Here's a video somebody sent me last week, with Jim McLean explaining the new ball flight laws.
For all intents and purposes, this is a very well done video. But as one reader e-mailed me about the video, he wanted to know if McLean really taught this or was a (in my reader's words) 'poseur.'
If you may recall, when I made the post 'Thoughts On The Future Of Golf Instruction...' (http://3jack.blogspot.com/2011/02/thoughts-on-future-of-golf-instruction.html), I said the following:
D-Plane will be readily accepted and teachers will act like they always knew about it, when they didn’t.
A big reason why I thought this is because I believed the power of D-Plane just couldn't be denied. To me, there is a HUGE desire for golfers to understand the D-Plane. In fact, that is by far and away, the #1 compliment I get from blog readers with regards to my blog. How 'understanding D-Plane saved their game' and 'how understanding D-Plane made the game fun again because impact wasn't such a mystery anymore.'
So when there's a great demand for understanding D-Plane and then launch monitors like Trackman and physicists like Dr. Robert Grober confirm the validity of D-Plane, the PGA just can't stick with those old ball flight laws anymore.
Which brings me to the PGA Teaching Summit in Orlando this past January where I was told (I wasn't there) that Dr. Gary Wiren...the main dude of PGA Instruction...went on the offensive with regards to people calling him out about getting the ball flight laws incorrect in 1991 in the PGA Teaching Manual. From the sounds of it, Wiren had some good points, but others pointed out that parts of what was in the manual were ambiguous and could easily be interpreted as saying initial direction of the ball is due to the path (and not the clubface angle at impact).
My feeling is that regardless of what Wiren did, he HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that almost every PGA instructor had the ball flight laws wrong. So even if he knew the ball flight laws down pat and had them correctly in the PGA Manual, I would say that:
1) He didn't have them clearly explained in the manual and that's why PGA instructors got them wrong
or
2) He HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that PGA instructors had them wrong and did nothing about it.
I take more umbrage with somebody like Wiren than Joe Schmoe the PGA Instructor or Jack Schmoe the top 50 teacher claiming they knew D-Plane all along when they didn't because Wiren is pretty much 'THE GUY' of the PGA Instruction.
As far as McLean goes, I have no idea whether or not he has been teaching D-Plane (the correct ball flight laws) all along or not. I will say that I have his 8-step swing book and he never mentions (at least I didn't see it when I just re-read it a week ago) what causes the initial direction or curvature of the ball.
However, that doesn't mean that he's lying. It's just not in his book, so there's no way to tell if he's lying or telling the truth. Since I have no relationship with McLean, I'm not going to call him a liar and I'll take his word for it.
But here's where I believe you can tell the 'poseurs' from the rest of the crew. Here's what I would call 'poseur instruction.'
Nothing personal against Mr. Case as I believe he probably basing his instruction off of what he learned from the PGA. But this type of instruction of how to hit a draw flies in the face of D-Plane.
As we know, with *relation to the target*, a golfer can EASILY hit a perfect draw with an open clubface at impact. As long as their path is directed further out to the right than where their clubface is pointing at impact, it will impart draw spin on the ball.
So to ask for the golfer to 'turn the clubface over' simply is not necessary because what matters is getting the path further out to the right than the clubface at impact. Furthermore, you're asking for the golfer to use their hand-eye coordination and timing to get the clubface in the perfect position by using your hands to turn over the clubface. Turn them too much, smother-hook. Not enough and you can hit a block.
In essence, I'm not even concerned if some teacher claims they always knew about D-Plane when they didn't. That's because I think understanding D-Plane is a good thing and I'd rather see an instructor understand it over refusing to understand it in fear that they may get 'exposed.'
But, if they are teaching a golfer to hit a draw by crossing their arms over like the video above, they essentially have *memorized* the laws of ball flight (D-Plane), but do not understand how to apply the laws of ball flight to their students. And THAT is what D-Plane is all about.
3JACK
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
3Jack's Story On The Evolution Of Putters
My latest post on ‘Why Musclebacks' received positive reviews and I got some readers asking me to do something with regards to putters. I haven’t followed putters as closely, but I’ve been around the block and discussed some things with experts like David Edel, Dave Orr, Geoff Mangum and others.
PRE-1986 PUTTERS
I started to play the game in 1986. One thing to understand about my personality and the type of child I was, I got into sports at a very early age. And not only would I play sports, I would read constantly about them. And I mean at age 5 I was reading box scores, reading almanacs, etc. Even though I was barely learning how to read, I was reading and studying these things and my parents thought it was a good way to develop reading and math skills. So even though I didn’t get into the game until 1986, I would read all I could about the game of golf, including equipment. But, 1986 coincidentally was an important year with regards to the change in putter design.
Before 1986, 3 of the big putters used by golfers were the:
George Low Wizard Putter
Acushnet Bullseye
Wilson 8802
As you can see, very much different from the types of putters we see today.
THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK
Eventually a man came around with a putter he designed called the A-1 putter
What drew attention to the putter, besides the boxy design, was the sound that it would make when the ball was struck. It almost sounded like somebody striking a tuning fork. That man was Karsten Solheim and because of that sound, his company got the name PING.
Eventually Solheim developed the Ping Anser putter, which drew some notoriety because of the funny spelling of ‘Anser.’
Believe it or not, this putter still had plenty of detractors because it was still considered ‘UGLY looking!’ However, this putter was designed to take out that annoying PING sound and its design was becoming more and more popular.
MALLETS
Mallets were not produced as much as they are today. During this time you had two main mallet putters. The Ray Cook mallet
And, IMO, more importantly…the Ram Zebra mallet putter
It’s important to take note of the Ram Zebra because if you look at the other putters I’ve already shown…there are either no alignment lines or very few alignment lines. But the Ram Zebra has 10 lines total (9 black and 1 white). The picture of the Ram Zebra above is actually a little later model. This later model which was developed in the early 90’s, had an adjustable weight design. Underneath the bottom plate was where the weights were stored and the weights were a bunch of washers. And the golfer, if they wanted to, could unscrew the bottom plate, and add or subtract washers depending on what they wanted the weight of the putter to feel like. To my knowledge, it was the first putter to do this and really was way ahead of its time. Edel Putters have a Vari-Weight design and one large advantage they have is that you can do it with any type of putter design whereas the Ram Zebra is just a mallet putter.
AUGUSTA AND EQUIPMENT
In 1986, 46 year old Jack Nicklaus won the Masters. He did it with a very hot putter on the back 9 on Sunday. That putter was interesting because Nicklaus rarely changed clubs and almost always used his trusty George Low putter. But this time he used this giant, black putter to win the green jacket, called the Macgregor ZT Response.
Augusta is really fascinating from an equipment perspective because all of the advertising and demo days in the world can’t quite sell a product like Augusta can. After Nicklaus won the Masters, the ZT Response putter was the must have club for any golfer and sales skyrocketed beyond belief. But other clubs over time have responded like the ZT Response. I remember when Jumbo Ozaki was hitting unbelievably long drivers with the Bridgestone J’s driver and it then became the driver of choice (horrible driver clubhead, but a great shaft. Had a friend that I convinced to keep the shaft and dump the clubhead and he put it on a bunch of his other drivers and had it for years and years). There was also the SeeMore putters which Zach Johnson’s victory resurrected the putter from the dead. I suspect that if the Taylor Made R11 wins, particularly with somebody who hits it deep like Dustin Johnson, it would be a major coup for Taylor Made because the club is so identifiable. In fact, if I were a club company, I would try to make an identifiable driver or putter going into Augusta every year and try to convince my top players under contract to use it. Augusta wields that much influence.
With that, by 1986 we start to see the overall picture of putters and we can see where today’s putters come from. With the Anser like putter becoming more popular, Ram’s alignment lines, and the oversized putters like the ZT Response.
INTO THE 90’S
Coming into the 90’s, PING became more and more popular and was typically the putter of choice. While Karsten Solheim’s favored iron design differs from what I favor, between the irons and the putters, it’s easy to see his genius when it comes to club design. After the Anser, he came up with the
PAL Series
ZING Series
B60 Series
He also did some different things like making putters from Beryllium Copper, which was softer and black oxide which had a nice look to it. Also remember, the original Ping putter grip is still extremely popular to this day and has been copied many times over. And Karsten started making putters with the same head designs, but different hosels. I think he had the idea that some golfers aim better with different types of hosels, but he just couldn’t figure out a way to mass produce putters and figure out what putters would fit certain golfer’s eyes.
And to think about it, when it comes to ‘normal’ putter design these days, there is almost NO deviation from putters that PING designed years and years ago. Karsten’s putter designs may be the piece of golf equipment that was the most ahead of its time than any other piece of equipment in the history of golf.
SCOTTY AND ODYSSEY
The next big step in putter design in the 90’s dealt with making the putter feel better. This is where all of that ‘precision milled’ putters and inserts came in. As far as milling goes, Scotty Cameron was the first putter that *I* remember using the precision milling process with his putters. At the time I was first introduced to Cameron putters, he was working with Mizuno.
In reality, Cameron was probably a little too far ahead of his time because balata golf balls were still being used and thus, the putter was really soft. Now with the golf balls much harder, if you were to use an old Ping Anser putter from 1987, it would feel like you are putting a rock.
As far as inserts go, Odyssey was the first putter *I* recall that utilized the insert. They actually came out first with a blade putter line, but eventually went into mallet putters, particularly the Odyssey Rossie
And again, the Odyssey Rossie putter didn’t really take off until Nick Faldo made his come from behind victory for his 3rd Masters Green Jacket, 10 years after Nicklaus’ historic win with the MacGregor ZT Response putter.
DAVE PELZ AND PUTTERS
Dave Pelz was a former golfer at Indiana University who played against his rival, Jack Nicklaus, at Ohio State. Pelz eventually determined he was not good enough to be a PGA Tour pro and got a job working for NASA. Eventually Pelz’s desire was to return to the game of golf in some fashion. He tried to get into the equipment business, but like so many his attempt with ‘featherlite’ clubs immediately failed. He eventually determined that his path to fame and fortune in golf was thru putting instruction (and eventually short game instruction). He wrote a book called ‘Putt Like the Pros’ and it was an instant success as it had more detailed and precise findings and theories. Before then, putting instruction was what I call ‘Bagger Vance-ish.’
Pelz’s theories on putter design where that he preferred face balanced putters, soft inserts, and a ‘3-ball Design.’
Yes, a 3-ball design.
In fact, he designed his own 3-ball putter, which failed.
The idea behind the 3-ball was that it would help golfers aim the putter better. Eventually Odyssey signed Pelz on to help consult and design their putters and the Odyssey 2-ball was born.
GROOVES AND OTHER GADGETS
From the 2-ball putter, the advancements were more along the lines of using Face Balanced putters more and more and having some wacky designs that are supposed to be able to get the golfer to aim better and some ‘high MOI’ putters which make it so the ball will not roll off line so much on a poorly struck putt.
There was also the development of putter grooves to help reduce skid on putt. Companies like Yes! (bought out by Adams Golf), Taylor Made, Rife, Bettinardi and Nike have their own line of putters with grooves on them.
OVERALL THEME
I’m not willing to say people putted better pre-1986 than they do today. We know a lot more about putting these days, the equipment helps horrible putters become not-so-horrible and the greens roll a lot smoother today.
However, David Orr (www.orrgolf.com) did a study a few years ago that showed that a golfers still struggle heavily to aim the putter. IIRC, the study (which went into many other things besides aim), had 677 subjects, all of which were right handed golfers (for the sake of being uniform). It had 50, at the time, current PGA Tour members and went all of the way up to the 30 handicap. They had each golfer aim with a laser from 6-feet away. And IIRC, here was the results
55% aimed left of the cup
25% aimed right of the cup
20% aimed at the cup
From discussing this with people like David Edel, I believe that the biases are in part due to eye dominance. If you read the GOLF Magazine book ‘The Greatest Putting Instruction Book Ever’, Edel goes into things that cause a golfer to aim right or left of the hole. In short, it has to do with what part of the putter head they are using to aim the putter. The further up towards the ball, the more the golfer will likely aim right of the target. The more of the back of the putterhead that is used to aim, the more likely they will aim left.
So with left eye dominance, the golfer naturally use the front part of the blade. Since most right handed people are right eye dominant, that’s why about 25% in Orr’s study were aiming right. And not by coincidence, I am right handed and left eye dominant and have a right aim-bias. With right eye dominance, the golfer will naturally use more of the back of the putterhead to aim which correlates more towards a left aim bias, which is why the majority of the golfers in Orr’s study do indeed aim left of the target.
If there’s one thing I feel safe in saying is that I do not believe golfers of today are aiming any better. In fact, I think they may be aiming worse.
Why?
Popular putter designs do not fit most golfer’s aiming tendencies.
The Odyssey 2-ball putter is a great example. Its design actually promotes a left aim bias. It’s also one of the most popular putters out there. So in a world where most golfers will aim left of the target, a left aim bias putter doesn’t help. OTOH, something like the 8802 or the Anser with no alignment lines or sight dots will help golfers aim more to the right.
You could also take the Scotty Cameron putters which has more loft (4*) and that promotes the golfer aiming left. Or the Taylor Made Spider putters with so many shapes and lines that it is just like to confuse the golfer.
3JACK
PRE-1986 PUTTERS
I started to play the game in 1986. One thing to understand about my personality and the type of child I was, I got into sports at a very early age. And not only would I play sports, I would read constantly about them. And I mean at age 5 I was reading box scores, reading almanacs, etc. Even though I was barely learning how to read, I was reading and studying these things and my parents thought it was a good way to develop reading and math skills. So even though I didn’t get into the game until 1986, I would read all I could about the game of golf, including equipment. But, 1986 coincidentally was an important year with regards to the change in putter design.
Before 1986, 3 of the big putters used by golfers were the:
George Low Wizard Putter
Acushnet Bullseye
Wilson 8802
As you can see, very much different from the types of putters we see today.
THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK
Eventually a man came around with a putter he designed called the A-1 putter
What drew attention to the putter, besides the boxy design, was the sound that it would make when the ball was struck. It almost sounded like somebody striking a tuning fork. That man was Karsten Solheim and because of that sound, his company got the name PING.
Eventually Solheim developed the Ping Anser putter, which drew some notoriety because of the funny spelling of ‘Anser.’
Believe it or not, this putter still had plenty of detractors because it was still considered ‘UGLY looking!’ However, this putter was designed to take out that annoying PING sound and its design was becoming more and more popular.
MALLETS
Mallets were not produced as much as they are today. During this time you had two main mallet putters. The Ray Cook mallet
And, IMO, more importantly…the Ram Zebra mallet putter
It’s important to take note of the Ram Zebra because if you look at the other putters I’ve already shown…there are either no alignment lines or very few alignment lines. But the Ram Zebra has 10 lines total (9 black and 1 white). The picture of the Ram Zebra above is actually a little later model. This later model which was developed in the early 90’s, had an adjustable weight design. Underneath the bottom plate was where the weights were stored and the weights were a bunch of washers. And the golfer, if they wanted to, could unscrew the bottom plate, and add or subtract washers depending on what they wanted the weight of the putter to feel like. To my knowledge, it was the first putter to do this and really was way ahead of its time. Edel Putters have a Vari-Weight design and one large advantage they have is that you can do it with any type of putter design whereas the Ram Zebra is just a mallet putter.
AUGUSTA AND EQUIPMENT
In 1986, 46 year old Jack Nicklaus won the Masters. He did it with a very hot putter on the back 9 on Sunday. That putter was interesting because Nicklaus rarely changed clubs and almost always used his trusty George Low putter. But this time he used this giant, black putter to win the green jacket, called the Macgregor ZT Response.
Augusta is really fascinating from an equipment perspective because all of the advertising and demo days in the world can’t quite sell a product like Augusta can. After Nicklaus won the Masters, the ZT Response putter was the must have club for any golfer and sales skyrocketed beyond belief. But other clubs over time have responded like the ZT Response. I remember when Jumbo Ozaki was hitting unbelievably long drivers with the Bridgestone J’s driver and it then became the driver of choice (horrible driver clubhead, but a great shaft. Had a friend that I convinced to keep the shaft and dump the clubhead and he put it on a bunch of his other drivers and had it for years and years). There was also the SeeMore putters which Zach Johnson’s victory resurrected the putter from the dead. I suspect that if the Taylor Made R11 wins, particularly with somebody who hits it deep like Dustin Johnson, it would be a major coup for Taylor Made because the club is so identifiable. In fact, if I were a club company, I would try to make an identifiable driver or putter going into Augusta every year and try to convince my top players under contract to use it. Augusta wields that much influence.
With that, by 1986 we start to see the overall picture of putters and we can see where today’s putters come from. With the Anser like putter becoming more popular, Ram’s alignment lines, and the oversized putters like the ZT Response.
INTO THE 90’S
Coming into the 90’s, PING became more and more popular and was typically the putter of choice. While Karsten Solheim’s favored iron design differs from what I favor, between the irons and the putters, it’s easy to see his genius when it comes to club design. After the Anser, he came up with the
PAL Series
ZING Series
B60 Series
He also did some different things like making putters from Beryllium Copper, which was softer and black oxide which had a nice look to it. Also remember, the original Ping putter grip is still extremely popular to this day and has been copied many times over. And Karsten started making putters with the same head designs, but different hosels. I think he had the idea that some golfers aim better with different types of hosels, but he just couldn’t figure out a way to mass produce putters and figure out what putters would fit certain golfer’s eyes.
And to think about it, when it comes to ‘normal’ putter design these days, there is almost NO deviation from putters that PING designed years and years ago. Karsten’s putter designs may be the piece of golf equipment that was the most ahead of its time than any other piece of equipment in the history of golf.
SCOTTY AND ODYSSEY
The next big step in putter design in the 90’s dealt with making the putter feel better. This is where all of that ‘precision milled’ putters and inserts came in. As far as milling goes, Scotty Cameron was the first putter that *I* remember using the precision milling process with his putters. At the time I was first introduced to Cameron putters, he was working with Mizuno.
In reality, Cameron was probably a little too far ahead of his time because balata golf balls were still being used and thus, the putter was really soft. Now with the golf balls much harder, if you were to use an old Ping Anser putter from 1987, it would feel like you are putting a rock.
As far as inserts go, Odyssey was the first putter *I* recall that utilized the insert. They actually came out first with a blade putter line, but eventually went into mallet putters, particularly the Odyssey Rossie
And again, the Odyssey Rossie putter didn’t really take off until Nick Faldo made his come from behind victory for his 3rd Masters Green Jacket, 10 years after Nicklaus’ historic win with the MacGregor ZT Response putter.
DAVE PELZ AND PUTTERS
Dave Pelz was a former golfer at Indiana University who played against his rival, Jack Nicklaus, at Ohio State. Pelz eventually determined he was not good enough to be a PGA Tour pro and got a job working for NASA. Eventually Pelz’s desire was to return to the game of golf in some fashion. He tried to get into the equipment business, but like so many his attempt with ‘featherlite’ clubs immediately failed. He eventually determined that his path to fame and fortune in golf was thru putting instruction (and eventually short game instruction). He wrote a book called ‘Putt Like the Pros’ and it was an instant success as it had more detailed and precise findings and theories. Before then, putting instruction was what I call ‘Bagger Vance-ish.’
Pelz’s theories on putter design where that he preferred face balanced putters, soft inserts, and a ‘3-ball Design.’
Yes, a 3-ball design.
In fact, he designed his own 3-ball putter, which failed.
The idea behind the 3-ball was that it would help golfers aim the putter better. Eventually Odyssey signed Pelz on to help consult and design their putters and the Odyssey 2-ball was born.
GROOVES AND OTHER GADGETS
From the 2-ball putter, the advancements were more along the lines of using Face Balanced putters more and more and having some wacky designs that are supposed to be able to get the golfer to aim better and some ‘high MOI’ putters which make it so the ball will not roll off line so much on a poorly struck putt.
There was also the development of putter grooves to help reduce skid on putt. Companies like Yes! (bought out by Adams Golf), Taylor Made, Rife, Bettinardi and Nike have their own line of putters with grooves on them.
OVERALL THEME
I’m not willing to say people putted better pre-1986 than they do today. We know a lot more about putting these days, the equipment helps horrible putters become not-so-horrible and the greens roll a lot smoother today.
However, David Orr (www.orrgolf.com) did a study a few years ago that showed that a golfers still struggle heavily to aim the putter. IIRC, the study (which went into many other things besides aim), had 677 subjects, all of which were right handed golfers (for the sake of being uniform). It had 50, at the time, current PGA Tour members and went all of the way up to the 30 handicap. They had each golfer aim with a laser from 6-feet away. And IIRC, here was the results
55% aimed left of the cup
25% aimed right of the cup
20% aimed at the cup
From discussing this with people like David Edel, I believe that the biases are in part due to eye dominance. If you read the GOLF Magazine book ‘The Greatest Putting Instruction Book Ever’, Edel goes into things that cause a golfer to aim right or left of the hole. In short, it has to do with what part of the putter head they are using to aim the putter. The further up towards the ball, the more the golfer will likely aim right of the target. The more of the back of the putterhead that is used to aim, the more likely they will aim left.
So with left eye dominance, the golfer naturally use the front part of the blade. Since most right handed people are right eye dominant, that’s why about 25% in Orr’s study were aiming right. And not by coincidence, I am right handed and left eye dominant and have a right aim-bias. With right eye dominance, the golfer will naturally use more of the back of the putterhead to aim which correlates more towards a left aim bias, which is why the majority of the golfers in Orr’s study do indeed aim left of the target.
If there’s one thing I feel safe in saying is that I do not believe golfers of today are aiming any better. In fact, I think they may be aiming worse.
Why?
Popular putter designs do not fit most golfer’s aiming tendencies.
The Odyssey 2-ball putter is a great example. Its design actually promotes a left aim bias. It’s also one of the most popular putters out there. So in a world where most golfers will aim left of the target, a left aim bias putter doesn’t help. OTOH, something like the 8802 or the Anser with no alignment lines or sight dots will help golfers aim more to the right.
You could also take the Scotty Cameron putters which has more loft (4*) and that promotes the golfer aiming left. Or the Taylor Made Spider putters with so many shapes and lines that it is just like to confuse the golfer.
3JACK
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Why Muscleback
I’ve been asked the question ‘why would anybody want to hit a muscleback blade iron over a cavity back?’ quite often. And recently I’ve seen this question posted on other forums as well.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing is less and less OEM’s making muscleback blades. Cleveland Golf makes a muscleback blade set with their new CGTour line, but it does not offer a muscleback option with the 3, 4 and 5-irons. Ping has never offered a true, muscleback blade (to my knowledge) and newer OEM’s like Tour Edge, Boccieri, Fourteen Golf, etc. do not offer a true muscleback blade option either.
I discussed this with Bobby Siravo (www.ifitgolf.com) at the PGA Merchandise Show. The reason for the decline in muscleback blade production is that they simply do not sell well. But I believe that they do not sell well because the marketing and advertising of the products is piss poor.
First though, let’s go over the very basic difference between Muscleback and Cavity Back
CAVITY BACK AND MUSCLEBACK
The Ping Eye 2 is a ‘cavity back’ and the Hogan Apex Redline is a classic ‘muscleback’ iron. As you can see, the back part of the clubhead is different as the Ping Eye 2 has the back part ‘taken out’ (aka cavity) whereas the Hogan iron has the back of the club ‘in tact.’
The main idea is that with the cavity back, the mass behind the sweetspot is taken out so the toe and the heel will have more mass and thus making the club more forgiving. This would also get the Center of Gravity of the club lower on the face, so the golfer can more easily hit the ball higher in the air.
With the muscleback blade, the most amount of mass is right behind the clubhead.
THE STORY OF CAVITY BACK
From my experience, cavity back didn’t start to become big until the Ping Eye 2 came out in the early 1980’s. And then the popularity really increased when the Tommy Armou 845s came out in 1988.
The 845s were popular because the Ping Eye 2’s looked almost like a plastic children’s club whereas the 845’s, which still had a lot of offset (although progressive offset), looked more normal. And to help matters, they wound up signing popular golf Fred Couples to a large endorsement deal.
Back then, all cavity backs had a lot of offset and were cast irons, made from stainless steel. So the judgement from the general public back then was still that cavity backs, which had that large amount of offset, were still meant more towards the hacker because that offset would help the golfer get the club up in the air. That being said, there were more and more PGA Tour players using the Ping Eye 2 and Tommy Armour 845s.
One of the other concepts was the differences in feel. Back then, forged felt much softer than cast because the cast clubs were made from a much harder steel, usually something like 17-4 stainless steel. Whereas forged would be made from much softer steel like 1020, 1025 or 1030 carbon steel.
And back then, there were NO forged cavity backs. That didn’t happen until, ironically, Hogan came out with the forged Hogan Edge cavity back irons.
So back in the 80’s, musclebacks were the clubs of choice for more of the single digit handicappers and better because the perception of cavity backs were that they were more meant for the hacker and at that time they didn’t feel as good because the steel was harder.
HOGAN AND TITLEIST
What’s ironic about Hogan Company is that they were pretty much THE muscleback iron maker for roughly 3 decades. They were then the first company to come out with the forged cavity back which was well ahead of its time, but seemed to have led to their demise as well. Once the forged cavity back was made, then cavity backs no longer had that disadvantage of not feeling as good as the muscleback blade.
Then the Titleist 962 irons came along.
What many people who got into the game in the last ten years do not realize is that it was not all that long ago that Titleist was more or less known for their golf balls and golf gloves. They did make equipment, but for the most part it was not all that popular outside of the Tour Model muscleback irons which had lukewarm popularity. Probably the piece of equipment that was most popular for Acushnet was the Bullseye putter
Titleist actually made some regular DCI cavity back irons which had more popularity with the higher handicap players. But once the 962 was born, their iron sales took off. They then made a really nice looking titanium driver that looked more like a classic driver than the other titanium drivers. Then they added Foot-Joy, Scotty Cameron and Vokey and they are the company that you see today. But back in 1988, they were just the main golf ball company and that’s it.
Once those 962’s came along (particularly the smaller version 962B irons), we started to see cavity backs that followed that design of a smaller offset and a more classic design. Thus, between the Hogan Edge’s and the 962’s, now we had cavity backs that could offer a classic design or a forged feel. And eventually that led into today’s ‘player cavity backs’ which have a forged feel and more of a classic design.
CURRENT DAY MUSCLE BACK
As cavity back progressed, muscleback made changes as well. The muscleback irons of the 60’s and 70’s have very long hosels. In fact, my 1963 Hogan IPT’s have a 3” hosel. This hosel would also move the sweetspot up higher on the clubface and more towards the heel. Many people who have seen the personal clubs that Ben Hogan used have often remarked how there’s a spot on the club where the club is worn down, but it’s towards the heel of the club. Some people have made the erroneous claim that Hogan hit ‘heel cuts.’ But the reality is that he hit it flush, time after time, because the sweetspot of those irons was towards the heel. As an owner of four different sets of irons that have the long necks, I can assure you that the sweetspot is much more towards the heel.
Because of that higher CoG on the clubhead, they made the lofts weaker because the ball would launch too low with today’s modern lofts. But eventually the cavity backs were designed so the CoG was so low that the OEM’s then strengthened the lofts. This helped the ball travel further and eventually OEM’s started doing similar things with the muscleback blades.
What happened with today’s muscleback blades is they shortened the hosel and got the sweetspot more in the center of the clubhead and down lower on the face. This not only helped golfers get the ball up in the air easier, but it also made the current day blades more forgiving. Back in the 80’s, the worst thing you could do was mis-hit a muscleback blade on the toe of the club. Now the golfer can mis-hit the ball on the toe or the heel and still hit a reasonably decent shot.
This changing in the CoG’s also made forced OEM’s to lower the lofts of the clubs so they wouldn’t go too high. For instance, the ’88 Apex Redlines had a PW loft of 50*. Most of today’s PW’s with muscleback blades have a loft of 47 or 48*. What’s even crazier is that many of today’s cavity back irons have PW lofts of 45* and some go as strong as 43*!
SO WHY MUSCLEBACK?
That question still remains. Hopefully my answers will help the reader better understand why somebody may want to go to muscleback irons.
The common thing I hear about musclebacks is that ‘they are easier to work the ball with.’ I used to believe that as well, but I’m not so sure that’s really true. But this is much like the D-Plane talk when you hear PGA Tour pro Joe Schmoe tell the audience how they work the ball based off the ‘old’ ball flight laws, which are incorrect. The fact is that very few PGA Tour pros truly work the ball these days. For starters, most of them hit it almost dead straight. A ‘fade player’ or a ‘draw player’ on the PGA Tour will look almost dead straight to the average amateur when watching them in person.
And the PGA Tour players who do have a noticeable bend in their shots usually will never try to work the ball even if the hole calls for it. So if Rocco Mediate, who hits a sizeable draw, gets on a hole where it’s a pretty sharp dogleg right…he’s not going to try and hit a fade. He’s still going to hit his big draw. It’s much like the power, pull hitter in baseball who has the opposite side of the field wide open as the defense makes their shift. They will still try to pull the ball because that’s what they do best. And Rocco will try and hit the draw because that’s what he does best.
So the ‘working the ball’ talk is usually overblown. And I think it’s harder to work the ball these days anyway because the ball just seems to fly straighter these days.
THREE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE GOLF SWING
I believe that there are three fundamentals of the golf swing.
-Controlling the Clubface
-Controlling the Clubhead Path
-Controlling the Low Point
Let’s take a look at a pic I have of a CB Titleist 962 and a MB Bridgestone J33.
As you can see, the Bridgestone has a smaller head and a thinner sole. And because the Titleist is a cavity back, it has ‘perimeter weighting.’
I believe that hitting the golf ball is a *skill.* And when you don’t test your skills regularly, they start to erode until you sharpen them up again.
The clubface can be responsible for a lot of things that happen with a golf shot. A major one of them being sweetspot contact. Close your clubface and now you’re more likely to hit the ball off the toe of the club. But with perimeter weighting, you are more likely to get away with that toe hit and even WORSE, not feel it so bad.
Again, that’s a BAD thing for those looking to improve their golf swing because you cannot learn if you don’t feedback. When you don’t get feedback, you’ll just keep doing the wrong things.
Same with clubhead path. Particularly if you have a very inside-to-out clubhead path which is often caused when the golfer gets the handle too high at impact. That high handle means that the golfer has the club at a higher lie angle than the club was designed to have, thus they hit it off the toe.
But you will not feel that as badly if you have perimeter weighting.
The sole of the Titleist 962 is much thicker. This is done so if the golfer catches it a little fat, they can still get the clubhead thru the ball. Also, with the Center of Gravity of the Titleist being lower, the ball gets up in the air easier. So a golfer can hit it thin and still get it up in the air well.
However, this does not test the precision of the golfer’s low point. So over time the golfer is more likely to keep hitting it fat and/or thin because their low point control has eroded.
Then the cavity backs are often designed to make them go further with their low CoG and super strong lofts, so the golfer doesn’t need to have a swing that actually generates a lot of clubhead speed and instead can ‘let the club do all of the work.’ And the ability to generate speed with your swing will not be as sharp over time.
DISPERSION TEST DATA
This test done actually shows that not only do muscleback blades have a tighter dispersion with hitting it flush, but also on mis-hits as well. CLICK LINKS TO ENLARGE
PART I
PART II
PART III
PART IV
One of my readers, who was a former club designer for a popular OEM, said they had similar data as well. The only difference was on the mis-hits on the toe. But that may be just the way that particular muscleback iron was designed.
SYNOPSIS
Muscleback blades are advantageous to golfers with long term goals towards improving their golf swing mechanics because they test the golfer’s ability to control the clubface, clubhead path and low point. Musclebacks also have a tighter dispersion on sweetspot strikes. Much of the reason for the declining muscleback iron sales is due to poor advertising and the misconceptions towards muscleback irons that is the result of poor advertising.
I strongly believe that any single digit handicapper who is willing to put some effort to practice to improve their swing mechanics can hit blades reasonably well.
3JACK
Unfortunately, what we are seeing is less and less OEM’s making muscleback blades. Cleveland Golf makes a muscleback blade set with their new CGTour line, but it does not offer a muscleback option with the 3, 4 and 5-irons. Ping has never offered a true, muscleback blade (to my knowledge) and newer OEM’s like Tour Edge, Boccieri, Fourteen Golf, etc. do not offer a true muscleback blade option either.
I discussed this with Bobby Siravo (www.ifitgolf.com) at the PGA Merchandise Show. The reason for the decline in muscleback blade production is that they simply do not sell well. But I believe that they do not sell well because the marketing and advertising of the products is piss poor.
First though, let’s go over the very basic difference between Muscleback and Cavity Back
CAVITY BACK AND MUSCLEBACK
The Ping Eye 2 is a ‘cavity back’ and the Hogan Apex Redline is a classic ‘muscleback’ iron. As you can see, the back part of the clubhead is different as the Ping Eye 2 has the back part ‘taken out’ (aka cavity) whereas the Hogan iron has the back of the club ‘in tact.’
The main idea is that with the cavity back, the mass behind the sweetspot is taken out so the toe and the heel will have more mass and thus making the club more forgiving. This would also get the Center of Gravity of the club lower on the face, so the golfer can more easily hit the ball higher in the air.
With the muscleback blade, the most amount of mass is right behind the clubhead.
THE STORY OF CAVITY BACK
From my experience, cavity back didn’t start to become big until the Ping Eye 2 came out in the early 1980’s. And then the popularity really increased when the Tommy Armou 845s came out in 1988.
The 845s were popular because the Ping Eye 2’s looked almost like a plastic children’s club whereas the 845’s, which still had a lot of offset (although progressive offset), looked more normal. And to help matters, they wound up signing popular golf Fred Couples to a large endorsement deal.
Back then, all cavity backs had a lot of offset and were cast irons, made from stainless steel. So the judgement from the general public back then was still that cavity backs, which had that large amount of offset, were still meant more towards the hacker because that offset would help the golfer get the club up in the air. That being said, there were more and more PGA Tour players using the Ping Eye 2 and Tommy Armour 845s.
One of the other concepts was the differences in feel. Back then, forged felt much softer than cast because the cast clubs were made from a much harder steel, usually something like 17-4 stainless steel. Whereas forged would be made from much softer steel like 1020, 1025 or 1030 carbon steel.
And back then, there were NO forged cavity backs. That didn’t happen until, ironically, Hogan came out with the forged Hogan Edge cavity back irons.
So back in the 80’s, musclebacks were the clubs of choice for more of the single digit handicappers and better because the perception of cavity backs were that they were more meant for the hacker and at that time they didn’t feel as good because the steel was harder.
HOGAN AND TITLEIST
What’s ironic about Hogan Company is that they were pretty much THE muscleback iron maker for roughly 3 decades. They were then the first company to come out with the forged cavity back which was well ahead of its time, but seemed to have led to their demise as well. Once the forged cavity back was made, then cavity backs no longer had that disadvantage of not feeling as good as the muscleback blade.
Then the Titleist 962 irons came along.
What many people who got into the game in the last ten years do not realize is that it was not all that long ago that Titleist was more or less known for their golf balls and golf gloves. They did make equipment, but for the most part it was not all that popular outside of the Tour Model muscleback irons which had lukewarm popularity. Probably the piece of equipment that was most popular for Acushnet was the Bullseye putter
Titleist actually made some regular DCI cavity back irons which had more popularity with the higher handicap players. But once the 962 was born, their iron sales took off. They then made a really nice looking titanium driver that looked more like a classic driver than the other titanium drivers. Then they added Foot-Joy, Scotty Cameron and Vokey and they are the company that you see today. But back in 1988, they were just the main golf ball company and that’s it.
Once those 962’s came along (particularly the smaller version 962B irons), we started to see cavity backs that followed that design of a smaller offset and a more classic design. Thus, between the Hogan Edge’s and the 962’s, now we had cavity backs that could offer a classic design or a forged feel. And eventually that led into today’s ‘player cavity backs’ which have a forged feel and more of a classic design.
CURRENT DAY MUSCLE BACK
As cavity back progressed, muscleback made changes as well. The muscleback irons of the 60’s and 70’s have very long hosels. In fact, my 1963 Hogan IPT’s have a 3” hosel. This hosel would also move the sweetspot up higher on the clubface and more towards the heel. Many people who have seen the personal clubs that Ben Hogan used have often remarked how there’s a spot on the club where the club is worn down, but it’s towards the heel of the club. Some people have made the erroneous claim that Hogan hit ‘heel cuts.’ But the reality is that he hit it flush, time after time, because the sweetspot of those irons was towards the heel. As an owner of four different sets of irons that have the long necks, I can assure you that the sweetspot is much more towards the heel.
Because of that higher CoG on the clubhead, they made the lofts weaker because the ball would launch too low with today’s modern lofts. But eventually the cavity backs were designed so the CoG was so low that the OEM’s then strengthened the lofts. This helped the ball travel further and eventually OEM’s started doing similar things with the muscleback blades.
What happened with today’s muscleback blades is they shortened the hosel and got the sweetspot more in the center of the clubhead and down lower on the face. This not only helped golfers get the ball up in the air easier, but it also made the current day blades more forgiving. Back in the 80’s, the worst thing you could do was mis-hit a muscleback blade on the toe of the club. Now the golfer can mis-hit the ball on the toe or the heel and still hit a reasonably decent shot.
This changing in the CoG’s also made forced OEM’s to lower the lofts of the clubs so they wouldn’t go too high. For instance, the ’88 Apex Redlines had a PW loft of 50*. Most of today’s PW’s with muscleback blades have a loft of 47 or 48*. What’s even crazier is that many of today’s cavity back irons have PW lofts of 45* and some go as strong as 43*!
SO WHY MUSCLEBACK?
That question still remains. Hopefully my answers will help the reader better understand why somebody may want to go to muscleback irons.
The common thing I hear about musclebacks is that ‘they are easier to work the ball with.’ I used to believe that as well, but I’m not so sure that’s really true. But this is much like the D-Plane talk when you hear PGA Tour pro Joe Schmoe tell the audience how they work the ball based off the ‘old’ ball flight laws, which are incorrect. The fact is that very few PGA Tour pros truly work the ball these days. For starters, most of them hit it almost dead straight. A ‘fade player’ or a ‘draw player’ on the PGA Tour will look almost dead straight to the average amateur when watching them in person.
And the PGA Tour players who do have a noticeable bend in their shots usually will never try to work the ball even if the hole calls for it. So if Rocco Mediate, who hits a sizeable draw, gets on a hole where it’s a pretty sharp dogleg right…he’s not going to try and hit a fade. He’s still going to hit his big draw. It’s much like the power, pull hitter in baseball who has the opposite side of the field wide open as the defense makes their shift. They will still try to pull the ball because that’s what they do best. And Rocco will try and hit the draw because that’s what he does best.
So the ‘working the ball’ talk is usually overblown. And I think it’s harder to work the ball these days anyway because the ball just seems to fly straighter these days.
THREE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE GOLF SWING
I believe that there are three fundamentals of the golf swing.
-Controlling the Clubface
-Controlling the Clubhead Path
-Controlling the Low Point
Let’s take a look at a pic I have of a CB Titleist 962 and a MB Bridgestone J33.
As you can see, the Bridgestone has a smaller head and a thinner sole. And because the Titleist is a cavity back, it has ‘perimeter weighting.’
I believe that hitting the golf ball is a *skill.* And when you don’t test your skills regularly, they start to erode until you sharpen them up again.
The clubface can be responsible for a lot of things that happen with a golf shot. A major one of them being sweetspot contact. Close your clubface and now you’re more likely to hit the ball off the toe of the club. But with perimeter weighting, you are more likely to get away with that toe hit and even WORSE, not feel it so bad.
Again, that’s a BAD thing for those looking to improve their golf swing because you cannot learn if you don’t feedback. When you don’t get feedback, you’ll just keep doing the wrong things.
Same with clubhead path. Particularly if you have a very inside-to-out clubhead path which is often caused when the golfer gets the handle too high at impact. That high handle means that the golfer has the club at a higher lie angle than the club was designed to have, thus they hit it off the toe.
But you will not feel that as badly if you have perimeter weighting.
The sole of the Titleist 962 is much thicker. This is done so if the golfer catches it a little fat, they can still get the clubhead thru the ball. Also, with the Center of Gravity of the Titleist being lower, the ball gets up in the air easier. So a golfer can hit it thin and still get it up in the air well.
However, this does not test the precision of the golfer’s low point. So over time the golfer is more likely to keep hitting it fat and/or thin because their low point control has eroded.
Then the cavity backs are often designed to make them go further with their low CoG and super strong lofts, so the golfer doesn’t need to have a swing that actually generates a lot of clubhead speed and instead can ‘let the club do all of the work.’ And the ability to generate speed with your swing will not be as sharp over time.
DISPERSION TEST DATA
This test done actually shows that not only do muscleback blades have a tighter dispersion with hitting it flush, but also on mis-hits as well. CLICK LINKS TO ENLARGE
PART I
PART II
PART III
PART IV
One of my readers, who was a former club designer for a popular OEM, said they had similar data as well. The only difference was on the mis-hits on the toe. But that may be just the way that particular muscleback iron was designed.
SYNOPSIS
Muscleback blades are advantageous to golfers with long term goals towards improving their golf swing mechanics because they test the golfer’s ability to control the clubface, clubhead path and low point. Musclebacks also have a tighter dispersion on sweetspot strikes. Much of the reason for the declining muscleback iron sales is due to poor advertising and the misconceptions towards muscleback irons that is the result of poor advertising.
I strongly believe that any single digit handicapper who is willing to put some effort to practice to improve their swing mechanics can hit blades reasonably well.
3JACK
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Callaway Razr Hawk vs. Taylor Made R11
Friends of the 3Jack blog, IFitGolf (www.ifitgolf.com) just made a video comparing the new Callaway Razr Hawk and Taylor Made R11 drivers.
3JACK
3JACK
Monday, February 14, 2011
In Defense of Foley versus Riggs
Here was a recent article from Golf Magazine’s Top 100 teacher Brady Riggs titled ‘Copy Tiger Woods’ New Swing At Your Own Risk’
http://www.golf.com/golf/instruction/article/0,28136,2044122,00.html
Here are some excerpts and my responses/thoughts to them.
This swing change has occurred during what is easily the worst ball-striking stretch of Tiger's career.While true, a bit misleading. It comes off as the swing change itself caused Tiger’s worst ballstriking stretch of his career. Perhaps Riggs didn’t intend to have it come off this way. My belief is his worst ballstriking of his career happened before Haney quit and Tiger decided to change. Particularly at the 2010 Players Championship where Tiger was hitting pop ups with his then Haney swing.
The most intriguing aspect of this latest guru change is Tiger's choice to go to another "method" teacher in Foley, instead of someone like HarmonButch is far, far more ‘method’ teacher than Foley is. Butch teaches the same grip, same ‘straight back posture’, same widen the stance, same ball position, same ‘wide backswing and wide downswing.’ Foley seems to want a centered pivot action, avoid having the ‘flying right elbow’, and wants the ‘shoulders to turn in a circle’ from what I have watched in his new DVD.
To me, there’s noticeable differences in 2 students of Foley’s…Justin Rose and Hunter Mahan
Seriously, does this sound like a guy that teaches everybody the same?
Sean O’Hair can swing the way he does because of his flexibility, whereas Stephen Ames has to swing at it a little differently to get the same shot shape because of what he brings to the table with his body type. The reason no golf swing will ever look truly the same is that people’s hand length and arm length and strength and flexibility and how their body does or doesn’t work are going to be different. - Sean Foley
Haney and Foley share some similarities as teachers. Their students' swings tend to look the same because they work off a specific swing modelI’m not really sure what model Haney uses. I see Haney as a ‘method’ instructor because he virtually teaches every student almost the same things. Foley’s model seems like S&T without the pelvic thrust. But I don’t see it modeled after one single golfer and Riggs doesn’t mention it either, giving an indication that there really isn’t a model.
Rather than copying the swing of fellow-Foley student O'Hair, I would have chosen the swing that already produced major championshipsSo you complain about an instructor who follows a certain model because it’s ‘method teaching’ and then tell the world you would have him copy a swing that already produced major championships? Ben Crenshaw’s swing has produced major championships….should Tiger follow that instead?
And is it impossible to believe that Foley may be following the components of a swing that have won Majors?
Tiger is now pivoting over his front foot.This is just incorrect. His pivot is centered. If you don’t like a centered pivot, so be it. But he’s not turning over his front foot, not even close.
This is in sharp contrast to his swing of the early 00's, when his weight was balanced at the top on both feet. For most amateurs this will only make your steep angle of attack worse, especially with the driver.His attack angle actually increased and got steeper with the driver in the Haney swing which moved much more off the ball in the backswing. His backswing pivot is more centered now and he’s actually found ways to shallow out his attack angle and gain distance with the driver because he’s not hitting so far down on it anymore.
and when your hips are as fast as Tiger's on the downswing, the lack of width at the top throws the swing out of sync
I feel this is irrational from a biomechanical perspective. Width of what at the top?
Tiger has lost his "go-to" shot. At the height of his powers, when Woods needed to hit a fairway and get his round back on track, he always had the stinger. While it remains to be seen if Tiger has brought the shot back into his arsenal, the rest of the Tour hopes it continues to gather dust. Amateurs should always work on a go-to shot they can count on when the pressure's on. Like Tiger, if you force the swing that isn't working, expect the worst.While the stinger is a nice shot to have, don’t blame Foley for that as that stinger was long gone before Foley ever entered the picture. And I believe losing his driver accuracy (which he had under Harmon) is far bigger than losing his stinger and if I were competing against Tiger, I would rather see him lose his driver than his stinger.
Furthermore, Tiger has one of the worst carry efficiency’s with the driver in the game (total carry distance / clubhead speed = carry efficiency) which means he hits the ball extremely low.
In fact, Tiger in 2009 (last time he qualified statistically) finished 10th on the Tour in swing speed and was only 1 mph off from finishing in the top 5 in swing speed.
To me, Tiger is still a good overall iron player who is great with his wedges and hitting shots around the greens. His putting has dropped off (another one of his problems), but his driver is still a major issue. His problems up to the Foley swing change was that his driver would take him out of play for his approach shot to the green too often. Thus it would negate a strength of his (good iron play). Or what it would do…as shown in the 2009 PGA Championship…was he would be forced to hit shorter clubs off the tee to keep the ball in play, which he could, but then he would be hitting longer irons into his approaches.
Right now he seems more accurate with his driver, although I wouldn’t mistake him for Calvin Peete anytime soon. But, his driving distance is more or less ‘pretty good’ by PGA Tour standards instead of ‘scary long’ or ‘stupid long’ as he called Dustin Johnson, a guy who only generates about 1.5 mph more clubhead speed than he does (Dustin launches it completely better).
Truth is, Tiger probably should’ve never switched away from Butch Harmon in the first place. His ballstriking statistics were borderline insane during then. But that ship has sailed and he’s sought instruction from a very good instructor. I find Riggs’ arguments to be inaccurate and illogical.
3JACK
Saturday, February 12, 2011
FlightScope X2
Friend of the blog, John Graham (www.johngrahamgolf.com) and his demo of the new FlightScope X2 product at the PGA Merchandise Show.
The previous FlightScope products had claimed to be just as accurate as Trackman. However, their numbers for clubhead data...particularly the attack angle, did not quite represent this.
In particular, FlightScope had issues with showing a positive attack angle number on shot hit with an iron, even if they clearly took a divot.
However, as this video shows, the X2 does not have that problem. We'll be waiting to get a side-by-side from a reputable person like John, but this is exciting news as FlightScope X2 costs about 1/3rd the price of Trackman.
I'll try to keep you updated on this.
3JACK
The previous FlightScope products had claimed to be just as accurate as Trackman. However, their numbers for clubhead data...particularly the attack angle, did not quite represent this.
In particular, FlightScope had issues with showing a positive attack angle number on shot hit with an iron, even if they clearly took a divot.
However, as this video shows, the X2 does not have that problem. We'll be waiting to get a side-by-side from a reputable person like John, but this is exciting news as FlightScope X2 costs about 1/3rd the price of Trackman.
I'll try to keep you updated on this.
3JACK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)