be factored in now since the system isn't being adhered to, which basically results in a D3*, with the asterisk being the change in static weight. The only way to offset this would be to drop shaft weight. You could have a club that measures D3 while adding 10g to the head and 30g to the grip, and you would need to subtract 40g of shaft weight (starting from a stock 130g down to 90g) in order for the whole club to still feel similar. 

This hopefully also addresses what @teddyironboy was asking about as well. 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Valtiel

[teddyironboy]

Ya I saw a comment somewhere that said "you could make a telephone pole at a D3 swingweight". In a TXG video about counterbalance, I think Matt said that the counterbalanced club felt lighter in the head, but he actually swung it a little slower. And this is after adding weight to the head and matching swingweight. He did end up hitting further though because the smash jumped up and spin went down.

 

I'd be open to MOI matching, if I could find a way to do it. How much different is an MOI matched set compared to SW matched set? And could a set with what I'm aiming for (more weight in the head + counterbalanced shaft/grip) be MOI matched?

 

If it's a small difference or not practical for me to MOI match, I might just be better off trying to match SW, although with a semi-broken system. That is, put something like 100g grips 3-LW, and then add weight as necessary to where they all match the 100g grip swingweight scale. Like I imagine if you took a set of irons and threw on some jumbomax grips, it should come close to matching without much adjustment? Maybe you'd need to add a little bit of weight here and there because the balance point changed. So if my clubs ended up being D4 on the broken scale, maybe it's not a true D4 but at least 3-PW match. I wonder if changing where the fulcrum is would match a set of irons with heavy grips better.

[Stuart_G]

26 minutes ago, teddyironboy said:

If it's a small difference or not practical for me to MOI match, I might just be better off trying to match SW, although with a semi-broken system. That is, put something like 100g grips 3-LW, and then add weight as necessary to where they all match the 100g grip swingweight scale. Like I imagine if you took a set of irons and threw on some jumbomax grips, it should come close to matching without much adjustment?

 

Yes.  As long as the shafts and grips are the same through the set, the scale can still help you match the set.   The key point is really not to use a target value determined with one grip weight to build a club with a different grip (or shaft) weight.  After switching grips or shafts, it's best to refit the head weight (dynamically at the range) to find a new target SW value.

 

 

26 minutes ago, teddyironboy said:

Maybe you'd need to add a little bit of weight here and there because the balance point changed. So if my clubs ended up being D4 on the broken scale, maybe it's not a true D4 but at least 3-PW match. I wonder if changing where the fulcrum is would match a set of irons with heavy grips better.

 

Interesting idea but my guess would be no.  The selection of the fulcrum point is really about controlling how much head weight change is needed for any given length change.  It's not really about the balance point of the club.   That's not saying it wouldn't work.  Other fulcrum points have been used in the history of the scale but it just happened to be the 14" one that became (and stayed) popular.  

 

That's one of the problems with the swing weight scale concept, it looks and appears like a tool to measure and manage the club balance point.  But the concept was never really about the balance point.  It was always intended as a way to more easily "match" MOI of the club but was developed at a time when grip weight and shaft weight was not a variable that needed to be considered in the design of the scale.  So balance was more a short cut than the true goal of the swing weight concept.  So maybe "confusing the scale" is a bit more accurate than "tricking the scale" since grip weight and shaft weight are things that the scale was never designed to handle.

 

[driveandputtmachine]

Poor Mans MOI, as I like to call it, is easily obtainable with a kitchen scale and a ruler.  I use those plus a SW scale and do a poor man MOI match.  I did not want to by an auditor or one of the super expensive MOI matching tools.

 

Luckily @Howard_Jones has posted numerous times on how to achieve close to a MOI match using just the scale, ruler, and SW scale.  I used his ideas as a starting point.  I weighed all of my heads, measured final playing length and got started based off of my 7 iron (which is the club I had centered contact face orientation I liked the most often).  From there with my lengths I went up and down in minute SW increments throughout the set based on my head weights.  Once I had them "matched" I went to the range with a dry erase marker(to get my lie angles correct) adjusted them, then remeasured the SW after adjusting.  Did a few tweaks, then went to the range with a roll of lead tape and foot powder spray.   

 

My set no longer exactly matches the MOI match numbers, but where they are currently I hit the center of the face more often with the desired path and face orientation.  This is the best I have ever hit my irons in my life.  My GIR have gone way up, my average distance to the hole on all approaches has dropped by 30% overall and on average distance to hole on approaches where I hit the GIR is has gone down by 40%.  This is why I invested in Arccos to see exactly how much better any part of my game was, and it really helps.

 

 

[Valtiel]

23 hours ago, teddyironboy said:

Ya I saw a comment somewhere that said "you could make a telephone pole at a D3 swingweight". In a TXG video about counterbalance, I think Matt said that the counterbalanced club felt lighter in the head, but he actually swung it a little slower. And this is after adding weight to the head and matching swingweight. He did end up hitting further though because the smash jumped up and spin went down.

 

I'd be open to MOI matching, if I could find a way to do it. How much different is an MOI matched set compared to SW matched set? And could a set with what I'm aiming for (more weight in the head + counterbalanced shaft/grip) be MOI matched?

 

If it's a small difference or not practical for me to MOI match, I might just be better off trying to match SW, although with a semi-broken system. That is, put something like 100g grips 3-LW, and then add weight as necessary to where they all match the 100g grip swingweight scale. Like I imagine if you took a set of irons and threw on some jumbomax grips, it should come close to matching without much adjustment? Maybe you'd need to add a little bit of weight here and there because the balance point changed. So if my clubs ended up being D4 on the broken scale, maybe it's not a true D4 but at least 3-PW match. I wonder if changing where the fulcrum is would match a set of irons with heavy grips better.

That is the tricky thing about counter weight and perception, it can feel lighter when you waggle, which is how a lot of people will check for a feel. Because you're moving the head a lot more than the grip and there is more weight in the hands, we often perceive the head as being a little lighter. When we actually swing the club however and are forced to move the whole thing, we're subjected to that increased weight (MOI). 

When comparing SW vs MOI matching, typically the SW matched set will have heavier long irons and lighter short irons (this is assuming constant weight shafts). Some people like this because it compliments the amount of speed/effort put into swinging each club, which is inherently different. Other people feel like this makes the clubs feel inconsistent and has the effect of compressing distances too much at the longer end of the set since the heavier long irons become harder to manage and launch. MOI matching seeks to tweak this slope so each club has a similar (or more predictable) feel. 

Regarding the heavy grips you're talking about, like Stuart said if you put them on all the clubs then they will have the same "balance" related to each other, that doesn't change. Swingweight matching all the clubs would then yield a swingweight matched set, which will behave like I said above. If you want to try MOI matching, there are a few ways to do it. The main thing to remember is simply that MOI matching creates a consistent feeling of resistance across the irons, which compared to swingweight matching creates long irons that are lighter feeling and wedges that are heavier feeling. If that sounds desirable, then you can:

1) Try progressive swingweighting. If you like the feeling in your long irons, then start from the longest iron and increase each shorter club by something like 1/3rd of a swingweight point, so every third club increases by one swingweight point. This is a very basic "poor man's MOI" approach that will work for most people if this type of matching fits their feel. 
2) Ascending weight shafts (lighter long iron shafts, heavier short). Similar to above, but the slope is smoothed a bit by manipulating static weight instead of head weight. A swingweight matched set with ascending weight shafts is another "poor man's MOI" approach that can be a little more straightforward. 

This is all based on what feels good though, and it sounds like you might be a little hung up on trying to do all by some "standard" just on paper. This is problematic and could easily leave you stuck trying to figure out which way is best, when in reality you just start with one club that feels good/best/right/whatever and everything else builds off of that. Like the 7-iron @driveandputtmachine mentioned above, you find your starting point and build off of that using one of these formulas. Balance point doesn't matter, grip weight and what it is doing to the swingweight scale doesn't matter, all that matters is whether it feels right and how you can capture that same feeling with the other clubs around it. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Valtiel

[teddyironboy]

Lots of great info guys, lots for me to look into. Really appreciate all the help and well-thought out replies. @Stuart_G been with me on this from the very beginning lol, really learned a lot. I have daily access to a quad and I'll be sure to post up detailed results of extreme counterbalance + potentially MOI matching . Though my swing is going through some pretty big changes so will be a while before I can really test the consistency.

 

Will try it for driver as well. I know that higher MOI means more spin, but surely there must be a way to hack it. Ping's max drivers have high MOI but they keep their spin reasonably low. Though if counterbalance was so good, surely companies would push it more. Who knows, golf is high tech in many ways, but when it comes to technique or feel, pros probably stick to what's worked, and 99% of them grew up playing non-counterbalanced clubs. Thinking to start with a low spin driver and then add a bunch of hotmelt and weight to it. Worst case I'm pretty sure it could end up as a much better-sounding Ping max.

Edited September 20, 2021 by teddyironboy

[Valtiel]

8 hours ago, teddyironboy said:

Lots of great info guys, lots for me to look into. Really appreciate all the help and well-thought out replies. I have daily access to a quad and I'll be sure to post up detailed results of extreme counterbalance + potentially MOI matching . Though my swing is going through some pretty big changes so will be a while before I can really test the consistency.

 

Will try it for driver as well. I know that higher MOI means more spin, but surely there must be a way to hack it. Ping's max drivers have high MOI but they keep their spin reasonably low. Though if counterbalance was so good, surely companies would push it more. Who knows, golf is high tech in many ways, but when it comes to technique or feel, pros probably stick to what's worked, and 99% of them grew up playing non-counterbalanced clubs. Thinking to start with a low spin driver and then add a bunch of hotmelt and weight to it. Worst case I'm pretty sure it could end up as a much better-sounding Ping max.

Please do, it will be nice to see real world follow up on these things. 

Regarding MOI, your comments about PING suggest we might need some clarification on the concept. When discussing the high MOI of the G400 MAX, we're talking about head MOI which is its resistance to twisting measured around specific axis'. When discussing MOI matching clubs, were talking about the whole club's MOI which is the entire thing's resistance to movement, and this perceived heft. Two completely different concepts. 

High head MOI also doesn't necessarily mean high spin, quite the opposite for some people. It means there is more weight further from the face, which can increase dynamic loft and thus launch and spin, but it also means that gear effects on mishits are reduced. This means reduced spin reduction on high strikes but also reduced spin INCREASE on low strikes. This means if you are a higher spin player because you miss lower on the head, high MOI heads can actually reduce spin for you. The important thing though is not getting head MOI and club MOI mixed together, the latter has nothing to do with performance or spin, just heft/feel. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Valtiel

[BREWMASTER95060]

MOI match
"

With a Swingweight Scale

But wait! Usually you are matching a set to a club that you have determined is the right heft for the golfer. It isn't important to know the numerical value of the MOI, just that all the clubs have the same MOI. If that is the problem you are trying to solve, you can do it with your swingweight scale.

Let me start with the rules of thumb for matching MOI with a swingweight scale, and how to use them to MOI-match a set of clubs. Then we'll discuss why the procedure works, with lots of numerical examples.

First, the simplest possible guideline:

The swingweight should go down by one point for every inch the club's overall length increases. That's a simple slope of one point per inch.

Now, here's a somewhat more precise and general guideline:

• The swingweight should go down by 1.3-1.4 points for every inch the club's overall length increases. That's about one and a third points per inch. This is a little more precise about the slope.
• If, at some point in the set being matched, you change shaft models so that one is substantially lighter than the other, then add one swingweight point to the target swingweight for each 20 grams the raw, uncut shaft gets lighter.

So what does this say about how to build an MOI-matched set using your swingweight scale? A lot of the process is the same as swingweight-matching a set, using adjustments controlled by what you see on the swingweight scale. Here are the differences:"

http://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/swingwt4.php

Edited September 20, 2021 by BREWMASTER95060
extra stuff

[BREWMASTER95060]

http://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/pix/JeffSummitt_PPsystemQ2_experiment2.pdf

http://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/swingwt5.php

Edited September 20, 2021 by BREWMASTER95060
added stuff

[teddyironboy]

4 hours ago, Valtiel said:

Please do, it will be nice to see real world follow up on these things. 

Regarding MOI, your comments about PING suggest we might need some clarification on the concept. When discussing the high MOI of the G400 MAX, we're talking about head MOI which is its resistance to twisting measure around specific axis'. When discussing MOI matching clubs, were talking about the whole club's MOI which is the entire thing's resistance to movement, and this perceived heft. Two completely different concepts. 

High head MOI also doesn't necessarily mean high spin, quite the opposite for some people. It means there is more weight further from the face, which can increase dynamic loft and thus launch and spin, but it also means that gear effects on mishits are reduced. This means reduced spin reduction on high strikes but also reduced spin INCREASE on low strikes. This means if you are a higher spin player because you miss lower on the head, high MOI heads can actually reduce spin for you. The important thing though is not getting head MOI and club MOI mixed together, the latter has nothing to do with performance or spin, just heft/feel. 

 

I did think it was all about head inertia. I guess it makes sense heavier clubs have higher whole club MOI because since it's less resistant to movement, but probably need the strength to control it. Going to need to hit the gym!

 

Was easy to calculate the MOI of the whole club with the calculator, but MOI of the head seems a bit harder lol:

 

[Stuart_G]

17 hours ago, teddyironboy said:

 

I did think it was all about head inertia. I guess it makes sense heavier clubs have higher whole club MOI because since it's less resistant to movement, but probably need the strength to control it. Going to need to hit the gym!

 

Technically speaking it's a resistance to (rotational) acceleration.   So in theory higher values could result in slower swing speed or need more strength to get the same club head speed.  But that's different from controlling it once you've put it in motion.  In reality the differences are much more subtle than that and the consequences a bit more complex.  And it's not necessarily about strength to over come the higher MOI but more related to how the club feels compared to what you're used to it feeling and how that different feel effects your swing - particularly sequencing and timing.    Short answer, you learn the swing with a certain feel of resistance, and when that feel changes, it can throw things out of wack.

 

17 hours ago, teddyironboy said:

 

Was easy to calculate the MOI of the whole club with the calculator, but MOI of the head seems a bit harder lol:

 

It is.  It usually requires very specialized machinery to determine/measure it dynamically  or it can be calculated via the CAD model.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Stuart_G

[BREWMASTER95060]

"How I fit for heft"
http://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/swingwt6.php#fitting

Edited September 21, 2021 by BREWMASTER95060
added stuff

[Righty to Lefty]

On another note I am often thrown off when comments are made that messing around with the swing weight and total weight of the club somehow makes them unplayable. Anyone with exposure to a sport such as baseball or tennis quickly note that off the rack bats are almost always much lighter than what pros use even if they visually appear the same.  Yes there is a point of diminishing returns but each person has to find that out for themselves and adding 10 grams extra in shaft weight likely isn't going to be enough.  You have to find your own personal limit and then back off from there to find your perfect fit and this may require "a dramatic" increase. 

 

I am amazed that we as consumers basically accept the same clubs fed to us when there is simply no way that they will fit most people.  The same clubs that are sent to a 6 foot 250 lb male are also pretty much the same clubs that a 5 foot 100 lb female would play.  Sure they are cut shorter and maybe have a different shaft flex but the club heads are the same yet the strength of the athletes are dramatically different.  The weight of the clubs are the exact parameters that should be being manipulated but I read comments about people making it seem like adding weight to a club will render it unplayable. I added 50 grams of weight to my driver to make it suit my needs and what I want to feel and give me some weight to hit against and it worked immediately and in line with what I was expecting and I was glad that I finally got over believing that I was going to ruin a club by adding weight to it. 

 

I have swung a replica of Mark McGwire's bat and I knew immediately that my limit was breached as it was wayyyy too heavy. That being said my preferred spec in my bat was much heavier than the heaviest stock bat that was available in stores and many would consider it a "sledge hammer" but to me it felt fantastic. Don't be scared to go find your fit is all I'm sayin! R to L. 

[Bad9]

1 hour ago, Righty to Lefty said:

On another note I am often thrown off when comments are made that messing around with the swing weight and total weight of the club somehow makes them unplayable.

 

I generally take those kinds of posts with a huge bag of salt.

[Stuart_G]

5 hours ago, Bad9 said:

 

I generally take those kinds of posts with a huge bag of salt.

 

Really?  I thought we could believe everything we read on the internet 🤣

[Bad9]

8 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Really?  I thought we could believe everything we read on the internet 🤣

 

I'm of the generation if it was on tv it had to be true

[Stuart_G]

13 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

 

I'm of the generation if it was on tv it had to be true

 

You're not alone.

[Valtiel]

7 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

On another note I am often thrown off when comments are made that messing around with the swing weight and total weight of the club somehow makes them unplayable.

I agree with most of the other points in your post, but do we really see people discouraging others from messing with weight like that? The only times we hear "don't" around here is when people are proposing extreme stuff like 100g grips + 25g of headweight to "restore" swingweight, things like that, and even then it is usually with a caveat of what to expect if they DO try it. Otherwise experimentation with weight is pretty universally encouraged, usually with a link to Howard's DIY Driver Fitting thread for tips on what to monitor while you're experimenting and what changes to make based on that. Misunderstanding/misuse/outright fanaticism over swingweight is the far more common issue with someone seemingly needing to be talked down off a ledge about it every week. And "fanaticism" may seem hyperbolic, but I used that work specifically because of a random user that popped up awhile back that made a thread specifically about the "Gold standard that is swingweight" and how it was a perfect system with no flaws that has persisted for decades because of that.

I have a passing interest in psychology so I know that is normally people wanting answers and getting wrapped up in the process of finding them, something that makes the idea of swingweight very appealing given how black and white it is presented. Back in 2011 I was hitting the range constantly because I was MISERABLE at my job and needed an outlet. I was also customizing my clubs and doing a lot of self fitting at the time. It would have been easy for me to go overboard seeking comfort/refuge in that process and subsequently become evangelical about some of the things I felt I had "learned" while doing it, like I imagine was the case for people like our gold standard swingweight guy. The relationship between golf/golfer/equipment exists on such a weird continuum due to the vast range of skill, and people are so often pushed into the "get fit!" funnel as a catch all solution. Meanwhile there is a good chance that player is ill equipped with regards to what they need to bring to the table to make a fitting work, and the "fitter" is often no different if you're just wandering into a PGASS, GG, DSG, or similar. That leaves places like online forums to help fill in the gaps for those people should they dig a little deeper, which places some responsibility on us to to be objectively accurate as much as possible while responsibly qualifying anything we can't be objective about. 

Sorry for the tangent, that wasn't directed at you specifically, just at the topic at large. People want easy answers to this stuff, a simple formula to follow that will make everything "right", and the reality that there is no such thing until you dig into it yourself and figure out where you fit, what you need, and what does and does not work for you. Only then can you start building your own formulas or finding existing ones that work for you, and I think this is just as applicable in life as this stupid f****** game of stickball. 😆

[Righty to Lefty]

12 hours ago, Valtiel said:

I agree with most of the other points in your post, but do we really see people discouraging others from messing with weight like that? The only times we hear "don't" around here is when people are proposing extreme stuff like 100g grips + 25g of headweight to "restore" swingweight, things like that, and even then it is usually with a caveat of what to expect if they DO try it. Otherwise experimentation with weight is pretty universally encouraged, usually with a link to Howard's DIY Driver Fitting thread for tips on what to monitor while you're experimenting and what changes to make based on that. Misunderstanding/misuse/outright fanaticism over swingweight is the far more common issue with someone seemingly needing to be talked down off a ledge about it every week. And "fanaticism" may seem hyperbolic, but I used that work specifically because of a random user that popped up awhile back that made a thread specifically about the "Gold standard that is swingweight" and how it was a perfect system with no flaws that has persisted for decades because of that.

I have a passing interest in psychology so I know that is normally people wanting answers and getting wrapped up in the process of finding them, something that makes the idea of swingweight very appealing given how black and white it is presented. Back in 2011 I was hitting the range constantly because I was MISERABLE at my job and needed an outlet. I was also customizing my clubs and doing a lot of self fitting at the time. It would have been easy for me to go overboard seeking comfort/refuge in that process and subsequently become evangelical about some of the things I felt I had "learned" while doing it, like I imagine was the case for people like our gold standard swingweight guy. The relationship between golf/golfer/equipment exists on such a weird continuum due to the vast range of skill, and people are so often pushed into the "get fit!" funnel as a catch all solution. Meanwhile there is a good chance that player is ill equipped with regards to what they need to bring to the table to make a fitting work, and the "fitter" is often no different if you're just wandering into a PGASS, GG, DSG, or similar. That leaves places like online forums to help fill in the gaps for those people should they dig a little deeper, which places some responsibility on us to to be objectively accurate as much as possible while responsibly qualifying anything we can't be objective about. 

Sorry for the tangent, that wasn't directed at you specifically, just at the topic at large. People want easy answers to this stuff, a simple formula to follow that will make everything "right", and the reality that there is no such thing until you dig into it yourself and figure out where you fit, what you need, and what does and does not work for you. Only then can you start building your own formulas or finding existing ones that work for you, and I think this is just as applicable in life as this stupid f****** game of stickball. 😆

I agree with everything you stated.  And I was just noting my observations over time in the forums and making a general statement.  That's why I stepped away from the forums for a few months because I wanted to reset my narrative within the forums and make sure that I wasn't becoming a detriment to the forums and make sure that I was trying to push things forward in a positive light.  We are all trying to find our way to what we consider good, consistent golf and we are all trying to piece things together and we are actually lucky that we have a forum to come together and bounce knowledge off of each other. I have never been in a forum for any other sport that I have ever played but here I am for countless hours in a golf forums!! We are here because we love the game and want to be better even though that process can be quite maddening!!  

[teddyironboy]

On 9/19/2021 at 11:54 AM, Righty to Lefty said:

It was a weird dynamic because I didn't necessarily hit the ball further, but I could have. Basically what happened for me was that my body was better coordinated with the weight of the club increased so I achieved my stock yardages with lower perceived, and probably actual, effort.  The ability to better feel the club moving in space around me allowed me to lever against the weight of the club much more effectively and thus I had less wasted effort. This the biggest benefit of total and swing weighting a club in my opinion.  Yes there is a point of diminishing returns but that has to be figured out by each individual and it is well worth the effort because it will reduce or eliminate wasted effort in the swing. The frustrating thing for me is finding a permanent solution on my Miura irons.  My JB Weld solution held for months but eventually the bond fails. Of course the remedy is playing hollow body irons but I was really enjoying my Miura short irons prior to the weight popping off so let know if you find something that will hold permanently. I have a buddy that used rare earth magnets and JB Weld and I don't think he has had a weight pop off yet so I may go that route. I do play Jumbomaxx grips also but I still play my swing weight at F5 with those on there as I still prefer "high" swing and total weight.  

 

 

Looking up alternatives to JB Weld, this could be one.

 

https://www.golfworks.com/the-golfworks-high-strength-epoxy/p/epx1/

 

Or actual welding. I don't know anything about welding, but that could be a very permanent solution.

[farmer]

You don't want to weld an iron.  It's too much heat.  I don't know if tungsten welds the same as steel, you might get into some exotic requirements.

[teddyironboy]

On 9/19/2021 at 1:29 AM, teddyironboy said:

Meh, I could potentially accomplish the same thing in a prettier club with 1020 carbon steel. These are actually higher in MOI. Lower playability rating just because vcog, but I swing pretty fast so shouldn't affect me from what I've read.

 

Would a club like this be playable? I Could possibly position it lower in the face because there's plugs that are more like screws than a fat quarter. Should affect spin more than trajectory right? These are strong-lofted at 33 degrees for a 7 iron, so more spin would be good. So it sounds higher cog could be good but worried if too high is a bad thing.

 

 

Heh. I guess there is something to this idea. But Bryson isn't doing it anymore.

 

 

 

 

23 hours ago, farmer said:

You don't want to weld an iron.  It's too much heat.  I don't know if tungsten welds the same as steel, you might get into some exotic requirements.

Dunno if it's different but looks like Bryson and Ricky have weld beads on some of their clubs.

[Righty to Lefty]

On 9/25/2021 at 5:51 AM, teddyironboy said:

 

 

Looking up alternatives to JB Weld, this could be one.

 

https://www.golfworks.com/the-golfworks-high-strength-epoxy/p/epx1/

 

Or actual welding. I don't know anything about welding, but that could be a very permanent solution.

Right on...I for some reason thought that JB Weld had a higher shear strength than anything that I had found.  I have even used aircraft grade epoxy that I got from a buddy that works in that industry and I eventually made it fail also.  A couple tack welds would be a permanent solution for sure. Might not have a finished look but it would be functional.  

[joostin]

On 9/20/2021 at 3:01 AM, Valtiel said:

That is the tricky thing about counter weight and perception, it can feel lighter when you waggle, which is how a lot of people will check for a feel. Because you're moving the head a lot more than the grip and there is more weight in the hands, we often perceive the head as being a little lighter. When we actually swing the club however and are forced to move the whole thing, we're subjected to that increased weight (MOI). 

That's a good observation I wanted to post in another thread - the waggle - and wonder how much that influences people's perception.

Couldn't find a better gif lol, but it's really the only time the club is pivoting well inside the grip like a SW scale's fulcrum.  Maybe it happens to less of a degree on some people's handsy takeaway, and maybe on a heavy casting motion. 

[teddyironboy]

I became interested in PXG irons because of interchangeable weights but they said this about adding too much:

 

“ Unfortunately 20 grams is quite a bit more than we are able to do. This amount of weight increase does increase the likelihood of a shaft break as the weight distribution is not distributed and there is a lot of force going through the shaft. Our Gen 4s allow us the most leeway, but we are unable to go more than around 14 grams. “
 

Is this actually a concern or just a manufacturer playing it safe? I’m looking at using the steelfibers in x flex.

[Valtiel]

2 hours ago, teddyironboy said:

I became interested in PXG irons because of interchangeable weights but they said this about adding too much:

 

“ Unfortunately 20 grams is quite a bit more than we are able to do. This amount of weight increase does increase the likelihood of a shaft break as the weight distribution is not distributed and there is a lot of force going through the shaft. Our Gen 4s allow us the most leeway, but we are unable to go more than around 14 grams. “
 

Is this actually a concern or just a manufacturer playing it safe? I’m looking at using the steelfibers in x flex.

I don't think i've EVER heard of that sort of excuse before. An average 6-iron head is ~20g heavier than a 3-iron head and yet we obviously don't hear about increased shaft breakage risks there. The weight distribution comment doesn't really make sense to me either for similar reasons. You aren't hanging a 2lb fishing lure off the toe of your club here...

[teddyironboy]

On 9/26/2021 at 12:26 AM, Righty to Lefty said:

Right on...I for some reason thought that JB Weld had a higher shear strength than anything that I had found.  I have even used aircraft grade epoxy that I got from a buddy that works in that industry and I eventually made it fail also.  A couple tack welds would be a permanent solution for sure. Might not have a finished look but it would be functional.  

 

Have you considered soldering? Does anyone here think that would make the weights secure?

 

I'm still in the brainstorming stage of trying to figure out my iron situation. Driving me crazy. I see 3 possibilities:

 

Go with PXG 0311 st

- Pros being the weight is secure and also switchable.

- Cons being price and if I'm going for more MOI in a player's profile, I should go for more of a cavity back than their 0311 st. Also weight will not be in toe.

 

Get forged cavity blanks from TSG, find someone to grind them down for me

- Pros being it's all one piece so the most solid.

- Cons being having to find someone to grind it + time, probably can't move COG towards toe.

 

Add weight to it as mentioned in this thread.

- Pros being I could probably move the COG a decent amount, I have an old set of 690cb's which is only 251g in the 6 according to Maltby, so the added weight should be more significant than if the club was like 264g.

- Cons being I'm not sure how secure I can make the weight, and I wonder if it's not secure enough if there will be energy loss and inconsistencies there. Also it would look very ugly.

 

I'm still very intent on at least trying the super heavy head + super light but very stiff shaft combo.

[teddyironboy]

Since I made the post I realized the smart thing is to get an iron and finally test it. Just ordered two identical test 6 irons - one with the shaft I want, the other with a heavier version of the shaft I want (steelfiber i80 vs i110, both in stiff). I'll do a lot of tests and will finally get to the bottom of how weight affects everything. And do my best to group together swing speed, path/face, strike location - although I think if heavy head + light shaft doesn't clearly win, then best to stay traditional.

 

One interesting thing will be swing speed. If I add 20 grams to the head with the 80g shaft, it will be lighter than the normal head + 110g shaft. But the swingweight will be at least 5 points higher.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by teddyironboy