billh17, on 15 November 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:
pinestreetgolf, on 14 November 2017 - 09:37 PM, said:
BiggErn, on 14 November 2017 - 08:52 PM, said:
Again your logic is a little flawed. Everyone hits bad shots. Everyone hits good shots. Everyone wants to consistently hit more good, solid shots and consistently hit less bad shots while lessening the severity of the bad shots. There’s a segment of golfers that are gonna play terrible no matter what equipment they use and I don’t think it’s logical to use them to support your argument against single length clubs.
Its not an argument against single length clubs. Its an argument against single length clubs for players that have a swing flaw that shortening the shaft doesn't fix. Single length clubs are fantastic for a ton of players. Just not the really good or really bad (IMO). If you have contact problems in a 7 iron or higher, SL seems like an odd choice. If you can hit a 7 solid or have consistency issues in flight they seem great. They just seem to me to fix specific problems, but they arn't discussed that way. If you can't hit a 7 solid repeatedly, it seems to me making your PW a 7 is a bad idea that will ingrain bad habits.
alfriday, on 14 November 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:
Usually don't respond to these, but not sure why people go through the trouble of doing this. We've discussed this before. I find it interesting, so I discuss it. I also like to read the same type of books, and generally like murder mysteries. I don't post in the putter threads, because I know nothing about it and don't find it interesting. I generally post in wedge threads, because I know a lot about it and find it interesting. I think single length is interesting, and I don't understand the thought process of buying single length irons if you have a path or face mistake, or contact issues above the 6 iron. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Its strange to me that people take the time to post that someone else is doing something on an internet message board that they consider a waste of time. You should call the authorities to report the guy with the gun to your head that makes you read my posts.
But...you DO understand the thought process of buying variable length irons if you have a path or face mistake,or contact issues above the 6 iron.
Now, I find that an interesting reasoning process. Can you please explain the difference? Are the VLI better because being different lengths,
you wont make the same swing mistake with each one? Just curious...
Given your golf swing, your results are going to be a probability distribution clustered around a median of your skill level. Sometimes you will hit a great shot, and sometimes a poor one, but over time, you will regress such that your average is equatable with your skill level - i.e. given a large enough sample size your results will reflect your skill. In a tight distribution, your results won't vary much above or below the mean - if your average from the pin from 100 yards is 20' (which is incredibly good) and you have a tight distribution you might have a weighted average* of 9 feet to 30 feet. If you have a loose distribution (variance), your average from the pin might to from 3' to 45'.
Better players tend to have tighter distributions than worse players.
When people say "I want to get more consistent" what they mean is "I want to hit my better shots more often", but an SL iron doesn't know good and bad. It just knows its the same length and, according to this thread, helps you repeat your swing (however good or bad it is) more consistently. So, my range with an SL will cluster closer to my mean than my range with a VL (Assuming SL actually *is* more repeatable, which is one of its main selling points). So if your basic 7 iron proximity distribution is 11' (best) - 27' (average) - 39' (worst) and you go to SL, your range will tighten *ON BOTH SIDES*. Its not magic beans that the SL iron knows only to be repeatable on your misses - you'll hit less horrid shots, but you'll also hit less great ones. You are eliminating variance (again, if the SL claims are true).
SL narrows your band of results. For some players, that can be a great thing. For some, its an awful thing, especially very bad players who generally only ever hit good shots by luck. They'll get lucky with SL, just much less often. You can't have it both ways. It can't make your swing easier to repeat, but only the good parts. It tightens your band. Your brain tells you you are "more consistent", but whats actually happening is that you are losing it on both sides.
So why does this matter?
Typically the way a human gets better at something is to push further than where he wants to be and then settles. We want perfect so we can get to good. SL tightens that band. VL expands it. When you are trying to get better and learn, you want as wide a variance between your shots as you can possibly get so your brain learns what "really really good" feels like. SL is like trying to get good at shooting jump shots during basketball games by only shooting free throws in practice. Its not that extreme, but its the same idea. Free throws have a much tighter probability band than an in-game shot - in game shots have way more variance. You can make one from 30 feet, and you can miss a lay up. You *could* try to get better by just shooting free throws, its just hideously inefficient. You can try to get better with SL, its just inefficient. The more variance the task has the quicker the human brain learns how to anchor itself to the top range.
Finally, stop saying SL or VL is "better" or I said that. I didn't say that. I said one is better for one type and another for the other. I think SL is really good for the middle and VL for the extreme (if you are a highly skilled player, just choke down and tilt the grip upright and magically have a SL set).
What I did say:
-SL tightens your result band and is "more consistent" and allows your swing to "repeat" more often. It is good at this.
-Tightening your result band doesn't just tighten in one direction. It tightens in both directions. You hit less clunkers, and you also hit less of those "whoa! where did that come from!" shots. Being less unlucky also means you are less lucky. Nobody talks about this part. The SL iron doesn't know if its repeating good or bad moves. Its just easier to repeat, on both sides. It removes variance.
-There are a handful of flaws (contact in low irons, height in wedges, confidence, gapping due to improper shaft lean at impact) that SL can really help with, and those players should consider them. These issues generally show up in mid-caps.
-There are a handful of flaws (contact in irons above a 7, directional mistakes, alignment issues, reverse pivot/sway) that SL does absolutely nothing to fix and it doesn't matter what iron you have. These issues generally show up in high-caps.
-People are overhyped on SL. Its been around since Bobby Jones. Its not a revolution. Its a neat way to play golf, especially if you already make crisp contact but don't have a ton of time to practice.
What I did not say:
-SL is bad
-VL is better than SL
-That nobody has benefited from a switch to SL, before we get 10 "I switched to SL for five rounds and four of them were good!" posts.
A more repeatable swing is just that - more repeatable. You don't just get the good. The band narrows. This can reduce enjoyment (you will have fewer OMG! shots, and fewer Oh. My. God. shots) and it can dramatically slow learning (the human brain reacts strongly in terms of memory and learning to extremes).
*A weighted average throws out stuff like ground balls that are total outliers, before some jackwagon (as usually happens) posts up that we're going to sometimes hit it closer than 9 or farther away than 30. Of course you are. Those are the poles. Using the outliers we get a bottom limit that is generally as bad as a "normal" bad shot is. We don't say your range is in the cup to 200 yards because once you hit it in and once you bladed it, but we do use those to weigh the range on either end.
Edited by pinestreetgolf, 15 November 2017 - 09:36 AM.