32 replies to this topic

[Tomed]

I have a small club building shop in my basement. It all started because I have had probably seven or eight heads fly off from clubs I’ve had put together at my local Edwin Watts. I learned the epoxy they use stinks (good to around 200 degrees Fahrenheit). I was able to retrieve all the club heads except one – a 6iron that’s in the bottom of a lake!!! So I researched different epoxy and club building and learned how to do it myself. JB Weld makes a 24hour epoxy that is good to 650 degrees Fahrenheit. I have never had a single club head fly off and I’ve put together countless drivers, woods, irons, wedges, putters, etc. I’ve gotten good at it. It’s a great hobby.

I’ve been a big believer in SST Puring for a while, having a driver I used for a while that was SST pured. I have seen all the demo videos and believe puring is the right thing to do. BUT, I’ve never gone all out, thinking $39 per club is just ridiculous. Stupid me… About a month ago I decided to take the big step. I was going to do everything. But I wanted to do it big and right!!! Starting with all irons (3 thru LW). I bought some irons in A+ condition that were made in the year I took up the game; Symbolism, I guess. I decided to buy Project X 7.0s for everything, except the lob wedge, where this would be a 6.5. I took all the raw shafts and had each one SST Pured. Oh, the print outs alone had me drooling. Little known fact: if you take a raw shaft and have it SST Pured, in quantity especially, you can get a good discount. I ended up paying just $14.99 per shaft.

It’s been close to three weeks since I did this and I’ve had roughly ten rounds with the clubs. I can say without equivocation that I should have done this years ago. There’s definitely a difference. My irons are pure and sweet. My shots have never been better.  It’s a great feeling. Even my chips are better.  It’s just a sweet thing… So, with driver, 3wood, 2hybrid, 3i thru PW, GW and LW (13 clubs) I’ve spent $194 in SST Puring. Best “investment” I’ve ever made in my golf game. Really simple stuff. I recommend you do it. I can definitely see people not doing it, however. At $39 per club, plus the cost that a club builder would charge for the break down and re-assembly, I would guess that most people would have to pay at least $50 per club. For 13 clubs that’s $650. Most people would just not do it. It’s a hassle!! It is worth it in my opinion.

[Sean2]

I've read a lot on this topic, both for and against. No EOM offers this as an option for customization and I wonder why if it has so much going for it.

[Tomed]

Sean2, on 03 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I've read a lot on this topic, both for and against. No EOM offers this as an option for customization and I wonder why if it has so much going for it.

Sean, Funny you ask that, because it is totally related to me PURING my own clubs. First: It is a cost issue. SST PURE sells a PUREing machine that each time it is used SST derive a royalty. Now perhaps the royalty is only a $1 or perhaps it's $5. Whatever the value, it is an amount that [if you're Callaway or Titleist] would equate to $10s of millions annually. That eats into profits, AND since only good players really care about dispersion, the big box OEMs don't have to invest in pureing because consumers aren't demanding it.

There is an OEM that provides SST PUREd shafts as stock in their irons - Henry Griffits. So if you don't have a shop in your basement, or don't want to spend the big $$ on your own irons, buy some HG irons. I have looked for used HG, but have not found anything [new enough] that I wanted to buy. I have an HG fitter very close to me so I have hit their latest blades and cavities and they really are sweet. So sweet in fact, this is the MAIN reason I decided to SST PURE my own clubs.

So, why didn't I buy HG irons? Well, as petty as it may seem I HATE their current and previous branding. The first time I ever saw their logo I thought it was Home and Garden. Their logo looked so similar if not identical to the HGTV (home and garden tv) logo that I distinctly remember thinking "what the h** is HG TV doing selling golf clubs?"

  
It was only by a close inspection that I saw the words "Henry Griffits" below their logo. It just looked wrong... Clearly, they're a golf company and not a marketing company. Don't believe me? Well, clearly they do NOT have a brand marketing employee [executive] on staff. Go to their website. CLick "equipment" then look at the product names for their categories - woods, irons, etc., You can't even pronounce a single product name... Funky letters, characters, numbers in EVERY product.... What is up with that? Why does it matter? Word of mouth... Say I buy an HG set of irons. Someone says "hey, you hit those good, what is it?" I respond "it's the new henry griffits OS upside down T" or their driver which looks like it's named "payless..." I mean come on... these guys are totally missing the boat. Lesson number one for any company: keep it simple stupid. Look at every successful company in the world. Dare yourself to find even one who has a product name or product logo which was not insanely easy to comprehend so as to be able to communicate about it. Look at some popular and successful golf centric product names: 910D3, MB, AP2, RBZ, Big Bertha, X22, RAZR, MP59, MPT14. Now look at the HG product logos. See something ridiculous?


As you can see, this is so seared into my memory that I cannot seem to pull the trigger for their gear.

Choice 1: do it yourself
Choice 2: buy HG, and be not able to describe to your friends what product you're using

Edited by Tomed, 04 November 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[BrianL99]

Sean2, on 03 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I've read a lot on this topic, both for and against. No EOM offers this as an option for customization and I wonder why if it has so much going for it.

Because no one has proven it's of any value.  If it was of any value when SST first came up with it, the value has since diminished with improvements in the quality of mass produced shafts.

[Tomed]

BrianL99, on 04 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Sean2, on 03 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I've read a lot on this topic, both for and against. No EOM offers this as an option for customization and I wonder why if it has so much going for it.

Because no one has proven it's of any value.  If it was of any value when SST first came up with it, the value has since diminished with improvements in the quality of mass produced shafts.

Brian, If you had personal experience that your dispersion and distance control has improved and the results were quantifiable and quantitative, would that be of value?

BTW & FWIW... i do not work for any golf equipment or golf service company. i do not work in the golfing industry. it would not be possible for me to derive any benefit whatsoever by making any stake or claim in any golf product or golf service.

AND, there are quite a number of top players that have had SST pure their shafts. among these are kuchar, laird, schwartzel, senden, stricker,  p. lawrie, sung moon bae, every, mackenzie, a. noren, kt kim, j. rose, z. johnson, fowler, l. donald, van pelt, vegas, na, gainey, furyk, r. palmer, c. stroud, toms, v. singh, goosen, holmes, huh, immelman, harrington, couples, roger chapman, and els. if the improvements in the quality of mass produced shafts is as you suggest, 1) SST would have gone the way of the horse and buggy 2) the aforementioned list of touring pros would not ALLOW their names to be used in conjunction with the SST company.

Edited by Tomed, 04 November 2012 - 10:10 AM.

[Socrates]

Tomed, unfortunately in this experiment, you cannot say the the SST Puring is the cause of your better play.  You took a club that you hadn't used before and made a set.  At this point, all you know for certain is that you are having a better golf experience.  You cannot say it is the result of the Puring or the new heads or the different shafts.  I'll agree with BrianL99 on this one.

On the other side of the coin, I'm very glad that you are doing so well with the new clubs.  As an experiment, I would take those exact shafts and re-install them in the same heads, but rotate the shafts randomly (non-pured settings) to see whether you experience a different result.

[BrianL99]

Tomed, on 04 November 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

BrianL99, on 04 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Sean2, on 03 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I've read a lot on this topic, both for and against. No EOM offers this as an option for customization and I wonder why if it has so much going for it.

Because no one has proven it's of any value.  If it was of any value when SST first came up with it, the value has since diminished with improvements in the quality of mass produced shafts.

Brian, If you had personal experience that your dispersion and distance control has improved and the results were quantifiable and quantitative, would that be of value?

BTW & FWIW... i do not work for any golf equipment or golf service company. i do not work in the golfing industry. it would not be possible for me to derive any benefit whatsoever by making any stake or claim in any golf product or golf service.

& I've had identical shafts SST Pure'd & I FLO all my shafts (because I can, not because I believe it's of any particular value in irons).

This subject has been discussed a 1000 times on the site & no less of an authority than Tom Wishon (who did much of the original testing for SST), admits that the benefits of the process have been significantly muted by the improvement in shaft quality.  

The ONLY "study" that was ever published on the subject that anyone seems to be able to find, is some sketchy data provided by SST.  It's far from a scientifically performed analysis and leads to only some general conclusions, with no 3rd party verification.

It's great that you think it's performed miracles for your dispersion, but as someone else stated, I doubt it's solely attributable to using SST Pured shafts.

& usually when someone makes a post such as yours, there's an agenda.   I'll even guess what it is.  In exchange for the "discount", you agreed or offered to provide some positive postings for SST.

JMOYMMV

[Tomed]

Socrates, on 04 November 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Tomed, unfortunately in this experiment, you cannot say the the SST Puring is the cause of your better play.  You took a club that you hadn't used before and made a set.  At this point, all you know for certain is that you are having a better golf experience.  You cannot say it is the result of the Puring or the new heads or the different shafts.  I'll agree with BrianL99 on this one.

On the other side of the coin, I'm very glad that you are doing so well with the new clubs.  As an experiment, I would take those exact shafts and re-install them in the same heads, but rotate the shafts randomly (non-pured settings) to see whether you experience a different result.

I just edited my last post, but saw there have been a few posts since then... the post edit included the following:

there are quite a number of top players that have had SST pure their shafts. among these are kuchar, laird, schwartzel, senden, stricker,  p. lawrie, sung moon bae, every, mackenzie, a. noren, kt kim, j. rose, z. johnson, fowler, l. donald, van pelt, vegas, na, gainey, furyk, r. palmer, c. stroud, toms, v. singh, goosen, holmes, huh, immelman, harrington, couples, roger chapman, and els. if the improvements in the quality of mass produced shafts is as you suggest, 1) SST would have gone the way of the horse and buggy 2) the aforementioned list of touring pros would not ALLOW their names to be used in conjunction with the SST company.

[rge]

I don't doubt that SST Puring will benefit the user in providing more consistent behavior in the shaft.  I had the fortune of buying a set of shafts that had been pured. They even came with the documentation/certificate for each shaft.  Fortunately for me, it was the seller that took the hickey on the sale.  The shafts performed well but the question remains as to whether the expense is worth it.  I have access to a shop that allows me to use their tools and equipment and by chance I had an identical set of shafts like the ones that were pured but this time all I did was put them in a vise and firmly attached a head to it and flexed the shaft. I also measured the cpm throughout the process.  I kept on turning the shaft in 45* increments in order to see where they did not wobble as they oscillated.  It isn't a pure science but after about 15 minutes, I had located the proper mounting positions using my very rudimentary method for every shaft in the set.  I then proceeded to install them in the proper alignment and have been just as pleased with the results.  I cannot tell the difference between the two identical sets.  Maybe there is some difference but I can't see any significant gain over the method I used.  This is why I don't put too much stock in the service particularly because the price is pretty steep.

[Colej]

Tomed, on 04 November 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Socrates, on 04 November 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Tomed, unfortunately in this experiment, you cannot say the the SST Puring is the cause of your better play.  You took a club that you hadn't used before and made a set.  At this point, all you know for certain is that you are having a better golf experience.  You cannot say it is the result of the Puring or the new heads or the different shafts.  I'll agree with BrianL99 on this one.

On the other side of the coin, I'm very glad that you are doing so well with the new clubs.  As an experiment, I would take those exact shafts and re-install them in the same heads, but rotate the shafts randomly (non-pured settings) to see whether you experience a different result.

I just edited my last post, but saw there have been a few posts since then... the post edit included the following:

there are quite a number of top players that have had SST pure their shafts. among these are kuchar, laird, schwartzel, senden, stricker,  p. lawrie, sung moon bae, every, mackenzie, a. noren, kt kim, j. rose, z. johnson, fowler, l. donald, van pelt, vegas, na, gainey, furyk, r. palmer, c. stroud, toms, v. singh, goosen, holmes, huh, immelman, harrington, couples, roger chapman, and els. if the improvements in the quality of mass produced shafts is as you suggest, 1) SST would have gone the way of the horse and buggy 2) the aforementioned list of touring pros would not ALLOW their names to be used in conjunction with the SST company.

IMO with spining and floing there really is no need for SST puring.

[Bobtrumpet]

If you are buying raw shafts, Golfworks offers the service for $15.50 per shaft up to 3, and $13.50 for 4 or more.

Arthur Xtreme Engineering shafts are spine identified from the factory, but not SST Puered.

[Tomed]

BrianL99, on 04 November 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Tomed, on 04 November 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

BrianL99, on 04 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Sean2, on 03 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I've read a lot on this topic, both for and against. No EOM offers this as an option for customization and I wonder why if it has so much going for it.

Because no one has proven it's of any value.  If it was of any value when SST first came up with it, the value has since diminished with improvements in the quality of mass produced shafts.

Brian, If you had personal experience that your dispersion and distance control has improved and the results were quantifiable and quantitative, would that be of value?

BTW & FWIW... i do not work for any golf equipment or golf service company. i do not work in the golfing industry. it would not be possible for me to derive any benefit whatsoever by making any stake or claim in any golf product or golf service.

& I've had identical shafts SST Pure'd & I FLO all my shafts (because I can, not because I believe it's of any particular value in irons).

This subject has been discussed a 1000 times on the site & no less of an authority than Tom Wishon (who did much of the original testing for SST), admits that the benefits of the process have been significantly muted by the improvement in shaft quality.  

The ONLY "study" that was ever published on the subject that anyone seems to be able to find, is some sketchy data provided by SST.  It's far from a scientifically performed analysis and leads to only some general conclusions, with no 3rd party verification.

It's great that you think it's performed miracles for your dispersion, but as someone else stated, I doubt it's solely attributable to using SST Pured shafts.

& usually when someone makes a post such as yours, there's an agenda.   I'll even guess what it is.  In exchange for the "discount", you agreed or offered to provide some positive postings for SST.

JMOYMMV

Brian,

I do not have an agenda necessarily. I'm a serious golfer. I've gone to qschool a couple of times, have posted a career low round of 64, and when i get excited about something (anything) I like to find people that mind find benefit in my experience and share.

I do not disagree with your comments, and certainly those of Mr. Wishlon. Although I do not know what he's written on the subject, there has got to me merit in what the aforementioned touring pros are getting from having their shafts pured.

When I had my shafts pured I had it done at PGA Tour Superstore. Beforehand I simply talked to the store operations manager and told them that golfworks offered a certain price on puring raw shafts and he said he'd match it. That's not an agenda, that's an experience.

Thanks!

[DNice26]

I had an ahina ( Stiff flex tipped one inch) shaft PUREd and then installed in a Callaway RHT driver.  It turned out that for some reason the shaft was playing WAY too stiff for my swing ( i usually play X) so I brought it back to my club builder and he said all he had to do was orient the shaft 180 degrees to the "weak side" and it would fix my problem.  I was EXTREMELY sceptical that this would do anything at all but he assured me and even did it for free.  It was night and day....the shaft was Far more playable for me.  This one simple little example is what has me thinking that puring is more than just snake oil.

[accufitgolf]

Sean2, on 03 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I've read a lot on this topic, both for and against. No EOM offers this as an option for customization and I wonder why if it has so much going for it.

Because it would be admitting that there could be variables in their mass manufactured clubs. What a marketing nightmare that would be.

[zink357]

Tomed, on 03 November 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

It’s been close to three weeks since I did this and I’ve had roughly ten rounds with the clubs. I can say without equivocation that I should have done this years ago. There’s definitely a difference. My irons are pure and sweet. My shots have never been better.  It’s a great feeling.

In order to truely test this out you'd need to have two of the exact same clubs or even whole sets of clubs. One SST pured and one that was set with the shaft say 90* to where it would be "pure" and hit them side by side. Just because you got a completely different set of clubs with SST pured shafts and find yourself playing much better says nothing IMO.

[zink357]

SST puring is just an advanced way of FLO setting your shaft with way better accuracy. Think about it like this. When FLO'ing, the first time you pull the shaft back and release it, it will go dead straight forward one time before it starts to oscilate and then it will overspin or underspin from there. In the golf swing you are only needing to be concerned about that first release forward because after that the ball is already gone, so who cares if it overspins or underspins after impact?

What is important is that the spine of a shaft will affect its stiffness depending on where it is alligned in the club head. If you put the shaft in with the spine at 3 o'clock at adress it may "feel" softer than if you put it at 9 o'clock and certainly different if you put it at 12 or 6 o'clock. However, when i FLO test my shafts, I find that the spine ends up in different positions depending on the club head that I am using.

I am no expert by any means, but I am completely torn on which is more productive. I FLO test all my stuff and then if I feel like it (woods only) needs to be a touch softer or stiffer I will adjust where the spine sets. I find no difference in performance whether FLO tested or not, but I do it for that "just in case" factor that can play a mind game with me when I hit a bad shot. I don't wanna be thinking "was that cuz I didn't FLO test this club". I play at a 1.6 index and feel pretty consistent with my swing to be able to test the theory.

Edited by zink357, 04 November 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[Socrates]

Tomed, on 04 November 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Socrates, on 04 November 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Tomed, unfortunately in this experiment, you cannot say the the SST Puring is the cause of your better play.  You took a club that you hadn't used before and made a set.  At this point, all you know for certain is that you are having a better golf experience.  You cannot say it is the result of the Puring or the new heads or the different shafts.  I'll agree with BrianL99 on this one.

On the other side of the coin, I'm very glad that you are doing so well with the new clubs.  As an experiment, I would take those exact shafts and re-install them in the same heads, but rotate the shafts randomly (non-pured settings) to see whether you experience a different result.

I just edited my last post, but saw there have been a few posts since then... the post edit included the following:

there are quite a number of top players that have had SST pure their shafts. among these are kuchar, laird, schwartzel, senden, stricker,  p. lawrie, sung moon bae, every, mackenzie, a. noren, kt kim, j. rose, z. johnson, fowler, l. donald, van pelt, vegas, na, gainey, furyk, r. palmer, c. stroud, toms, v. singh, goosen, holmes, huh, immelman, harrington, couples, roger chapman, and els. if the improvements in the quality of mass produced shafts is as you suggest, 1) SST would have gone the way of the horse and buggy 2) the aforementioned list of touring pros would not ALLOW their names to be used in conjunction with the SST company.

Actually, I don't think that SST Pure is able to use the aforementioned names in any advertising as they are not paid by SST (from what I understand).  Tour Pros have access to all sorts of things and they will use anything that removes any possible variable.  They may or may not believe in it, but if it can't hurt and can get it for free, they'll do it.  They aren't above using "snake oil" for any edge: mental or physical.

I still challenge you to rotate a few shafts and see if there is enough of a difference.

[zink357]

Socrates, on 04 November 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Tomed, on 04 November 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Socrates, on 04 November 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Tomed, unfortunately in this experiment, you cannot say the the SST Puring is the cause of your better play.  You took a club that you hadn't used before and made a set.  At this point, all you know for certain is that you are having a better golf experience.  You cannot say it is the result of the Puring or the new heads or the different shafts.  I'll agree with BrianL99 on this one.

On the other side of the coin, I'm very glad that you are doing so well with the new clubs.  As an experiment, I would take those exact shafts and re-install them in the same heads, but rotate the shafts randomly (non-pured settings) to see whether you experience a different result.

I just edited my last post, but saw there have been a few posts since then... the post edit included the following:

there are quite a number of top players that have had SST pure their shafts. among these are kuchar, laird, schwartzel, senden, stricker,  p. lawrie, sung moon bae, every, mackenzie, a. noren, kt kim, j. rose, z. johnson, fowler, l. donald, van pelt, vegas, na, gainey, furyk, r. palmer, c. stroud, toms, v. singh, goosen, holmes, huh, immelman, harrington, couples, roger chapman, and els. if the improvements in the quality of mass produced shafts is as you suggest, 1) SST would have gone the way of the horse and buggy 2) the aforementioned list of touring pros would not ALLOW their names to be used in conjunction with the SST company.

Actually, I don't think that SST Pure is able to use the aforementioned names in any advertising as they are not paid by SST (from what I understand).  Tour Pros have access to all sorts of things and they will use anything that removes any possible variable.  They may or may not believe in it, but if it can't hurt and can get it for free, they'll do it.  They aren't above using "snake oil" for any edge: mental or physical.

I still challenge you to rotate a few shafts and see if there is enough of a difference.

This is the key. It may or may not help, but you can do it and it can't hurt, so if you think it may help then by all means do it.

[BrianL99]

Tomed, on 04 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

I do not disagree with your comments, and certainly those of Mr. Wishlon. Although I do not know what he's written on the subject, there has got to me merit in what the aforementioned touring pros are getting from having their shafts pured.

Thanks!

I think you're mistaken about the aforementioned touring pros.   At some point they may have tried SST Pure shafts, but I can tell you for sure, they're not all currently playing SST Pured shafts.

As for the discussion of "spines", I surprised anyone is still talking about such a subject.   The whole theory of there being a "spine" in a recently produced shaft, has pretty much been discounted.   There may however, be slightly different bending planes, with some minor variation in CPM's from one plane to another.  The Kai'li shaft in my driver, varies about 1-2 cpm's, depending on where the frequency is checked ... it's pretty consistent.  In my opinion, it would be highly unlikely to get a frequency variation of more than 2 or 3 CPM's on different planes in a quality shaft.   In comparison to 5-10 years ago, when many shafts had wide variances.

Many (most?) Graphite Shafts these days, have the most stable bend plane marked on the butt end of the shaft and that's how the labels are affixed.   Look at any AeroTech shaft (which Kuchar plays) and you'll find a "blue line" on the butt end and the label is affixed coincidental with that line.

I will hazard a guess, as to what some people have found after installing an SST or FLO's shaft.   There's no question that either process will locate the most stable bending plane.  I'll concede that establishing the most consistent flex pattern in a group of shafts, *might* offer some minor benefits to a real quality ball striker (which apparently you).  That said, I think it's just "hit or miss" in most cases, because the most consistent bending plane of a given set of shafts may produce a set with varying CPM's and potentially, a different flex pattern.   The process only tests a shaft against itself, not against other shafts in a set.

For example, I have an SST Pure'd shaft in an adjustable TM Driver I use when I'm at my house in Florida.  In the first 25 rounds with the Driver in the SST recommended shaft position, I averaged 62% of my fairways.   I adjusted the shaft 45* & increased my greens in regulation to 74%.  Does that mean the SST position was "wrong" ?   No, it means that the SST position did not offer me the proper flex pattern for that shaft ... even though in it's current position in the adjustable collar, it is not (according to SST) in the most stable orientation.

BTW, one of the reasons I know some of the players you listed are not using SST Pure'd shafts, is it's prohibited by some equipment companies.   If OEM's agreed (or even acquiesced) to allowing shafts to be Pure'd, what would that do to the adjustable driver market?

My low score is 9 shots higher than yours and I've only seen Q School on TV!  I have all the equipment to do about anything with shafts and clubs and believe me, if I thought SST Pure would improve my shot dispersion a yard, I'd be doing it

[Tomed]

BrianL99, on 04 November 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Tomed, on 04 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

I do not disagree with your comments, and certainly those of Mr. Wishlon. Although I do not know what he's written on the subject, there has got to me merit in what the aforementioned touring pros are getting from having their shafts pured.

Thanks!

I think you're mistaken about the aforementioned touring pros.   At some point they may have tried SST Pure shafts, but I can tell you for sure, they're not all currently playing SST Pured shafts.

As for the discussion of "spines", I surprised anyone is still talking about such a subject.   The whole theory of there being a "spine" in a recently produced shaft, has pretty much been discounted.   There may however, be slightly different bending planes, with some minor variation in CPM's from one plane to another.  The Kai'li shaft in my driver, varies about 1-2 cpm's, depending on where the frequency is checked ... it's pretty consistent.  In my opinion, it would be highly unlikely to get a frequency variation of more than 2 or 3 CPM's on different planes in a quality shaft.   In comparison to 5-10 years ago, when many shafts had wide variances.

Many (most?) Graphite Shafts these days, have the most stable bend plane marked on the butt end of the shaft and that's how the labels are affixed.   Look at any AeroTech shaft (which Kuchar plays) and you'll find a "blue line" on the butt end and the label is affixed coincidental with that line.

I will hazard a guess, as to what some people have found after installing an SST or FLO's shaft.   There's no question that either process will locate the most stable bending plane.  I'll concede that establishing the most consistent flex pattern in a group of shafts, *might* offer some minor benefits to a real quality ball striker (which apparently you).  That said, I think it's just "hit or miss" in most cases, because the most consistent bending plane of a given set of shafts may produce a set with varying CPM's and potentially, a different flex pattern.   The process only tests a shaft against itself, not against other shafts in a set.

For example, I have an SST Pure'd shaft in an adjustable TM Driver I use when I'm at my house in Florida.  In the first 25 rounds with the Driver in the SST recommended shaft position, I averaged 62% of my fairways.   I adjusted the shaft 45* & increased my greens in regulation to 74%.  Does that mean the SST position was "wrong" ?   No, it means that the SST position did not offer me the proper flex pattern for that shaft ... even though in it's current position in the adjustable collar, it is not (according to SST) in the most stable orientation.

BTW, one of the reasons I know some of the players you listed are not using SST Pure'd shafts, is it's prohibited by some equipment companies.   If OEM's agreed (or even acquiesced) to allowing shafts to be Pure'd, what would that do to the adjustable driver market?

My low score is 9 shots higher than yours and I've only seen Q School on TV!  I have all the equipment to do about anything with shafts and clubs and believe me, if I thought SST Pure would improve my shot dispersion a yard, I'd be doing it

Brian,
My purpose in starting this thread was to share some feedback about my experience with PUReing my irons. But we all can see from your knowledge that SST PUREing is just not worth anything, because if it were you'd be doing it. Thanks again.

[Sean2]

Tomed thanks for your response to me and the pictures of the H-G clubs. I agree that a new logo is in order. :-)

Clearly you're a decent golfer. Me, not so much. As to the SST Puring I don't know if my swing is consistent enough to benefit from that technology. Reading the above posts it seems there is some some disagreement regardless.

[MattTitleist]

I have every shaft in my bag spine and flo'd, this is the first year that I have done this and it was the best ball striking year I have ever had.  Just doing the process and seeing the difference in how the shaft reacts in the Freq machine is enough for me, whether or not there is any numerical data to back these processes up to me it doesn't matter. It is more of peace of mind for me.

In any case it can't hurt to have it done and since I am spine and floing the shafts myself I have control of how accurate it is and it doesn't cost me anything extra. Takes about 5min per shaft to be very very accurate with it.

[BCC]

Glad to see that we have almost a full page on this topic without having it shut down !!  I also spine/flo because I can and believe that it gives my customers the best possible install whether it makes a difference or not. Personally I'm very torn on this for a few reasons: if it was THE ultimate install would not ALL the top players in the world take advantage-----would every Tour Van be equipped ??  Also, on paper this works on the perfect swing---how many out of 10 is that ???  I also believe ( by frequency #'s) that graphite mfg's are doing very well with this new gotta have logo down fad---about getting spines located for just that.  I see guys that could play well with hockey sticks, and guys that---well--it just doesn't matter.  Must say that I'VE never taken the time to install a couple shafts in same set not spined and calculate any difference.  Think this is always gonna be a long 2 sided discussion.......
To the OP......confidence is what you believe in and if this works that well for you.......congrats !!!   Personally I don't think there is a smoking gun either way for sure.

[RookieBlue7]

I've spoken personally with one of the developers of the SST Pure system, and he's subsequently taken it to other companies he's started and made improvements with it. Shaft orientation analysis does have merit and he does have quantifiable data.

Edited by RookieBlue7, 06 November 2012 - 01:05 AM.

[BrianL99]

RookieBlue7, on 06 November 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

I've spoken personally with one of the developers of the SST Pure system, and he's subsequently taken it to other companies he's started and made improvements with it. Shaft orientation analysis does have merit and he does have quantifiable data.

Where is the quantifiable data & who's violated Dick Weiss' patents?

http://www.golftrans...ted_By_U_S_.php

http://www.patentsto...escription.html

[Pleasedwith3putts]

Tomed, on 03 November 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

So I researched different epoxy and club building and learned how to do it myself. JB Weld makes a 24hour epoxy that is good to 650 degrees Fahrenheit. I have never had a single club head fly off and I’ve put together countless drivers, woods, irons, wedges, putters, etc. I’ve gotten good at it. It’s a great hobby.

You need to strike a happy balance here. Whilst it is well known that normal epoxy can break down of clubs are left in the trunk in say AZ in the Summer, you will have to apply a lot of heat to get 650 degree epoxy to break down if you want to reshaft. There is generally less that can go wrong with overheating an iron head unless it has a "non-metal" insert, but of you use that epoxy on a metal wood or heaven forbid a composite head then you will seriously struggle to pull the shaft without damaging the head.

Otherwise enjoy clubmaking, there is a far greater sense of achievement through building your own clubs

[NPVWhiz]

BrianL99, on 06 November 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

RookieBlue7, on 06 November 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

I've spoken personally with one of the developers of the SST Pure system, and he's subsequently taken it to other companies he's started and made improvements with it. Shaft orientation analysis does have merit and he does have quantifiable data.

Where is the quantifiable data & who's violated Dick Weiss' patents?

http://www.golftrans...ted_By_U_S_.php

http://www.patentsto...escription.html

I've seen  all the quantifiable data I need.  I've ordered several full sets of SST Pured iron shafts, and I've seen the amount of variability from straightness and uniformity in flex from different manufacturers.

I believe that for set of iron shafts to perform according to their intended design specification, each shaft has to be substantially free from deviations from the design spec.  If a shaft has a different frequency profile through different planar orientations around its axis, then it doesn't meet a design spec that intends a uniform flexural profile about the axis.

If an iron shaft has asymmetries in how it bends compared to other shafts in the same set, then the assembled set of irons won't perform according to the intended design specification.

These are quality control issues.  The SST Pure process is simply a higher order QC process than the OEMs can afford to implement.

I don't need access to Dick Weiss' data, because I've done my own testing.  I've spent time on the range with identical irons...one with a shaft that I suspected from the very first time I hit it was not right, and one with an SST Pured shaft that feels to me to be one of the most perfect, neutral and well-performing clubs I've ever owned and had in the bag.

The only difference between the two clubs is that they have different units of the same model shaft. I built the clubs, so I know that the only difference between them is the difference in the way the two shafts react dynamically during my swing.  One is excellent, and the other is deeply disturbing to me, knowing that I spent years thinking that my swing was at fault when I consistently hit one or two irons in a set like crap, while being able to hit other irons in the set just fine.  Life is not good when you can hit your four iron just fine, but you want to throw the 7 iron from the set in the nearest lake.

This always made no sense to me, and finally I figured out the answer I was looking for.  It makes not one iota difference to me if anyone else uses the technique, or has scientifically valid data that they purport to show that it has no true effect.  I have enough of a scientific background, enough knowledge about how steel iron shafts (and graphite shafts in general), and enough skill to discern a difference.

In a perfect world, I would be able to buy a full set of iron shafts that didn't need to be Pured.  Until then, I'll take what I can get.

I think the hard thing for people to grasp is that not every shaft needs to be Pured.  I've seen a few shafts that are almost uniform...and each of those shafts have been great in clubs...great in that they feel like they bend and perform correctly compared to other irons that I use as a benchmark for my own swing.

The driver shaft that I've been using for almost five years, hitting more fairways than I every have, isn't Pured.  It doesn't need to be Pured.  I have other identical versions of the same shaft that don't perform the same.  You can't swap them out back and forth on the range with the same head, same swingweight and hit the ball the same way.  The shafts may as well have different paint, and different logos on them.  

Pureing is just one way of getting closer to a set of equipment that has no defects, and that's all you can hope for when you're playing.  You want your performance to be wholly subject to your skill, not your equipment.

The naysayers can argue all day long that chunky monkey ice cream isn't tasty, but tasty is subjective in the end.  I'll keep eating it.

Edited by NPVWhiz, 06 November 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[NPVWhiz]

BrianL99, on 04 November 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Tomed, on 04 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

I do not disagree with your comments, and certainly those of Mr. Wishlon. Although I do not know what he's written on the subject, there has got to me merit in what the aforementioned touring pros are getting from having their shafts pured.

Thanks!

I think you're mistaken about the aforementioned touring pros.   At some point they may have tried SST Pure shafts, but I can tell you for sure, they're not all currently playing SST Pured shafts.

From this, I have to either assume that you have direct, personal knowledge of the highest level of detail for these players equipment...all of them, or you're irrationally wedded to the idea that this technology has no utility.  There isn't much middle ground between the two positions.

I see the latter as being much, much more likely than the former.

If I was a tour player at that level, and a sponsor wanted to include a contractual obligation that prevented me from using some equipment assembly technique that I thought was important, I'd give them the boot, or I'd simply have it done on my own.

Who thinks a PGA Tour player can't get what they want when it comes to the quality of the equipment they use?

[DaveLeeNC]

I build my own clubs and spine/flo everything simply because it is easy to do so why not.

IMHO, spine/flo (and/or SST) matters to varying degrees depending on the golfer and on the shaft. These days it is unusual for me to see a variation of more than 2-3 cpm in a shaft. IMHO, that might matter to some golfers but not others.

I am a somewhat early release (mid-high 90's driver SS, mid single digit handicap) that is WAY onto the long/smooth side of the swing equation. I can hit just about any shaft that you put in front of me. I once built a set of irons (5i through PW) to kind of a 'firm R flex'. I ended up building the 6i with zero tip trimming (just an error) which put it somewhere around 15-20 cpm below my target cpm slope. I ended up playing this club for a month or so, as it most certainly felt different but I honestly was not sure if it was better or worse.

I finally decided that it was worse but was not really sure. I seriously doubt that SST'ing a shaft matters in my case (unless the shafts are all over place which is most unusual these days). For longer hitters with aggressive swings into the ball, it might well be a different story.

dave

Edited by DaveLeeNC, 06 November 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[Nick West]

I think the argument isn't that there are variances in shafts that are/aren't pured, but rather to what degree they vary and to what degree is discernable to the golfer.

It's impossible (and economically unfeasable) to manufacture two shafts that won't vary from each other, and I suppose there are always people who are going to support the notion that whatever amount of variance that can be removed, must make the club that much "better". But I think a logical person will understand the concept of diminishng return, and not pursue perfection into the realm of absurdity.

The "perfect" club is a selling point that manufacturers are never going to let go of. It's really the only thing they have to differentiate themselves from their competitors. But unless there is an improvement in the physical ability of the golfing world as a whole, there is going to be a line there somewhere in terms of golf club technology and the diminishing return thing.

As usual, people are fixed on either side of the issue, but if you ask me, it's inconclusive. There seems to be lots of quantifiable data on the golf club, but there seems to be a lack of data regarding how the results of Puring affect the collective golfer...other than adamant heresay of people pointing to numbers and/or pure speculation (again, pointing to numbers and placing the whole of the burden on the club and not the golfer.).
You don't see as much data on the average margin of error in the golfer him/herself. In my mind, this should be an obvious, other half of the equation.

I don't really want to hear from people who have tried it and liked/disliked it. That's really no way to come to a conclusion on the matter. What I would like to see, is some blind testing of golfers of varying ability, and their actual numbers in terms of distance and shot dispersion.