Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

Driver COR, or CT


33 replies to this topic

#1 gvogel

gvogel

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,696 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 37680
  • Joined: 08/19/2007
  • Location:Western NY
  • Ebay ID:dbvogey
GolfWRX Likes : 2191

Posted 06 January 2019 - 05:30 PM

Thinking about some of the new driver offerings - (TaylorMade, I am looking at you, and also Callaway's AI Epic Flash) - the marketing push for drivers this year would seem to be to offer a driver face as close as CT as possible.

Here's my take.  When you go to the supermarket, you can buy Grade AA eggs, Grade A eggs, or Grade B eggs.  Or maybe even Grade AAA eggs.  I don't buy eggs too much, but I am aware of the difference of grades.

Wouldn't it be so much better for the consumer, for the driver manufacturers to test their driver heads and label them accordingly: Grade A for those that are so very close to the CT limit; Grade B for those that are not so close, but still playable; and Grade C for those that are duds, but are put on the market for extreme price conscious consumers.

A smart golf equipment manufacturer would only sell Grade A and Grade B - with different price points separating them - and take Grade C off the market and recycle the titanium.  

Wouldn't this make so much more sense than injecting some resin behind a hot face in order to make the club conforming?  Or paying for an artificial intelligence mega computer to compute an appropriate face design?

Hey, if you are a budget conscious consumer, you could opt for Grade B, and marry that head with a really good aftermarket shaft. Perhaps Grade C heads could be sold inexpensively to juniors or beginning golfers - an inexpensive way to get into the game.  When your game becomes more consistent, you move to grade B; or, you drop out of the game because the game isn't for you, and your initial outlay was not extravagant.

If you have money to burn on your golf equipment, you would buy Grade A, and plan to spend upwards of $700 or 800 or more for that grade.

I think that this would be better for the consumer.  

If you buy a Subaru Impreza WRX, you know that you are paying extra for a more powerful engine.  Golf drivers should be marketed the same way.  My humble opinion.

On Sundays, I used to play hickory

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#2 MysteryV

MysteryV

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450612
  • Joined: 01/03/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 110

Posted 06 January 2019 - 05:53 PM

There's a cost to managing inventory across multiple SKUs.
There's value to a good marketing pitch (as we all know) regardless of the effectiveness of the technology being marketed.
This is already happening to some extent.  If people want the highest performance head, they can pay through the nose for Tour Issue stuff via secondary market.

I like your post, and idea.  It's essentially extending "Tour Issue" to the public at a price.  I think it would be tough in practice however, as the differences in performance betweens heads given todays manufacturing tolerances, likely isn't large enough to matter to Joe Public.  I'd imagine that if a company were to entertain this strategy, Rick Shiels or someone would instantly go on YouTube, show that there wasn't a huge difference in performance, and everyone would simply buy the cheapest version - resulting in price erosion.

The alternate could also be true, the high performance version could be  worth the extra money, and the folks who couldn't afford it would simply choose another brand, resulting in excess inventory.

At the end of the day, I'd assume it's just more profitable to sell all heads at the same price and avoid inventory and branding issues.
Driver: Ping G400 Max w/ Fujikura Speeder Evo V
3 Wood: Epic 3+ w/ GD AD-DI
Driving Iron: TM P790 2-Iron UDI w/ Modus 120
Irons: 4-P Miura Baby Blades w/ Modus 120
Wedges: Miura Y Grind 51, Miura K Grind 56,60 w/ Modus Wedge
Putter: Byron Morgan DH89 GSS

2

#3 yourhonoryourhonor

yourhonoryourhonor

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 26743
  • Joined: 03/16/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 16

Posted 06 January 2019 - 06:14 PM

When drivers are tested and under the limit  they all hit retail as “grade A “ no matter where they fall are they not? What are their acceptable tolerances?

3

#4 MysteryV

MysteryV

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450612
  • Joined: 01/03/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 110

Posted 06 January 2019 - 06:54 PM

GREAT post by Wishon in this thread:  http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1241826-ct-scores-on-tour-issue-heads-and-clubs/#entry12379114

Essentially, manufacturing tolernaces for face thickness is +/- 0.1mm.  "For a clubhead speed of 110mph, which is close to average on the tour, the difference in carry distance between a driver of 0.830 and one at 0.890 for the COR would not be more than 10 yds or so.  So if you are talking a difference between 0.822 (239CT) and 0.830 (257CT), even at 110mph you are talking about a tiny difference.   And as clubhead speed is lower, so too is the distance difference per each increment difference in the CT of the face."

Just wouldn't really be a big deal (and also casts question on the new TM marketing campaign).
Driver: Ping G400 Max w/ Fujikura Speeder Evo V
3 Wood: Epic 3+ w/ GD AD-DI
Driving Iron: TM P790 2-Iron UDI w/ Modus 120
Irons: 4-P Miura Baby Blades w/ Modus 120
Wedges: Miura Y Grind 51, Miura K Grind 56,60 w/ Modus Wedge
Putter: Byron Morgan DH89 GSS

4

#5 gvogel

gvogel

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,696 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 37680
  • Joined: 08/19/2007
  • Location:Western NY
  • Ebay ID:dbvogey
GolfWRX Likes : 2191

Posted 06 January 2019 - 08:30 PM

View PostMysteryV, on 06 January 2019 - 06:54 PM, said:

GREAT post by Wishon in this thread:  http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1241826-ct-scores-on-tour-issue-heads-and-clubs/#entry12379114

Essentially, manufacturing tolernaces for face thickness is +/- 0.1mm.  "For a clubhead speed of 110mph, which is close to average on the tour, the difference in carry distance between a driver of 0.830 and one at 0.890 for the COR would not be more than 10 yds or so.  So if you are talking a difference between 0.822 (239CT) and 0.830 (257CT), even at 110mph you are talking about a tiny difference.   And as clubhead speed is lower, so too is the distance difference per each increment difference in the CT of the face."

Just wouldn't really be a big deal (and also casts question on the new TM marketing campaign).

So what you are saying is that with a 90 mph club head speed, shaving the face of my driver to get to .90 COR wouldn't make a difference of 10 yards?

On Sundays, I used to play hickory

5

#6 LorenRobertsFan

LorenRobertsFan

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 116892
  • Joined: 10/31/2010
  • Location:Alabama
  • Ebay ID:Stodden123
GolfWRX Likes : 234

Posted 06 January 2019 - 08:35 PM

One of our OEM reps said this:

Average driver on the market in 2018 was tested at .817 with the legal limit at .830. And that itís just too expensive to get them closer to .830 while being mass produced. Now Taylormadeís M5/6 drivers are supposedly averaging .825, and having more checks on the CT of the face are why they had to increase prices from $429/$500 to $500/$550.
9.5* Callaway Rogue w/ Rogue Silver 60
16.5* Rogue FW w/ Rogue Silver 70
19* Taylormade RBZ Stage 2 Hyb
23* Adams Pro Mini Hyb
5-PW Nike Vapor Pro Combo
52* Callaway MD4 S Grind
56* Callaway MD4 S Grind
60* Callaway PM Grind
Odyssey OWorks Black 7S

Z Cord grips

6

#7 LaymanM

LaymanM

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,839 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 130511
  • Joined: 06/11/2011
  • Location:Cincinnati, OH
GolfWRX Likes : 588

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:12 AM

View Postgvogel, on 06 January 2019 - 05:30 PM, said:

Thinking about some of the new driver offerings - (TaylorMade, I am looking at you, and also Callaway's AI Epic Flash) - the marketing push for drivers this year would seem to be to offer a driver face as close as CT as possible.

Here's my take.  When you go to the supermarket, you can buy Grade AA eggs, Grade A eggs, or Grade B eggs.  Or maybe even Grade AAA eggs.  I don't buy eggs too much, but I am aware of the difference of grades.

Wouldn't it be so much better for the consumer, for the driver manufacturers to test their driver heads and label them accordingly: Grade A for those that are so very close to the CT limit; Grade B for those that are not so close, but still playable; and Grade C for those that are duds, but are put on the market for extreme price conscious consumers.

A smart golf equipment manufacturer would only sell Grade A and Grade B - with different price points separating them - and take Grade C off the market and recycle the titanium.  

Wouldn't this make so much more sense than injecting some resin behind a hot face in order to make the club conforming?  Or paying for an artificial intelligence mega computer to compute an appropriate face design?

Hey, if you are a budget conscious consumer, you could opt for Grade B, and marry that head with a really good aftermarket shaft. Perhaps Grade C heads could be sold inexpensively to juniors or beginning golfers - an inexpensive way to get into the game.  When your game becomes more consistent, you move to grade B; or, you drop out of the game because the game isn't for you, and your initial outlay was not extravagant.

If you have money to burn on your golf equipment, you would buy Grade A, and plan to spend upwards of $700 or 800 or more for that grade.

I think that this would be better for the consumer.  

If you buy a Subaru Impreza WRX, you know that you are paying extra for a more powerful engine.  Golf drivers should be marketed the same way.  My humble opinion.

Your not in sales or marketing huh lol.

1.  No one would buy grade B drivers.
2.  Manufacturer's would have tons of old stock they discount at cost.
3.  Would be bad for industry

I would like the USGA to mandate CT test be published on the packaging however that will never happen.
PING G400 Max 9*, Adidla Rogue Max 75x
Callaway 815 Alpha 3W and 5W Speeder 665 stiff
Srixon U65 4, Modus 105s
Srixon Z785 5-PW Modus 120s
Edel DVR 50, s200
SM7 54F / 58K
SC Studio Style Newport 2

7

#8 KRW59

KRW59

    Hoarder

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 405842
  • Joined: 12/16/2015
  • Location:Southwestern Missouri
  • Handicap:4.9
  • Ebay ID:n/a
GolfWRX Likes : 404

Posted 07 January 2019 - 11:54 AM

View PostLorenRobertsFan, on 06 January 2019 - 08:35 PM, said:

One of our OEM reps said this:

Average driver on the market in 2018 was tested at .817 with the legal limit at .830. And that itís just too expensive to get them closer to .830 while being mass produced. Now Taylormadeís M5/6 drivers are supposedly averaging .825, and having more checks on the CT of the face are why they had to increase prices from $429/$500 to $500/$550.

This is not new technology...it has been done before...Adams XTD driver...
Their last release before the Taylormade takeover...

The face was milled in such a way to expand the surface area that was at ,or
very close to the COR / CT limit , by " deadening " the sweet spot to the
conforming limit. Multiple checks were made during production to ensure the
the limit was not exceded....Great ball speeds...Terrible dispersion...


Edited by KRW59, 07 January 2019 - 12:08 PM.

Cobra King F8 10.5* / Fuji Diamond Speeder 5-SR
TEE EX10 Beta 16.5* / Fuji Platinum Speeder 5-SR
TEE EX10 19* / Fuji Platinum Speeder 6-S
TEE EX9 22* / Attas 4U 7-S.  
TEE EX9 25* / Attas 4U 7-X
I have added about 10 grams of weight to all the fwy / hybrid
shafts , using Sensicore inserts wrapped with lead tape.

Cobra Forged Tec Black / 28* 6 iron thru 49.5* GW / 4.5* gapping
Recoil 780 Es Smac wrap F3 / GW shaft internally weighted to 95 grams

King Black Wedges / 54* versatile/ Recoil 95 F3 shaft weighted to 110 grams
58* versatile / Recoil 110 F4 shaft weighted to 125 grams ( heat shrink tube )

Piretti Savona 2 Elite《Murdered》or 1/1 GSS High Toe Potenza II

               Flask - Crown Black

8

#9 jll62

jll62

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,782 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 9627
  • Joined: 01/10/2006
  • Location:Minneapolis
  • Handicap:+4.2
GolfWRX Likes : 1442

Posted 07 January 2019 - 12:15 PM

View PostKRW59, on 07 January 2019 - 11:54 AM, said:

View PostLorenRobertsFan, on 06 January 2019 - 08:35 PM, said:

One of our OEM reps said this:

Average driver on the market in 2018 was tested at .817 with the legal limit at .830. And that it’s just too expensive to get them closer to .830 while being mass produced. Now Taylormade’s M5/6 drivers are supposedly averaging .825, and having more checks on the CT of the face are why they had to increase prices from $429/$500 to $500/$550.

This is not new technology...it has been done before...Adams XTD driver...
Their last release before the Taylormade takeover...

The face was milled in such a way to expand the surface area that was at ,or
very close to the COR / CT limit , by " deadening " the sweet spot to the
conforming limit. Multiple checks were made during production to ensure the
the limit was not exceded....

Checking for conformance is not new tech, but the way TaylorMade has gotten close to the limit is. Even with the XTD and Adams testing it as the heads were going along the production line, there were still manufacturing tolerances to deal with. There were a range of values that were acceptable as the XTD heads were tested, so they weren't all pushing right up against the limit. TaylorMade's injection process should produce heads that are all consistently closer to the limit that the XTD heads were, but albeit at differences that are likely marginal.

Fun fact, Adams deadened the sweet spot by using TaylorMade's Inverted Cone Technology (ICT).
TaylorMade M3 9.5, GD Tour AD GP-6s, 44.5"
TaylorMade M3 T3, Tensei Pro White 70 S, 42.5"
TaylorMade P-790 UDI 2, Aerotech SteelFiber i95 S
TaylorMade P-770 3-4, DG X100 (SSx1)
TaylorMade RSi TP 5-PW, KBS C-Taper S+
TaylorMade Milled Grind 52 Raw, DG S400
TaylorMade Hi-Toe 60 (58), DG S400
TaylorMade DJ Itsy Bitsy Proto, 34"
TaylorMade TP5x #12

jll62's WITB

9

#10 KRW59

KRW59

    Hoarder

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 405842
  • Joined: 12/16/2015
  • Location:Southwestern Missouri
  • Handicap:4.9
  • Ebay ID:n/a
GolfWRX Likes : 404

Posted 07 January 2019 - 01:10 PM

Who will be the first Wrxer , to try removing the CT / COR governor from a
M5 or M6 head using endoscopic surgery ??

Cobra King F8 10.5* / Fuji Diamond Speeder 5-SR
TEE EX10 Beta 16.5* / Fuji Platinum Speeder 5-SR
TEE EX10 19* / Fuji Platinum Speeder 6-S
TEE EX9 22* / Attas 4U 7-S.  
TEE EX9 25* / Attas 4U 7-X
I have added about 10 grams of weight to all the fwy / hybrid
shafts , using Sensicore inserts wrapped with lead tape.

Cobra Forged Tec Black / 28* 6 iron thru 49.5* GW / 4.5* gapping
Recoil 780 Es Smac wrap F3 / GW shaft internally weighted to 95 grams

King Black Wedges / 54* versatile/ Recoil 95 F3 shaft weighted to 110 grams
58* versatile / Recoil 110 F4 shaft weighted to 125 grams ( heat shrink tube )

Piretti Savona 2 Elite《Murdered》or 1/1 GSS High Toe Potenza II

               Flask - Crown Black

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#11 MysteryV

MysteryV

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450612
  • Joined: 01/03/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 110

Posted 07 January 2019 - 01:16 PM

My question is who will be the first WRXer to create a portable version of  the USGAs testing machine and go from retail shop testing heads, buying the hot ones, and selling the at a markup.
Driver: Ping G400 Max w/ Fujikura Speeder Evo V
3 Wood: Epic 3+ w/ GD AD-DI
Driving Iron: TM P790 2-Iron UDI w/ Modus 120
Irons: 4-P Miura Baby Blades w/ Modus 120
Wedges: Miura Y Grind 51, Miura K Grind 56,60 w/ Modus Wedge
Putter: Byron Morgan DH89 GSS

11

#12 TollBros

TollBros

    Overseer of the Test Range

  • Sponsors
  • 4,301 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 438250
  • Joined: 08/25/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3092

Posted 07 January 2019 - 06:42 PM

View Postgvogel, on 06 January 2019 - 05:30 PM, said:

Thinking about some of the new driver offerings - (TaylorMade, I am looking at you, and also Callaway's AI Epic Flash) - the marketing push for drivers this year would seem to be to offer a driver face as close as CT as possible.

Here's my take.  When you go to the supermarket, you can buy Grade AA eggs, Grade A eggs, or Grade B eggs.  Or maybe even Grade AAA eggs.  I don't buy eggs too much, but I am aware of the difference of grades.

Wouldn't it be so much better for the consumer, for the driver manufacturers to test their driver heads and label them accordingly: Grade A for those that are so very close to the CT limit; Grade B for those that are not so close, but still playable; and Grade C for those that are duds, but are put on the market for extreme price conscious consumers.

A smart golf equipment manufacturer would only sell Grade A and Grade B - with different price points separating them - and take Grade C off the market and recycle the titanium.  

Wouldn't this make so much more sense than injecting some resin behind a hot face in order to make the club conforming?  Or paying for an artificial intelligence mega computer to compute an appropriate face design?

Hey, if you are a budget conscious consumer, you could opt for Grade B, and marry that head with a really good aftermarket shaft. Perhaps Grade C heads could be sold inexpensively to juniors or beginning golfers - an inexpensive way to get into the game.  When your game becomes more consistent, you move to grade B; or, you drop out of the game because the game isn't for you, and your initial outlay was not extravagant.

If you have money to burn on your golf equipment, you would buy Grade A, and plan to spend upwards of $700 or 800 or more for that grade.

I think that this would be better for the consumer.  

If you buy a Subaru Impreza WRX, you know that you are paying extra for a more powerful engine.  Golf drivers should be marketed the same way.  My humble opinion.

It somewhat is that way. Tour issue is spec tested, generally very close to max CT and carries a premium. I'd say Tour issue heads are your grade A product.
http://www.golfwrx.c...evaluationscom/

Please click the link above for our Sponsor area with rare and Tour only products.

12

#13 tx33

tx33

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 98844
  • Joined: 11/18/2009
  • Location:EU
GolfWRX Likes : 56

Posted 08 January 2019 - 03:05 AM

Although there is a difference between CT and COR values because of the way in which they are measured, that (output) difference is not as big as that caused by manufacturing tolerances. As always, it is MOSTLY marketing BS to sell a product. The easiest way to find the highest possible/allowed value: test various heads with your own ball and check PTR, then BUY THE DEMO :)

13

#14 TomWishon

TomWishon

    Major Winner

  • Sponsors
  • 3,664 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 45409
  • Joined: 01/08/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 4255

Posted 08 January 2019 - 02:28 PM

Last I heard, the USGA does not allow their CT machine to be used in a commercial manner.  Meaning that anyone who began to offer to perform CT measurements for golfers would have their licence for the CT machine software rescinded if they did that.  I recall the USGA telling companies several years ago that they were not to publish CT measurements for clubs because that constituted using the machine for possible commercial benefit.  

I find it very interesting that this year the latest "new technology" achievement is being able to deliver driver heads with the CT closer to the limit.  Anything for that last little drip of distance to lure Joe Golfer into freeing up his plastic to keep consuming the latest new driver.  

For a golfer with a 100mph clubhead speed with the driver the carry distance between a 0.830 driver head and one at 0.900 is 10.3 yards.  

Now think about what this info is telling you (with a little math ) for the difference between a driver of 0.822/239CT and 0.830/257CT.  It's barely 1 yard more for 0.830 over 0.822 at a 100mph clubhead speed.  

Is that worth a new driver that promises you a driver with a CT closer to the limit in the rules?  Especially one that also happens to be 46" long which means about 98% of all golfers find themselves at a disadvantage to hit the center of the face with a decent frequency?  

Sorry to criticize.  But it still is a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees with so many golfers.  Find a really good clubfitter who can find the right length/loft/lie/face angle/shaft/weighting/grip for you and your swing and you can put any quality brand driver head made in the last 12 years with those determined specs and you will have the best driver you will ever hit.  Period.

14

#15 pinhigh27

pinhigh27

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,171 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 73898
  • Joined: 01/27/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 2921

Posted 08 January 2019 - 02:42 PM

Agreed it is hilarious people are spending hundreds of dollars extra for literally half a yard.

I also really don't think knowing the face angle or loft is important unless someone is really good. Like deep +

How to be in better shape for golf?
Become a better athlete.
Don't worry about golf specific.
Compound lifts w/ linear progress
Don't forget the mobility work.
More results, more functional

Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700

15

#16 TomWishon

TomWishon

    Major Winner

  • Sponsors
  • 3,664 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 45409
  • Joined: 01/08/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 4255

Posted 08 January 2019 - 02:55 PM

View Postpinhigh27, on 08 January 2019 - 02:42 PM, said:


I also really don't think knowing the face angle or loft is important unless someone is really good. Like deep +

I am sorry but it is absolutely of critical importance for the loft and face angle, along with the length, shaft, swingweight, total weight and grip type/size to be properly fit for EVERY SINGLE GOLFER - at least it is if their goal is to have the chance to play to the best of their ability.  

The golfer's clubhead speed + angle of attack has to be matched to the right loft so the golfer can maximize their distance.  Slower swing speeds need higher lofts to achieve the right launch angle to ensure maximum distance.  HIgher speeds the opposite.  Regardless of speed, people with a downward angle of attack need higher lofts to achieve their best launch angle to max distance.  And those with a more upward A of A need lower lofts to do the same.

Thousands of times golfers who shoot 100 and only have a 75mph driver clubhead speed have been given an additional 10-15 yds by being fit with a higher loft driver.

Face angle is the most important fitting spec for golfers who have a chronic misdirection problem such as a slice or a hook.  Sure, in a perfect world all slicers would go take lessons and in a season they would no longer slice the ball.  But this is far from that perfect world because changing a swing path from outside in to inside out to get rid of a slice is one of the most difficult swing changes a golfer could ever try to do.  Most can't do it even if they had the money and time to take a lot of lessons because a major swing path change requires a form of athleticism many golfers just do not have.  

Several years ago Golf Digest had a cover story in which their research team found out that some 70% of all golfers slice the ball enough to have it cause real problems with their play.  For the millions of slicers who either cannot afford, do not have the time/commitment, or do not have the ability to change swing path to get rid of or reduce a slice, having a closed face angle in the driver and the woods is the difference between having fun in the game or not.  

Unfortunately since the advent of the adjustable hosel sleeve, those companies who use these on their drivers and woods have effectively killed face angle as a viable fitting specification.  10 yrs ago you used to see face angle listed as a spec in each company's list of specifications of their drivers and woods.  Not anymore because in the desire to use a hosel sleeve to change loft in the same head, the face angle is a casualty.  

But the point is, if Joe Slicer can find a closed face driver and be fit for the right loft that matches his clubhead speed and angle of attack, Joe now is a much happier golfer.

16

#17 95124hacker

95124hacker

    Rare putter collection

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 356977
  • Joined: 01/07/2015
  • Location:San Jose
GolfWRX Likes : 516

Posted 08 January 2019 - 05:42 PM

Thanks Tom for being the voice of reason but I hope no OEM thugs arrive at your house in the middle of the night... Ask for hush money immediately
Callaway Fusion 9*, Fujikura Pro 63S
'16 M1 3HL (17*), Fujikura Pro 70S
King F7 2-3 (19*), Fujikura Pro 75h, S
Epon AF-901 22*, Roddio Pentacross I-8, S
'11 OnOff Forged 5-PW, Roddio Pentacross I-10, S
Cleveland RTX-3 V-MG 52* & 58*
Nike Method Matter RTS M5|10 CS
Ball: Srixon Q-Star

17

#18 VinceRKG

VinceRKG

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 20476
  • Joined: 10/11/2006
  • Location:Yuma, Az
GolfWRX Likes : 35

Posted 08 January 2019 - 06:31 PM

You give a 70mph swing speed golfer , who hits a 10.5 loft a high CT club head of around 240-250! They will be get distances they have never seen before. Have seen this personally hundreds of times. Faster swings with over CT heads will lose distance and be poop balls off the face. There is a limit to what they can on CT number before going over that hill and losing speeds. But yes like Tom stated its the whole club that best fits and suited for that golfer to get the best out of it. Cant just rely on one thing.
#YumaMade #YTown

18

#19 pinhigh27

pinhigh27

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,171 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 73898
  • Joined: 01/27/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 2921

Posted 08 January 2019 - 07:01 PM

View PostVinceRKG, on 08 January 2019 - 06:31 PM, said:

You give a 70mph swing speed golfer , who hits a 10.5 loft a high CT club head of around 240-250! They will be get distances they have never seen before. Have seen this personally hundreds of times. Faster swings with over CT heads will lose distance and be poop balls off the face. There is a limit to what they can on CT number before going over that hill and losing speeds. But yes like Tom stated its the whole club that best fits and suited for that golfer to get the best out of it. Cant just rely on one thing.

huh? that makes no sense
How to be in better shape for golf?
Become a better athlete.
Don't worry about golf specific.
Compound lifts w/ linear progress
Don't forget the mobility work.
More results, more functional

Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700

19

#20 sdandrea

sdandrea

    Steve

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,970 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 117468
  • Joined: 11/14/2010
  • Location:Fredericksburg, VA & Hernando FL
  • Handicap:11
  • Ebay ID:sdan6017
GolfWRX Likes : 1912

Posted 08 January 2019 - 07:07 PM

View PostTomWishon, on 08 January 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

.................  Find a really good clubfitter who can find the right length/loft/lie/face angle/shaft/weighting/grip for you and your swing and you can put any quality brand driver head made in the last 12 years with those determined specs and you will have the best driver you will ever hit.  Period.

The TRUTH ^^^  (that the OEMs don't want us to know).

Edited by sdandrea, 08 January 2019 - 07:07 PM.

PING G SF Tec  10*
Pinhawk SL 5W
TM Superfast 5h
PING G400 7-UW  Alta CB
TILLE OMG 52* & 56*
Scotty Fastback

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#21 tx33

tx33

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 98844
  • Joined: 11/18/2009
  • Location:EU
GolfWRX Likes : 56

Posted 09 January 2019 - 04:56 AM

View PostTomWishon, on 08 January 2019 - 02:55 PM, said:

Unfortunately since the advent of the adjustable hosel sleeve, those companies who use these on their drivers and woods have effectively killed face angle as a viable fitting specification.  10 yrs ago you used to see face angle listed as a spec in each company's list of specifications of their drivers and woods.  Not anymore because in the desire to use a hosel sleeve to change loft in the same head, the face angle is a casualty.  
This is what bugs me most about the adjustable hosel: rather than giving fitters an extra option to change FA in woods without reboring a hosel or bending it, both of which are very hard to do successfully, they basically take away loft options to reduce SKU and cover that up with BS marketing.

Previously you could basically get every loft from 8-12 degrees (or even more handpicked) from most OEMs and after measuring one you knew the actual loft vs the stated for that model head. It was a pain, but after the initial work you could reliably get the proper head for the player. Now some driver models have only two lofts and you're out of options if you need more/less loft AND FA adjustment, which to be fair would benefit most players.

If they just kept the old SKU count and added the loft sleeve for FA/Lie adjustment more players could be fit properly.

21

#22 Nessism

Nessism

    To measure is to know...

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,768 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 131490
  • Joined: 06/23/2011
  • Location:Torrance, CA
GolfWRX Likes : 8728

Posted 09 January 2019 - 10:06 AM

.822 to .830 is .008 or .8% more energy transfer.

On a 250 yard drive .8% gives you 2 yards, assuming the extra energy translates perfectly to extra yards.

Nothing to get excited about.


Ping G400 driver w/Adila Rogue 125 Silver 60S
TEE XCG6 3 & 5 fairway woods & CB Pro U hybrid
Ping G25 irons w/Recoil 95 F4's
Ping Glide 50/55/60 wedges w/Recoil 110's
Ping Anser putter - the "real deal!"

22

#23 TomWishon

TomWishon

    Major Winner

  • Sponsors
  • 3,664 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 45409
  • Joined: 01/08/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 4255

Posted 09 January 2019 - 11:08 AM

View Posttx33, on 09 January 2019 - 04:56 AM, said:

View PostTomWishon, on 08 January 2019 - 02:55 PM, said:

Unfortunately since the advent of the adjustable hosel sleeve, those companies who use these on their drivers and woods have effectively killed face angle as a viable fitting specification.  10 yrs ago you used to see face angle listed as a spec in each company's list of specifications of their drivers and woods.  Not anymore because in the desire to use a hosel sleeve to change loft in the same head, the face angle is a casualty.  
This is what bugs me most about the adjustable hosel: rather than giving fitters an extra option to change FA in woods without reboring a hosel or bending it, both of which are very hard to do successfully, they basically take away loft options to reduce SKU and cover that up with BS marketing.

Previously you could basically get every loft from 8-12 degrees (or even more handpicked) from most OEMs and after measuring one you knew the actual loft vs the stated for that model head. It was a pain, but after the initial work you could reliably get the proper head for the player. Now some driver models have only two lofts and you're out of options if you need more/less loft AND FA adjustment, which to be fair would benefit most players.

If they just kept the old SKU count and added the loft sleeve for FA/Lie adjustment more players could be fit properly.

You are absolutely right in saying that a big reason behind the move to and retention of the adjustable hosel sleeve in drivers was the fact the companies saved a ton of money in their inventory management - at the expense of being able to really help slicers.  In the pre-sleeve days as you said, companies tooled up, produced and inventoried separate driver models in 9, 10, 11 and sometimes 12 degree lofts.  Multiply that by 2 because of left hand players and you have 8 SKUs to have to determine how many to buy, when to buy.  No purchasing manager is perfect in predicting how many and when so the companies always fought the battle of too little of one and too many of another.

Now a business first/money first mentality might look at that and say, 'brilliant business move.'  But for the golfers, 70% of whom do need help reducing the slice to enjoy the game more.  Nope.  You don't count.  Go take lessons.  

The other reason for the move to the adj hosel sleeve was to pretend they could offer 'custom fitting' for golfers with the contrived loft changing ability of the sleeve.  I followed the move into hosel sleeves very closely because I had the pleasure of designing the first adjustable hosel sleeve back in 1995 so I was very interested to see how the big companies would run with that.  Please correct me if I am wrong but in the first year of release of the adj hosel sleeves, no company actually made it crystal clear that the only way you get a loft change with these sleeves was to hold/hover the head in a square face position at address.  Soling the driver caused an undefined face angle change with no change in loft.  So they brought these things out and never clearly told golfers exactly how to use them.  

Good players and those who hit it straight figured it out quickly so a good player pooh poohs a gripe like this.  Joe Golfer didn't.  

Anyway.  Sigh.  Sorry for the rant but I am so tired of companies in every field of endeavor these days making decisions first and foremost on the basis of money/stock value over quality, service and customer well being.  It just frustrates the hell out of me when there are much better ways of doing things which never happen because it costs more to do it.  OK, stick a fork in me, I'm done and time to disappear.

23

#24 Stuart G.

Stuart G.

    Legend

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,146 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 174728
  • Joined: 04/12/2012
  • Location:New Hampshire
GolfWRX Likes : 6850

Posted 09 January 2019 - 12:07 PM

View PostTomWishon, on 09 January 2019 - 11:08 AM, said:

Please correct me if I am wrong but in the first year of release of the adj hosel sleeves, no company actually made it crystal clear that the only way you get a loft change with these sleeves was to hold/hover the head in a square face position at address.

More trivia than anything meaningful - doesn't really change the current state of things but ...

The first release (TM r9 series) actually wasn't quite as bad as it is now.   The adjustment originally wasn't marketed as exclusively a loft change, in fact face angle came first in the description but the specifics on how the specs changed were left out.

TaylorMade® Flight Control Technology - Change the face angle, lie angle and loft to affect side-to-side flight by up to 40 yards – 8 clubhead positions

But the actual labels on the hosel were "L" and "R"  (left and right) instead of references to loft or height of the flight.  Although the ball flight charts showed both directional and elevation changes.

https://www.taylorma...0_Driver_SS.pdf


Callaway's first adjustable hosel release was explicitly labeled and marketed as a face angle adjustment with "open", "square",  and "closed" settings.  It didn't last long though.  Only a year or two before they changed to match what the other OEM's were doing.


Titleist was actually the one that started their first design listed with loft as one of the adjustment parameters.   Ping did as well - but they were quite late to the party so did it after all the other companies had already changed over to referencing their hosel adjustments as 'loft' changes.


Then of course for the TM R11, they added the sole plate as the 'face angle' adjustment and switched the hosel adjustment labels to be the loft adjustments.   Just a guess but likely because they didn't want to confuse customers with two different face angle adjustments.   But whatever the reason, the consequences were the same.

Although the r11 was also released at the same time as Titleist's first adjustable hosel models - so whether Titleist's or TM's was the first to decide to reference loft as the primary adjustment function is impossible to say.

Edited by Stuart G., 09 January 2019 - 12:31 PM.


24

#25 TollBros

TollBros

    Overseer of the Test Range

  • Sponsors
  • 4,301 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 438250
  • Joined: 08/25/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3092

Posted 09 January 2019 - 02:40 PM

View Posttx33, on 09 January 2019 - 04:56 AM, said:


This is what bugs me most about the adjustable hosel: rather than giving fitters an extra option to change FA in woods without reboring a hosel or bending it, both of which are very hard to do successfully, they basically take away loft options to reduce SKU and cover that up with BS marketing.

I agree with you 100%. The only reason to not offer every true loft is nothing but a reason to limit sku's and lower production costs. In my opinion it is vital to be able to choose loft independent of face angle. That's why I only play Taylormade woods. I need 7 degrees of true loft at less than 1 degree open face angle. This is totally unachievable except in a Taylormade head in 2019. I don't want to have to hover the club, manipulating it from 4 degrees open at address.

http://www.golfwrx.c...evaluationscom/

Please click the link above for our Sponsor area with rare and Tour only products.

25

#26 TollBros

TollBros

    Overseer of the Test Range

  • Sponsors
  • 4,301 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 438250
  • Joined: 08/25/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3092

Posted 09 January 2019 - 02:43 PM

View PostTomWishon, on 09 January 2019 - 11:08 AM, said:

View Posttx33, on 09 January 2019 - 04:56 AM, said:

View PostTomWishon, on 08 January 2019 - 02:55 PM, said:

Unfortunately since the advent of the adjustable hosel sleeve, those companies who use these on their drivers and woods have effectively killed face angle as a viable fitting specification.  10 yrs ago you used to see face angle listed as a spec in each company's list of specifications of their drivers and woods.  Not anymore because in the desire to use a hosel sleeve to change loft in the same head, the face angle is a casualty.  
This is what bugs me most about the adjustable hosel: rather than giving fitters an extra option to change FA in woods without reboring a hosel or bending it, both of which are very hard to do successfully, they basically take away loft options to reduce SKU and cover that up with BS marketing.

Previously you could basically get every loft from 8-12 degrees (or even more handpicked) from most OEMs and after measuring one you knew the actual loft vs the stated for that model head. It was a pain, but after the initial work you could reliably get the proper head for the player. Now some driver models have only two lofts and you're out of options if you need more/less loft AND FA adjustment, which to be fair would benefit most players.

If they just kept the old SKU count and added the loft sleeve for FA/Lie adjustment more players could be fit properly.

You are absolutely right in saying that a big reason behind the move to and retention of the adjustable hosel sleeve in drivers was the fact the companies saved a ton of money in their inventory management - at the expense of being able to really help slicers.  In the pre-sleeve days as you said, companies tooled up, produced and inventoried separate driver models in 9, 10, 11 and sometimes 12 degree lofts.  Multiply that by 2 because of left hand players and you have 8 SKUs to have to determine how many to buy, when to buy.  No purchasing manager is perfect in predicting how many and when so the companies always fought the battle of too little of one and too many of another.

Now a business first/money first mentality might look at that and say, 'brilliant business move.'  But for the golfers, 70% of whom do need help reducing the slice to enjoy the game more.  Nope.  You don't count.  Go take lessons.  

The other reason for the move to the adj hosel sleeve was to pretend they could offer 'custom fitting' for golfers with the contrived loft changing ability of the sleeve.  I followed the move into hosel sleeves very closely because I had the pleasure of designing the first adjustable hosel sleeve back in 1995 so I was very interested to see how the big companies would run with that.  Please correct me if I am wrong but in the first year of release of the adj hosel sleeves, no company actually made it crystal clear that the only way you get a loft change with these sleeves was to hold/hover the head in a square face position at address.  Soling the driver caused an undefined face angle change with no change in loft.  So they brought these things out and never clearly told golfers exactly how to use them.  

Good players and those who hit it straight figured it out quickly so a good player pooh poohs a gripe like this.  Joe Golfer didn't.  

Anyway.  Sigh.  Sorry for the rant but I am so tired of companies in every field of endeavor these days making decisions first and foremost on the basis of money/stock value over quality, service and customer well being.  It just frustrates the hell out of me when there are much better ways of doing things which never happen because it costs more to do it.  OK, stick a fork in me, I'm done and time to disappear.

Very well said sir. There really isn't anything to add after this.
http://www.golfwrx.c...evaluationscom/

Please click the link above for our Sponsor area with rare and Tour only products.

26

#27 VinceRKG

VinceRKG

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 20476
  • Joined: 10/11/2006
  • Location:Yuma, Az
GolfWRX Likes : 35

Posted 11 January 2019 - 06:45 PM

View Postpinhigh27, on 08 January 2019 - 07:01 PM, said:

View PostVinceRKG, on 08 January 2019 - 06:31 PM, said:

You give a 70mph swing speed golfer , who hits a 10.5 loft a high CT club head of around 240-250! They will be get distances they have never seen before. Have seen this personally hundreds of times. Faster swings with over CT heads will lose distance and be poop balls off the face. There is a limit to what they can on CT number before going over that hill and losing speeds. But yes like Tom stated its the whole club that best fits and suited for that golfer to get the best out of it. Cant just rely on one thing.

huh? that makes no sense


The slower the swing speed, that golfers needs more POP on the face, a bigger looser trampoline.
Make sense?

The faster the swing speed, that golfer needs less POP on the face, a tighter trampoline.
Make sense?

If you were to give a faster swing speed a face that gives too much, IE..over CT.257, they were have a face that gives too much. meaning the ball is staying on the face longer. So you lose any pop. The face just gives more.

Take it like this, you think you hitting someone with your fist would be hurt more if they moved away from you as contact is made, or if they stood and took the hit?

So the best a manufacturer can do is find to middle grounds. One for slower speeds with hitter faces or close to over CT as possible. .
And one for faster speeds with further away as far as allowed but still staying close to the CT limit.

When you hit a driver that face will start to break down little by little. So you need a manufacturer needs to know that higher speeds will move a face faster to CT number than a slower speed golfer.

Now getting DEEEEEPER into the that area comes forged vs cast club heads, the titanium they use, and the thickness of the face will all play a roll in CT movement.

ramble over hahaha sorry......
#YumaMade #YTown

27

#28 Stuart G.

Stuart G.

    Legend

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,146 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 174728
  • Joined: 04/12/2012
  • Location:New Hampshire
GolfWRX Likes : 6850

Posted 12 January 2019 - 05:04 AM

View PostVinceRKG, on 11 January 2019 - 06:45 PM, said:

If you were to give a faster swing speed a face that gives too much, IE..over CT.257, they were have a face that gives too much. meaning the ball is staying on the face longer. So you lose any pop. The face just gives more.

...

So the best a manufacturer can do is find to middle grounds. One for slower speeds with hitter faces or close to over CT as possible. .
And one for faster speeds with further away as far as allowed but still staying close to the CT limit.

Sorry - that's not how it works.  All swing speeds will benefit from a higher COR/CT.  Different speeds do not have different 'needs' for the CT value to optimize their ball speed.

First, the club face doesn't add any 'pop'.   You have to look at CT or COR  as being about how much energy is lost in the impact not how much is added. At impact both the face and the ball deform as energy is transferred between the two.  Kinetic to potential energy and back to kinetic.   Energy is lost because neither the ball or the face are perfectly elastic so some energy is lost because of those deformations.  And the amount of energy lost is going to be proportional to how much deformation occurs in each combined with the material properties of what is deforming.

Now for any given equal impact (i.e. identical club head speed and impact) we see differences in COR because of how much the face deforms compared to how much the ball deforms.   To put it simply, the total potential energy in all the deformation generally will stay the same.  So If the face is stiffer and deforms less, that means the ball will deform more.   Or if the face deforms more, the ball will deform less. So the issue and end result comes down to which material has better elastic properties and looses less energy during the deformation. And the answer is the Titanium in the face has much better elastic properties than the polymers of the ball.

So it comes down to that the more the face deforms, the less the ball deforms, and the less energy is lost in the collision and the higher the COR (or CT) will be.  And that applies equally for ANY club head speed.

Edited by Stuart G., 12 January 2019 - 05:06 AM.


28

#29 VinceRKG

VinceRKG

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 20476
  • Joined: 10/11/2006
  • Location:Yuma, Az
GolfWRX Likes : 35

Posted 14 January 2019 - 11:43 AM

View PostStuart G., on 12 January 2019 - 05:04 AM, said:

View PostVinceRKG, on 11 January 2019 - 06:45 PM, said:

If you were to give a faster swing speed a face that gives too much, IE..over CT.257, they were have a face that gives too much. meaning the ball is staying on the face longer. So you lose any pop. The face just gives more.

...

So the best a manufacturer can do is find to middle grounds. One for slower speeds with hitter faces or close to over CT as possible. .
And one for faster speeds with further away as far as allowed but still staying close to the CT limit.

Sorry - that's not how it works.  All swing speeds will benefit from a higher COR/CT.  Different speeds do not have different 'needs' for the CT value to optimize their ball speed.

First, the club face doesn't add any 'pop'.   You have to look at CT or COR  as being about how much energy is lost in the impact not how much is added. At impact both the face and the ball deform as energy is transferred between the two.  Kinetic to potential energy and back to kinetic.   Energy is lost because neither the ball or the face are perfectly elastic so some energy is lost because of those deformations.  And the amount of energy lost is going to be proportional to how much deformation occurs in each combined with the material properties of what is deforming.

Now for any given equal impact (i.e. identical club head speed and impact) we see differences in COR because of how much the face deforms compared to how much the ball deforms.   To put it simply, the total potential energy in all the deformation generally will stay the same.  So If the face is stiffer and deforms less, that means the ball will deform more.   Or if the face deforms more, the ball will deform less. So the issue and end result comes down to which material has better elastic properties and looses less energy during the deformation. And the answer is the Titanium in the face has much better elastic properties than the polymers of the ball.

So it comes down to that the more the face deforms, the less the ball deforms, and the less energy is lost in the collision and the higher the COR (or CT) will be.  And that applies equally for ANY club head speed.

Yes true to the coming down to what titanium is being used, also the hardness of it and thickness of the face. That all is  a big part of achieving higher ball speeds.

BUT, I can sit there and give a 110 swing speed a .270 CT head and he will lose speed. But I can give that same head to a 80 swing speed and he will hit the holy white off the ball and get his highest numbers.
I have seen it hundreds of times and made my goal to find one where it did not work for them.

You simply can not give any PGA PRO like Woodland speed and power and impact a .270 head and say he will achieve his highest speeds ever.
If that were the case companies would be making their heads at .240 and having he pros hit them in practice rounds to get the number up and migration up so they could cut corners and driving greens all day long.

Remember that for a club to be conforming via USGA rules, as long as the head submitted is tested as is before hit, and passes, it will be legal for use no matter it going past that .257 after being used.
#YumaMade #YTown

29

#30 pinhigh27

pinhigh27

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,171 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 73898
  • Joined: 01/27/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 2921

Posted 14 January 2019 - 06:00 PM

View PostVinceRKG, on 14 January 2019 - 11:43 AM, said:

View PostStuart G., on 12 January 2019 - 05:04 AM, said:

View PostVinceRKG, on 11 January 2019 - 06:45 PM, said:

If you were to give a faster swing speed a face that gives too much, IE..over CT.257, they were have a face that gives too much. meaning the ball is staying on the face longer. So you lose any pop. The face just gives more.

...

So the best a manufacturer can do is find to middle grounds. One for slower speeds with hitter faces or close to over CT as possible. .
And one for faster speeds with further away as far as allowed but still staying close to the CT limit.

Sorry - that's not how it works.  All swing speeds will benefit from a higher COR/CT.  Different speeds do not have different 'needs' for the CT value to optimize their ball speed.

First, the club face doesn't add any 'pop'.   You have to look at CT or COR  as being about how much energy is lost in the impact not how much is added. At impact both the face and the ball deform as energy is transferred between the two.  Kinetic to potential energy and back to kinetic.   Energy is lost because neither the ball or the face are perfectly elastic so some energy is lost because of those deformations.  And the amount of energy lost is going to be proportional to how much deformation occurs in each combined with the material properties of what is deforming.

Now for any given equal impact (i.e. identical club head speed and impact) we see differences in COR because of how much the face deforms compared to how much the ball deforms.   To put it simply, the total potential energy in all the deformation generally will stay the same.  So If the face is stiffer and deforms less, that means the ball will deform more.   Or if the face deforms more, the ball will deform less. So the issue and end result comes down to which material has better elastic properties and looses less energy during the deformation. And the answer is the Titanium in the face has much better elastic properties than the polymers of the ball.

So it comes down to that the more the face deforms, the less the ball deforms, and the less energy is lost in the collision and the higher the COR (or CT) will be.  And that applies equally for ANY club head speed.

Yes true to the coming down to what titanium is being used, also the hardness of it and thickness of the face. That all is  a big part of achieving higher ball speeds.

BUT, I can sit there and give a 110 swing speed a .270 CT head and he will lose speed. But I can give that same head to a 80 swing speed and he will hit the holy white off the ball and get his highest numbers.
I have seen it hundreds of times and made my goal to find one where it did not work for them.

You simply can not give any PGA PRO like Woodland speed and power and impact a .270 head and say he will achieve his highest speeds ever.
If that were the case companies would be making their heads at .240 and having he pros hit them in practice rounds to get the number up and migration up so they could cut corners and driving greens all day long.

Remember that for a club to be conforming via USGA rules, as long as the head submitted is tested as is before hit, and passes, it will be legal for use no matter it going past that .257 after being used.

huh? as we have discussed in this thread it's literally like a couple yards difference between " super hot " heads and regular ones. 2 yards isn't the difference between cutting a corner or driving a green.

I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation for why someone who hits it long wouldn't benefit from a hot head just like a slow joe would

How to be in better shape for golf?
Become a better athlete.
Don't worry about golf specific.
Compound lifts w/ linear progress
Don't forget the mobility work.
More results, more functional

Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors