Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Should you switch to a softer shaft if you’ve lost clubhead speed?

Published

on

The search for more clubhead speed drives many golfers in to see us for fittings. Many of these golfers walk in considering moving to a more flexible shaft as they’re getting older and think it will help them regain some of their lost yards. It’s at this point we usually interject and summarize what their goals are, but ask them to keep an open mind as to what shaft flex we end up in.

There are multiple reasons we do this: The first being that clubhead speed isn’t the only thing that matters when it comes to maximizing distance. Ball speed, launch angle, spin rates all play a bigger role than simple clubhead speed. The second is that by going to a softer shaft, you may not be getting more clubhead speed but may, in fact, be lowering it.

To start, I must give a little background of what the shaft does during the swing and compare it to a theoretical shaft that’s infinitely strong and stays perfectly straight during a swing. This theoretical shaft is shown in yellow on the captures below. Gears measures this relative clubhead speed with a metric called “kick.”

During the swing the shaft will cycle between lead and lag deflection.  The shaft reaches its maximum lag deflection shortly after the start of the downswing as the golfer starts to apply downward force and the mass of the clubhead lags behind.  Currently, the clubhead is moving slower than our theoretical shaft. That potential speed isn’t lost however, it’s stored in the shaft.

Picture at start of downswing showing deflection and negative kick

As the hands and club continue to move towards the ball, the shaft starts to release its stored energy and return to a neutral, straight position. As with any object that is flexed, the shaft passes the neutral, straight position and moves into lead deflection. It’s during this phase of releasing its stored energy that the clubhead is moving faster than the infinitely strong and perfectly straight shaft.  

Picture around half-way down, showing lead deflection and positive kick

For the flex of a shaft to contribute to the clubhead speed, the clubhead needs to hit the ball when that shaft is somewhere between maximum lag deflection and maximum lead deflection, so it has a positive “kick.” Timing is incredibly important on this! 

Impact showing lead deflection with negative kick

What does this mean for you as a golfer? Unfortunately, there isn’t a simple “yes/no” answer if going to a more flexible shaft will help you pick up clubhead speed.

The first video shows a golfer swinging two different shafts. The shaft on the left (gold avatar) is an Accra FX 2.0 140 M1 and the one on the right (blue avatar) is an Accra FX 2.0 270 M4. The 270 M4 is a “stiff” flex, shaft weighing 70 grams, and the FX 2.0 140 is a 40-gram “ladies” flex. As you can see from the video there isn’t a significant difference in clubhead speed.

From the enlarged graph of the “kick” metric below, you can see there is some difference in the amount of speed the shaft is contributing to the clubhead and the M1 shaft is contributing 2.19 mph more to the clubhead than the stiffer M4. It’s just that other variables are negating this slight advantage, so the result is that the two shafts are basically even in terms of clubhead speed at impact.  

Expanded Kick Graph

This isn’t to say that a more flexible shaft will never help you pick up clubhead speed. The M1 shaft contributed over 3 mph more than the M4 did for this golfer. 

The takeaway in all of this is that there are many variables that go into creating clubhead speed and how any shaft reacts to your swing may be very different than how it reacts to others. I strongly suggest, that you test multiple shaft options and keep an open mind as to what shaft works the best for you. We’ve had several cases where putting a stiffer flex shaft is the right choice to help a golfer pick up distance, even if their clubhead speed doesn’t indicate it.  

Additionally, it’s not all about clubhead speed! When recommending shafts, we focus first on face mapping — or reducing the impact area grouping of where you hit the ball on the face. This leads to better launch angles, spin, ball speed and most importantly, dispersion.  

Your Reaction?
  • 63
  • LEGIT5
  • WOW4
  • LOL3
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB1
  • SHANK5

Chris Wycoff is the owner of SwingFit, a custom club fitting and building studio in Hilton Head Island, SC. Prior to joining the golf world, Chris was a management consultant for over 7 years and brings a great deal of the data driven processes from that world into golf. SwingFit has spent the last 2 years with a Gears motion tracking system capturing thousands of swings and partnering with data scientists to research how clubs and human golf swings really interact. SwingFit was included on Golf Digest's list of 100 Best Clubfitters in America for 2015/16, 17/18 & 19/20 as well as Golf.com's list of 25 Elite Club Fitters in 2019 .

6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Dan

    Jun 15, 2019 at 3:53 am

    It’s incorrect common knowledge that more flex adds speed. Different flexes affect direction but mostly launch angle and spin. The biggest non swing factor for speed is shaft weight. A slower swinger would benefit from a 50 gram stiff over a 70 gram regular, even neither is optimal. Go lighter and shorter in the shaft settup to maximize speed and contact. It’s the better starting point in ones search for the right driver. But always default to the “whatever works” philosophy.

  2. Lane Holt

    Jun 13, 2019 at 7:50 am

    Great article. Actually some truth about golf shafts. I am sure if given more print you could explain how shaft deflection / deceleration at impact greatly affects distance and direction.

    • That Guy

      Jun 13, 2019 at 8:40 am

      There is no such thing as deceleration…. its negative acceleration. Physics 101

    • Chris Wycoff

      Jun 13, 2019 at 10:07 am

      Hi Lane – Thanks for the feedback and you’re correct. We have found that the shaft flex rarely changes club head speed significantly, but it can have a significant impact on distance and dispersion. This is primarily through smash factor, dispersion and spin. We’ll get more in depth on that topic in a future article.

  3. Mike Wiland

    Jun 12, 2019 at 10:54 pm

    Like to stop in and see you.Did my PGA under Cary Corbett at HT in late 80’s. Where are you located?

    • Chris Wycoff

      Jun 13, 2019 at 9:57 am

      Hi Mike – We’d love to have you stop by. We’re located on the Robert Trent Jones course in Palmetto Dunes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

Clark: A teacher’s take on Brandel Chamblee’s comments

Published

on

Because I’m writing to a knowledgeable audience who follows the game closely, I’m sure the current Brandel Chamblee interview and ensuing controversy needs no introduction, so let’s get right to it.

Brandel Chamblee, a former PGA Tour player, now plays a role as a TV personality. He has built a “brand” around that role. The Golf Channel seems to relish the idea of Brandel as the “loose cannon” of the crew (not unlike Johnny Miller on NBC) saying exactly what he thinks with seeming impunity from his superiors.

I do not know the gentleman personally, but on-air, he seems like an intelligent, articulate golf professional, very much on top of his subject matter, which is mostly the PGA Tour. He was also a very capable player (anyone who played and won on the PGA Tour is/was a great player). But remember, nowadays he is not being judged by what scores he shoots, but by how many viewers/readers his show and his book have (ratings). Bold statements sell, humdrum ones do not.

For example, saying that a teacher’s idiocy was exposed is a bold controversial statement that will sell, but is at best only partly true and entirely craven. If the accuser is not willing to name the accused, he is being unfair and self-serving. However, I think it’s dangerous to throw the baby out with the bathwater here; Brandel is a student of the game and I like a lot of what he says and thinks.

His overriding message in that interview is that golf over the last “30-40 years” has been poorly taught. He says the teachers have been too concerned with aesthetics, not paying enough attention to function. There is some truth in that, but Brandel is painting with a very broad brush here. Many, myself included, eschewed method teaching years ago for just that reason. Method teachers are bound to help some and not others. Maybe the “X swing” one player finds very useful, another cannot use it all.

Brandel was asked specifically about Matthew Wolff’s unique swing: Lifting the left heel, crossing the line at the top, etc. He answered, “of course he can play because that’s how he plays.” The problem would be if someone tried to change that because it “looked odd.” Any teacher worth his weight in salt would not change a swing simply because it looked odd if it was repeating good impact. I learned from the great John Jacobs that it matters not what the swing looks like if it is producing great impact.

Now, if he is objecting exclusively to those method teachers who felt a certain pattern of motions was the one true way to get to solid impact, I agree with him 100 percent. Buy many teach on an individual, ball flight and impact basis and did not generalize a method. So to say “golf instruction over the last 30-40 years” has been this or that is far too broad a description and unfair.

He goes on to say that the “Top Teacher” lists are “ridiculous.” I agree, mostly. While I have been honored by the PGA and a few golf publications as a “top teacher,” I have never understood how or why. NOT ONE person who awarded me those honors ever saw me give one lesson! Nor have they have ever tracked one player I coached.  I once had a 19 handicap come to me and two seasons later he won the club championship-championship flight! By that I mean with that student I had great success. But no one knew of that progress who gave me an award.

On the award form, I was asked about the best, or most well-known students I had taught. In the golf journals, a “this-is-the-teacher-who-can-help-you” message is the epitome of misdirection. Writing articles, appearing on TV, giving YouTube video tips, etc. is not the measure of a teacher. On the list of recognized names, I’m sure there are great teachers, but wouldn’t you like to see them teach as opposed to hearing them speak? I’m assuming the “ridiculous” ones Brandel refers to are those teaching a philosophy or theory of movement and trying to get everyone to do just that.

When it comes to his criticism of TrackMan, I disagree. TrackMan does much more than help “dial in yardage.” Video cannot measure impact, true path, face-to-path relationship, centeredness of contact, club speed, ball speed, plane etc. Comparing video with radar is unfair because the two systems serve different functions. And if real help is better ball flight, which of course only results from better impact, then we need both a video of the overall motion and a measure of impact.

Now the specific example he cites of Jordan Spieth’s struggles being something that can be corrected in “two seconds” is hyperbolic at least! Nothing can be corrected that quickly simply because the player has likely fallen into that swing flaw over time, and it will take time to correct it. My take on Jordan’s struggles is a bit different, but he is a GREAT player who will find his way back.

Brandel accuses Cameron McCormick (his teacher) of telling him to change his swing.  Do we know that to be true, or did Jordan just fall into a habit and Cameron is not seeing the change? I agree there is a problem; his stats prove that, but before we pick a culprit, let’s get the whole story. Again back to the sensationalism which sells! (Briefly, I believe Jordan’s grip is and has always been a problem but his putter and confidence overcame it. An active body and “quiet” hands is the motion one might expect of a player with a strong grip-for obvious reason…but again just my two teacher cents)

Anyway, “bitch-slapped” got him in hot water for other reasons obviously, and he did apologize over his choice of words, and to be clear he did not condemn the PGA as a whole. But because I have disagreements with his reasoning here does not mean Brandel is not a bright articulate golf professional, I just hope he looks before he leaps the next time, and realizes none of us are always right.

Some of my regular readers will recall I “laid down my pen” a few years ago, but it occurred to me, I would be doing many teachers a disservice if I did not offer these thoughts on this particular topic!

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

Your Reaction?
  • 78
  • LEGIT9
  • WOW3
  • LOL2
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB2
  • SHANK11

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

A trip down Magnolia Memory Lane: Patron fashion at the 1991 Masters

Published

on

Like a lot of golfers out there, I’ve been getting my fix thanks to the final round Masters broadcasts on YouTube via the Masters channel. Considering these broadcasts go back as far as 1968, there is a lot we could discuss—we could break down shots, equipment, how the course has changed, but instead I thought we could have a little fun taking a different direction—fashion.

However, I’m not talking players fashion, that’s fairly straight forward. Instead, I wanted to follow the action behind the action and see what we could find along the way – here are the 1991 Highlights.

I love the “Die Hard” series as much as anyone else but one fan took it to a new level of fandom by wearing a Die Hard 2 – Die Harder T-shirt to Sunday at the Masters. This patron was spotted during Ian Woosnam fourth shot into 13. Honorable mention goes to Woosie’s gold chain.

There is a lot going on here as Ben Crenshaw lines up his put on 17. First, we have the yellow-shirted man just left of center with perfectly paired Masters green pants to go along with his hat (he also bears a striking resemblance to Ping founder Karsten Solheim). Secondly, we have what I would imagine is his friend in the solid red pants—both these outfits are 10 out of 10. Last but not least, we have the man seen just to the right of Ben with sunglasses so big and tinted, I would expect to be receiving a ticket from him on the I20 on my way out of town.

If you don’t know the name Jack Hamm, consider yourself lucky you missed a lot of early 2000s late-night golf infomercials. OK so maybe it’s not the guy known for selling “The Hammer” driver but if you look under the peak of the cabin behind Woosie as he tees off on ten you can be forgiven for taking a double-take… This guy might show up later too. Honorable mention to the pastel-pink-shorted man with the binoculars and Hogan cap in the right of the frame.

Big proportions were still very much in style as the 80s transitioned into the early 90s. We get a peek into some serious style aficionados wardrobes behind the 15th green with a wide striped, stiff collared lilac polo, along with a full-length bright blue sweater and a head of hair that has no intention of being covered by a Masters hat.

Considering the modern tales of patrons (and Rickie Folwer) being requested to turn backward hats forward while on the grounds of Augusta National, it was a pretty big shock to see Gerry Pate’s caddy with his hat being worn in such an ungentlemanly manner during the final round.

Before going any further, I would like us all to take a moment to reflect on how far graphics during the Masters coverage has come in the last 30 years. In 2019 we had the ability to see every shot from every player on every hole…in 1991 we had this!

At first glance, early in the broadcast, these yellow hardhats threw me for a loop. I honestly thought that a spectator had chosen to wear one to take in the action. When Ian Woosnam smashed his driver left on 18 over the bunkers it became very apparent that anyone wearing a hard hat was not there for fun, they were part of the staff. If you look closely you can see hole numbers on the side of the helmets to easily identify what holes they were assigned to. Although they have less to do with fashion, I must admit I’m curious where these helmets are now, and what one might be worth as a piece of memorabilia.

Speaking of the 18th hole, full credit to the man in the yellow hat (golf clap to anyone that got the Curious George reference) who perfectly matched the Pantone of his hat to his shirt and also looked directly into the TV camera.

It could be said the following photo exemplifies early ’90s fashion. We have pleated Bermuda shorts, horizontal stripes all over the place and some pretty amazing hairstyles. Honorable mention to the young guys in the right of the frame that look like every ’80s movie antagonist “rich preppy boy.”

What else can I say except, khaki and oversized long sleeve polos certainly had their day in 1991? We have a bit of everything here as Tom Watson lines up his persimmon 3-wood on the 18th. The guy next to Ian Woosnam’s sleeves hit his mid-forearm, there are too many pleats to count, and somehow our Jack Hamm look-alike managed to find another tee box front row seat.

You can check out the full final-round broadcast of the 1991 Masters below.

 

Your Reaction?
  • 18
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

Podcasts

The 19th Hole Episode 119: Gary Player joins the 19th Hole!

Published

on

Hall of Famer Gary Player gives an exclusive one-on-one interview with Host Michael Williams about his life in golf, his thoughts on the current game and his tips for thriving even in difficult times.

Check out the full podcast on SoundCloud below, or click here to listen on iTunes or here to listen on Spotify.

Want more GolfWRX Radio? Check out our other shows (and the full archives for this show) below. 

 

Your Reaction?
  • 0
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending