Must Read: Wishon Report on Adjustable Drivers

This is a must read for golfers.  Tom Wishon examines the adjustable driver heads and if they really adjust the loft and face angle like they claim:

http://wishongolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/adjustable-hosel-drivers.pdf







3JACK

New GolfWRX Column: 23 Golfers That Can Win the Masters

As the world’s most popular golf tournament plays this week, I wanted to give a rundown of the Masters from a statistical perspective.

First, I want to discuss what I call the “Critical Holes” in a golf tournament. These are holes that based on tournament history are where the top finishers have gained the most strokes versus the field. For Augusta, they are Nos. 7, 12, 15, 17 and 18. So as you are tracking the tournament, I would key in on these particular holes as they have the largest influence on a golfer’s success at Augusta.

The neat thing about the Masters is it is a limited field, and we can immediately eliminate about one fifth of the field as not having a realistic chance of winning the tournament. I would put these as most of the past champions and the amateurs.

Read More: http://www.golfwrx.com/82203/the-23-golfers-who-can-win-the-masters/

Diagonal Sweetspot Path with 5 Simple Keys

3JACK

Radius Roll Putter Review

Recently, I was introduced the Radius Roll Putter line.

The idea behind the Radius Roll putter line is that the putter face is convex instead of flat. This is designed to produce a better roll with the putter by reducing the amount of skid on a putt.

Here’s a video from Radius Roll Putters showing the difference in skid between their putters and conventional putters.



The design concept is not exactly new:



Teardrop Putters utilized a similar design with the convex putter face.

However, the Teardrop putters did not have very appealing designs, the weight felt funny and they did not utilize precise CNC milling. The Radius Roll putter is made from 303 stainless steel which is a soft stainless steel. It also comes in a variety of different head designs like an Anser style model, some mallet and face balanced models.



They also have heel shafted, offset and center shafted putter designs.

I putted with the Radius Roll and found that it rolls the putts quite a bit further than my Edel putter. It’s also excellent on short putts since the lack of skid gets the ball rolling where you want it to roll immediately.

For those of you who have tried the Teardrop putter, I would give this a shot because it’s an entirely better product than the Teardrop design. And if you’re looking to reduce your skid with the putter, then you may want to take a look at these putters as well.

You can find the Radius Roll putters on their Web site at www.rbputters.com . Their price range is $130 to $205 depending on what model you want.






3JACK

The Road to Golf Club Fitting Nirvana - Part II

In part I, I discussed the basics of MOI matching/fitting and MOI Balance Index. For this part, I will examine the spreadsheet created by Monte Doherty with regards to determine the MOI Balance Index of the club. The spreadsheet is available for a free download here:

http://www.agcpgolf.com/gcv2p5.xls

The spreadsheet took Doherty over 3 years to create in order to tweak the formulas and the formatting of the spreadsheet. On the bottom of the spreadsheet you will see what they call ‘tabs’ in MS Excel. This is like going to a new page in Excel. We want to read the first tab called ‘Instructions.’ Then ‘AppNotes’ and ‘Tools.’ You can go to the ‘Theory’ tab if you’re looking for a little more detail on MOI matching and MOI Balance Index, but it’s not mandatory to read. I would then turn my attention to the tab called MBICalc. This tab is the very basic form the Calculator to determine the MOI Balance Index.

(Click to ENLARGE)


There are 7 different calculations that the calculator uses to determine MBI

Shaft + Grip MOI
Shaft + Grip Weight
Total Club MOI
Club Weight
Club Balance Point
Head Self MOI
Low MOI Correction (Relatively Unimportant)

In this case, the numbers inputted by Doherty are for his Driver. And the MBI comes out to 49.85. But one thing we have to note before I move on. The head design of a club influences the balance point.

This is called ‘Head Self MOI’.

As we can see, a driver will have a different Head Self MOI than a fairway wood/hybrid which have different Head Self MOI’s than a Super Game Improvement iron which is different from a regular cavity back which is different from a muscleback blade style of iron.

Since the MBI calculator has Doherty’s Driver calculations in there; let’s go to the tab on the left that is called ‘919_Driver’.

(Click to ENLARGE)


You have a choice of simply allowing this spreadsheet determine the MBI for you or using the data and inputting that into the MBICalc spreadsheet.

You will notice that the MBI is not the same as the MBICalc spreadsheet show. The difference is 49.88 vs. 49.85. That’s only a difference of 0.03 and that is more than acceptable for margin of error.

Any of the cells in spreadsheet that are white (no color) are cells that we will input the data into. If the cell is colored, that is a cell we leave alone because it has formulas involved with it. If you want, you can simply change the numbers in one of the white cells and you will see how that changes the other numbers in cells where there is a formula.

For example, if you go to the right where it says ‘Loft & Lie’, click on the box that says ‘Adjust Loft/Lie.’

In the cell that says ‘Current Lie’ and has a lie angle of 58.0°; change that to 56°. Notice how the MBI goes from 49.88 to 49.83. And the club’s total MOI in cell D23 goes from 2,829.45 to 2,836.25. Just in case you’re wondering, if the lie angle changes that will alter the total club MOI. In this case, by flattening the lie angle by 2°, the club’s heft increases slightly. Conversely, if the lie angle was to get more upright, that makes the club’s heft a bit lighter.

So, if you’re using forged irons, one of the reasons to make sure the lie angles are in tact over the course of time is that it will affect the club’s heft.

But as we can see, we have a section for some basic Club Head information in the top left corner.

Then we have a section for the shaft information. This is a bit more complex because it wants the balance point of the stand-alone shaft and the balance point of the shaft with the head on.

And then we have a section for the grip which not only includes the weight, but the cap thickness and the balance point of the grip (no shaft) as well. This information is recorded because it affects the clubs MBI. Theoretically, you could have 2 grips that weigh exactly the same, but one is more ‘cap heavy’ and that alters the MBI to some degree.

Also, if you go thru the tabs for the irons, you will see that with his 9-iron, PW, and AW he ended up changing out the shaft, going to a similar model shaft, but heavier.

Look at tab labeled ‘PW’. You will notice in cell H11 that the MBI is 58.71. That leaves a difference from the optimal MOI of 7.68. This means that the MBI is a bit too much towards the head from what the target MBI has.

The issue here is that we need to keep the Total Club MOI in tact while being able to move the MBI closer to the target MBI. That’s where Doherty uses a heavier shaft model, going from a SK Fiber 95 gram model to a SK Fiber 100 gram model shaft.

From what I’ve been told, you can expect that with balancing a set of clubs. The short irons will require a bit heavier shaft and the 3 or 4-iron may require a bit lighter shaft.

To finish this part off, you can go to the ‘Summary’ tab and see that each club is automatically updated. And if you look at Doherty’s notes (which you can put your own notes in), he discusses how the clubs that that have a negative balance (more shaft/grip heavy) tend to produce more of an inside-to-out path while the clubs that have a positive balance (more head heavy) tend to produce a more outside-to-in path







3JACK

3Jack Golf's PGA Tour Rundown - Week 13

D.A. Points wins the Shell Houston Open.



I almost pulled of a giant pick with Jason Kokrak at 400/1 odds. Here's how my picks did at the Shell Houston Open:

Keegan Bradley: 12/1 (t-10th)
Phil Mickelson: 16/1 (t-16th)
Dustin Johnson: 25/1 (t-4th)
Charles Howell III: 50/1 (t-10th)
Boo Weekley: 80/1 (t-45th)
Graham DeLaet: 80/1 (t-31st)
Sean O'Hair: 100/1 (WD)
Charlie Beljan: 200/1 (t-38th)
Tag Ridings: 250/1 (MC)

Value Pick: Jason Kokrak 400/1 (9th)


Here are my picks for the Valero Texas Open:

Matt Kuchar: 12/1
Fredrik Jacobson: 25/1
Cameron Tringale: 28/1
Jordan Spieth: 35/1
Chris Kirk: 40/1
Jimmy Walker: 40/1
Billy Horschel: 50/1
Aaron Baddeley: 66/1
Brian Gay: 80/1

Value Pick: Jerry Kelly: 125/1


Here's a glimpse at the updated rankings:

DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS



1. Spieth, Jordan
2. Weekley, Boo
3. Palmer, Ryan
4. Bradley, Keegan
5. Mahan, Hunter
6. Stenson, Henrik
7. Streelman, Kevin
8. Duke, Ken
9. Potter, Jr., Ted
10. Maggert, Jeff


171. Noh, Seung-Yul
172. Wagner, Johnson
173. Wittenberg, Casey
174. Bradley, Michael
175. Williams, Lee
176. Curtis, Ben
177. Herron, Tim
178. Baddeley, Aaron
179. Na, Kevin
180. Weir, Mike


BIRDIE ZONE



1. Chappell, Kevin
2. Wi, Charlie
3. Noh, Seung-Yul
4. Taylor, Vaughn
5. List, Luke
6. Claxton, Will
7. Clark, Tim
8. Cink, Stewart
9. Molder, Bryce
10. Bradley, Michael


171. Curtis, Ben
172. Gardiner, Scott
173. Goosen, Retief
174. Potter, Jr., Ted
175. Poulter, Ian
176. Romero, Andres
177. Thompson, Michael
178. Marino, Steve
179. Blixt, Jonas
180. Kaymer, Martin


SAFE ZONE



1. Sabbatini, Rory
2. Van Pelt, Bo
3. Hicks, Justin
4. Reavie, Chez
5. Mickelson, Phil
6. Leonard, Justin
7. Every, Matt
8. Duke, Ken
9. Fisher, Ross
10. Kirk, Chris


171. List, Luke
172. Day, Jason
173. Ridings, Tag
174. Senden, John
175. Claxton, Will
176. Coetzee, George
177. Daly, John
178. Jobe, Brandt
179. Klauk, Jeff
180. Herman, Jim


DANGER ZONE



1. Garrigus, Robert
2. Kohles, Ben
3. Spieth, Jordan
4. Maggert, Jeff
5. Palmer, Ryan
6. Leishman, Marc
7. Percy, Cameron
8. Pride, Dicky
9. Watney, Nick
10. Merrick, John


171. Johnson, Dustin
172. Meierdierks, Eric
173. Klauk, Jeff
174. List, Luke
175. Kelly, Troy
176. Potter, Jr., Ted
177. Weir, Mike
178. Marino, Steve
179. Na, Kevin
180. Taylor, Vaughn



SHORT GAME PLAY

1. Stenson, Henrik
2. Leonard, Justin
3. McDowell, Graeme
4. Mickelson, Phil
5. Cauley, Bud
6. Els, Ernie
7. Estes, Bob
8. Villegas, Camilo
9. Kelly, Jerry
10. Garcia, Sergio


171. Fisher, Ross
172. Henry, J.J.
173. Meierdierks, Eric
174. Hoffman, Charley
175. Sabbatini, Rory
176. McNeill, George
177. Lee, Richard
178. Norlander, Henrik
179. Garrigus, Robert
180. Short, Jr., Wes


PUTTS GAINED

1. Woods, Tiger
2. Ames, Stephen
3. Chalmers, Greg
4. Jacobson, Freddie
5. Kirk, Chris
6. Molder, Bryce
7. Baddeley, Aaron
8. Coetzee, George
9. Na, Kevin
10. Kelly, Jerry


171. Glover, Lucas
172. Short, Jr., Wes
173. Mathis, David
174. LeBrun, Steve
175. Sabbatini, Rory
176. Claxton, Will
177. Colsaerts, Nicolas
178. Ishikawa, Ryo
179. Stanley, Kyle
180. Daly, John





3JACK

The Road to Golf Club Fitting Nirvana - Part I

Over the years I have delved quite a bit into clubfitting in hopes to find the best answers to equipment. We have looked at MOI matching, lie angles, lofts, shaft lengths, shaft bend profiles, grips, cavity back vs. muscle back designs and a host of other aspects about equipment design and how it fits the golfer. Now, I am getting into MOI Balance Index.

First, let’s go over the basics of MOI matching/fitting and MOI Balance Index. For those who have read this before, they can skip this post.

MOI Matching/Fitting: Typically when MOI is discussed with golf clubs it is with reference to the club head. What we are referencing here is the MOI of the entire golf club. We use total club MOI to help determine the heft of the club. Swingweight does the same thing, but there are many parts of swingweight that are faulty and do not accurately depict the heft of the club. That and swingweight is not a scientific measurement while MOI is a scientific measurement.

For a bit more specific details on total club MOI, I would recommend reading the MOI machine manual which can be found here: http://www.golfsmith.com/pdf/pp_copy/245246_information.pdf

But in simpler terms, when we measure the total club MOI we are trying to determine the amount of force required to swing the club. So when we fit for MOI, we are trying to match up the amount of force a golfer applies in their swing with the amount of force it requires to swing the club. When we properly fit and match for MOI, the impact dispersion will improve tremendously.



The other part that will improve is the ball flight. Although I find this to be more prevalent with the longer clubs like the driver. I have also found that golfers who struggle with topping a shot with a particular club usually have too much heft (too high of a MOI) and golfers who struggle with thin shots tend to have not enough heft (too low of a MOI). When the MOI fitting and matching is complete, the irons and wedges will have swingweights that get progressively heavier as the club gets shorter. It may look something similar to this:

3-iron: D-1.0
4-iron: D-1.7
5-iron: D-2.4
6-iron: D-3.0
7-iron: D-3.7
8-iron: D-4.5
9-iron: D-5.2
PW: D-5.9
SW: D-7.3
LW: D-8.0

MOI Balance Index: What many clubmakers like myself discovered when doing MOI fitting and matching is that while the impact dispersion will noticeably improve, there are still some clubs in the set that do not perform as well. Furthermore, we started to see that the weight of the components of the club (club head, shaft, grip) have different effects on golfers even if the MOI is exactly the same.

I noticed this with a particular customer of mine who’s optimal MOI with his irons is exactly the same as my optimal MOI with the irons (2,725).

For me, I hit the ball better with a 48-50 gram grip, a 108-118 gram shaft and more weight in the head. For my customer, Bill, he hits that same MOI better with much more weight in the grip and the shaft and less weight in the club head.

That is due to the Balance of the club being different and our swings working better with different balances. In my case, my swing works better with the balance of the club being more towards the club head. Bill’s swing works better with the balance of the club being more towards the grip.

This is mainly due to how we start the club down and when we un-cock the wrists. In essence, we are able to generate about the same amount of force in the golf swing; we just go about it in different ways. I have a smoother start down move, more of a ‘float loading’ style of action combined with a later un-cocking of the wrists into impact. Bill’s swing starts down more aggressively and his wrists un-cock earlier into impact.

It is sort of like 2 runners running a 100 meter dash at the same time, but with different ways to getting there. Bill gets out of the gates very fast. I get out of the gates slower, but accelerate more towards the finish line. But in the end, we arrive about the same time.

Whereas MOI fitting and matching greatly helps with ball flight along with horizontal face contact dispersion, MOI Balance index will help provide even more consistency, help with clubhead path consistency and vertical face contract dispersion.

This eventually led to the discussion of club maker Monte Doherty’s MOI Balance Index spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is available to the public at the link below:

http://www.agcpgolf.com/gcv2p5.xls

(I recommend saving the Excel file first to your computer, then opening it up. If you have 2010 MS Excel, a header will pop-up with a button called ‘Enable Editing.’ You will need to click that button in order to fool around with the spreadsheet. And you can only do that if the file has been saved to your computer.)

There’s a few things that are very noticeably in the spreadsheet. And in part II – I will go over the noticeable parts of the spreadsheet and how to understand how to use it.

For more information on MOI fitting and matching, check out clubmaker Richard Kempton's Web site at http://www.theclubdoctors.co.uk/moi_matching.html




3JACK