Opinion & Analysis

Part 1: Taking the guesswork out of selecting shafts

Published

11 years ago

Sep 20, 2012

It’s clear that a lot of threads and posts in the GolfWRX forums are from golfers asking all sorts of questions about shafts. In nearly 40 years of golf equipment design and research work, I think it is fair to say that the shaft is the least understood component of the golf club.

I have engaged in serious shaft research since 1990, and from that have learned a lot about shaft design, performance and fitting, I would like to help clear some things up and share some facts about shafts and what you need to know to pick the best shaft for YOUR swing.

I will do my best to make all of this understandable without stressing everyone’s attention span. But there is a lot to explain about this subject so I will separate this into three parts with some time in between each thread to allow you to digest it and ask questions.

How Can Golfers TRULY Compare Shafts to Know their Real Performance Differences?

Below is a typical “specification chart” from a major shaft company. I have removed the names because it is not my intent to criticize a specific shaft maker. It is simply my desire to show you how the typical information provided about shafts will not allow golfers to know what they really need to know about shafts to be able to make an informed buying decision.

Plain and simple, the information in this chart cannot tell a golfer how any of these shafts truly perform, much less how they actually compare in stiffness to any other the shaft.

The flex? There are no standards for exactly how stiff any of the flex letter codes are. Charts like this provide no quantitative measurements of exactly how stiff any shaft might be. In fact the ONLY bits of information on a typical chart like this which can be helpful are the WEIGHT and the TORQUE.

The butt and tip diameter? These are fine for knowing what the hosel bore of the clubhead needs to be to easily accept the shaft and to know how to install the grip to obtain a desired size.

The parallel tip section? That simply tells you if you cut more than 2 inches off the tip, it’s not likely to fit all the way into any normal hosel with a 0.335-inch bore.

The bend point? Sorry, but the term bend point is not relevant because with terms like “high,” “mid,” or “low,” it has always been way too generic. WHERE EXACTLY IS a mid bend point? And how does this mid bend point compare to some other company’s mid or low or high bend point?

Recently I have seen a couple of other shaft companies begin to offer a form of QUANTITATIVE stiffness measurements for their shafts. Here’s an example:

This shaft company offers a series of stiffness profile measurements for the butt, mid and tip sections of their shafts. That’s a start, but the problem is that this company only offers these stiffness profile measurements for their own shafts. This is somewhat reasonable for comparing the various shaft models and flexes within this one company, but what if you have some other company’s shaft in your driver, or you wish to compare these shafts to some other company’s shafts? And if you have never hit one of these shafts, how stiff or flexible are any of these measurements in the first place? These rudimentary stiffness profile measurements do not allow the depth and scope of stiffness information to allow you to make a valid shaft fitting decision.

You might look at the butt stiffness number and say, “That’s a frequency measurement and I know how stiff a 270 cpm shaft plays.” Yes, that butt stiffness number is a frequency measurement. But the problem is you have no idea how these butt frequency measurements were obtained.

What length of the butt was clamped?
How heavy was the tip weight?
Is this 270 cpm frequency the same as a 270 cpm shaft that you played?

Again, there are no standards in the golf industry for shaft frequency measurement so you have no idea if a measurement of say, 270 cpm from this company is equivalent to a measurement of 255 cpm or 265 cpm or whatever cpm using one of the many other types of shaft frequency measurement.

What makes all this even more “exciting” or I should say, challenging, is the fact the industry is now populated with many shafts that are VERY expensive. Do you really want to GUESS whether that $300 shaft is right for you, or would you like to have a more definitive way to help make that decision?

Is there a Better Way to Compare Shaft Stiffness?

Ever since I began to perform quantitative measurements on shafts, I knew we needed a way to be able to see and compare the stiffness of as many shafts as possible, and do it over their entire length. That way, club makers and golfers could have a tangible way to compare the complete full length stiffness design of shafts to each other. The performance and the bending feel of any shaft are products of its stiffness design over its entire length. Not just the butt, not just the tip, but the whole length of the shaft. There are almost an infinite number of ways the stiffness of a shaft can be created over its entire length.

In 2005, we arrived on a reasonably simple method to perform full length comparative stiffness measurements for golf shafts. From this, we created a software program that would house and display the data from our shaft stiffness comparison methodology. We made the first version of the software available to club makers in 2006. Two times each year we ask the shaft companies to send us multiples of each of their new shaft models and flexes so we can keep adding shafts to the software data base.

At present, we have more than 2,000 different wood, hybrid and iron shafts in the TWGT Shaft Bend Profile software. We charge a one-time fee of $129.50 for the software because the expense to have it programmed and maintained is not insignificant. It also takes us quite a number of hours to acquire, test and input the new shaft data into the software two times each year. You can find more information about this on my site, which is linked in my bio.

As much as we would like, there is no possible way we can include EVERY shaft in the industry in the software’s data base. We have to rely on the shaft companies to send us the multiple samples of each of their shafts to measure because we simply cannot afford to actually buy all of the shafts. We also cannot obtain the OEM stock shafts because the OEM companies will simply not allow anyone to have their raw shafts for any measurement work like this. We do have some OEM stock shafts in the data base, which come from “pulls” from OEM clubs that we can measure. But we do try to put as many shafts as we can into the data base so that clubmakers and golfers can better compare the relative stiffness of shafts.

To date more than 600 different club makers now use the TWGT Shaft Bend Profile software in their shaft fitting. This use by the club makers has also provided “in the field” verification that the measurements of the shafts do indeed provide a valid representation of the performance and even the bending feel of the shafts in the data base. The shaft fitting comparisons made with the data in the TWGT Shaft Bend Profile software is most definitely valid for predicting the performance and feel of a shaft.

How Does the Bend Profile Data Explain the Performance and Differences Between Shafts?

Some of you have seen graphs from the TWGT Bend Profile software that I have posted to answer a question here and there about shafts. For those of you who have not seen this, the following is a basic screen image from the software showing a comparison of the relative stiffness design of two shafts. I just randomly chose to use the Mitsubishi Rayon’s Diamana White 83 X5CT S flex and the UST ProForce V2 HL65 S flex to start the explanation.

You see seven columns in the data box. These show WHERE on the shafts we do the stiffness measurements. Starting at 11 inches up from the tip, the measurements then are made at 5-inch spaced positions up from the tip end of each shaft, ending at 41 inches up from the tip. Because iron and hybrid shafts are shorter in raw length, their measurements run from 11 inches up to 36 inches up from the tip end of the shafts.

Measurements are done with a 454 gram weight attached to the tip of the shaft using a specially designed frequency analyzer that measures the shaft oscillations using two separate load cells and two separate strain gauges. Each shaft is tested at the same exact place on the shaft, using the same exact test methodology. This ensures the data is comparable from shaft to shaft to shaft in the data base of the software.

Let’s take a look at an example graph and data chart

The 41-inch, 36-inch and 31-inch measurements represent the butt section, the 31-inch, 26-inch and 21-inch measurements represent the center section and the 21-inch, 16-inch and 11-inch measurements represent the tip section of the shaft (yes, there is an overlap).

When companies design different flexes of a shaft, each different letter flex version is ordained chiefly by the stiffness measurements of the 41-inch to 21-inch positions of the shaft (butt, to center, to upper tip). Tip section differences on shafts do not play as significant of a role in the overall flex design (swing speed rating) of a shaft as do the butt to center to upper tip sections. The tip section design of a shaft is chiefly designed to create differences in the launch angle, trajectory and spin rate among shafts within the same flex.

After significant research and study of the shaft data, we can make conclusions about how much of a difference in the stiffness measurements is significant or not. With so many shafts in the data base, we can also identify a basic relationship between a golfer’s clubhead speed, the average bending force generated by that clubhead speed, and the overall stiffness design of a shaft. This is very important for being able to tell a golfer which shaft may be better suited to his clubhead speed. Therefore, we can use the stiffness measurements of the 41-inch to 21-inch positions on the shaft to determine the swing speed rating of any shaft.

We can also determine how much of a measurement difference is significant or not with respect to stiffness in the butt, center and tip sections of the shafts.

For example, at the start of the butt section, as represented by the 41-inch measurement, a measurement difference of 8-to-10 cpm is approximately equivalent to one full letter flex difference.

At the middle of the center section, as represented by the 26-inch measurements, a difference of 12-to-15 cpm is equivalent to one full letter flex difference.

In the middle of the tip section, as represented by the 16-inch measurement, a difference of 30-to-40 cpm usually accounts for a visible difference in the launch angle, trajectory and spin rate of the shot.

There are no standards for how stiff any of the letter flex designations of shafts may be. How stiff IS an R flex, an S flex (or any of the other letter flexes)? How much variation is there among shafts of the same letter flex?

Below is data to show the low-to-high range in stiffness for all shafts for drivers and fairway woods in our data base that are marked as being a letter R flex shafts. These are listed from softest to stiffest, but all of these are made and marked by their respective companies to be an R flex shaft.

Based on the measurements of the 41-inch and 36-inch sections for the butt section, you are looking at a range of FOUR FULL FLEXES. That means the R flex shafts in the golf industry actually exist within a range of four full flexes. The same is true for S flex shafts, as well.

Because there are far fewer L, A and X flex shafts, the range in stiffness within these letter flex codes is not quite as wide as it is within the R and S flex shafts. Here is the Bend Profile graph and data chart to illustrate the range in R flex shafts for woods that exist today.

Based on all of our research to associate a driver clubhead speed with the measurements for the 41-inch, 36-inch, 31-inch, 26-inch positions of the butt and center of the shaft, here are the appropriate driver clubhead speed ratings for each of these above five different R flex shafts:

Miyazaki C.Kua 39 R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 55-to-65 mph
UST ProForce V2 HL-55 R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 65-to-75 mph
Aldila RIP’d NV65 R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 75-to-85 mph
Fujikura Blue 004 R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 85-to-95 mph
Rapport Blue Velvet R: For a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 95-to-105 mph

Therefore, you are looking at shafts in the golf industry that match up to a range in swing speed of 50 mph, yet ALL are marked and sold as R flex shafts.

You may be prompted to comment, “This has to be the exception rather than the rule.” If we take a look at the data base to search where the majority of R-flex shafts lie with respect to their 41-inch, 36-inch and 31-inch butt section measurements, we find that the majority of R-flex shafts exist within a range that represents a 20-to-30 mph difference in the clubhead speed rating for the shafts.

This is precisely why golfers sometimes buy a new club and its shaft doesn’t feel as stiff or feels stiffer than their previous shaft with the same letter flex.

Do all shafts of the same letter flex have the same butt-to-center section stiffness (same swing speed rating) within the same shaft company or the same golf club company?

Let’s take a look at the R-flex version of a number of different shaft models from one shaft manufacturing company. All are selected on the basis of being very close to the same shaft weight so they potentially could be considered for purchase by the same golfer.

I want to be sure to first make something clear. I am NOT saying it is wrong for a company to make the same letter flex version of each different shaft model to be of a different stiffness design. That is their right as a company to determine the exact design of each flex for each shaft they make.

What I am saying is that it is very difficult for consumer golfers to know how to choose the shaft that might best match their swing when the companies provide no empirical information like this to use for making quantitative comparisons of the different shafts.

The swing speed range for all these R-flex shafts from Aldila ranges by 25 mph. At one end, the NVS 65-R is a shaft that would be rated for use by a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 70-to-80mph. At the other end, the RIP Gamma 60-3.6-R is a shaft that would be rated for use by a golfer with a driver clubhead speed of 85-to-95 mph. That means within all the R-Flex shafts from Aldila, the clubhead speed rating for possible selection by a golfer can range by 25 mph – yet all are marked as being an R-Flex shaft.

On top of this are definite differences in the TIP SECTION design of all these different R-flex shafts. Within all the R-Flex shafts from Aldila, we see shafts with a tip section design that ranges from the very tip-soft (Habanero 60-R) all the way up to the moderately tip stiff design of the RIP Gamma 60-3.6-R. If both these R-flex shafts were hit by the same golfer, the Habanero would launch the ball approximately 3-degrees higher and with an estimated 750 rpm more backspin than the RIP Gamma 60-3.6-R. Yet again, both are marked as R-flex shafts.

Again, each company is free to design their shafts as they see fit, for whichever golfer swing types they designate. But how can any golfer really know the difference in the overall stiffness design of any of these shafts and from that, know anything about the performance difference between these shafts of the same flex without clear, quantitative comparative information?

Please understand that variation between the same letter flex of different shaft models goes on INTENTIONALLY with every shaft company in the golf industry. It is not specific to Aldila. I simply use them to illustrate that this does happen within each shaft manufacturing company. Without a clear, quantitative means to compare the stiffness design of shafts, consumer golfers are in the dark with respect to making accurate shaft buying and shaft fitting decisions.

For those of you who made it this far, CONGRATULATIONS! You ARE indeed interested in shafts. For those of you who didn’t… well, true shaft knowledge can be a little beyond a normal realm of interest, I do admit that. I hope you all got something out of this, and there is more to come to help you know much more about how to determine the differences between shafts and how to turn that information into better shaft buying decisions.

By the way, there are many custom clubmakers out there who can help you find the right shaft FAR more accurately than the ways you have been trying to pick the right shaft in the past. These club makers who study this stuff are worth knowing and can help you. Again, to find a good club fitter, check out these sources:

Your Reaction?

LIKE276
LEGIT20
WOW36
LOL6
IDHT2
FLOP3
OB3
SHANK17

Related Topics:

Up Next

Spartans v. Robots: Tiger and Rory’s advantage

Don't Miss

Things that scare Tiger Woods (not Rory)

Tom Wishon

Tom Wishon is a 40-year veteran of the golf equipment industry specializing in club head design, shaft performance analysis and club fitting research and development. He has been responsible for more than 50 different club head design firsts in his design career, including the first adjustable hosel device, as well as the first 0.830 COR fairway woods, hybrids and irons. GolfWRX Writer of the Month: February 2014 Tom served as a member of the Golf Digest Technical Advisory Panel, and has written several books on golf equipment including "The Search for the Perfect Golf Club" and "The Search for the Perfect Driver," which were selected as back-to-back winners of the 2006 and 2007 Golf Book of the Year by the International Network of Golf (ING), the largest organization of golf industry media professionals in the USA. He continues to teach and share his wealth of knowledge in custom club fitting through his latest book, "Common Sense Clubfitting: The Wishon Method," written for golf professionals and club makers to learn the latest techniques in accurate custom club fitting. Tom currently heads his own company, Tom Wishon Golf Technology, which specializes in the design of original, high-end custom golf equipment designs and club fitting research for independent custom club makers worldwide Click here to visit his site, wishongolf.com

35 Comments

Pingback: Best 13 swing speed shaft flex chart - lindaadvisors.com
Graham Davis

Dec 10, 2016 at 10:00 pm

One more point. I am 5 fòot 7 inches and 11 stone, so not a power house. 7 is my highest handicap and I hit my driver about 240 yards with mý 88 to 90mph swing speed. 220 yards carry.

Reply Report comment
Graham Davis

Dec 10, 2016 at 9:15 pm

I should add to my previous mail that I have put together at least ten different shaft combos ranging from 45.5 inch fujikura 44gm regular to 44.25 inch black tie regular. I have tried senior, regular and stiff flex, and high , mid and low bend points At 85 to 90mph, why does a long heavy shaft give me the best results?

Reply Report comment
Graham Davis

Dec 10, 2016 at 9:02 pm

I am a 7 handicap 61 year old with driver swing speed of 88 to 90 mph. You often say current drivers are too long and to use more loft but my stats on trackman say 45.5 inch shaft at 9° gives my best launch and carry with least spin. Why is this? I use grafalloy prolaunch blue and swing weight is about D5. This is a 68gm shaft. I have the same shaft at 44.5 inches but don’t hit it as far. Consistency is not a compromised with the longer shaft. My smash factor is just as good. I can see 10 to 20 yards more carry. Do I simply have good tempo?

Reply Report comment
Montree

Mar 23, 2016 at 11:34 pm

May I share my story to choose golf swing analyser

A common mistake made by amateur golfers is choosing golf clubs that are not suited to their swing speed. If you do not match your clubs to your abilities to swing them, it can have an adverse effect on your game. Club factors that should be adjusted based on how fast you swing a club include the shaft flex, torque and the type of shaft. By taking the time to find the right clubs for your game, you can best leverage your golf equipment to improve your game.

Step 1

Determine your swing speed. Many golf retail stores and pro shops can take this measurement. Otherwise, the speed can be estimated based on the club that you hit from a distance of 150 yards. If you use a 3-iron or wood, your swing speed is probably less than 60 mph; a 4-iron is 60-75 mph; a 5-iron is 75-84 mph; a 6- or 7-iron is 84-93 mph; and an 8- or 9-iron is over 93 mph.

Step 2

Determine the shaft flex of your clubs based on your swing speed. The shaft flex is representative of how much force is required for the shaft to transfer energy to the golf ball during your swing. Ladies flex should be used for a swing speed of less than 60 mph, senior flex for 60-75 mph, regular flex for 75-84 mph, stiff flex for 84-93 mph, and extra-stiff flex for speeds above 93 mph. Choosing the wrong shaft flex can lead to hooked, sliced or generally inaccurate shots.

Step 3

Pick a material for the shafts of your irons. The two most common options are graphite and steel. Players with a slow swing speed normally will choose a graphite shaft to maximize the distance the ball travels, while those with a fast swing will choose steel for greater consistency. If your swing speed is moderate, test clubs of each type to determine which feels the best. The majority of modern fairway woods and drivers are sold with graphite shafts and should be chosen based on the information provided in Step 2.

Step 4

Choose the clubhead for your irons. Low-handicap players will prefer half-cavity or blade clubheads for greater consistency and control, while high-handicap players should opt for full-cavity clubs to aid in getting the ball in the air consistently. A half- or full-cavity golf clubhead has a hollowed-out area toward the back to distribute weight around the clubhead, creating a larger “sweet spot.” Blade clubheads have more weight around the face of the club.

Step 5

Test the clubs you have chosen before purchasing them. If you do not like the feel of the clubs, pick a different manufacturer with the same configuration options before changing the shaft flex, material or clubhead variant.

Read More : http://www.golfswinganalysers.com/best-golf-swing-analyzer-2016/

Reply Report comment
Pingback: How to Hit More Fairways with a Custom Golf Shaft
Rob Campbell

May 8, 2015 at 6:45 pm

Dear Mr. Wishon,
How about if I clamp the grip to a work bench with the shaft cantilevered, hang a weight (maybe 454 g) onto the head (hosel) and measure the deflection along the shaft, once with just the head, once with the added weight? A lot more time consuming than clamping a bare shaft in an expensive oscillator but way easier for us at home. A profile of the shaft bend could be drawn and different shafts could be compared without messing with the club.
I just found out I hit my cousin’s driver 30 yards further than mine. He’s got an R Fujikara and I have an A Project X. His would have way more deflection.
Could such a profile convert to yours?

Reply Report comment
Pingback: Does the golf shaft really effect your shots? | golfblogaustralia
Adrian Hubert

Mar 31, 2013 at 11:20 am

Hi,

I have some good knowledge of shafts, please can someone confirm that there is a difference between buying a shaft from say Golfsmith and having the same branded shaft from the tour. ?

Reply Report comment
Tom

Mar 11, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Great article Tom. Just wondering, how did you determine that 454 grams was the best weight to use?

Reply Report comment
tlmck

Oct 8, 2012 at 10:09 pm

lol. Just thinking of the guy who tried to sell me a C.Kua 39 R for my 92mph clubhead speed.

I can say for certainty, with only my swing as evidence, that a C.Kua 39 stiff is equivalent to a Diamana Red 44L stiff. I have the C.Kua in my identical head backup driver as the Diamana is apparently no longer made, and was nowhere to be found. It’s also nice that the C.Kua does nor require a special grip.

Reply Report comment
Nathan

Oct 2, 2012 at 3:56 am

This article looked promising untill i got to the part ( you really want to know it will cost you!!) good work

Reply Report comment
Chris

Oct 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm

When can we expect part 2?

Reply Report comment
Tom Wishon

Sep 26, 2012 at 5:25 pm

to JEFF who asked about shaft swing speed ratings for golfers with different levels of transition/tempo force in their swing.

Most definitely you are sniffing at a lot of what is going to be in Part 2 of this series. This is precisely why we teach clubmakers to do a basic 1, 2, 3 rating of each golfer’s transition force and downswing tempo to go along with their swing speed.

For example, three golfers all with a 90mph swing speed. But Golfer #1 has a very forceful transition and aggressive tempo. Golfer 2 has an average force/aggressiveness in transition/tempo and Golfer 3 has a smooth, more passive “swinger” type of transition and tempo.

For golfer 2, you can choose from shafts rated to be 85-95mph because his bending force is average for a 90mph swing. For golfer 1, you’d pick from shafts rated at 90-100 because these would be slightly stiffer shafts his swing speed is at the low end of the shaft’s rating – more stiff to better match with the fact that for his 90mph swing speed, his strong/forceful transition/tempo puts more bending force on the shaft so he needs a little stiffer shaft than what his swing speed indicates on its own.

And then finally the 90mph smooth swinger should pick from shafts with a swing speed rating of 80-90mph because he is NOT putting as much bending force on the shaft for his 90mph swing.

But you have the big basic point of shaft flex fitting down – amount of bending force is not always related to the golfer’s swing speed, but is heavily influenced by their transition and downswing tempo.

Reply Report comment
Tom Wishon

Sep 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm

To John who asked about OEM stock shaft stiffness:

There’s no nice way to say this. You can’t and won’t know how stiff an OEM stock shaft is. The OEMs do not provide any quantitative information on the stiffness/bend profile design of their stock shafts. Test hitting is the only way unless you buy the club, take it apart and then send me the shaft so I can measure it and include it in the data base of the software we created.

We’d love to include them in the data base of this software program but they will not send us their stock shafts to measure, nor will they allow their shaft mfg vendor to do that either. So the few OEM stock shafts we have in the software come from clubmakers who pull these shafts intact from stock clubs and send them to us to measure.

This again is one more good reason to be working with a GOOD, experienced clubmaker who has this software when you want to nail down what works/performs best for your swing and sense of feel.

Reply Report comment
- Ian Mikutel
  
  Apr 22, 2013 at 4:18 am
  
  Why not use some of the $129.50 you charge for database access to purchase OEM shafts each year? It seems to me like the most valuable data for most golfers out there would be that of the OEM shafts, not super expensive, custom shafts? Unfortunate that the OEMs won’t send clubs for this testing, or just standardize this testing across all OEMs.
  
  Reply Report comment
Pingback: GolfWRX.com – Taking the guesswork out of selecting shafts (Part 1) | Golf Products Reviews
Pingback: Light VS heaver shafts or clubs??? - Page 2 - Golf Forum - Golf Rewound is the Family Friendly Golf Forum and Discussion Group
Justin

Sep 24, 2012 at 11:36 pm

@Eric:

Yes, the more flexible the shaft, the more you can “feel”.

Reply Report comment
- Davy
  
  Mar 29, 2015 at 2:40 pm
  
  The more ‘what’ you can feel?
  The answer should be interesting.
  
  Reply Report comment
Ryan

Sep 22, 2012 at 4:17 pm

Great write up. This definitely confirms what a lot of us already thought we knew which was every OEM even within there own shafts has no tangible way of discerning flex even within their own shafts that to me is CRAZY but soo glad Tom gave us real eveidence to prove this and I cannot wait for part 2

Reply Report comment
- Davy
  
  Mar 29, 2015 at 2:50 pm
  
  You seem to have missed the point. Each manufacturer arbitrarily decides by their own measurement and priorities what they will market as an ‘R’ flex for example. One practice is to offer an ostensible ‘R’ flex with an ‘S’ shaft band on it to capture the vastly misinformed share of the market that believes they require a stiff shaft. But, you are correct about Tom’s authoritative expertise.
  
  Reply Report comment
Ryan

Sep 22, 2012 at 4:14 pm

Great write up. This definitely confirms what a lot of us already thought we knew which was every OEM even within there own shafts has no tangible way of discerning flex even within their own shafts that to me is CRAZY but soo glad Tom gave us real eveidence to prove th

Reply Report comment
Jeff

Sep 21, 2012 at 8:24 pm

Terrific article. Does the data about stiffness profiles lend itself to discerning which shafts are more suitable based on an individual’s loading characteristics at a given swing speed? Does this matter? Looking forward to reading your next article.

Reply Report comment
Eric

Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm

Tom:

I play hickory clubs with a group. One thing I’ve noticed is one can truly feel the weight of the club, and I believe that significantly affects how the club is swung – particularly as you begin the forwardswing, and your subconscious changes the path of the swing.

As a result, I wonder if the whippier shafts improve feel of the clubhead – OR – is there a way to get great clubhead feel without giving up the control of a stiffer shaft?

Reply Report comment
Mark

Sep 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm

Thanks Tom.

As always, a well thought out and informative article. I’ll be getting the software, and look forward to part 2.

Reply Report comment
ACGOLFWRX

Sep 21, 2012 at 8:42 am

Excellent information for the masses, well written and above all, very informative.

Reply Report comment
John

Sep 21, 2012 at 6:16 am

Very well written Tom – thanks. The only problem remains, how do I know what level of stiffness I should be purchasing through the OEM’s at retail stores? Hope that’s covered in Part II.

Reply Report comment
- Al
  
  Oct 16, 2012 at 11:47 pm
  
  Not speaking for Tom by any means, but his philosophy is that, rather than relying on the OEM’s, you should be custom fitted for your clubs rather than buying off the shelf.
  
  Reply Report comment
- Davy
  
  Mar 29, 2015 at 2:54 pm
  
  Well, you might try hitting before buying. Would you buy shoes without trying them on?
  
  Reply Report comment
Matt

Sep 20, 2012 at 10:50 pm

As an engineer I am fascinated by this and am always on the search for the right fit as a scratch golfer, to maximize my game. This is revolutionary stuff. Thanks!

Reply Report comment
- Davy
  
  Mar 29, 2015 at 3:18 pm
  
  It probably seems revolutionary, but Tom has been doing this since back in the 1980s when he was at Dynacraft and wrote his first Complete Guide to Golf Shaft Fitting. While there are no generalities, many tour players over the years have opted for heavier dynamic and static weighting with flatter lie angles than off the shelf mass-produced clubs. As an engineer, you probably enjoyed reading Homer Kelley’s The Golfing Machine. Bob Tway, Bobby Clampett, and a litany of others found it interesting all the way to their demise in a vortex of paralysis by analysis. But, it is interesting and has one salient bit of advice you can look up at 6B-1D in the book.
  
  Reply Report comment
Bill B

Sep 20, 2012 at 8:54 pm

Tom,

Without a doubt this is the best information on shafts I have seen in one place. You have created my dream of the “golf shaft genome project”. The golf shaft is the heart of the club and you are making quantative information available that provides options to professional fitters and club junkies alike. We have all made our own personal golf shaft assments on various shafts via real life play, launch monitor results, and feel, but this speeds up the process and opens the door to choices across various manufactures.

Thanks and keep up the good work

Bill Baitinger

Reply Report comment
Mike D.

Sep 20, 2012 at 12:50 pm

Thanks for the write-up Tom. Verifies what I’ve thought about shaft manufacturing. Can’t wait to see part two!

Reply Report comment
Chris

Sep 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm

This is absolutely fantastic information. Many thanks!.

Reply Report comment

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

Opinion & Analysis

Vincenzi’s Butterfield Bermuda Championship betting preview: Course specialists ready for title charge in Bermuda

Published

3 days ago

Nov 6, 2023

Matt Vincenzi

The PGA TOUR heads to Southampton, Bermuda this week to play the Butterfield Bermuda Championship at Port Royal Golf Course.

Port Royal Golf Club is a 6,828-yard, par-71 layout featuring Bermudagrass greens designed by Robert Trent Jones. This is the fifth edition of the tournament and marks the fourth time it will be the primary TOUR stop for the week (after being an alternate event).

The Bermuda Championship field is relatively weak but will feature a better field than last year with players such as Adam Scott, Lucas Glover, Akshay Bhatia, Cameron Champ, Alex Noren, Sam Bennett and Nick Dunlap making the trip. Fifteen-year-old Oliver Betschart will play this week, making him the youngest golfer to tee it up on the PGA Tour since 2014.

Past Winners at The Bermuda Championship

2022: Seamus Power (-19)
2021: Lucas Herbert (-15)
2020: Brian Gay (-15)
2019: Brendon Todd (-24)

Let’s take a look at several metrics for Port Royal Golf Club to determine which golfers boast top marks in each category over their last 24 rounds.

Strokes Gained: Approach

The weaker the field, the more I tend to rely on statistics. Strokes Gained: Approach is a great way to measure current form and shows who is the most dialed in with their irons.

Total Strokes Gained: Approach in past 24 rounds:

Lucas Glover (+29.5)
Russell Knox (+22.2)
Alex Smalley (+18.5)
Ryan Moore (+17.9)
Justin Lower (+17.0)

Fairways Gained

The rough at Port Royal Golf Club can actually be quite unforgiving, so it will be important to target accurate golfers. As evidenced by both Brendon Todd and Brian Gay winning here, distance off the tee won’t be much of a factor.

Total Fairways Gained in past 24 rounds:

Ryan Armour (+39.6)
Satoshi Kodaira (+38.5)
Brendon Todd (+37.6
Troy Merritt (+33.3)
Martin Laird (+32.9)

Strokes Gained Putting: Bermudagrass

This is an event that could turn into a putting contest. If the majority of the field is hitting greens in regulation, it might come down to whoever can heat up with the putter. Bermudagrass specialists will have the best chance to do just that at Port Royal.

Total Strokes Gained: Putting (Bermudagrass) in past 24 rounds:

Chad Ramey (+25.3)
Chesson Hadley (+23.0)
Martin Trainer (+19.2)
Brian Gay (+18.2)
Alex Noren (+17.6)

Birdies or Better Gained

In 2019, we saw the winner of this event at 24-under par. In two of the past three years, extreme winds made scoring difficult. Regardless of the weather this time around, the winner will likely have plenty of birdies.

Total Birdie or Better Gained in past 24 rounds:

Luke List (+22.7)
Adam Scott (+18.3)
M.J. Daffue (+16.1)
Lucas Glover (+15.9)
Carl Yuan (+11.9)

Strokes Gained: Short Game

The first three editions of the tournament have been dominated by the players who have the best short games on TOUR. An added emphasis on who’s the best around the green and putting should help narrow down the player pool.

Total Strokes Gained: Short Game in past 24 rounds:

Aaron Baddeley (+27.4)
Brendon Todd (+27.3)
Ricky Barnes (+24.7)
Scott Piercy (+22.8)
Stephan Jaeger (+19.8)

Statistical Model

Below, I’ve reported overall model rankings using a combination of the five key statistical categories previously discussed.

These rankings are comprised of SG: App (25%); Fairways Gained (21%); SG: Putting bermudagrass (21%); Birdies or better gained (21%) and SG: Short Game (12%)

Brendon Todd (+1800)
Kelly Kraft (+13000)
Mark Hubbard (+3000)
Lucas Glover (+2500)
Ben Griffin (+2500)
Peter Kuest (+5000)
Alex Noren (+2800)
Adam Scott (+1800)
Dylan Wu (+5000)
Satoshi Kodaira (+22000)

Butterfield Bermuda Championship Best Bets

Ben Griffin +2500 (FanDuel)

Last year, Ben Griffin slept on the 54-hole lead at Port Royal but struggled in the final round, shooting 72 and slipping to a tie for third place. The 27-year-old came agonizingly close once again a few weeks ago at the Sanderson Farms Championship but missed an eight-foot putt to win the event and eventually lost on the first playoff hole.

Griffin played well once again last week at the World Wide Technology Championship, finishing 13th. The strong performance should increase his confidence as he heads back to a course he absolutely loves. In the field, Griffin ranks 8th in Strokes Gained: Approach, 11th in Strokes Gained: Putting on Bermudagrass and 21st in Strokes Gained: Short Game. His ability to score on shorter courses make him an ideal fit for Port Royal.

With a few frustrating Sunday’s early in his career, I believe Griffin has developed the necessary scar tissue to win the next time he finds himself deep in contention.

Taylor Pendrith +2500 (DraftKings)

Taylor Pendrith came close to winning this event back in 2021 when he had the 54-hole lead before shooting a 76 on Sunday. The Canadian is in excellent from coming into the 2023 version of the event. He’s finished 3rd and 15th in his last two starts at the Shriners and World Wide Technology Championship.

Despite being a long hitter, Pendrith has thrived on shorter courses throughout his career. He has top-20 finishes at Pebble Beach, Sedgefield CC, Port Royal and Sea Island. In addition to being short, those courses are all coastal tracks, which the 32-year-old clearly is fond of.

Pendrith is extremely talented but still winless as a PGA Tour player. a weak field on a course where he’s had success is an ideal spot for his breakthrough victory.

Marty Dou +7500 (DraftKings)

Marty Dou is another player who has thrived on the coast throughout the course of his career. He has top-5 finishes at TPC Kuala Lumpur and the Panama Championship on the Korn Ferry Tour and finished 17th at the Butterfield Bermuda Championship last season.

Dou missed the cut in his most recent start at the Shriners, but that was largely due to his losing 4.8 strokes around the green in his first two rounds, which is an aberration as he’s typically a strong player in that category. In his prior start at the Sanderson Farms Championship, the 26-year-old finished 12th and gained 6.6 strokes from tee to green.

Last year at Port Royal, Dou would have had a great chance to contend if it wasn’t for one bad round on Saturday (75). In his other three rounds, he shot 68, 63 and 68.

Dou has played all over the world and should feel comfortable playing in Bermuda this week.

Adam Long +9000 (DraftKings):

At last week’s World Wide Technology Championship, Adam Long hit 56 of 56 fairways for the week, becoming the first player to hit 100% of his fairways since Brian Claar at the 1992 Memorial Tournament. The driving accuracy propelled Long to a 23rd place finish, but El Cardonal wasn’t a course that necessarily required such precision off the tee. However, Port Royal Golf Club is a bit different. The course isn’t extremely difficult, but it can certainly be punitive to those who miss the fairway.

Even prior to last week (which had no shot tracer statistics), Long ranked 6th in this field in Fairways Gained in his past 24 rounds and 8th in Strokes Gained: Short Game, which are two of the areas I’m focused on when considering course fits this week.

Long has been a fantastic coastal golfer throughout his career, with top-5 finishes at Mayakoba and Corales. Port Royal is a short golf course so Long should have no problem keeping up with the bigger hitters in the field this week.

Austin Smotherman +10000 (BetRivers)

Austin Smotherman was a player who seemed poised to have a big season in 2022-2023 but struggled with consistency. Thus far in the fall, the SMU product has quietly strung together some solid performances. He finished 35th at the Shriners but gained an impressive 4.9 strokes on approach. In his next start, he finished in a tie for 23rd and went low on Sunday shooting -8.

Smotherman played well at Port Royal last year, finishing 22nd fueled by a scorching first round 62. He’s an accurate driver of the ball who prefers putting on Bermudagrass. He’s also had some strong finishes on the coast including a 5th place finish at the 2023 Mexico Open in addition to a handful of similar finishes on the Korn Ferry Tour.

This weak field may be exactly what Smotherman needs to kick start his career.

Carl Yuan +10000 (BetRivers)

Carl Yuan is the type of player who can contend seemingly out of nowhere due to his ability to go low. The volatility can hurt him at times, but it also gives him a higher chance of being in the mix on Sunday if he has it going on that particular week.

Yuan spiked at the Sanderson Farms Championship last month where he finished 6th and gained 8.8 strokes from tee to green. He is typically a poor putter but tends to roll it best on Bermudagrass greens where he is putts close to field average. In the field, Yuan ranks 5th in Birdie or Better Gained.

In his outstanding 2022 season on the Korn Ferry Tour, Yuan had some excellent results while playing on the coast. He finished 2nd at the Panama Championship and 3rd at the Great Exuma in the Bahamas. Ben Griffin and Akshay Bhatia both love that event, with Bhatia winning it in 2022, and both play Port Royal very well also. With some potential leaderboard correlation and Yuan’s ability to go low, he’s worth chancing at the Butterfield Bermuda this week.

Your Reaction?

LIKE6
LEGIT1
WOW2
LOL0
IDHT0
FLOP0
OB0
SHANK0

Opinion & Analysis

For whose eyes only? A review of Alan Shipnuck’s LIV and Let Die

Published

6 days ago

Nov 3, 2023

Ronald Montesano

I’m not encouraging you to skip the first 323 pages of Alan Shipnuck’s coverage of the rise and continued rise of the LIV golf experiment. The ship has sailed from port and the facts are etched in the Earth’s rotations. I’m suggesting that you begin at the end, with the paragraph at the bottom of page 324. It begins Amid all the speculating and pontificating… and ends with three words: changed golf forever. My reasoning is mildly complicated: I want you to understand what you’re taking on, for however long it takes to finish the tome. This story is worthwhile, but it is not a dalliance. It will take you back two, three, four years, to emotions that you had forgotten to lock away.

There were many prescient followers of the professional game, who considered LIV to be the second coming of Covid-19, albeit with a victim pool interested only in golf. There was a multitude of the lesser-informed, who latched onto words like betrayal, isolation, and sportswashing, in an effort to understand what was happening in the game of professional golf. Social media apps were awash in uncountable numbers of questions, opinions, accusations, and outright truths and lies, about what was going on with a league that snatched some of the best male touring professionals away from the PGA Tour.

It seemed that, with each passing moment, the massive We was more confused and more uncertain of the road map. Fortunately, we in golf have Alan Shipnuck in our midst. As with all the great writers on the four-lettered game that preceded him, Shipnuck mercilessly pursues a story that doesn’t matter for a moment. He pursues a story that defines an era, reveals character, and translates language not accessible to the masses. If Esperanto was the hope of the late 1800s, consider the language of the world’s wealthiest insiders to be Otnarepse. Very few spoke (or had interest in speaking) Esperanto, and even fewer have access to Otnarepsa. Shipnuck does.

LIV and Let Die is the factual recounting of how the kingdom of Saudi Arabia took an interest in golf, spurred on by an unforgiving, onetime lover of the PGA Tour. It is the story of how an English lawyer’s idea for collaborative golf at the highest level, was at best, emulated; at worst, stolen in the night, and massaged into something impactful. The tale collects a character roll-call that excludes hardly any names that you know, including some long dead.

I picked up my advance copy of LIV and Let Die on a Wednesday, and finished it by Sunday morning. It would have been sooner, so transfixed was I by reveal after reveal, but a prearranged drive through 9.5 hours of the USA, followed by a homecoming, delayed its completion. Along the path of pages, I recalled what it is that most agitates me about Shipnuck’s writing: he seems to take sides, then doesn’t, then switches, then switches back. His research and writing are measured and do their level best to present as many elements of the story, as can fit inside the cover.

There are moments when I wonder how Shipnuck is able to gain the access that he does, to the important persons that continue to shape this story. For some, their massive egos demand coverage and inclusion. For others, they admit that if their story must be told, it should be told by a writer who continues to produce volumes highlighted by thorough, accurate research.

Alan Shipnuck is direct and pointed in his commentary. He does not shy away from controversy, and at times, I wonder how he avoids bodily harm. His words can bruise, cut, and snap, but they are never fraudulent nor off the mark. His work is a welcome addition to the two centuries of golf writing that we may access.

LIV and Let Die traces the arc that began with the return of Greg Norman to the world golf stage, through the defection of the initial 48 golfers, away from the behemoth PGA Tour, to the ultimate announcement that the Saudi PIF would work with the US PGA Tour and the European PGA Tour (the DP World Tour) to continue the “evolution” of professional men’s golf.

Live and Let Die is unique reading -the rear of the dust jacket presents “A small sample of the bitching, bombast, and backstabbing found within,” instead of the amalgamation of quotes from fawning admirers and supporters. Shipnuck utilizes public and anonymous sources fluidly, in order to straighten as many of the story’s tentacles as possible. I suspect that you will find yourself backing up and rereading segments, and I encourage you to keep a highlighter handy for the taking of notes. This isn’t a college course, but hours spent reading are worth our time, to validate the author’s effort.

Your Reaction?

LIKE33
LEGIT6
WOW6
LOL1
IDHT0
FLOP1
OB0
SHANK11

Opinion & Analysis

Ryan: The lessons and legacy of Rose Zhang

Published

1 week ago

Nov 2, 2023

Brendan Ryan

During her dominant college career, Zhang won 12 out of 20 starts, leading her team to the 2022 NCAA title. On May 30, Rose Zhang turned pro after spending 141 weeks as the number one amateur in the world. Then, on June 4, she won her first LPGA event in her debut appearance.

There is no doubt that Rose is a star. The question is, what does Rose tell us about our system?

The question of whether Rose Zhang will be the last great American player to emerge from college is a compelling one. Her outstanding performance in college and successful transition to the professional circuit indicate that she possesses immense talent and potential. However, the landscape of women’s golf in the U.S. presents some challenges that could impact the development of future stars like her.

Rose Zhang represents the face of the junior girls’ and women’s college golf meritocracy. She has achieved success at every level, including winning on the LPGA tour. However, the system in the U.S. for women’s golf tends to breed overconfidence and lacks the necessary guidance to produce world-class players. While outliers like Rose Zhang may emerge, the future of women’s golf is likely to remain international, unless changes are made.

Photo via Adidas Golf

As a best guess, there are about 400 junior girls in the U.S. who are plus handicaps or have the chance to break par in tournament golf. In Korea, by the same estimations, the number is close to 1,500 (4x). This means that women’s junior golf is not a meritocracy: Even the very best junior events in America have, at best, 20 percent of the best players. Adding players from Europe and Australia, it’s more likely 15 percent.

The overconfidence in the system of junior and women’s college golf is on display weekly. The vast majority of even the best junior girls and college players have limited control and diversity of shots.

On average, most elite college or junior women would have about five different stock shots, while elite men’s college players would have an arsenal of 15-plus different shots with the biggest gap in short game shots and approach.

Each week, potentially dozens of college coaches (many of whom know nothing about golf) spend tens of thousands of dollars recruiting these players. This wrongfully reaffirms to kids that their development is on track and they are special. Once in college, even the most mediocre women’s college players will be treated to four-star accommodations, steak dinners, and trips across the country. However, this pampering doesn’t necessarily lead to excellence or skill development. Instead, at best it fosters comfort and overconfidence, setting up players for failure in both the short and long term.

The emphasis in junior girls golf needs to shift towards fostering a true meritocracy where more players have the opportunity to compete against the best, including internationally allowing them to gauge their skills accurately. Coaches and instructors must focus on enhancing players’ skill sets, ensuring they possess the diversity and control of shots required to excel at the highest level.

Furthermore, the system needs to put values back at the core of junior sports. The focus on playing golf should be fostering a kid’s passion and joy, whereby using the player’s internal drive to build skill. Instead, it’s likely that the current system’s reliance on external rewards may not provide the necessary motivation for players to continuously improve, challenge themselves, and find the process ultimately rewarding.

Rose Zhang represents the very best that our system has to offer. The question is how good is our best talent? My guess is not as good as we think. I think that should give us pause and have us re-evaluate the system to make sure that not only are girls prepared for professional golf but we are teaching them the values and giving them the experience they deserve along the way.

Your Reaction?