Ken Duke gets his first career PGA Tour victory at the Travelers:
Here is how my Travelers picks finished:
Justin Rose: 14/1 (t-13th)
Hunter Mahan: 16/1 (t-24th)
Lee Westwood: 18/1 (74th)
Jason Dufner: 20/1 (MC)
Tim Clark: 50/1 (t-58th)
Graham DeLaet: 66/1 (3rd)
Chez Reavie: 100/1 (t-43rd)
Matt Every: 100/1 (MC)
Kevin Stadler: 150/1 (t-51st)
Value Pick: Vijay Singh: 175/1 (t-43rd)
Here are my picks for the AT&T National:
Adam Scott: 10/1
Bo Van Pelt: 25/1
Graham DeLaet: 28/1
Charley Hoffman: 40/1
Freddie Jacobson: 50/1
Russell Henley: 50/1
Gary Woodland: 100/1
John Merrick: 125/1
Daniel Summerhays: 150/1
Value Pick: Ben Kohles 250/1
DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS
1. Rose, Justin
2. Mahan, Hunter
3. Bradley, Keegan
4. DeLaet, Graham
5. Weekley, Boo
6. Stenson, Henrik
7. Scott, Adam
8. Horschel, Billy
9. Reavie, Chez
10. Spieth, Jordan
176. Matteson, Troy
177. Haley II, Paul
178. Curtis, Ben
179. Wagner, Johnson
180. Williams, Lee
181. Herron, Tim
182. Bradley, Michael
183. Wittenberg, Casey
184. Baddeley, Aaron
185. Weir, Mike
BIRDIE ZONE
1. Wi, Charlie
2. Chappell, Kevin
3. Schwartzel, Charl
4. Haley II, Paul
5. Davis, Brian
6. Molder, Bryce
7. Clark, Tim
8. Scott, Adam
9. Snedeker, Brandt
10. Langley, Scott
176. Blixt, Jonas
177. Romero, Andres
178. Curtis, Ben
179. O'Hair, Sean
180. Gardiner, Scott
181. Daly, John
182. Stefani, Shawn
183. Jones, Matt
184. Kaymer, Martin
185. Gillis, Tom
SAFE ZONE
1. Mickelson, Phil
2. Duke, Ken
3. Kirk, Chris
4. Fisher, Ross
5. Reavie, Chez
6. Singh, Vijay
7. Scott, Adam
8. Yang, Y.E.
9. Maggert, Jeff
10. Stadler, Kevin
176. Presnell, Alistair
177. Streb, Robert
178. Marino, Steve
179. Ernst, Derek
180. Park, Jin
181. Daly, John
182. List, Luke
183. Baddeley, Aaron
184. Herman, Jim
185. Ridings, Tag
DANGER ZONE
1. Garrigus, Robert
2. Palmer, Ryan
3. Furyk, Jim
4. Presnell, Alistair
5. Weekley, Boo
6. Schwartzel, Charl
7. Colsaerts, Nicolas
8. Owen, Greg
9. Westwood, Lee
10. DeLaet, Graham
176. Wittenberg, Casey
177. Claxton, Will
178. Bowditch, Steven
179. Baddeley, Aaron
180. Gates, Bobby
181. Potter, Jr., Ted
182. Hanson, Peter
183. Watkins, Aaron
184. Taylor, Vaughn
185. Marino, Steve
SHORT GAME PLAY
1. Furyk, Jim
2. Kelly, Jerry
3. Johnson, Dustin
4. Stroud, Chris
5. Estes, Bob
6. Donald, Luke
7. Leonard, Justin
8. Villegas, Camilo
9. Woods, Tiger
10. Bowditch, Steven
176. Fisher, Ross
177. Wagner, Johnson
178. Gates, Bobby
179. Daly, John
180. Woodland, Gary
181. Herman, Jim
182. Colsaerts, Nicolas
183. Gardiner, Scott
184. Ernst, Derek
185. Meierdierks, Eric
PUTTS GAINED
1. Ames, Stephen
2. Garcia, Sergio
3. Chalmers, Greg
4. Baddeley, Aaron
5. Woods, Tiger
6. Donald, Luke
7. Hanson, Peter
8. Mickelson, Phil
9. Henley, Russell
10. Howell III, Charles
176. Mathis, David
177. Singh, Vijay
178. Glover, Lucas
179. Fisher, Ross
180. Claxton, Will
181. Castro, Roberto
182. Meierdierks, Eric
183. Owen, Greg
184. Tomasulo, Peter
185. Colsaerts, Nicolas
3JACK
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
The Road to Golf Club Fitting Nirvana - Part IX
Part I: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana.html
Part II: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_3.html
Part III: richie3jack.proboards.com/thread/4180
Part IV: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_16.html
Part V: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_23.html
Part VI: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_29.html
Part VII: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana.html
Part VIII: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_22.html
I am returning to this series after a bit of a layoff. Most of it was due to me getting my Sand Wedge grinded by Joe Kwok (www.joekwokgolf.com). The other part was to me installing a new driver head (still the same Wishon 919THI model) along with studying Monte Doherty’s worksheet some more.
One thing I figured out is a bit of a better way to understand MOI Balance Index (MBI). Here’s a chart showing each of my irons that are MBI matched. It shows the weight of the clubhead versus the weight of the shaft+grip. And then the percentage of shaft+grip weight to the clubhead weight.
(Click to Enlarge)
There is some significance to this:
1. We can see that the percentages are roughly at 58% to 62%. My target MBI is 38.0 to 42.0.
2. If we understand the ratio of shaft+grip to head weight, we can then get a better idea of how much the shaft will have to weigh given the weight of our club head and grip. For example, let’s say we have a driver head that weighs 208 grams. And we have a grip (w/grip tape included) that weighs 50 grams. If we want out shaft+grip to weigh 50% of the head weight, we know that our shaft (trimmed) will need to weigh *roughly* 54 grams:
50 g (grip) + 54 g (shaft) / 208 g (head) = 50%
Now, I say it is a ROUGH estimate because as you can see some of my irons stray from the 58%-62% shaft+grip versus clubhead ratio. This is the reason for Doherty’s spreadsheet as it factors in the balance point of the club along with the type of head design to calculate the rest.
The other part is that we STILL have to match the MOI of the clubs. So, in the driver example if we have a 208 gram driver head and a 50 gram grip, we could put a 54 gram shaft in there and get the percentage at 50%. But, if the MOI comes out to 2,700 and we need the MOI at 2,750; we need to add weight to the head and/or the shaft in order to match the MOI.
We’ll want to keep the percentage roughly at 50% still as we add weight so we match the MOI. In the end, the knowledge of the percentage of weight between the shaft+grip versus the clubhead gives us a START as to rough amount of shaft weight. And we can always add weight to either the head or the shaft. But, removing weight from the shaft or the head is a different story.
When I originally started this series, I had determined that I did not want to fool around with my Lob Wedge since I hit that very well. But, as I started to MOI and MBI match my irons and I liked the process, I decided to alter all of my clubs. In the end, I figured that if I started hitting my Lob Wedge worse with MBI matching, I could always go back to the old specs of the club.
Ironically, the Edel wedges were the clubs that initially got me into MOI Balance Index. When I first started hitting them, I was not hitting them as well as I did in the fitting. The heft of the clubs didn’t quite feel the same. I then measured the static weight of the clubs and noticed they were quite heavy despite being MOI matched. Later, I disassembled the clubs and noticed that Edel uses heads that are quite heavy. The Gap Wedge came in at 305.3 grams, the Sand Wedge at 307.4 grams and the Lob Wedge at 309.5 grams. The Sand Wedge and Lob Wedges are much heavier than any raw OEM wedge head that I’ve found. That is not a bad thing, but for optimal fitting there needs to be the right amount of head weight versus shaft weight and the right MOI.
My solution at the time was to try to match the MOI, but to lower the overall static weight. I did this by using a much lighter shaft in the Dynamic Gold SL model which is roughly 12 grams lighter than the originally installed KBS Tour C-Taper shafts. I started to hit the clubs a little better. But in conclusion, I had always been hitting the Lob Wedge well and I just struggled with the Sand Wedge.
Here is a look at the Sand Wedge specs BEFORE I sent it to Joe Kwok:
As we can see, the MOI matched. But, the Balance Index was WELL off (50.12 with a target of 38.0 to 42.0) and the % of the shaft+grip weight vs. Head weight was also well off (48.43% vs. 58% to 62%). Essentially, the Balance of the Club is well off for my swing and head was too heavy with relation to the shaft.
Often times with MBI matching, the solution is simple. Get a heavier shaft. So I tried to install my old KBS C-Taper shaft and found the following results (again, this is BEFORE I sent to wedge to Joe Kwok):
What we see is that the heavier KBS C-Taper shaft helped get the Balance Index down more towards the target (38.0 to 42.0). The problem was that the maximum weight I could add to the shaft in order to lower the Balance Index was 3 grams. Any more lead tape added to the shaft would cause the MOI to not match.
That’s when I started to determine that the weight of the head had to be lighter. And the only way to achieve that was thru having a professional club grinder to properly grind the head and take some of the weight off. Thankfully, with Doherty’s sheet I could determine roughly how much weight I should take off.
Here’s a picture of the head grind as Joe ground some off the head. The grind made a little indentation which is what I asked for:
And here are the new specs:
Joe was able to shave off about 5 grams off the head. I then added a little extra lead tape to get the head weight just right. This allowed me to add a lot of weight to the shaft and the end result was a MOI and MBI that matched. And in turn, I hit the Sand Wedge much better and it’s a full-time club in my bag.
One question I am sure that will arise is ‘why didn’t you just get a heavier shaft?’
Remember, we have 2 things that take precedent over MOI Balance Index matching:
- Matching the MOI of the entire club
- Getting the correct shaft bend profile for your swing
Without those two, Balance Index matching is virtually worthless. I just simply could not find a substantially heavier shaft that would allow me to match both the MOI and the Bend Profile.
With that said, Wishon’s new Shaft Bend Profile software was updated. And we found that his Wishon Stepless Steel (stiff) shafts have virtually an identical bend profile to the KBS C-Taper R+ shaft model. The Stiff flex model has a much stiffer tip section.
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
I know when I tried the C-Tapers out in my irons with a Stiff flex, I was losing about 1-club of distance. I also know that as far as the flex labels go, Wishon’s shafts tend to play quite a bit stiffer than most OEM shafts. So, if the KBS C-Tapers play stiffer than the Wishon shafts, you’re really dealing with a very stiff shaft.
Anyway, while I’m pleased with the wedges and the changes made by Joe Kwok. I plan on installing the KBS C-Taper R+ shafts soon and I think then we have found the ultimate fit for these wedges.
3JACK
Part II: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_3.html
Part III: richie3jack.proboards.com/thread/4180
Part IV: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_16.html
Part V: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_23.html
Part VI: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_29.html
Part VII: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana.html
Part VIII: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-road-to-golf-club-fitting-nirvana_22.html
I am returning to this series after a bit of a layoff. Most of it was due to me getting my Sand Wedge grinded by Joe Kwok (www.joekwokgolf.com). The other part was to me installing a new driver head (still the same Wishon 919THI model) along with studying Monte Doherty’s worksheet some more.
One thing I figured out is a bit of a better way to understand MOI Balance Index (MBI). Here’s a chart showing each of my irons that are MBI matched. It shows the weight of the clubhead versus the weight of the shaft+grip. And then the percentage of shaft+grip weight to the clubhead weight.
(Click to Enlarge)
There is some significance to this:
1. We can see that the percentages are roughly at 58% to 62%. My target MBI is 38.0 to 42.0.
2. If we understand the ratio of shaft+grip to head weight, we can then get a better idea of how much the shaft will have to weigh given the weight of our club head and grip. For example, let’s say we have a driver head that weighs 208 grams. And we have a grip (w/grip tape included) that weighs 50 grams. If we want out shaft+grip to weigh 50% of the head weight, we know that our shaft (trimmed) will need to weigh *roughly* 54 grams:
50 g (grip) + 54 g (shaft) / 208 g (head) = 50%
Now, I say it is a ROUGH estimate because as you can see some of my irons stray from the 58%-62% shaft+grip versus clubhead ratio. This is the reason for Doherty’s spreadsheet as it factors in the balance point of the club along with the type of head design to calculate the rest.
The other part is that we STILL have to match the MOI of the clubs. So, in the driver example if we have a 208 gram driver head and a 50 gram grip, we could put a 54 gram shaft in there and get the percentage at 50%. But, if the MOI comes out to 2,700 and we need the MOI at 2,750; we need to add weight to the head and/or the shaft in order to match the MOI.
We’ll want to keep the percentage roughly at 50% still as we add weight so we match the MOI. In the end, the knowledge of the percentage of weight between the shaft+grip versus the clubhead gives us a START as to rough amount of shaft weight. And we can always add weight to either the head or the shaft. But, removing weight from the shaft or the head is a different story.
***
When I originally started this series, I had determined that I did not want to fool around with my Lob Wedge since I hit that very well. But, as I started to MOI and MBI match my irons and I liked the process, I decided to alter all of my clubs. In the end, I figured that if I started hitting my Lob Wedge worse with MBI matching, I could always go back to the old specs of the club.
Ironically, the Edel wedges were the clubs that initially got me into MOI Balance Index. When I first started hitting them, I was not hitting them as well as I did in the fitting. The heft of the clubs didn’t quite feel the same. I then measured the static weight of the clubs and noticed they were quite heavy despite being MOI matched. Later, I disassembled the clubs and noticed that Edel uses heads that are quite heavy. The Gap Wedge came in at 305.3 grams, the Sand Wedge at 307.4 grams and the Lob Wedge at 309.5 grams. The Sand Wedge and Lob Wedges are much heavier than any raw OEM wedge head that I’ve found. That is not a bad thing, but for optimal fitting there needs to be the right amount of head weight versus shaft weight and the right MOI.
My solution at the time was to try to match the MOI, but to lower the overall static weight. I did this by using a much lighter shaft in the Dynamic Gold SL model which is roughly 12 grams lighter than the originally installed KBS Tour C-Taper shafts. I started to hit the clubs a little better. But in conclusion, I had always been hitting the Lob Wedge well and I just struggled with the Sand Wedge.
Here is a look at the Sand Wedge specs BEFORE I sent it to Joe Kwok:
As we can see, the MOI matched. But, the Balance Index was WELL off (50.12 with a target of 38.0 to 42.0) and the % of the shaft+grip weight vs. Head weight was also well off (48.43% vs. 58% to 62%). Essentially, the Balance of the Club is well off for my swing and head was too heavy with relation to the shaft.
Often times with MBI matching, the solution is simple. Get a heavier shaft. So I tried to install my old KBS C-Taper shaft and found the following results (again, this is BEFORE I sent to wedge to Joe Kwok):
What we see is that the heavier KBS C-Taper shaft helped get the Balance Index down more towards the target (38.0 to 42.0). The problem was that the maximum weight I could add to the shaft in order to lower the Balance Index was 3 grams. Any more lead tape added to the shaft would cause the MOI to not match.
That’s when I started to determine that the weight of the head had to be lighter. And the only way to achieve that was thru having a professional club grinder to properly grind the head and take some of the weight off. Thankfully, with Doherty’s sheet I could determine roughly how much weight I should take off.
Here’s a picture of the head grind as Joe ground some off the head. The grind made a little indentation which is what I asked for:
And here are the new specs:
Joe was able to shave off about 5 grams off the head. I then added a little extra lead tape to get the head weight just right. This allowed me to add a lot of weight to the shaft and the end result was a MOI and MBI that matched. And in turn, I hit the Sand Wedge much better and it’s a full-time club in my bag.
One question I am sure that will arise is ‘why didn’t you just get a heavier shaft?’
Remember, we have 2 things that take precedent over MOI Balance Index matching:
- Matching the MOI of the entire club
- Getting the correct shaft bend profile for your swing
Without those two, Balance Index matching is virtually worthless. I just simply could not find a substantially heavier shaft that would allow me to match both the MOI and the Bend Profile.
With that said, Wishon’s new Shaft Bend Profile software was updated. And we found that his Wishon Stepless Steel (stiff) shafts have virtually an identical bend profile to the KBS C-Taper R+ shaft model. The Stiff flex model has a much stiffer tip section.
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
I know when I tried the C-Tapers out in my irons with a Stiff flex, I was losing about 1-club of distance. I also know that as far as the flex labels go, Wishon’s shafts tend to play quite a bit stiffer than most OEM shafts. So, if the KBS C-Tapers play stiffer than the Wishon shafts, you’re really dealing with a very stiff shaft.
Anyway, while I’m pleased with the wedges and the changes made by Joe Kwok. I plan on installing the KBS C-Taper R+ shafts soon and I think then we have found the ultimate fit for these wedges.
3JACK
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
3Jack Golf's Quickie PGA Tour Rundown - Week 24
Justin Rose won the US Open:
Since ShotLink does not operate at the US Open, there is no update as far as the rankings go. Here are how my US Open picks finished
Graeme McDowell: 20/1 (MC)
Matt Kuchar: 20/1 (t-28th)
Justin Rose: 22/1 (1st)
Charl Schwartzel: 28/1 (14th)
Jim Furyk: 40/1 (MC)
Boo Weekley: 100/1 (MC)
Kevin Chappell: 100/1 (t-32nd)
Ryan Palmer: 100/1 (MC)
Kyle Stanley: 125/1 (t-73rd)
Value Pick: Justin Hicks 250/1 (MC)
Here are my picks for the Traveler's Championship
Justin Rose: 14/1
Hunter Mahan: 16/1
Lee Westwood: 18/1
Jason Dufner: 20/1
Tim Clark: 50/1
Graham DeLaet: 66/1
Chez Reavie: 100/1
Matt Every: 100/1
Kevin Stadler: 150/1
Value Pick: Vijay Singh: 175/1
3JACK
Since ShotLink does not operate at the US Open, there is no update as far as the rankings go. Here are how my US Open picks finished
Graeme McDowell: 20/1 (MC)
Matt Kuchar: 20/1 (t-28th)
Justin Rose: 22/1 (1st)
Charl Schwartzel: 28/1 (14th)
Jim Furyk: 40/1 (MC)
Boo Weekley: 100/1 (MC)
Kevin Chappell: 100/1 (t-32nd)
Ryan Palmer: 100/1 (MC)
Kyle Stanley: 125/1 (t-73rd)
Value Pick: Justin Hicks 250/1 (MC)
Here are my picks for the Traveler's Championship
Justin Rose: 14/1
Hunter Mahan: 16/1
Lee Westwood: 18/1
Jason Dufner: 20/1
Tim Clark: 50/1
Graham DeLaet: 66/1
Chez Reavie: 100/1
Matt Every: 100/1
Kevin Stadler: 150/1
Value Pick: Vijay Singh: 175/1
3JACK
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Busting the Worst Myth in Golf - Version 1.0
In a recent poll, only 10% of the golfing population claimed that they take more than 1 less per year. While there are many factors contributing to the lack of lessons taken by the golfing public, I believe the biggest issue deals with the lack of knowledge from the golfing public as to why they need a lesson from a quality golf instructor.
I believe that most amateurs simply want to hit the ball reasonably well. They want the ball to get airborne consistently and to not have too much curvature on it. If they can break 90 fairly consistently they can go away satisfied.
With that said, I believe that many amateurs get really hooked on the game when they start to see substantial improvement. A 15 handicap who drops to an 8 handicap in a few months and starts hitting the ball further, more accurately and more precisely is more likely to go the extra mile and play more golf, practice more and become more passionate about the game. This is a good thing. It means more money for golf instructors and more money for the game of golf in general.
The largest issue I see with the lack of lessons being taken by the golfing public is the Biggest Myth in golf (accurately labeled by instructor Zach Allen in a video he did); the idea that golfers ‘pick up their head’ or ‘look up’ or ‘take their eye off the ball’ at impact.
As time has gone by, I feel that this is one of the largest detriments the entire game faces. It prevents players from getting better. Thus, the enjoyment level of golf is less and rounds will also take longer to play. And pace of play is a large reason why golfers are not logging in as many rounds as they used to. We simply live in a society where the middle class has less paid vacation time than it used to. Thus, there is a time crunch for golfers and in reality, even playing a 4 hour round is too long for most golfers.
Here’s a classic example of a golfer hitting about as terrible of a tee shot (twice) as one can hit (go to 2:13 in the video.)
The golfer almost practically whiffed on the first drive and the second drive he virtually shanked it. Yet, here’s a look at his swing slightly post-impact.
As we can see, he has his ‘head down’, he’s not ‘looking up’ nor did he ‘take his eye off the ball.’
What most golfers don’t understand is that the way the eyes and the brains are designed, there is a natural reflex (called Vestibular Ocular Reflex) that allows for the golfer to ‘keep their eye on the ball’ and to ‘not look up’ at impact. Perhaps some beginners and small children struggle with the concept of head positioning when they very first start to play golf. But, that’s probably close to less than 1% of the golfing population.
For instructors, I firmly believe that they miss out on lesson business because they cannot break this misconception by amateur golfers. Amateur golfers want to get the ball consistently airborne. When they don’t, like the golfer in the video, they blame it on ‘looking up’ or ‘taking their eye off the ball.’ If they understood how that was patently false and that they would need the guidance of an instructor to help them improve their mechanics in order to consistently get the ball airborne, then they could not just fall back on the idea that there is no reason to get a lesson when all they really need to do is remind themselves to ‘look at the ball.’
3JACK
I believe that most amateurs simply want to hit the ball reasonably well. They want the ball to get airborne consistently and to not have too much curvature on it. If they can break 90 fairly consistently they can go away satisfied.
With that said, I believe that many amateurs get really hooked on the game when they start to see substantial improvement. A 15 handicap who drops to an 8 handicap in a few months and starts hitting the ball further, more accurately and more precisely is more likely to go the extra mile and play more golf, practice more and become more passionate about the game. This is a good thing. It means more money for golf instructors and more money for the game of golf in general.
The largest issue I see with the lack of lessons being taken by the golfing public is the Biggest Myth in golf (accurately labeled by instructor Zach Allen in a video he did); the idea that golfers ‘pick up their head’ or ‘look up’ or ‘take their eye off the ball’ at impact.
As time has gone by, I feel that this is one of the largest detriments the entire game faces. It prevents players from getting better. Thus, the enjoyment level of golf is less and rounds will also take longer to play. And pace of play is a large reason why golfers are not logging in as many rounds as they used to. We simply live in a society where the middle class has less paid vacation time than it used to. Thus, there is a time crunch for golfers and in reality, even playing a 4 hour round is too long for most golfers.
Here’s a classic example of a golfer hitting about as terrible of a tee shot (twice) as one can hit (go to 2:13 in the video.)
The golfer almost practically whiffed on the first drive and the second drive he virtually shanked it. Yet, here’s a look at his swing slightly post-impact.
As we can see, he has his ‘head down’, he’s not ‘looking up’ nor did he ‘take his eye off the ball.’
What most golfers don’t understand is that the way the eyes and the brains are designed, there is a natural reflex (called Vestibular Ocular Reflex) that allows for the golfer to ‘keep their eye on the ball’ and to ‘not look up’ at impact. Perhaps some beginners and small children struggle with the concept of head positioning when they very first start to play golf. But, that’s probably close to less than 1% of the golfing population.
For instructors, I firmly believe that they miss out on lesson business because they cannot break this misconception by amateur golfers. Amateur golfers want to get the ball consistently airborne. When they don’t, like the golfer in the video, they blame it on ‘looking up’ or ‘taking their eye off the ball.’ If they understood how that was patently false and that they would need the guidance of an instructor to help them improve their mechanics in order to consistently get the ball airborne, then they could not just fall back on the idea that there is no reason to get a lesson when all they really need to do is remind themselves to ‘look at the ball.’
3JACK
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
3Jack Golf's PGA Tour Rundown - Week 23
Harris English wins at Memphis:
was on vacation this week, thus I didn’t make any picks for Memphis.
Here are my picks for the US Open:
Graeme McDowell: 20/1
Matt Kuchar: 20/1
Justin Rose: 22/1
Charl Schwartzel: 28/1
Jim Furyk: 40/1
Boo Weekley: 100/1
Kevin Chappell: 100/1
Ryan Palmer: 100/1
Kyle Stanley: 125/1
Value Pick: Justin Hicks 250/1
DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS
1. Rose, Justin
2. Bradley, Keegan
3. DeLaet, Graham
4. Stenson, Henrik
5. Weekley, Boo
6. Mahan, Hunter
7. Horschel, Billy
8. Reavie, Chez
9. Spieth, Jordan
10. Streelman, Kevin
174. Matteson, Troy
175. Noh, Seung-Yul
176. Haley II, Paul
177. Curtis, Ben
178. Williams, Lee
179. Herron, Tim
180. Wittenberg, Casey
181. Bradley, Michael
182. Baddeley, Aaron
183. Weir, Mike
BIRDIE ZONE
1. Wi, Charlie
2. Haley II, Paul
3. Chappell, Kevin
4. Clark, Tim
5. Schwartzel, Charl
6. Molder, Bryce
7. Noh, Seung-Yul
8. Bradley, Michael
9. Snedeker, Brandt
10. Davis, Brian
174. Blixt, Jonas
175. Gardiner, Scott
176. Stefani, Shawn
177. Poulter, Ian
178. Romero, Andres
179. O'Hair, Sean
180. Herman, Jim
181. Jones, Matt
182. Kaymer, Martin
183. Gillis, Tom
SAFE ZONE
1. Mickelson, Phil
2. Kirk, Chris
3. Duke, Ken
4. Fisher, Ross
5. Stadler, Kevin
6. Reavie, Chez
7. Singh, Vijay
8. Harrington, Padraig
9. Every, Matt
10. Snedeker, Brandt
174. Hoffmann, Morgan
175. Marino, Steve
176. Ames, Stephen
177. Ernst, Derek
178. Park, Jin
179. List, Luke
180. Baddeley, Aaron
181. Daly, John
182. Herman, Jim
183. Ridings, Tag
DANGER ZONE
1. Garrigus, Robert
2. Palmer, Ryan
3. Furyk, Jim
4. Owen, Greg
5. Weekley, Boo
6. Schwartzel, Charl
7. Colsaerts, Nicolas
8. Presnell, Alistair
9. McIlroy, Rory
10. Stanley, Kyle
174. Bowditch, Steven
175. Wittenberg, Casey
176. Claxton, Will
177. Gates, Bobby
178. Potter, Jr., Ted
179. Baddeley, Aaron
180. Hanson, Peter
181. Taylor, Vaughn
182. Marino, Steve
183. Watkins, Aaron
SHORT GAME PLAY
1. Leonard, Justin
2. Immelman, Trevor
3. Kelly, Jerry
4. Estes, Bob
5. Furyk, Jim
6. Choi, K.J.
7. Watkins, Aaron
8. Park, Jin
9. Jones, Matt
10. Wittenberg, Casey
174. Overton, Jeff
175. Yang, Y.E.
176. Meierdierks, Eric
177. Lee, Richard
178. Hoffman, Charley
179. Fisher, Ross
180. Wagner, Johnson
181. Garrigus, Robert
182. McNeill, George
183. Ernst, Derek
PUTTS GAINED
1. Chalmers, Greg
2. Garcia, Sergio
3. Ames, Stephen
4. Baddeley, Aaron
5. Woods, Tiger
6. Donald, Luke
7. Hanson, Peter
8. Mickelson, Phil
9. Henley, Russell
10. Molder, Bryce
174. Herman, Jim
175. Fisher, Ross
176. Claxton, Will
177. Castro, Roberto
178. Singh, Vijay
179. Owen, Greg
180. Meierdierks, Eric
181. Mathis, David
182. Tomasulo, Peter
183. Colsaerts, Nicolas
3JACK
was on vacation this week, thus I didn’t make any picks for Memphis.
Here are my picks for the US Open:
Graeme McDowell: 20/1
Matt Kuchar: 20/1
Justin Rose: 22/1
Charl Schwartzel: 28/1
Jim Furyk: 40/1
Boo Weekley: 100/1
Kevin Chappell: 100/1
Ryan Palmer: 100/1
Kyle Stanley: 125/1
Value Pick: Justin Hicks 250/1
DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS
1. Rose, Justin
2. Bradley, Keegan
3. DeLaet, Graham
4. Stenson, Henrik
5. Weekley, Boo
6. Mahan, Hunter
7. Horschel, Billy
8. Reavie, Chez
9. Spieth, Jordan
10. Streelman, Kevin
174. Matteson, Troy
175. Noh, Seung-Yul
176. Haley II, Paul
177. Curtis, Ben
178. Williams, Lee
179. Herron, Tim
180. Wittenberg, Casey
181. Bradley, Michael
182. Baddeley, Aaron
183. Weir, Mike
BIRDIE ZONE
1. Wi, Charlie
2. Haley II, Paul
3. Chappell, Kevin
4. Clark, Tim
5. Schwartzel, Charl
6. Molder, Bryce
7. Noh, Seung-Yul
8. Bradley, Michael
9. Snedeker, Brandt
10. Davis, Brian
174. Blixt, Jonas
175. Gardiner, Scott
176. Stefani, Shawn
177. Poulter, Ian
178. Romero, Andres
179. O'Hair, Sean
180. Herman, Jim
181. Jones, Matt
182. Kaymer, Martin
183. Gillis, Tom
SAFE ZONE
1. Mickelson, Phil
2. Kirk, Chris
3. Duke, Ken
4. Fisher, Ross
5. Stadler, Kevin
6. Reavie, Chez
7. Singh, Vijay
8. Harrington, Padraig
9. Every, Matt
10. Snedeker, Brandt
174. Hoffmann, Morgan
175. Marino, Steve
176. Ames, Stephen
177. Ernst, Derek
178. Park, Jin
179. List, Luke
180. Baddeley, Aaron
181. Daly, John
182. Herman, Jim
183. Ridings, Tag
DANGER ZONE
1. Garrigus, Robert
2. Palmer, Ryan
3. Furyk, Jim
4. Owen, Greg
5. Weekley, Boo
6. Schwartzel, Charl
7. Colsaerts, Nicolas
8. Presnell, Alistair
9. McIlroy, Rory
10. Stanley, Kyle
174. Bowditch, Steven
175. Wittenberg, Casey
176. Claxton, Will
177. Gates, Bobby
178. Potter, Jr., Ted
179. Baddeley, Aaron
180. Hanson, Peter
181. Taylor, Vaughn
182. Marino, Steve
183. Watkins, Aaron
SHORT GAME PLAY
1. Leonard, Justin
2. Immelman, Trevor
3. Kelly, Jerry
4. Estes, Bob
5. Furyk, Jim
6. Choi, K.J.
7. Watkins, Aaron
8. Park, Jin
9. Jones, Matt
10. Wittenberg, Casey
174. Overton, Jeff
175. Yang, Y.E.
176. Meierdierks, Eric
177. Lee, Richard
178. Hoffman, Charley
179. Fisher, Ross
180. Wagner, Johnson
181. Garrigus, Robert
182. McNeill, George
183. Ernst, Derek
PUTTS GAINED
1. Chalmers, Greg
2. Garcia, Sergio
3. Ames, Stephen
4. Baddeley, Aaron
5. Woods, Tiger
6. Donald, Luke
7. Hanson, Peter
8. Mickelson, Phil
9. Henley, Russell
10. Molder, Bryce
174. Herman, Jim
175. Fisher, Ross
176. Claxton, Will
177. Castro, Roberto
178. Singh, Vijay
179. Owen, Greg
180. Meierdierks, Eric
181. Mathis, David
182. Tomasulo, Peter
183. Colsaerts, Nicolas
3JACK
Friday, June 7, 2013
A Look at the YAR Putter
In the past few months I had received a few inquiries from readers about the YAR Putter. Recently, friend of the blog Jeff Martin (www.jeffygolf.com) commented that he switched over to the YAR Putter and was impressed by its work. Then Geoff Mangum (www.putttingzone.com) has given the YAR Putter his 'stamp of approval' as well.
This finally got me to start to check out the putter. I have not purchased one, but I plan on doing so in July.
As a serious golfer who has 'seen it all', I have come to trust my instincts when it comes to my perception about equipment. One of the advantages I have as an amateur is that I can really seek out the best in equipment and fitting techniques and implement those into my bag. I'm not bound by some equipment endorsement deal and having to play with inferior equipment. In fact, I was just discussing this with a PGA Tour veteran the other day who has hit the Wishon 919THI driver and told me how amazed he was by the driver as he hit it 25 yards further. But, he's tied to an endorsement contract and has to use his Taylor Made driver instead.
For me, I am always on the lookout for something different. Not just from an aesthetics standpoint, but how the equipment is engineered and what are the proposed advantages to the unique design. Here's a pic of the YAR putter and as you can see, it's very different from an aesthetics standpoint.
But, what about the actual design and what are the advantages to the design?
From what I gather the main idea behind the YAR putter is that it does not have ANY Moment of Inertia (MOI) in the putter. The putter is designed by Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt; an aerospace engineer that who works for the Department of Defense designing air-frames for sophisticated aircraft. The way I view it now is that where most putter designs are concerned chiefly with being able to produce a 'better roll', the YAR putter is designed so the 'flight' of the clubhead path with be stable throughout a stroke, just like the flight of a B-2 Stealth Bomber.
Here's a Kelvin Miyahira video showing the stability of the putter head on a toe hit.
What this allows the golfer to do is to look at the hole while they are putting. The idea is that the putter head is stable while it is in motion and if the golfer mis-hits it, the putter head will remain stable on the mis-hit.
That's enough for me to give it a shot. You still have to aim the putter well enough and make the appropriate reads. But, your best putting will come when you are doing the best at optimizing your speed on your putts. It's currently being used by Aaron Baddeley. I will give an update when I receive mine.
3JACK
This finally got me to start to check out the putter. I have not purchased one, but I plan on doing so in July.
As a serious golfer who has 'seen it all', I have come to trust my instincts when it comes to my perception about equipment. One of the advantages I have as an amateur is that I can really seek out the best in equipment and fitting techniques and implement those into my bag. I'm not bound by some equipment endorsement deal and having to play with inferior equipment. In fact, I was just discussing this with a PGA Tour veteran the other day who has hit the Wishon 919THI driver and told me how amazed he was by the driver as he hit it 25 yards further. But, he's tied to an endorsement contract and has to use his Taylor Made driver instead.
For me, I am always on the lookout for something different. Not just from an aesthetics standpoint, but how the equipment is engineered and what are the proposed advantages to the unique design. Here's a pic of the YAR putter and as you can see, it's very different from an aesthetics standpoint.
But, what about the actual design and what are the advantages to the design?
From what I gather the main idea behind the YAR putter is that it does not have ANY Moment of Inertia (MOI) in the putter. The putter is designed by Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt; an aerospace engineer that who works for the Department of Defense designing air-frames for sophisticated aircraft. The way I view it now is that where most putter designs are concerned chiefly with being able to produce a 'better roll', the YAR putter is designed so the 'flight' of the clubhead path with be stable throughout a stroke, just like the flight of a B-2 Stealth Bomber.
Here's a Kelvin Miyahira video showing the stability of the putter head on a toe hit.
What this allows the golfer to do is to look at the hole while they are putting. The idea is that the putter head is stable while it is in motion and if the golfer mis-hits it, the putter head will remain stable on the mis-hit.
That's enough for me to give it a shot. You still have to aim the putter well enough and make the appropriate reads. But, your best putting will come when you are doing the best at optimizing your speed on your putts. It's currently being used by Aaron Baddeley. I will give an update when I receive mine.
3JACK
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Facts About Backspin Factors of a Driver Head
This is from Tom Wishon (www.wishongolf.com) and his latest e-Tech newsletter which I believe is a must read for serious golfers (even if they don't own Wishon equipment).
One of the areas of interest to more accomplished players is the matter of whether a driver head can be designed to intentionally deliver a higher or lower amount of backspin on the shot. Thanks to the greater presence of launch monitors combined with the reports from the professional tours that top players all focus on hitting the driver with between 2,000 and 3,000 rpms of backspin, a very high number of players today seem to be obsessed with finding a driver that will deliver a spin measurement in this desired range.
The purpose of this article is to clearly state what is and is not possible with respect to designing a driver head to deliver a difference in backspin performance.
First off, when a golfer hits two drivers and notices a difference in spin between the two, it is very difficult to know precisely what brought about the spin difference. To really know requires a testing procedure that must isolate each possible variable between the two drivers that contributes to spin. Few golfers are in a position to be able to do that in a very controlled environment. Hence it is very common for a golfer to hit two drivers, see that one launches the ball lower or with less spin, and make the wrong conclusion about what caused those differences in the shot.
The elements that can bring about a difference in spin between two driver heads are:
1. Loft – obviously the lower the loft, the lower the spin with all other things being equal. The problem with assuming that a loft difference brought about a spin difference is the fact that the real loft of a driver head often times is not what is stated on the head. +/- tolerances as well as some companies’ intentionally making some of their driver heads with a different loft than what is stated makes this comparison more difficult. Hence the ONLY way to know the difference in loft between two driver heads is to have the lofts measured by someone who is very experienced in doing this, using the proper precision equipment. Robot tests we have done show a spin difference of 260 rpms for each 1° change in loft at a clubhead speed of 100mph, for the same center face impact point. (And of course, as clubhead speed increases so too does the spin and vice versa)
2. Vertical Roll Radius – All driver heads are made with a certain amount of radius up and down on the face. (there is also the hoizontal radius on the face, but that is not pertinent to this discussion) Not all driver heads have the same vertical roll radius. The more roll (meaning more curvature as indicated by a lower radius number in the measurement) the higher will be the loft above the center of the face, and the lower will be the loft below the face center. The less roll, the less the loft increases above the center of the face and the less the loft decreases below the center of the face.
3. Point of Impact on the Face– FOR THE SAME LOFT and FOR THE SAME VERTICAL ROLL RADIUS, impact above the center of the face reduces spin due to the phenomenon of VERTICAL GEAR EFFECT. Likewise due to VGE, impact below the center of the face increases spin. VGE can be quite significant. Our robot tests done with the same driver head at 100mph with the same ball show a spin reduction of 400rpms for impact 1/2? above the face center and a 400 rpm spin increase for impact 1/2? below the center of the face.
4. Face Angle of the Driver Head – For some golfers, even a 1° change in the face angle can bring about a slight change in the effective loft of the head at impact that can result in little differences in the launch angle and spin of the shot.
5. Face to Back Center of Gravity Position in the Driver Head - By varying the wall thickness of the head body in the front vs rear of the head it is possible to create a little more forward CG vs little more rear CG position inside the driver head. It is also possible to vary the CG position by using materials of different density (graphite, tungsten, etc) within the head construction which are placed/oriented more to the front or back of the head body. The closer the CG is to the face, the lower the launch angle and lower the spin can be, and the farther back the CG is from the face, the higher the LA and spin can be.
This is a CAN BE because and NOT a “for sure” result for all golfers. The reason is because the effect of face to back CG depends entirely on its effect on the amount of forward bending of the shaft coming into impact. A more forward CG can cause the shaft to bend forward LESS which means the dynamic loft at impact will not be increased as much, which means slightly lower launch angle and spin. A more rear CG can cause the shaft to bend forward MORE which means the dynamic loft at impact will be increased a little more, which means slightly higher launch angle and spin.
But not all golfers can make the shaft bend forward coming into impact. Only golfers with a later to very late unhinging of the wrist cock angle on the downswing are able to make the shaft come into impact in some amount of forward bend position. The earlier the golfer unhinges the wrist cock angle, the sooner the forward bending action on the shaft occurs. So for early to midway release golfers, the shaft goes into its forward bend position before impact so by the time the clubhead gets to the ball, the shaft has had the time to rebound back from being bent forward. Thus only for later to very late release golfers will the more forward CG position in the driver head bring about a slightly lower launch and slightly lower spin.
The other variable affecting the face to back CG position on spin is the shaft’s stiffness design vs the golfer’s clubhead speed, transition force, downswing tempo and point of release. The stiffer the shaft overall, and/or the stiffer the tip section of the shaft all in relation to the golfer’s swing characteristics, the less the shaft can bend forward to have an effect on the launch angle and spin of the shot. And vice versa, the more flexible the shaft overall, and/or the more flexible the tip section of the shaft all in relation to the golfer’s swing characteristics, the more the shaft can bend forward to have an effect on the launch angle and spin of the shot.
6. Vertical Center of Gravity of the Driver Head – While everyone has been taught that a low CG in any clubhead means higher shot and higher spin and a higher CG means vice versa, the vertical CG in a driver head can be a very confusing factor for ball flight because 99%+ of the time we hit the ball with the driver off a tee.
Due to the use of a tee the position of the CG of the ball to the vertical CG of the driver head can be all over the map. Golfers tee the ball in all manner of different heights relative to the driver head. Because of this, the point of impact on the face relative to the CG of the ball can vary tremendously. This is not nearly as much the case with the other clubheads which are far more often hit with the ball sitting on the ground.
In addition, because so many driver heads are designed so close to the same 450-460cc volume “size”, driver heads today simply do not offer much in terms of a variation in the vertical CG position as can all other clubheads. When you design a driver to be close to the limit for volume, owing to the fact the head cannot weigh much more than 200g, the wall thickness of the body cannot be varied by more than a small amount to try to have a different effect on the vertical CG position.
As a result, theoretically the vertical CG position can have an effect on launch angle and spin, but in practice because of the tremendous range in tee height, point of impact and angle of attack into the ball coupled with the narrow range in driver size, the vertical CG of a driver simply does not account for much of the difference in launch angle and spin on the shot.
Bottom Line regarding spin characteristics of different driver head models – While there can be slight differences in launch angle and spin from different driver head designs, if the golfer wishes to hit the driver lower or higher in height and spin, the number one way to do that is by using a driver head with a lower or higher loft than the golfer currently plays. For each 1 degree change in loft, the launch angle changes by 0.8°. And based on a driver clubhead speed of 100mph, for each 1° change in driver head loft, the height of the shot changes by 10 to 12 feet and the spin changes by around 250 rpms. These factors apply to ALL golfers regardless of swing characteristics. The effect of a change in the face to back CG location on launch angle, shot height and spin only happen for golfers with a later to very late release.
3JACK
One of the areas of interest to more accomplished players is the matter of whether a driver head can be designed to intentionally deliver a higher or lower amount of backspin on the shot. Thanks to the greater presence of launch monitors combined with the reports from the professional tours that top players all focus on hitting the driver with between 2,000 and 3,000 rpms of backspin, a very high number of players today seem to be obsessed with finding a driver that will deliver a spin measurement in this desired range.
The purpose of this article is to clearly state what is and is not possible with respect to designing a driver head to deliver a difference in backspin performance.
First off, when a golfer hits two drivers and notices a difference in spin between the two, it is very difficult to know precisely what brought about the spin difference. To really know requires a testing procedure that must isolate each possible variable between the two drivers that contributes to spin. Few golfers are in a position to be able to do that in a very controlled environment. Hence it is very common for a golfer to hit two drivers, see that one launches the ball lower or with less spin, and make the wrong conclusion about what caused those differences in the shot.
The elements that can bring about a difference in spin between two driver heads are:
1. Loft – obviously the lower the loft, the lower the spin with all other things being equal. The problem with assuming that a loft difference brought about a spin difference is the fact that the real loft of a driver head often times is not what is stated on the head. +/- tolerances as well as some companies’ intentionally making some of their driver heads with a different loft than what is stated makes this comparison more difficult. Hence the ONLY way to know the difference in loft between two driver heads is to have the lofts measured by someone who is very experienced in doing this, using the proper precision equipment. Robot tests we have done show a spin difference of 260 rpms for each 1° change in loft at a clubhead speed of 100mph, for the same center face impact point. (And of course, as clubhead speed increases so too does the spin and vice versa)
2. Vertical Roll Radius – All driver heads are made with a certain amount of radius up and down on the face. (there is also the hoizontal radius on the face, but that is not pertinent to this discussion) Not all driver heads have the same vertical roll radius. The more roll (meaning more curvature as indicated by a lower radius number in the measurement) the higher will be the loft above the center of the face, and the lower will be the loft below the face center. The less roll, the less the loft increases above the center of the face and the less the loft decreases below the center of the face.
3. Point of Impact on the Face– FOR THE SAME LOFT and FOR THE SAME VERTICAL ROLL RADIUS, impact above the center of the face reduces spin due to the phenomenon of VERTICAL GEAR EFFECT. Likewise due to VGE, impact below the center of the face increases spin. VGE can be quite significant. Our robot tests done with the same driver head at 100mph with the same ball show a spin reduction of 400rpms for impact 1/2? above the face center and a 400 rpm spin increase for impact 1/2? below the center of the face.
4. Face Angle of the Driver Head – For some golfers, even a 1° change in the face angle can bring about a slight change in the effective loft of the head at impact that can result in little differences in the launch angle and spin of the shot.
5. Face to Back Center of Gravity Position in the Driver Head - By varying the wall thickness of the head body in the front vs rear of the head it is possible to create a little more forward CG vs little more rear CG position inside the driver head. It is also possible to vary the CG position by using materials of different density (graphite, tungsten, etc) within the head construction which are placed/oriented more to the front or back of the head body. The closer the CG is to the face, the lower the launch angle and lower the spin can be, and the farther back the CG is from the face, the higher the LA and spin can be.
This is a CAN BE because and NOT a “for sure” result for all golfers. The reason is because the effect of face to back CG depends entirely on its effect on the amount of forward bending of the shaft coming into impact. A more forward CG can cause the shaft to bend forward LESS which means the dynamic loft at impact will not be increased as much, which means slightly lower launch angle and spin. A more rear CG can cause the shaft to bend forward MORE which means the dynamic loft at impact will be increased a little more, which means slightly higher launch angle and spin.
But not all golfers can make the shaft bend forward coming into impact. Only golfers with a later to very late unhinging of the wrist cock angle on the downswing are able to make the shaft come into impact in some amount of forward bend position. The earlier the golfer unhinges the wrist cock angle, the sooner the forward bending action on the shaft occurs. So for early to midway release golfers, the shaft goes into its forward bend position before impact so by the time the clubhead gets to the ball, the shaft has had the time to rebound back from being bent forward. Thus only for later to very late release golfers will the more forward CG position in the driver head bring about a slightly lower launch and slightly lower spin.
The other variable affecting the face to back CG position on spin is the shaft’s stiffness design vs the golfer’s clubhead speed, transition force, downswing tempo and point of release. The stiffer the shaft overall, and/or the stiffer the tip section of the shaft all in relation to the golfer’s swing characteristics, the less the shaft can bend forward to have an effect on the launch angle and spin of the shot. And vice versa, the more flexible the shaft overall, and/or the more flexible the tip section of the shaft all in relation to the golfer’s swing characteristics, the more the shaft can bend forward to have an effect on the launch angle and spin of the shot.
6. Vertical Center of Gravity of the Driver Head – While everyone has been taught that a low CG in any clubhead means higher shot and higher spin and a higher CG means vice versa, the vertical CG in a driver head can be a very confusing factor for ball flight because 99%+ of the time we hit the ball with the driver off a tee.
Due to the use of a tee the position of the CG of the ball to the vertical CG of the driver head can be all over the map. Golfers tee the ball in all manner of different heights relative to the driver head. Because of this, the point of impact on the face relative to the CG of the ball can vary tremendously. This is not nearly as much the case with the other clubheads which are far more often hit with the ball sitting on the ground.
In addition, because so many driver heads are designed so close to the same 450-460cc volume “size”, driver heads today simply do not offer much in terms of a variation in the vertical CG position as can all other clubheads. When you design a driver to be close to the limit for volume, owing to the fact the head cannot weigh much more than 200g, the wall thickness of the body cannot be varied by more than a small amount to try to have a different effect on the vertical CG position.
As a result, theoretically the vertical CG position can have an effect on launch angle and spin, but in practice because of the tremendous range in tee height, point of impact and angle of attack into the ball coupled with the narrow range in driver size, the vertical CG of a driver simply does not account for much of the difference in launch angle and spin on the shot.
Bottom Line regarding spin characteristics of different driver head models – While there can be slight differences in launch angle and spin from different driver head designs, if the golfer wishes to hit the driver lower or higher in height and spin, the number one way to do that is by using a driver head with a lower or higher loft than the golfer currently plays. For each 1 degree change in loft, the launch angle changes by 0.8°. And based on a driver clubhead speed of 100mph, for each 1° change in driver head loft, the height of the shot changes by 10 to 12 feet and the spin changes by around 250 rpms. These factors apply to ALL golfers regardless of swing characteristics. The effect of a change in the face to back CG location on launch angle, shot height and spin only happen for golfers with a later to very late release.
3JACK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)