Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
duotone

Question about hybrid offset

9 posts in this topic

I play an adams 23* hybrid which has pretty much 0 offset. I built my wife an adams clone from diamond tour golf, which has a face offset much like a fairway wood, with the top line at 0, and the bottom of the face in front of the shaft.

My course has 2 holes which are ideal for a 17 - 19* hybrid, and I can get that same clone in 19*, but that offset or lack there of is concerning me. It's winter here so I can't go and hit it...

Can someone please explain to me the whole offset thing as it relates to this hybrid design?

Thank you,

Tony

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!

As a follow up to my question....

I play a blade with 0 offset and thin top line, however I am considering going back to my set of X20's which are a compact cavity back with blade profile and 0 offset.

My hybrids will be going on the same shafts as my irons for consistency sake as they will replace my 2 and 3 irons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offset helps you to hit the ball higher and gives you more time to close the face.  IMO, most people would benefit from offset, unless you hit the ball too high and your miss is a pull or hook.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that you have X20s with 0 offset. I thought even the X20 Tour had a millimeter or two.

I agree with Gaijin Golfer that offset is most golfer's friend.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks... but let me re-phrase this a bit.

My X20's are pretty much 0.... you are right...

QUESTION: I have an Adams hybrid with the top line that is even with the shaft, and the bottom of the face is AHEAD of the shaft. I also have an Adams with the top line just behind the shaft, and the bottom of the face is flush with the shaft. - Why is there a difference in the face design, and what is the effect?

Is one hybrid designed like an iron and the other like a fairway wood?

Tony

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks... but let me re-phrase this a bit.

My X20's are pretty much 0.... you are right...

QUESTION: I have an Adams hybrid with the top line that is even with the shaft, and the bottom of the face is AHEAD of the shaft. I also have an Adams with the top line just behind the shaft, and the bottom of the face is flush with the shaft. - Why is there a difference in the face design, and what is the effect?

Is one hybrid designed like an iron and the other like a fairway wood?

Tony


I'm no expert on the offset on hybrids or fairway woods. I have two cheap hybrids that I bought a while back just to see if I liked them and both fall just about in between the description of yours. Shaft just ahead of the top edge and just behind the bottom edge.

I figure you just have one club with a lot of offset and another one without any. But that's just a guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks... but let me re-phrase this a bit.

My X20's are pretty much 0.... you are right...

I'm not surprised you're unsure of the offset - Callaway usually omits offset from specs sheet. I had to e-mail Calla for the full engineer specs to find out. Here's a comparison of offset from irons circa 2009:

Offset (inches)

3i

PW

X20

0.270

0.200

X20 Tour

0.145

0.075

Miz MP57

0.161

0.114

Miz MX200

0.211

0.142

Here's a more detailed discussion of offset from club designer Ralph Maltby's site: http://www.ralphmaltby.com/forum/topic/33?page=1#number2

One thing offset does is promote better hand position for middle-HDCP golfers, which helps them launch the ball higher.

As for hybrids, I tested quite a few. The standard hybrids tend to have a fair amount of offset - and, although I have just average clubhead speed, I tended to hook them. The Tour or Pro heads have much less offset, and I hit them much straighter. The only problem: it's hard to find the Pro or Tour models with R-flex shafts.

As for hybrid design: Like wood or iron...

Hybrids have been around long enough to get complicated. The "traditional" hybrids (yes, we're there already!) were designed to fall between long irons and fairway woods in shaft length and loft. More recently, the club makers have come up with "iron replacement" hybrids. Case in point are the Mizuno JPX FLI-HI hybrids, which have the same shaft length and head loft as the numbered irons they are designed to replace. The 4H and the JPX family 4-irons both have 38.25" shafts and 22* loft.*

*Note: JPX-825 Pro 4i actually has 23* loft.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Offset helps you to hit the ball higher and gives you more time to close the face.  IMO, most people would benefit from offset, unless you hit the ball too high and your miss is a pull or hook.

Offset gives you almost no extra time to close the face. I've done the math on this elsewhere. It's negligible. Old wive's tale, basically, that it gives you more "time."

Offset makes the face look open to many people, so they simply set up with it more closed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Ok, let me try again... See how the bottom of the face is in front of the shaft? My other hybrid is flush with the shaft. Is there a function that this design has?
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
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Lowest score you've seen?
      Lowest ive ever witnessed is 71 twice by me.Thats saying something considering I play in tournys with very good players.My 71s were not in tourny conditions though.
    • What would a PGA Tour player shoot at your home course?
      But because they play on courses that are considered quite difficult compared to the average home course, wouldn't their up & down % be expected to increase due to having closer misses on average - particularly with slower greens to hold approaches? The comment above is not to discount this, but only emphasize how the two go together. If you apply a fantastic long game on a shorter course on average they will have an easier time being more consistent and hitting the ball closer to the pin on average and therefore making more putts. Or do you think they would have the same expected proximity on one of our home courses as they would on the tougher tour courses and setups? I get you on the tournament prep being very different to hitting a course blind, but to some extent the OP is comparing how we play on our home courses day-in, day-out vs. the tour pros moving from place to place. How would we score visiting a course blind relative to our home course where most of the scores are posted and we are very familiar with the layout and greens. Granted pros make it a point to know this stuff with yardage books and memory. Still switching between venues and conditions rather suddenly vs. gradual changes we would tend to experience on a home course must add some difficulty. I came across a good study that analyzed all PGA tournament scores for 2007 including field average adjustments. He had the unadjusted scoring average that year as 70.704. If you figure the average course setup is ~ CR 75 and add one stroke for 'tournament conditions' (and added difficulty of Major setups) then that was about 5.3 strokes below average rating. So relative to a Course Rating (slope should not matter to a pro), and assuming a standard normal distribution, 95% of the scores should range between -6.7 and -3.9 below the rating. However, his analysis detected two interesting features, the curve (with a ton of samples) is approximately symmetric with a ~ .4 skewness. This right skew means the most frequently expected result (the mode) is actually slightly lower than the mean. So that implies that even on tour setups the lower than average scores are expected just a bit more frequently (the left tail and shoulder are slightly thicker and probability for scores lower than the mode slightly higher.). Here's an approximation of what the distribution would look like relative to strokes below the CR. In comparing courses with higher average scores (like the U.S. Open) the study found that the standard deviation of scores increased. The 'tougher test' created more of a separation between the players. Also the players whose scores tended to skew left were poorer players on average in terms of results. They averaged a relatively high score, but they could go really low sometimes. The relevance this has to the thread is that on the easier home courses that most of us tend to play, the tour players would be more bunched in their expected scores with higher probabilities around the mean of -5.3 relative to the CR and possibly more toward the low side with the left-skewing, less-consistent scorers reducing the size of the right tail and extending the left while holding the 'field average' the same. It could skew the distribution toward lower expected score (though the most frequently expected value would still be around the mode). But what would you expect as a total spread for the average scratch population? You agree that with the average population of golfers by handicap there's a decrease in score variability with increasing skill versus the average population at each handicap level having the same average scoring distribution, yes? IMO, the answer to the OP greatly depends on the CR. On my course from the tips, they'd be expected to shoot under 65 over 50% of the time. On a CR of 72, I'd expect  below 67 over 50% of the time. At Oakmont (in non-Open setup), under 73 over 50% of the time. And that would be without accounting for a possible 'going low' effect from the typically easier home course setups we face (not including Oakmont there. They would face some hazards you don't find on tour either - lost balls could be an issue for some. I'm not sure I agree that they'd expect to putt worse due to slower stimps. At the least because I would expect their proximity to the hole to increase on all shots due to the typically shorter length (shorter irons on average into each hole) along with relatively slower, softer greens.
    • What'd You Shoot Today?
      Played 9 holes today and started out pretty good (for me) w/ 5 bogies in a row, then doubled the last four. Still, not a bad round.  
    • Anyone Else Use 'Good Shots' to Measure How Good a Round Was?
      This is what I do as well.  If I play a poor round then there are a lot of these, so I don't really dwell too much, but if I played a good round, then it frequently boiled down to a couple of really good to great shots, a whole bunch of manageable ones, and a couple awful ones.  The awful ones are the ones I feel should be entirely avoidable, so those are the ones I try and recount later and assess what went wrong.
    • My Swing (PumaAttack)
      I have been working with an Evolvr coach for a while and he has not addressed those concerns at a2 and in fact called my position a perfect example and something he would show to other students.  So your instructions do not match up for me.   It is frustrating to hear you make comments like that when they don't match up with what my coach says.   I still don't get why it matters if it goes from shallow to slightly steeper on the downswing.   Look at Furyks swing, is he hitting all the key positions?  If I hit A5 to A6 why does A3 matter anymore? If Robert Rock had the same angle at 5 as he does at 3 he would miss the ball too..  What is the difference in steep to shallow?  OR shallow to steep, but still outside the ball?  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bigtosh90
      bigtosh90
      (26 years old)
    2. dopplegvnger
      dopplegvnger
      (24 years old)
    3. Frank62
      Frank62
      (54 years old)
  • Blog Entries