• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
uttexas

Help please...15 degree 3 wood vs 15 degree hybrid

17 posts in this topic

I am looking to hit this off the deck to reach more par 5s in two.
I am 6'5'' 245lbs (before lunch)

My current clubs are as follows (from memory).
Driver 10.5
3 hybrid 19
4 hybrid 22
5 hybrid 27
6 hybrid 31
7 iron 34
8 iron 37
9 iron 41
P 43
G 50
S 56
L 60
putter

I have an old 15 degree 1995 callaway big bertha 3 wood that I hit O.k. off the deck.

My favorite clubs are driver off the tee, then off turf: 4hybrid, 6hybrid, 7 iron, Gwedge Swedge (I've been hitting the L wedge great recently)
When I'm hitting the driver well, I average 280
I hit my 4 hybrid 210 carry.
I don't like my 19 degree 3 hybrid off the deck (love it off the tee), but I hit my dad's rescue 19 degree hybrid great off the deck.

Had my swing analyzed at E.W. They recommended the Cleveland Hibore XLS 15 degree fairway wood.

I am debating the aforementioned club vs 15 degree hybrid for Christmas present for myself.

Please help me decide. Any advise greatly appreciated.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I would assume you would lose a bit of distance, if you go with a hybrid vs. a fw. wood. Merely due to the length of the club. But with your height and weight, I'm guessing you crush the ball pretty good. . .at least you should be capable.

So, it just depends on what you hit better. If you don't lose much distance with the hybrid, I say go for it. Its probably a more versatile tool than a typical 3 wood.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, a 15 or 16º hybrid would be a #1 iron replacement, and a # 1 iron is supposed to be the distance equivalent of a # 4 wood, not a # 3 wood.

The Bear used to carry driver, 3-wood, #s 1-9 irons, PW, SW, and putter back in the day--- as did other strong players.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. I guess I will now debate 15-17 degree 4 wood vs 15-17 degree hybrid. I like the versatility of hybrids (I even like chipping with them on 20-30 yard shots to a flat fronted green)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go with the 15*, the 13 is great if you can master your 3wood off the deck, if you can't it is basically useless except off the teebox. you won't lose much distance with the 15* vs the 13*. it is best to get the club that works better for you though, i personally thing you will find more success with the 15 though.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally id get the 3 wood but thats cause im a short player and need every yard I can get
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I carry a 3 wood (15*) and a 2 hybrid (17*). Both of these clubs for me are used more off the tee as alternate driver than for reaching par 5's. My theory is if I have to hit 3 wood I would rather lay up anyway. There are advantages to both. A 4 wood (if that's still what you're considering) will launch higher than a hybrid and thus land softer. However, a low lofted hybrid will have a shorter shaft and is usually easier to hit straight, but may be difficult to get a high trajectory with off turf, but it will probably run more than 4 wood. I also prefer a hybrid out of rough. It really comes down to personal choice, though. Personally, looking at your bag makeup, I would think a 3 or 4 wood would fit nicely. And a 4 wood usually has a somewhat smaller head and thus is easier to hit off turf than 3 wood.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good call, I am leaning toward the 4 wood around 17 degrees. Just for clarification on symantics. Is a 4 wood defined as degree of loft vs 3 wood, or is it shaft length + degree loft +/-face size/shape?

For example
17*metalwood face Is this automatically a 4 wood? Or could this also be a higher lofted 3 wood?

There are even 16* labeled "driver" out there. I would argue that this is atleast a 2 wood.

Is all this 2 wood, 3 wood, 4 wood, 5 wood just marketing. Or are there strict definitions?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, woods are defined more by their loft than by the number. For example, a 13* wood is usually called a strong 3 or 3+ wood, but in reality it's really just a 2 wood. The lofts are usually only about 1/2 degree different from manufacturer to manufacturer anway. The higher lofted drivers (16* is the most loft I've seen so far), are a completely different subject. Basically, if it's at 13 degrees or higher and isn't a driver, then it's a fairway wood at which point you go by loft to determine. Like most clubs these days, there are no strict rules that say a particular loft is a particular club (look at irons, where the lofts can sometimes be as much as 5-7 degrees different than another model). The club designations are just for our purposes only (and marketing).

A 17* (or 16.5-17.5) with the smaller head is a 4 wood almost always. As a rule, you start figuring a 3 wood at around 15 degrees, then each club designation is about 2 degree increase (of course, that means about 4 degrees in most cases since there really aren't many 6, 8, 10, etc. woods).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you need to go to your pro and have him sort it out; asking advice here is no substitute for getting the pro to custom-fit according to the uniqueness of your swing etc. For hybrids I use a 15 degree and don't carry a 3-wood normally but carry a 1-iron and depending on the course I'm playing and/or the specific characteristics of that course or the conditions on the day I will change things around. I think all amateurs should adopt a more flexible attitude based on such factors.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might compare a 3W vs. a 4W. The 4W has a couple more degrees of loft, and is more reliable for many golfers.

The choice has a lot to do with swing characteristics. Basic wisdom says if you have good clubhead speed, a 3W is more likely to work. That said. I got an eye-opener at a demo day last spring. The Tour Edge rep was letting people hit the Exotics FWs. We had some guys that hit a driver about 270, but had better FW ball flight with a 4W than a 3W. It depends on part on how you come into the ball.

3W or 4W? A side by side test would tell you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went down this road, comparing a 15° hybrid vs a 15° fairway wood.      I found the hybrid exponentially more difficult to get the ball up in the air RELIABLY, even with a shorter shaft.     I've come to love hitting the 3 wood off a nice fairway lie ... my fave shot in the game.     Just don't think I have the swing speed to get a 15° hybrid way up in the air like a 3 wood ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went down this road, comparing a 15° hybrid vs a 15° fairway wood.      I found the hybrid exponentially more difficult to get the ball up in the air RELIABLY, even with a shorter shaft.     I've come to love hitting the 3 wood off a nice fairway lie ... my fave shot in the game.     Just don't think I have the swing speed to get a 15° hybrid way up in the air like a 3 wood ...

Exactly my experience - even though i have now pulled the 3 wood out of my bag to make sure I do not use that either (too wild)

But the 15 degree hybrid was definitely tough for me to get into the air.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I went down this road, comparing a 15° hybrid vs a 15° fairway wood.      I found the hybrid exponentially more difficult to get the ball up in the air, even with a shorter shaft.     I've come to love hitting the 3 wood off a nice fairway lie ... my fave shot in the game.     Just don't think I have the swing speed to get a 15° hybrid way up in the air like a 3 wood ...

I have a 13.5˚ wood and a 15˚ hybrid and I find they both fly about the same height. I can hit my 17 degree hybrid higher than either one, but the longer clubs are mainly for off the tee and they are designed to have a lower flight; I agree that a 15˚ hybrid is a low flighted club as it should be. I also think a 4 wood is a spot on suggestion, my 17 degree hybrid goes plenty far off the deck and it's a lot easier to hit shots with because of its reasonable length and loft, but I can still flight it low if I choose. I'd think that's as long a club as many amateurs should carry, and it's often the longest club I'll use on a given day if my ballstriking's a bit rough around the edges. The only reason I have anything longer is because I have enough distance to create about a 40 yard gap between it and my driver, although that's more a problem on tee shots than approaches.

Only 2 of the 3 go in my bag at the start of the round though, and I will have the 17 degree buried with me. That leaves a choice between the 15 and the 13.5, so whichever one is behaving better. In theory I planned to hit the 3 wood for fades and I consider it the longest total club off the deck I can hit; The hybrid is almost as long but it has a bit shorter shaft and more loft, in addition to a neutral face angle. This makes it a bit easier to hit a controlled draw. I could hit a pull fade extremely far with the 3w last season because I was very shallow into impact, but I realized it was damaging my iron play and it's better to push everything with every club and hit down more, now I hit either a push fade or a push draw with the same setup and swing path, just aiming the club and my feet at various spots to accommodate the flight I want. At my course from the middle tees, it's crucial to be able to hit both shots in order to get a good position because the fairways are so tree lined.

These long clubs are really hard to hit without a lot of curve; you need to get your ball position and AoA right and it's tougher with their long shafts. I also determined for me that it's important to have a lower swingweight than my irons for control; if it's too heavy at these lengths it's impossible to make a normal swing and too hard to maintain tight control when I'm applying extra power the way I can with my long irons. So for me it was necessary to take the weight screw out of the 1h and shorten the shaft on the 3w (which I chose to do by tipping). They are without question the hardest clubs to hit in the bag and lack the user friendliness of most drivers, so I don't consider either one worth the effort it takes to learn unless you really want to do so. They're the first to be eliminated from my bag if I'm carrying less than a full set, and most courses really don't require them unless you play in 30mph winds.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

About 5 years ago I took the 3 wood out of the bag and replaced it with a 16* taylor made rescue hybrid. I wasn't playing very much and the hybrid kept me out of trouble. My thinking was if I couldn't get there with the hybrid I probably shouldn't be going for it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my buddies took out his 3 wood and got a 2h basically a 3 wood. But for me a 3 wood is a much easier to hit. I've never been able to get the hang of a hybrid I hit a lot of pulls and huge slices. Im much more confident in a 3 wood but that might be just me.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

You've got to hit what you are more comfortable and confident with. I think hybrids can be confusing to hit. Is it a more downward iron swing or a sweeping wood swing? Last summer I overhauled the bag and went back to carrying a 3 wood and a higher lofted hybrid because I didn't feel confident (I hooked the crap out of them) with any of the lower lofted hybrids I tried out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Where they let Rickie take that drop from is some BS. He should've been further back.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against. I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968. There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour. The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc. Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s. I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better. That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition. Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO. I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Come on guys, I'm missing the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl. That being said, I think Fowler just sent his chances to a watery grave.
    • The Films and Movies Thread
      A little late finding this - X-Men, Days of Future Past Quicksilver scene in realtime.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions. I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled. As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries