37 replies to this topic

[33 Handicap]

http://youtu.be/8MLDfgiJuFI?t=1s

Edited by 33 Handicap, 02 November 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[KYMAR]

33 Handicap, on 02 November 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8MLDfgiJuFI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

FAIL!
LOL fix it OP, you have me curious now!

[33 Handicap]

Fixed.

[BrianL99]

Here's the correct link:  http://www.youtube.c...bed/8MLDfgiJuFI

& it's about time someone started to dispel some of the ridiculous rumors about the significance of shaft "stiffness".

[PingG10guy]

dispersion wasnt mentioned...just sayin

[Man In The Miura]

Mark is obviously a really bright guy.  His videos are great.  Since he was on the Trackman, I'd have liked to have seen more data... a more comprehensive look at dispersion, ball speed, and spin rate.

But I agree with his conclusion:  feel, feel, feel.

[dschultzatl]

Mark has dropped at least 5 strokes off my game! Love that guy.

[indygolfman]

What about spin?  Or is that a product of the launch angle/dynamic loft/swing speed?  (Honest question)

Couldn't you have those same launch characteristics but with different spin rates?

[J.W.]

I think I've said the shaft really doesn't matter that much about 100 times in recent months...lol.

I think a lot of the shaft now is feel.  If you're looking for huge differences by changing shafts... won't happen.  With that said I like cool shafts as much as the next guy.

I didn't watch this video past the two minute mark so I don't know what he said past that.

Edited by J.W., 02 November 2012 - 09:04 PM.

[Kadin 25]

PingG10guy, on 02 November 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

dispersion wasnt mentioned...just sayin

+1 I would like to see more data as mentioned.

[GolfMonster09]

Would like to see a robotic test of different shafts. Get the robot to swing the club - same head, swing speed, contact, smash factors, etc. - with shafts of different flexes. A comprehensive comparative scientific test of the effects of different shafts on ball flight, distance, dispersion, spin rates, etc.

Anybody have access to that kind of stuff? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Back9]

The problem with this particular "experiment" is that he is not swinging hard enough to flex the shaft significantly on his hard swing.  He is below the dynamic range of that shaft and so it performs essentially the same for both swings.  If he would swing at say 100mph, he would be more into the range where an extra stiff shaft would be expected to exhibit different performance characteristcs than a less stiff shaft. Of course those performance differences would be manifested by more than just launch angle.  one would expect to see differences in spin, dispersion, ballspeed, etc. as well.

Obviously flex is only one component of a shaft.  Torque, flexpoint, subsection stiffness all contribute to significant differences in actual, measurable performance, not just feel.

[J.W.]

Back9, on 02 November 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

The problem with this particular "experiment" is that he is not swinging hard enough to flex the shaft significantly on his hard swing.  He is below the dynamic range of that shaft and so it performs essentially the same for both swings.  If he would swing at say 100mph, he would be more into the range where an extra stiff shaft would be expected to exhibit different performance characteristcs than a less stiff shaft. Of course those performance differences would be manifested by more than just launch angle.  one would expect to see differences in spin, dispersion, ballspeed, etc. as well.

Obviously flex is only one component of a shaft.  Torque, flexpoint, subsection stiffness all contribute to significant differences in actual, measurable performance, not just feel.

Sure, the harder you swing and the later you release the club is where the shaft will really start to perform.  You see tons of guys on tour playing random steel shafts that they would never be fit into if they weren't already playing them.  I swing a 6 iron at probably 92 mph or so and I could literally choose 1 of 5-6 shafts that will give me very good numbers but at the end of the day the feel aspect is more important for me.  There is no question that going from ladies graphite to x100 is going to have some effects...  But going from C-Taper to DG to PX or similar is only going to drastically change if the player swinging the club drastically changes some things or hates/loves the feel of one.

[seasterl]

Great point, Back9!  His SS is too low to even be in the X100 range, so it stands to reason that he would get the results he got with that shaft.  The other problem with using a flex not stiff enough is erratic toe droop and leaving the face open.  At the other extreme, it too stiff, there could be a deterioration of feel. I think distance would also be maximized with the ideal shaft flex, too. What I got out of the video was that there is still likely a lot of latitude or forgiveness from a properly fitted shaft to accommodate as much swing speed variation most will have during a round.

[bladestriker]

Back9, on 02 November 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

The problem with this particular "experiment" is that he is not swinging hard enough to flex the shaft significantly on his hard swing.  He is below the dynamic range of that shaft and so it performs essentially the same for both swings.  If he would swing at say 100mph, he would be more into the range where an extra stiff shaft would be expected to exhibit different performance characteristcs than a less stiff shaft. Of course those performance differences would be manifested by more than just launch angle.  one would expect to see differences in spin, dispersion, ballspeed, etc. as well.

Obviously flex is only one component of a shaft.  Torque, flexpoint, subsection stiffness all contribute to significant differences in actual, measurable performance, not just feel.

I must have missed what club this was, but if it's a 6 iron he's on the bottom end of "recommended" X flex.  85 mph and up 5 iron, recommended X100

[33 Handicap]

the point being made, if you play a stiff or regular gains or losses made are probably not going to be as important as feel.

[bushy007]

dschultzatl, on 02 November 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Mark has dropped at least 5 strokes off my game! Love that guy.

Ditto.

[OSUBuckeyeFan8]

The ladies club/shaft combo is an irrelevant comparison as the loft of the club is certainly stronger than the blade he was hitting.  Also, i don't think he's a good enough player to perfectly repeat his mechanics swinging 20mph slower than normal.  Meaning, there are more variables than shaft flex from his fast swing to the slow swing.  Not saying he has a bad swing or is a bad player but he's not a robot.

[zink357]

What about distance and dispersion? Why would he leave those numbers out of the experiment?

[Nessism]

This video matches my experience very closely.  Shafts just don't make a huge difference in ball flight.  Yea, they feel different, but the ball doesn't care.

[BrianL99]

OSUBuckeyeFan8, on 02 November 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

The ladies club/shaft combo is an irrelevant comparison as the loft of the club is certainly stronger than the blade he was hitting.  Also, i don't think he's a good enough player to perfectly repeat his mechanics swinging 20mph slower than normal.  Meaning, there are more variables than shaft flex from his fast swing to the slow swing.  Not saying he has a bad swing or is a bad player but he's not a robot.

... but isn't that the point?  Robots don't play golf, less than perfect swinging people play golf.

[BrianL99]

GolfMonster09, on 02 November 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Would like to see a robotic test of different shafts. Get the robot to swing the club - same head, swing speed, contact, smash factors, etc. - with shafts of different flexes. A comprehensive comparative scientific test of the effects of different shafts on ball flight, distance, dispersion, spin rates, etc.

Anybody have access to that kind of stuff? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

PING does, from years of testing with "PINGMan".  

For many years, PING only offered what was essentially a "uniflex" shaft, that would probably be characterized as an "XStiff".  Karsten was convinced, based on the results from PINGMan, that everyone should be playing a very stiff shaft for optimum results.  At least as I understand it, the only reason PING began to offer different flex shafts, was that it was a losing battle to convince players that his analysis was flawed, while every other manufacturer was offering choices.

Some more data:

A visual inspection of body kinematics data revealed
differences in shaft stiffness had no observable effect within a given subject, although obvious and expected differences were noted between subjects. While statistically significant differences were noted among shaft types for clubhead speed, solid hit factor and ball/ clubhead impact location, the actual magnitudes of these differences were considered negligible.   (http://iweb.tms.org/ED/01-5085-23.pdf)

Or here:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22900403

There are 100's of other supposedly scientific studies out there, offering various conclusions.  Most studies however, do conclude that shaft stiffness is irrelevant to ball speed/distance/launch angle.  On the other hand, most analysis of "dispersion" seem to offer inconsistent conclusions.

Edited by BrianL99, 03 November 2012 - 04:49 AM.

[smash@gouge]

BrianL99, on 03 November 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

GolfMonster09, on 02 November 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Would like to see a robotic test of different shafts. Get the robot to swing the club - same head, swing speed, contact, smash factors, etc. - with shafts of different flexes. A comprehensive comparative scientific test of the effects of different shafts on ball flight, distance, dispersion, spin rates, etc.

Anybody have access to that kind of stuff? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

PING does, from years of testing with "PINGMan".  

For many years, PING only offered what was essentially a "uniflex" shaft, that would probably be characterized as an "XStiff".  Karsten was convinced, based on the results from PINGMan, that everyone should be playing a very stiff shaft for optimum results.  At least as I understand it, the only reason PING began to offer different flex shafts, was that it was a losing battle to convince players that his analysis was flawed, while every other manufacturer was offering choices.

Some more data:

A visual inspection of body kinematics data revealed
differences in shaft stiffness had no observable effect within a given subject, although obvious and expected differences were noted between subjects. While statistically significant differences were noted among shaft types for clubhead speed, solid hit factor and ball/ clubhead impact location, the actual magnitudes of these differences were considered negligible.   (http://iweb.tms.org/ED/01-5085-23.pdf)

Or here:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22900403

There are 100's of other supposedly scientific studies out there, offering various conclusions.  Most studies however, do conclude that shaft stiffness is irrelevant to ball speed/distance/launch angle.  On the other hand, most analysis of "dispersion" seem to offer inconsistent conclusions.

I played Ping eye 2+ for 14 yrs they came with kt and then later kt-m shafts from ping. had mine tested for flex in the mid 90s by a rep from Tommy Armour and they charted on the high end of x-stiff. I recall him telling me that Pings shafts always freq of the charts compared to most others.Off topic but damn i wifh i never sold those irons

[kellygreen]

BrianL99, on 03 November 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

GolfMonster09, on 02 November 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Would like to see a robotic test of different shafts. Get the robot to swing the club - same head, swing speed, contact, smash factors, etc. - with shafts of different flexes. A comprehensive comparative scientific test of the effects of different shafts on ball flight, distance, dispersion, spin rates, etc.

Anybody have access to that kind of stuff? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

PING does, from years of testing with "PINGMan".  

For many years, PING only offered what was essentially a "uniflex" shaft, that would probably be characterized as an "XStiff".  Karsten was convinced, based on the results from PINGMan, that everyone should be playing a very stiff shaft for optimum results.  At least as I understand it, the only reason PING began to offer different flex shafts, was that it was a losing battle to convince players that his analysis was flawed, while every other manufacturer was offering choices.

Some more data:

A visual inspection of body kinematics data revealed
differences in shaft stiffness had no observable effect within a given subject, although obvious and expected differences were noted between subjects. While statistically significant differences were noted among shaft types for clubhead speed, solid hit factor and ball/ clubhead impact location, the actual magnitudes of these differences were considered negligible.   (http://iweb.tms.org/ED/01-5085-23.pdf)

Or here:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22900403

There are 100's of other supposedly scientific studies out there, offering various conclusions.  Most studies however, do conclude that shaft stiffness is irrelevant to ball speed/distance/launch angle.  On the other hand, most analysis of "dispersion" seem to offer inconsistent conclusions.

A few problems.

1. Robots dont' swing golf clubs like humans do...even though they are able to swing the club exactly the same each time.

2. Humans---even tour pros---are not able to swing a golf club consistently enough from swing to swing to identifiy small differences...unless you measure a LOT of swings.    But then day to day variations and fatigue also act to confound any attempts to standardize.

3. Unless your swing is pretty consistent, you just aren't going to see much difference between one shaft and another.  Because the inconsistencies in the golf swing itself will overwhelm any contribution from the shaft.

4. The more consistent your swing is, the more you will notice the effects that shafts have on ballflight, distance, dispersion and spin rates.   Even if you blind tested me with a KBS tour x, a DGX100, a PX 6.5 and a KBS C-taper X...I would not only be able to tell the difference in terms of feel...I'd also be able to tell the difference in terms of ball flight.

But I can to that today, because my swing has enough repeatability to be able see the effects.  Fifteen years ago, I wouldn't have been able to do that, because of the inconsistency in my swing.

[BrianL99]

kellygreen, on 03 November 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

1. Robots dont' swing golf clubs like humans do...even though they are able to swing the club exactly the same each time.

2. Humans---even tour pros---are not able to swing a golf club consistently enough from swing to swing to identifiy small differences...unless you measure a LOT of swings. But then day to day variations and fatigue also act to confound any attempts to standardize.

3. Unless your swing is pretty consistent, you just aren't going to see much difference between one shaft and another.  Because the inconsistencies in the golf swing itself will overwhelm any contribution from the shaft.

That's exactly the part that everyone seems to miss, when discussing "fitting", Shaft stiffness, lie, etc.   The average mid-handicapper simply isn't consistent enough to benefit from the nuances.   I'm around 5.7 & I've come to realize that subtle equipment variances, simply don't mean enough to get all that worked up about them.

I know I'll get attacked for this, but the average double-digit handicapper, simply isn't consistent enough to benefit nor even understand the inconsistencies in their swing, as it relates to equipment specifications. If they simply spent 20% of the time they spend worrying about equipment specs on practice ... & 10% of what they spend on buying new equipment on lessons, they'd be much better served in my opinion.

Edited by BrianL99, 03 November 2012 - 08:19 AM.

[justhackin]

Quote

I know I'll get attacked for this, but the average double-digit handicapper, simply isn't consistent enough to benefit nor even understand the inconsistencies in their swing, as it relates to equipment specifications. If they simply spent 20% of the time they spend worrying about equipment specs on practice ... & 10% of what they spend on buying new equipment on lessons, they'd be much better served in my opinion.

I agree 100% except I would say the average single digit needs to spend more on practice/lessons than equipment.

If a person asks me about new clubs/shafts the first thing I do is slide a new grip on for them.  A lot of times they just need/want that new feel!

hackin

[SHIVAN]

Spin rate and dispersion.  If I hit a ladies flex 6i with a full swing, it's going to spin like a monster.  It could be side to side, it could be balloned, it could be sucked off a green, whatever.  It's going to be spinning like a gyroscope....

[vix02]

Great thread....bringing me back to earth.

I agree with the steel shafts\irons but not sure if I agree with graphite shafts.  Some shafts will bring the left side into play where others I have a hard time working the ball.

Hard Step some PXi 6.5's in my CB's instead of my C tapers...hmm I like it.  Wife liking it?  not so much

[justodd]

I agree with you but his point gets muddled in his demo. Ladies graphite feels so nice, but baloons like hell... I think the decision should be based on performance.

[Becon]

Feel, weight, and how the shaft responds to your swing is much more important than dialing in flex. Especially when brands like KBS and PX are offering 5 flexes per model. My dispersion with DGS300 was better, but I picked KBS Tour because I like how they perform when I'm not hacking away trying grind the ball into dust, and they punish me when I am. My swing tempo has improved dramatically since switching to KBS. The lower weight is also a little less taxing.

Once all that was settled, S flex was fine for me. Almost an afterthought. The R was a bit whippy and X didn't seem necessary.

Edited by Becon, 03 November 2012 - 02:43 PM.