Golf stories?

[highfigh]

The added weight of a forged club would completely negate any additional ball speed. You're also forgetting about the trampoline effect of perimeter weighting. Your point of iron byron is exactly right and why forged clubs are a little over rated. The point is, the advantage of a forged club only exists with a perfectly repeatable swing..

MOI or moment of inertia is a clubs resistance to twisting. An off center hit causes a club to twist resulting in a loss of energy and direction. With bulge and roll in a driver, it can also cause some nasty spin. The higher the MOI, the straighter and longer a driver should be on off center hits.

The catch, to achieve a high MOI, the center of gravity has to be fairly high in the club head. (above the equator) This seriously jacks with overall launch parameters and limits ball speed. Since they no longer use COR (coefficient of restitution) testing to determine a clubs conformity, they can't maximize ball speed due to the limited effect COG has on the new CT testing. High MOI drivers tend to have low launch, high spin in their highest ball speed ratings which is the opposite of optimum. They are straight though. The drivers on the market with a nice happy medium of COG and MOI is best. For good players, MOI limits workability and these players should select a head with a low center of gravity and minimal MOI to achieve high launch low spin for moderate workability and maximum ball speed. If you really need to shape a tee shot, thats why you have a three wood. BTW, there is no CT or COR limits on three woods. There are no conformity rules beyond 13 degrees.

I meant that forged is denser and stronger, which also means that material can be removed from non-critical areas to decrease weight. Muscle-back clubs are basically the inverse of cavity back but for a clubhead of the same mass, I'm pretty sure the sweet spot is smaller.

I know what MOI is, but when a marketing department gets their grubby mitts on terms and acronyms, it's time to worry, just like what the electronics companies do. Buzzwords may make people think they know what they're talking about but it's usually not the case and that goes for people in sales. too. They use the acronyms and buzzwords without explaining things and most people don't ask.

Also, since lateral (rotational, really) motion is used to impart the force on the ball, I think center of mass is more appropriate. What's CT? As I posted, I haven't kept up on golf club design in a long time.

As I mentioned, I think the swing is the most important thing, but many people either think they'll never be able to hit the ball as well as before if they make changes and don't feel comfortable with them. Some people just refuse to get help, so they try every club on the market in an attempt to find a solution to their problem, which just seems insane, to me. I worked with someone who seemed to buy a new set every few months and always tried to impress us with how much the retail price was. I asked about his average score and he was in the mid-90s. If he could afford them (he couldn't, really) and these clubs knocked 30 strokes off of his score, fine but why try to impress anyone with the price when we all knew he was spending more than he could afford?

I bought a set of Dunlop DDH cast stainless irons more than 25 years ago and can't think of a single reason to replace them. At the time, I couldn't hit a fairway wood to save my life, so I added a 2 iron and then a 1 iron since I have always hit long irons straight and my 1 iron goes dead straight unless I want it to fade or draw. I also think far too much emphasis is placed on distance. Most public and for that matter, private courses, weren't designed for people who hit 300+ yard drives. 250 yards was where most better players hit, so they placed hazards near that point, as well as where the average second shot would go. Now, with club and ball technology making it possible for a 5'8 160 pounder to regularly hit 300 yards, the course has become many shots shorter. Also, hitting longer means getting deeper in trouble. Or, farther into the adjacent fairway, which isn't necessarily a bad place to come in from. Distance is great but consistency and accuracy are much better, IMO.

That said, putting for eagle is pretty cool.

 

[adwilk]

I meant that forged is denser and stronger, which also means that material can be removed from non-critical areas to decrease weight. Muscle-back clubs are basically the inverse of cavity back but for a clubhead of the same mass, I'm pretty sure the sweet spot is smaller.

Indeed, sweet spot is much smaller. I guess what I'm getting at, and for several reasons, is that a forged club cannot be determined in any way to produce more ball speed than a cast club for any given loft. I understand your thinking, and it goes back to my original point that the materials and technology in cast clubs nowadays are making forged clubs (at the very least for amateurs) seemingly obsolete.

I know what MOI is, but when a marketing department gets their grubby mitts on terms and acronyms, it's time to worry, just like what the electronics companies do. Buzzwords may make people think they know what they're talking about but it's usually not the case and that goes for people in sales. too. They use the acronyms and buzzwords without explaining things and most people don't ask.

No real argument there, fortunately, almost every manufacturer makes the same overall product. That said, the technology in drivers now is head a shoulders over where it was even 5 years ago. Utilizing launch monitors has been a huge step. The biggest advances, however, are in the ball itself.

Also, since lateral (rotational, really) motion is used to impart the force on the ball, I think center of mass is more appropriate. What's CT? As I posted, I haven't kept up on golf club design in a long time.

If by rotational you mean rotation of the club head specifically to impart force, thats wrong. the speed at which the clubhead it self rotates (around the shaft) isn't fast enough vs the velocity of the clubface to effect force. In fact, most shafts are designed now to greatly reduce this rotational effect for greater distance (better launch parameters) and improved control.
CT is characteristic time. Its the newer test to determine the efficiency of a clubface. The COR testing fired a golf ball at the face and measured the speed of return. CT swings a heavier metal ball on a pendulum into the face and the time that the ball stays on is measured.

As I mentioned, I think the swing is the most important thing, but many people either think they'll never be able to hit the ball as well as before if they make changes and don't feel comfortable with them. Some people just refuse to get help, so they try every club on the market in an attempt to find a solution to their problem, which just seems insane, to me. I worked with someone who seemed to buy a new set every few months and always tried to impress us with how much the retail price was. I asked about his average score and he was in the mid-90s. If he could afford them (he couldn't, really) and these clubs knocked 30 strokes off of his score, fine but why try to impress anyone with the price when we all knew he was spending more than he could afford?

No argument there. I am a huge advocate of properly fit equipment, though. I've met that you're talking about hundreds of times. It is sad and frustrating.

I bought a set of Dunlop DDH cast stainless irons more than 25 years ago and can't think of a single reason to replace them. At the time, I couldn't hit a fairway wood to save my life, so I added a 2 iron and then a 1 iron since I have always hit long irons straight and my 1 iron goes dead straight unless I want it to fade or draw. I also think far too much emphasis is placed on distance. Most public and for that matter, private courses, weren't designed for people who hit 300+ yard drives. 250 yards was where most better players hit, so they placed hazards near that point, as well as where the average second shot would go. Now, with club and ball technology making it possible for a 5'8 160 pounder to regularly hit 300 yards, the course has become many shots shorter. Also, hitting longer means getting deeper in trouble. Or, farther into the adjacent fairway, which isn't necessarily a bad place to come in from. Distance is great but consistency and accuracy are much better, IMO.

That said, putting for eagle is pretty cool.

Hey, if you're happy with the dunlops, no worries, although I can ASSURE you that massive improvements in technology have been made in 25 years. But, as the old adage goes, if it aint broke. Distance is a HUGE part of the game. Give me a 9 iron vs 5 iron day in and day out and my scoring average will be considerably lower with the 9. I do understand what you're saying about the layout of courses though. When I play with some friends that want to play the shorter tees, its much much harder than playing the back because my landing area disappears.

I hope your 5'6 160 analogy was a bit exaggerated. I've seen thousands and thousands of guys all over the country hit drivers on launch monitors and maybe 3 percent or so is actually capable of moving the ball 300 hards. far far less than that can actually carry the ball 300.

Putting for eagle is awesome... as long as you don't make par

 

[highfigh]

"If by rotational you mean rotation of the club head specifically to impart force, thats wrong. the speed at which the clubhead it self rotates (around the shaft) isn't fast enough vs the velocity of the clubface to effect force. In fact, most shafts are designed now to greatly reduce this rotational effect for greater distance (better launch parameters) and improved control.

CT is characteristic time. Its the newer test to determine the efficiency of a clubface. The COR testing fired a golf ball at the face and measured the speed of return. CT swings a heavier metal ball on a pendulum into the face and the time that the ball stays on is measured."

I meant the swing arc. If the club was stationary and resting on the ground, the CG being outside of the footprint could cause it to topple (if sufficiently far outside) but I meant Cmass as it would pertain in zero gravity, which is more appropriate for bodies in motion. The flight of the ball is obviously governed by gravity but other than any slight changes to the club due to gravity during the downswing, most of what it's experiencing is from centrifugal force as soon as it's moving with any speed after the top of the swing.

"No argument there. I am a huge advocate of properly fit equipment, though. I've met that you're talking about hundreds of times. It is sad and frustrating."

I bought mine right off of the rack. I'd like to check them against a set that's actually fitted to me. As I posted at the top of this thread, getting to the green isn't my problem, other than the occasional brain fert or missed shot, but I refuse to blame my clubs for those. I hit driver-1 iron to pin high with a very slight tail wind on a 578 yard hole, so if I lose a few yards, I'm not worried. When I golf with people who have expensive clubs, they don't like seeing me back up a 7 iron on the green or stop a full 3 iron in 10'. I do hit the ball high, though, and it doesn't really seem to matter what brand.

"Hey, if you're happy with the dunlops, no worries, although I can ASSURE you that massive improvements in technology have been made in 25 years. But, as the old adage goes, if it aint broke. Distance is a HUGE part of the game. Give me a 9 iron vs 5 iron day in and day out and my scoring average will be considerably lower with the 9. I do understand what you're saying about the layout of courses though. When I play with some friends that want to play the shorter tees, its much much harder than playing the back because my landing area disappears."

I'll play from the back tees when I'm alone or with others who are willing but not many at the local public courses really want to. I golf with a friend who always lays up so he can hit from about 110 yards because he says he doesn't have a club that works from inside of that distance. It works for him but I think it limits his possibilities and I practice with several clubs from all kinds of distances. Lately, I have needed to hit low shots from under trees to the green, from about 100 yards, so I've been using the 1 or 2 iron and running it on. So far, so good.

I hope your 5'6 160 analogy was a bit exaggerated. I've seen thousands and thousands of guys all over the country hit drivers on launch monitors and maybe 3 percent or so is actually capable of moving the ball 300 hards. far far less than that can actually carry the ball 300.

I was referring more to the guys on the pro tours but, especially for them, their coaching and new equipment have made it possible to hit farther than ever. Have you watched the LPGA? They have many players who drive longer than 275 yards.

Putting for eagle is awesome... as long as you don't make par

Been there, done that. Not this year, though. Lipped out every eagle putt and made the next and I'm enjoying golf more than ever.

What kind of ball do you hit?

 

[adwilk]

I play the Prov1 x almost exclusively, but if its a shorter, faster course with little wind, I'll the drop the x... and just play the prov1.. the spin rates are considerably different but they perform very similarly around the green..

I suppose I'm a little confused about the first paragraph... but I think we're thinking the same thing.. the principals apply somewhat differently depending on whether or not you're talking about an iron or driver..

obvioulsy, irons aren't engineered to go as far as possible (meeting optimum launch parameters) and drivers are.. their design for achieving such parameters would obviously vary...

Have you ever hit balls on a Launch Monitor? Knowing what very little I know about you based on your posts here, I know you would love it. I was part of a test group for one of the first camera based LMs developed and spent a lot of time traveling around fitting people using one... Its right up your alley.. you seem fairly analytical...

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

The added forgiveness and consistency of the cast clubs are a no brainer for me. Even most the pros now play cast offerings.

Most pros and the majority of better ams play forged irons.

..... blades verses cavity back is something else.......

 

[mperfct]

I suck and play Mizuno blades. But I also have a 12 inch bic.

 

[highfigh]

I suck and play Mizuno blades. But I also have a 12 inch bic.

I heard someone say they knew of a 12 inch pianist.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

I played in my 2nd corp. outing yesterday in nearly as many weeks....and I won the longest drive

Even though I absolutely NUTTED it..... I still didn't think it would hold up. The longest drive hole was a short 477yd par5 playing downhill. My ball must have rolled a mile because we only had 134 to the pin according to the cart GPS. BWAHA......

One of my partners is a good player (former club pro) and he hit a beautiful 2nd.......then I followed with an equally pretty shot. The approach shot played steeply uphill so we couldn't see the result.

The funny part is that we were jokingly arguing over which ball would be closer to the pin driving up the hill. We get to the green and see our golf balls literally touching!! I kid you not...funny stuff. We walk up to determine which ball was closer and it was his..... so he loudly proclaims..... "We're using my 2nd shot"......I guess you had to be there because it was pretty damn funny. The result was a kick-in eagle..... Our team shot -10 and we didn't place.

Golf stories anyone.....??

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Glad to see another golf thread buckeye.. somebody has the bug...

You bet'cha.....

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

I golfed last Sunday for the first time in 25 years. My most notable achievement was whacking my head off the roof of the golf cart getting in. I have a nice 4 inch scab down the side of my head from that one.

Oh my.... I've been there/done that and whacked my head on the cart roof before, but I can't say that I've ever drawn blood!!

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

I bought a set of Dunlop DDH cast stainless irons more than 25 years ago and can't think of a single reason to replace them.

First.... I would like to say that I really enjoyed reading your contributions to this thread. Very good reading. In response to the above, I can think of one reason you might want to replace your irons... "Fresh square grooves" baby!!!

...and this is coming from a guy who played his previous set of irons for 11-12 years. If your irons are 25yrs old, the grooves are worn and they're probably the old "V" grooves to boot. New irons will make a big impact on ball spin which is something you want on approach shots.

After I finally replaced my irons, the difference was eye opening. Especially with the wedges.......and my 'new' irons are now in the twighlight of their third season. I'll probably be hitting them for many years to come....Hahaha...does that make my a hypocrite?

At the very least, I should have already replaced my 56degree wedge by now. It's already noticeably worn......playing from the sand tear them up really bad.