Square Drivers

[indacup]

It really just depends.

That's pathetic......BSG is the biggest joke in the industry,,,,those heads can be picked up (and are) by Todd (and can be by anyone else) for half the price......

"...The downsides to a square head is a little more spin, a little less workability, and a little less distance (probably about 10 yards tops)..."

Granted, you do get more spin, slightly less workability (depending on the brand).....but distance is debatable...for someone with a slower swing speed the added spin can add more airtime = more distance......then, if properly fitted/re-shafted, you can get more distance as well.

[indacup]

A square driver is a draw club.

Who, on Gods green Earth fed you that crap????

[ScruffyScraper]

Unless you tee off wearing a blindfold, the first thing you'll need for a square driver is a strong stomach!

[grantc79]

That's pathetic......BSG is the biggest joke in the industry,,,,those heads can be picked up (and are) by Todd (and can be by anyone else) for half the price......

Sure but for those with faster swing speeds that need those clubs they can be tough to get your hands on.

When you consider that they will build the club of your choice, fitted for you specifically based on your swing speed and trackman numbers, hot melted if needed, even heat bent to whatever degree open or closed you want I don't think its a bad price. Now for the 2000 dollar clubs sure. But for a 700 dollar one considering a new driver at Edwin Watts can run you 500 plus tax I don't have a problem with 700.

[tim31x]

after trying a few square drivers. they suck, bottom line haha. i really don't want to buy one anymore. but i have my eyes set on a Nike Sasquatch SUMO 5000, i was bombing it the other day with the aldila shaft, the diama launches too low for my liking.

[indacup]

Sure but for those with faster swing speeds that need those clubs they can be tough to get your hands on.

We offer the same thing...as does a few other facilities......at half the cost...I am not saying that to promote us...as a matter of fact if anyone is interested, I will direct them to one of few who offer the same services...at half the cost.

[st0wgolf08]

Who, on Gods green Earth fed you that crap????

Hmm, the fact that square drivers are made to square the club face easier. The fact that most manufacturers square drivers are 3-9 degrees closed. Sure the ft-i is different, but that seems about the only one that you can actually do anything with, and the ft-i was the weirdest driver I've ever hit, it was so tiny.

[indacup]

Hmm, the fact that square drivers are made to square the club face easier. The fact that most manufacturers square drivers are 3-9 degrees closed. Sure the ft-i is different, but that seems about the only one that you can actually do anything with,

Wow,

You truly ARE stupid! I thought in the other thread you were just arrogant...but now you are claiming that "...Most manufacturers square drivers are 3-9 degrees closed". I challenge you to post links to manufacturer specs showing any square head at or even CLOSE to 9* closed. If that were the case, do you have any idea what that would do to the effected loft? I have an idea you have no idea what effected loft even means...it has become apparent, especially after this last statement of yours, that you are nothing more than an arrogant simpleton.

"...and the ft-i was the weirdest driver I've ever hit, it was so tiny.

Tiny???

It is 460cc...the maximum volume the USGA allows!!!! (see link below) You are truly hilarious!!! http://shop.callawaygolf.com/Drivers/FT-i_Driver.html

[st0wgolf08]

Wow,

Yes i thought it was tiny, it's very long shaped and it just looks small at adress. You need to take the chill pill, you make everything personal, and I'm pretty sure most people don't like that. In golf magazine or golf digest they did an article on square drivers and a couple were anti slice machines. I will gladly buy you a copy, so you can shove it down your throat after you read it. Thanks

[indacup]

Yes i thought it was tiny, it's very long shaped and it just looks small at adress. You need to take the chill pill, you make everything personal, and I'm pretty sure most people don't like that. In golf magazine or golf digest they did an article on square drivers and a couple were anti slice machines. I will gladly buy you a copy, so you can shove it down your throat after you read it. Thanks

Anti slice machines and 3-9* closed are completely different things!

Do you even KNOW the principle of weight distribution in a square driver? Lets review...you made a STATEMENT that most square heads are made up to 9* closed...I challenged you to prove it...can ya do it or not? Are you used to making lies and not backing them up? Show me a few links where a MFG claims to make a square head 3-9* closed.... you can't, can ya??? LOL Now as far as the i-drive...first you claimed it was tiny...now I prove to you it is as large as the USGA allows...and you are back peddling?? You are a real piece of...well..."work"

[st0wgolf08]

Anti slice machines and 3-9* closed are completely different things!

Well i'm sitting at the airport and will be flying soon, and won't get home till later, but I promise you, I'll scan that article and post it all. And by anti slice machine I mean it's highly closed and offset. I was not back peddling, I obviously realized it is 460cc, as pretty much all big name drivers are 460 except the 909d3, im sure there are others but it is a majority that is 460. I was simply explaining why It felt small to me. I'm not even going to give you links so you can say their bad, I will give you print on the subject so you can have no excuse. You seem to think your quite the smart one, until you see the info. In the other thread I clearly posted sources and you blatantly ignored them, I pray you do not do that again, for my time would be wasted a second time.

[indacup]

Well i'm sitting at the airport and will be flying soon, and won't get home till later, but I promise you, I'll scan that article and post it all. And by anti slice machine I mean it's highly closed and offset. I was not back peddling, I obviously realized it is 460cc, as pretty much all big name drivers are 460 except the 909d3, im sure there are others but it is a majority that is 460. I was simply explaining why It felt small to me. I'm not even going to give you links so you can say their bad, I will give you print on the subject so you can have no excuse. You seem to think your quite the smart one, until you see the info. In the other thread I clearly posted sources and you blatantly ignored them, I pray you do not do that again, for my time would be wasted a second time.

Don't give me this side show crap...be a man and stand behind your statements...you said:

1) "The USGA put legal limits of a smash factor at 1.50". I challenged you to show me the USGA ruling that says that...the USGA is the ruling power...not you. So SHOW me the USGA ruling or apologize. 2) "Most square headed drivers are 3-9 degrees close" I challenged you to show me the MFG specs where they show those specs. Again, prove it or apologize. 3) You already admitted you lied when you said earier that the Callaway square was "tiny". So prove to me...and ALL of us that you didn't lie about the other two promulgations. Normally, I would not be so aggressive in calling a liar (like you) out...but you made some serious accusations to me earlier...I gave you a public opportunity to calm down and start over....you apparently opted not to do so. So now, the gloves are off... You show me the ACTUAL USGA ruling on smash factor and spec sheets showing head faces closed 9 degrees. And I mean the REAL USGA ruling and REAL spec sheets...not the claims of your hero (below)...

[st0wgolf08]

Don't give me this side show crap...be a man and stand behind your statements...you said:

Now your comparing me to billy mays? That is just childish, If it wasn't sitting at RSW airport in Fort Myers Florida, I would be getting you those, but I have other matters at hand. If you would be patient I told you I would get my sources, as soon as I actually returned to my home. I never said anything about the USGA setting a limit on smash factor, I said it was PHYSICS that said you can't exceed that with a USGA conforming driver.

[indacup]

Now your comparing me to billy mays? That is just childish, If it wasn't sitting at RSW airport in Fort Myers Florida, I would be getting you those, but I have other matters at hand. If you would be patient I told you I would get my sources, as soon as I actually returned to my home.

Remember, I said ACTUAL USGA rulings and ACTUAL manufacturer specifications claiming 9* closed face....nothing else....not what others think or not how you perceive things in your dream world....actual, documentation from the actual sources directly.

"..I never said anything about the USGA setting a limit on smash factor..."

Um, yes you did. Please see below a previous statement from you:

"...If your smash factor is 1.55 or 1.7, you're using either an illegal ball or illegal driver.

[st0wgolf08]

Remember, I said ACTUAL USGA rulings and ACTUAL manufacturer specifications claiming 9* closed face....nothing else....not what others think or not how you perceive things in your dream world....actual, documentation from the actual sources directly.

I did say that, but what did I just tell you? The USGA does not claim a max smash factor! They claim what the clubs can weigh, and what their COR can be(.83) inputting those values, you get that 1.5 can not be exceeded, IF the driver confirms to USGA rules. The USGA said nothing on the subject, they make the club rules, if you apply those to the equation, then you get the theoretical max.

[indacup]

I did say that, but what did I just tell you? The USGA does not claim a max smash factor! They claim what the clubs can weigh, and what their COR can be(.83) inputting those values, you get that 1.5 can not be exceeded, IF the driver confirms to USGA rules. The USGA said nothing on the subject, they make the club rules, if you apply those to the equation, then you get the theoretical max.

Okay.....

So you are saying that you DID say it......then above in a previous post you said you DIDN'T say it....then in this post you said you did and didn't?...LOL Which side of the face of yours are we supposed to believe??? ...LOL Actually, the COR testing was replaced by the pendulum test a few years ago...(so ya might wanna freshen up on those facts as well). In the mean time, what I was trying to explain to you in the other thread before you called ME ignorant was that many things determine or are contributory to a smash factor...and one of them aside from equipment configuration and angle of impact, is the mass ratio between ball weight and club head weight. So depending on the players swing and delivery, added weight can amplify the impact and thereby increasing ball velocity. Some players, it's the opposite and they need a lighter head....this is why everyone needs to be fitted...to determine their dynamic personality and apply that knowledge to their equipment configuration.

[st0wgolf08]

Okay.....

Yes you should check out the max ball weights, how am I being two faced? I told you i never said the USGA said a max, I admitted to saying that there is a physical limit on it. Also their are club weight limits. With all limits taken into account the max is 1.50 You've yet to give me one resource to show that it can be higher. I've given two. So 2-0 me at halftime. You wanted to act childish-now you got it. Give me something to make me change my mind about the smash factor max.

[indacup]

".... how am I being two faced? I told you i never said the USGA said a max, I admitted to saying that there is a physical limit on it...."

No, you used the word "ILLEGAL"....the only organization that can declare equipment "illegal" is the USGA...so therefore, for you to claim something is illegal, YOU need to show me the ruling by the USGA.

Why is it so difficult for you to back up your own words?

Also their are club weight limits. With all limits taken into account the max is 1.50 You've yet to give me one resource to show that it can be higher.

What weight limits are you talking about? is this another "Rule" you are saying exists?

I can tell you right now we have drivers on our shelves, all USGA conforming that weigh 194-204 gms.....plus we can add weight as needed....So share with me your new ruling that limits that as well? Tell me how you can explain how the USGA allows companies permission to ADD weight by means of weight ports if there is a strict weight limit as you claim? I am sure that me, all our staff, the USGA and PCS would love to know your basis for these claims because apparently, you know more about the industry than those who oversee it. By the way, how ya coming along with manufacturer specs indicating a 9 degree closed face on square drivers???