Phil's Two Drivers

[muskegman]

That article is a great example of how easy it is for so-called purists to exit reality in favor of a reality of their own making. Can he be serious? Is Nicklaus' use of a large putter in '86 the cause of serious golf problems? No. Ugh. Professional athletes are always going to push the envelope of performance because they are good and getting better.

[Jeepthrills]

The Tour Pros, just like the rest of us, are always looking for an edge. In fact, it's all the more important for them, as their livelyhoods are effected by the way they play. Granted Phil is not going to miss any meals if he plays poorly. Then again, I don't think Phil has missed a meal in quite some time. Anyway, It just happens that he is the most hig profile player to try somthing so quirky. It's really not all that different than a guy using four wedges.

That said, it is highly unlikely that this would help the average golfer. Many players don't know if they will have a draw or fade from hole to hole, much less be able to pull it off based on the club they hit. There is no question that the drivers with a draw bias will be flying off the shelves. There is also no question that the used club bins will be full of "second" drivers in no time as well when everyone realizes that they still can't hit a 295 yard power fade on one hole and a 310 yard draw on the next.

[nurseduffer]

I definately don't have the knowledge on this stuff that you guys have...but if the above average golfer wants those fade and draws and they can't afford the xtra $400. Why not buy a removable weight driver in the first place? But I guess it may be because you can't change the weights during a tournament...hmmm...
Did'nt they used to do this kinda stuff with the driver and the 2wood?

[iacas]

I definately don't have the knowledge on this stuff that you guys have...but if the above average golfer wants those fade and draws and they can't afford the xtra $400. Why not buy a removable weight driver in the first place? But I guess it may be because you can't change the weights during a tournament...hmmm...

Yeah, pros used to have a 2-wood, you bet.

Anyone who says there will be a two-driver craze now is just dumb. The players who think they'd benefit from that either have too much money to spend or are just really really dumb. And the strong three wood has kinda filled the 2-wood role, really, except you can hit it from the fairway too. Try that with an FT-3. Ain't easy...

[golfchief]

He found where he needed help and made the correct changes, soon we'll be seeing more guys putting two drivers in the bag, a few years ago when they started pulling clubs from their bag for more wedges we had two sides for that move and don't think its wrong to carry 4-5 wedges today even though we only use 2-3 of them. they carry the ball so far now days they really don't use the 3 & 4 irons for second shots.

[JPsuff]

If you ask me, I think it's a marketing gimmick.

Let's face it, a couple of years ago, manufacturers hit a ceiling in regard to distance. The balls are as lively as they're allowed to be and the club technology has hit USGA limits as well. But since the marketing beat goes on, new gimmicks have to be invented.

The first major gimmick resulted in the seemingly infinitesimal array of graphite shaft specs. Graphite shafts offer lighter weight which increases swing speeds. That's it. That's basically what they're good for. In fact, the original reason why graphite shafts were even developed in the first place was to offer an alternative to steel for those golfers who suffered from joint problems and who found it uncomfortable to swing steel shafts because the steel telegraphed shock waves up their arms. It was the pros who latched on to the notion that the lightness of graphite would allow for faster clubhead speeds, and the rest is history.
For the record, I use graphite shafts myself in my driver and other woods and I'll be the first to tell you that the lighter weight does indeed help in swing speed. I use titanium heads as well and their Hi-COR properties do indeed add distance. So I'm no luddite, but I can spot a scam when I see one.

Manufacturers have hit a bonanza by tweaking graphite shaft specs and adding bold graphics to their products and they have nurtured the public to believe that there is a shaft for every size and shape of golfer out there. This is true to some extent, but if you've paid close attention over the last couple of years, you'd notice that the trend is moving back towards a heavier shaft and much less torque overall. This is simply because torque is something that didn't have to be dealt with until the graphite revolution and for a while the torque specs were all over the place. Now, common sense is saying that leass torque, (like steel shafts), and a bit more weight than the feather-light offerings of a year ago make more sense, so the graphite "bubble" is shrinking.

The next big gimmick was the adjustable driver. The R-7 has led the way and is really just taking the age-old practice of using lead tape to adjust club characteristics and made it neat and user-friendly. Even though a roll of lead tape is far cheaper than a $500 driver, there always seemed to be some sort of mystery about how to use it properly. Not only that, but for the anal-retentive crowd, lead tape was simply an eyesore.

So all TM did was to take the tape idea, turn it into something mechanical, make it simple-to-use, and even include instructions as to exactly how to use it and BINGO! Instant success! So now, you have folks tinkering with their driver using screws and T-handled wrenches, doing exactly the same thing that I've been doing for decades with lead tape, but they're all paying $500-$700 for the privilege.

Is this a great country or what?

So now that the R7 craze is waning, enter the next gimmick: Two drivers.

There are more than enough examples over the years of pro's using two drivers, (or #2 woods which we used to call "Brassies"), but the marketing crowd never had a "superstar" using htem until Lefty came along. It was pure serendipity that not only is Lefty using two drivers but he's actually winning Majors as well.

Mark my words: The next "Big Thing" is going to be club manufacturers offering "Driver Sets". Drivers cutom designed to complement each other. One that's "designed" to promote a draw and one that's "designed" to promote a fade. I'm sure that there will also be a few offerings of Three-Driver sets which will include a "Straight" club as well.
Callaway will probably be first since Lefty is their boy and the sets will likely retail in the $699 to $899 range and I'll guarantee that people will line up in droves to be the first one on their block to buy one of these technological wonders. And once TM gets hold of the idea, they'll put some more scews in them and then they'll not only be touting "Fade" and "Draw" clubs, but you'll be able to adjust just how much fade or draw you'll need.

Like I said, the manufacturers are running out of truly unique concepts and the wheel can be re-invented just so many times before the idea gets old, so gimmickry is the order of the day.

I'll give 'em all credit for being there at the forefront of all of this "technology", but when you really look hard at it all, it's just a lot of old ideas wrapped up in new packaging.

[iacas]

If you ask me, I think it's a marketing gimmick.

He used both. And he won two tournaments fairly easily with 'em. Clearly there are other reasons...

Let's face it, a couple of years ago, manufacturers hit a ceiling in regard to distance. The balls are as lively as they're allowed to be and the club technology has hit USGA limits as well. But since the marketing beat goes on, new gimmicks have to be invented.

Like movable weights, composite clubs, longer shafts, the stuff in the HiBore, etc. I'll agree to all that. This, not so much...

The first major gimmick resulted in the seemingly infinitesimal array of graphite shaft specs. Graphite shafts offer lighter weight which increases swing speeds. That's it. That's basically what they're good for. In fact, the original reason why graphite shafts were even developed in the first place was to offer an alternative to steel for those golfers who suffered from joint problems and who found it uncomfortable to swing steel shafts because the steel telegraphed shock waves up their arms. It was the pros who latched on to the notion that the lightness of graphite would allow for faster clubhead speeds, and the rest is history.

Gonna have to disagree with you there. An Aldila NV stiff 45" shaft is not the same as a GD YS-6 stiff 45" shaft. There are a LOT of shafts out there, but they do have different characteristics (including weight). Weight isn't the only reason we have graphite shafts, nor is it the only difference between the graphtie shafts out there.

For the record, I use graphite shafts myself in my driver and other woods and I'll be the first to tell you that the lighter weight does indeed help in swing speed. I use titanium heads as well and their Hi-COR properties do indeed add distance. So I'm no luddite, but I can spot a scam when I see one.

I take it you've never been to a serious driver fitting? If you don't believe graphite shafts can have WILDLY different properties in the same length, flex, and weight, you couldn't have been.

Manufacturers have hit a bonanza by tweaking graphite shaft specs and adding bold graphics to their products

The bold graphics are more about getting noticed on TV, so that when someone sees Adam Scott with a Yellow/white/black shaft they know it's the UST ProForce V2, for example.

Now, common sense is saying that leass torque, (like steel shafts), and a bit more weight than the feather-light offerings of a year ago make more sense, so the graphite "bubble" is shrinking.

I don't see how this is germane to the topic of "marketing" and "two drivers."

The next big gimmick was the adjustable driver. The R-7 has led the way and is really just taking the age-old practice of using lead tape to adjust club characteristics and made it neat and user-friendly.

Do you know how much lead tape it would take to equal, say, 12 grams? Yes, lead tape may have been the inspiration, but the r7 and MWT is hardly a purely marketing gimmick. It makes sense - a clean way to move weight around in a club without altering swingweight (as adding lead tape can do). Without the mess, too. And since the r7 sells for about the same price as non-movable weight drivers...

Even though a roll of lead tape is far cheaper than a $500 driver, there always seemed to be some sort of mystery about how to use it properly. Not only that, but for the anal-retentive crowd, lead tape was simply an eyesore.

And it can change the swingweight. And it's not internal. And so forth. And no, they're not $500.

So all TM did was to take the tape idea, turn it into something mechanical, make it simple-to-use, and even include instructions as to exactly how to use it and BINGO! Instant success! So now, you have folks tinkering with their driver using screws and T-handled wrenches, doing exactly the same thing that I've been doing for decades with lead tape, but they're all paying $500-$700 for the privilege.

Or, you know,

$400 . You lose a lot of credibility when you get stuff like this so wrong. I'm now picking apart the pricing you chose instead of talking about your main point. In fact, I'm not sure what your main point is now...

It was pure serendipity that not only is Lefty using two drivers but he's actually winning Majors as well.

I thought you said that it was marketing?

Mark my words: The next "Big Thing" is going to be club manufacturers offering "Driver Sets".

I've marked them. I think you're dead wrong. I think customers are smart enough to know that they can't hit two drivers any better than they can hit their one driver.

Drivers cutom designed to complement each other. One that's "designed" to promote a draw and one that's "designed" to promote a fade.

Forgetting that 90% of the golfing public slices the shit out of the ball?

I'm sure that there will also be a few offerings of Three-Driver sets which will include a "Straight" club as well.

[pre]|------------------------------|----------------|[/pre]

[pre]Shallow Deep JP[/pre]

but you'll be able to adjust just how much fade or draw you'll need.

You can do that already. More weight. Instead of 6-10 you go 2-14...

Like I said, the manufacturers are running out of truly unique concepts and the wheel can be re-invented just so many times before the idea gets old, so gimmickry is the order of the day.

Again, I don't think the golfing public is THAT stupid. As a general rule I never try to underestimate the stupidity of any group of people, but I still think I'm safe here. Yes, a few guys will do it. I have six drivers right now (for review), but I'll only ever waste one of my official 14 spots on a driver.

Your words are marked.

[Jeepthrills]

I doubt Callaway went to Phil and said "You need to use 2 drivers so we can sell more." Then again, maybe he ran up another tab at the Palms. Sorry, that was out of line. Anyway, golfers in general are sheep. If they think somthing will work, they will follow. Case in point just about any infomercial. I agree that it is similar to carrying 4 wedges. You may only use the second driver 4 times per round, but you may not every hit one of those wedges either in a given round.

[JPsuff]

Erik,

I understand what you're saying. And yes, an NV stiff is very different from a YS-6, but the same can be said about an X-100 versus an R-100.

But you have to admit that golf is the most gadget-oriented sport in the world.

Just look through a shaft catalog. There are literally hundreds of "different" shafts available but in many cases those differences are so miniscule that tour pros would have a hard time telling one from another. I mean, do you honestly believe that the average golfer can tell the difference between a shaft with a torque rating of 3.6 to that of one with 3.8? Or be able to feel the difference between a 76 gram and a 74 gram shaft?

Phil's using two drivers wasn't set up by Callaway. But you can bet the rent that once he started winning with that combination, the wheels at Callaway started turning big time.

For decades, golf equipment was basically standard, save for a few different shaft weights and flexes. But once enough pressure was placed on the USGA to relax its standards and allow such things as metal heads and square grooves, the floodgates opened.
Personally, I've always agreed with Jack that there ought to be some kind of standardization of equipment in golf. I believe that golf today has become a caricature of itself. Pro golf has been reduced to little more than a putting contest and the average golfer finds it easier to buy a game rather than practice one.

I mean, doesn't it seem somewhat absurd that a 460 yard par four can be reached with a 3-wood and an 8-iron these days? Ten years ago, the idea of carrying four wedges was ridiculous. Now, the idea of carrying a 2-iron is.
I just read the latest issue of Golf Magazine, and I read some of their club reviews. The phrase "fault-correction", or some variation of it, is used in many instances because instant gratification has replaced practice time as the order of the day in golf, and I think that's sad.

There is no fault correction for scoring in, say, basketball. There's no oversized rim, or shortened rim height. If you want to be good at basketball, you just have to practice, practice, practice. But in golf, everything today is trending towards overpowering courses instead of playing them. Look at the fiasco at Shinnecock a few years ago. Because of all this "technology", they took a great old course, and turned it into a circus by turning the greens into linoleum and shaving their edges, all in an effort to offset the ability of players who would otherwise overpower it because of ball and club technology.

I'm not thrilled with all of this stuff, but if I'mm gonna compete with the rest of the world, then I have no choice but to level the playing field in my own bag.

I guess what I'm saying is that I miss my MacGregor 'Eye-O-Matic'. I miss the craftsmanship that used to be a part of golf equipment and I miss watching a pro hit a two-iron into a small green on a tight par four.

[NM Golf]

Gonna have to disagree with you there. An Aldila NV stiff 45" shaft is not the same as a GD YS-6 stiff 45" shaft. There are a LOT of shafts out there, but they do have different characteristics (including weight). Weight isn't the only reason we have graphite shafts, nor is it the only difference between the graphite shafts out there. I take it you've never been to a serious driver fitting? If you don't believe graphite shafts can have WILDLY different properties in the same length, flex, and weight, you couldn't have been.

I couldn't agree with you more. The shaft switch I just made in my driver made a HUGE difference. Its like night and day. Weight, flex, torque, kick point, they all make a huge difference in how a shaft performs for a certain person.

As far as the everyday golfer going out and buying two drivers, well if your that gullible by all means go for it, it won't help, but go for it. Mickelson is the number two player in the world, he can do big things with subtle changes in club makeup. It obviously works for him and it has given him confidence in an area of his game that has been suspect in the past. The mere fact that it has boosted his confidence makes it worth it. It was not a marketing ploy on Mickelson's part, although Callaway and every major golf retailer has used it as one since. The only point I disagree with Erik on is where he believes the public is not stupid enough to buy into the two driver craze. Unfortunately Erik they are. I work at a golf course and I am already seeing guys showing up with two drivers in their bags, and we are getting more orders every day. People will do anything to try and lower their scores.

[JPsuff]

Well, here's an example of the silliness I'm referring to:

In the Golsmith catalog, a Graphalloy Blue shaft is offered, ($55.95).

Its specs are as follows:

R-flex: 90-100 m.p.h. SS - Torque 2.8 - Lo-trajectory - 62 grams.
S-flex: 100-110 m.p.h. SS - Torque 2.8 - Lo-trajectory - 63 grams.
X-flex: 105-120 m.p.h. SS - Torque 2.8 - Lo-trajectory - 63 grams.

Now, is there anyone out there who is actually going to tell me that there is some kind of difference between the three "different" shafts?

They must be different, otherwise they wouldn't be rated, R, S and X, right?
Yet their specs are identical, save for a one-gram difference in weight between the R and the S / X. And I'll bet my house that there isn't a single golfer in the world who could sense that one gram difference - pro or otherwise.

I know, I know... someone's going to say that it's in the tip trimming.So then why offer three shafts? Why not just offer one shaft and tell everyone that if you want it Regular, you leave it alone, you trim 1/2" for an S and 1-inch for an X?
But no, they'll send you what you ordered and it will actually have "R" or "S" or "X" written on it.

And this is just one example. There are myriad examples of this same kind of thing throughout the world of graphite shafts because everyone and his brother has jumped on the graphite bandwagon. Surely there are differences in swings and strengths to require a varied selection of shafts. But there can't be that many differences amongst swings and individuals to justify the hundreds upon hundreds of shaft styles out there. So the only answer left is that marketing and graphics are the driving forces behind the graphite craze. More so than any truly meaningful differences in technology.

[NM Golf]

R-flex: 90-100 m.p.h. SS - Torque 2.8 - Lo-trajectory - 62 grams.

I can guarantee I could tell the difference in those 3 shafts. Not by weight but by shaft flex. In fact I guarantee you would be able to tell the difference too by just watching my ball flight. Its not just about weight.

They must be different, otherwise they wouldn't be rated, R, S and X, right?

No I doubt anyone could tell the difference of 1 gram but again its not just about weight. I just switched shafts and put in a shaft that weighed 30 grams more than the original shaft, and I can tell the difference big time between the two. Shaft flex is the biggest difference in shafts. Also there where the shaft bends and torque.

I know, I know... someone's going to say that it's in the tip trimming.So then why offer three shafts? Why not just offer one shaft and tell everyone that if you want it Regular, you leave it alone, you trim 1/2" for an S and 1-inch for an X?

So what your saying is all X-Stiff Shafts are 1 inch shorter than regular flex shafts? Do you realize how ridiculous of a statement that is? As a player who has X-Stiff shafts in all his clubs let me tell you my clubs are the same length as the old farts I play with. You'll notice that on most shaft series the X-Stiff shafts tend to be a gram or so heavier than the Regular flex shaft. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the manufacturer might of had to use a bit more material in the shaft in order to get it stiffer? Sure if you tip a shaft it will make it stiffer but its just easier to switch to a stiffer shaft flex and keep the extra inch.

Listen live in the dark ages but to say there is no difference in shaft makeup is just ridiculous.

[JPsuff]

You may be right.

But what I'm saying is that from a buyer's point of view, what is Graphalloy showing, in terms of specs, that demonstrates the difference in these shafts? At least with DG shafts, there's an obvious difference between X's and R/S's, (the amount of steps in the shaft). But honestly, if I'm browsing a shaft catalog and I came across that particular set of specs, I'd be inclined to think that they're basically offering the same thing just with different packaging.

I never said that there aren't differences in shafts.

What I AM saying is that there are so many shafts out there that any real differences between manufacturers is miniscule. Kick-point, weight and torque are about it. Beyond that is simply hairsplitting and something that I believe is lost on the average golfer. And whatever differences do exist on that hairsplitting level - quantifiable as they may be - they are not of such significance as to have any major effect on performance.

My point in all of this is that golf is one of those marketplaces where when someone comes out with the next "great thing", you can be sure that there will be hundreds of follwers all looking to cash in on it. Thus the endless stream of shafts flooding the marketplace.

It's gotten to the point where people are spending more time deciding what shaft to use than they are actually swinging a golf club and I think the whole thing is silly.

I don't think that graphite technology is silly in and of itself. I use graphite shafts myself and yes, I CAN tell the difference between SOME shafts. But when I look at what's being offered out there, I can't help but think that this whole graphite thing is like some runaway train and has evolved into a confusing, often contradictory pile of nomenclature that few people understand and that ultimately is of little discernable difference other than the three categories I mentioned.

This is a game, remember? We're not designing instrumentation for interstellar spacecraft, so why are we treating it as if we are?

[muskegman]

This is a game, remember? We're not designing instrumentation for interstellar spacecraft, so why are we treating it as if we are?

I agree with your post, but I am glad that some people take equipment as seriously as they do. As more and more companies pour money into R&D; we are getting better and better products. The quality and performance of equipment has made huge strides because of the golf equipment "arms race."

It would be easy to get into the habit of trusting those selling the latest snake oil. If a shaft has a fancy new graphic and promises to add 45 yards its probably snake oil. Keeping equipment performance in perspective is vital if only to save our pocket books. Its like anything though: you generally get what you pay for. I wanted a high quality guitar a few years back, so I had to spend the money to do so. Because I know guitars pretty well I knew what to look for and was happy to spend the extra to get something that played well and I would enjoy. Same with golf equipment. Spending a little more to play equipment that works for you and you enjoy looking at is worth it on an individual level. Phil Mickelson can take advantage of technology because he is good at what he does. Theres no way that I'd be able to take advantage of two drivers becuase I don't have the skill level he does. It pays off for him, not for me.

[NM Golf]

What I AM saying is that there are so many shafts out there that any real differences between manufacturers is miniscule. Kick-point, weight and torque are about it

.

Thats kind of like saying those are the same car except they have different engines, one is porsche, and one is a Kia. The weight, kick point, flex, and torque are what makes a golf shaft different in the first place. After those aspects all thats different is the paint job. You've proved my point. Cars all have 4 wheels and an engine. They all do basically the same job, get you from point A to point B. But I hardly think all cars do it in the same way. There is a big difference in performance between a Porsche and a Kia. The same goes with golf shafts. Kick point, weight, stiffness and torque all have a HUGE impact on how the ball comes off the driver head. The shaft is the engine of the golf club. The head means very little. All you need to do to see that difference is get on a swing monitor and get custom fitted. See Eriks article.

My point in all of this is that golf is one of those marketplaces where when someone comes out with the next "great thing", you can be sure that there will be hundreds of follwers all looking to cash in on it. Thus the endless stream of shafts flooding the marketplace.This is a game, remember? We're not designing instrumentation for interstellar spacecraft, so why are we treating it as if we are?

Ummmmm, thats called keeping the economy growing. Its a good thing. If people didn't always want the next "great thing" we would all be in trouble and I would still be driving around in my 1985 Ford Escort listening to my eight track.

[iacas]

But you have to admit that golf is the most gadget-oriented sport in the world.

There are some kayak fishermen I know who would test your opinion on this issue.

Just look through a shaft catalog. There are literally hundreds of "different" shafts available but in many cases those differences are so miniscule that tour pros would have a hard time telling one from another. I mean, do you honestly believe that the average golfer can tell the difference between a shaft with a torque rating of 3.6 to that of one with 3.8?

They don't have to. It's not like you can get an Aldila NV 65-S with ALL the same characteristics EXCEPT torque. No, instead, the only time you see a 3.6 and a 3.8 it's in an entirely different model shaft.

Or be able to feel the difference between a 76 gram and a 74 gram shaft?

Ditto the above. Nobody steps their shafts down two grams within the same model line.

Phil's using two drivers wasn't set up by Callaway. But you can bet the rent that once he started winning with that combination, the wheels at Callaway started turning big time.

Actually I have a mortgage... and I wouldn't bet it because Callaway, like most companies, is run by people. And people typically don't like to be laughed at. Callaway would be laughed at if they seriously started telling people to buy two drivers.

For decades, golf equipment was basically standard, save for a few different shaft weights and flexes. But once enough pressure was placed on the USGA to relax its standards and allow such things as metal heads and square grooves, the floodgates opened.

There was never a rule that said wood heads had to be made of wood. C'mon man... and Gary Player tried fiberglass (right?) shafts a looooong time ago.

Personally, I've always agreed with Jack that there ought to be some kind of standardization of equipment in golf.

We have standardized rules for equipment. Please, go look them up.

Pro golf has been reduced to little more than a putting contest and the average golfer finds it easier to buy a game rather than practice one.

And yet, even back in Ben Hogan's day, he called it a putting contest. Dave Koseter has shown repeatedly in The Numbers Game that hitting greens and putting well is how you win. And guess what? It's pretty much always been that way.

So if putting is so important, why do you care so much about graphite shafts? Not many people have graphite-shafted putters.

I mean, doesn't it seem somewhat absurd that a 460 yard par four can be reached with a 3-wood and an 8-iron these days? Ten years ago, the idea of carrying four wedges was ridiculous. Now, the idea of carrying a 2-iron is.

So is the idea of using a club called a "spoon." Golf moves on. You may want to try it.

I just read the latest issue of Golf Magazine, and I read some of their club reviews. The phrase "fault-correction", or some variation of it, is used in many instances because instant gratification has replaced practice time as the order of the day in golf, and I think that's sad.

There aren't many pros out there using clubs that offer a lot of "fault-correction." And I guarantee you clubs will not help someone more than decent practice will.

There is no fault correction for scoring in, say, basketball.

Sure there is. It's called "we won't call travelling even though 99% of basketball players take more than two steps before a layup."

And that's a bad call. If you want to compare equipment, look at other individual sports that use a lot of tools. Even the bowling ball has undergone massive changes in the past 30 years. The tennis racket. Even the pool cue, wow what they can do to pool cues these days. Comparing basketball and golf is like comparing, well, basketball and golf.

Look at the fiasco at Shinnecock a few years ago.

That had little to do with technology and a lot to do with pushing a course over the edge of the hill. The USGA was temporarily insane there.

Because of all this "technology", they took a great old course, and turned it into a circus by turning the greens into linoleum and shaving their edges, all in an effort to offset the ability of players who would otherwise overpower it because of ball and club technology.

Disagreed.

I guess what I'm saying is that I miss my MacGregor 'Eye-O-Matic'. I miss the craftsmanship that used to be a part of golf equipment and I miss watching a pro hit a two-iron into a small green on a tight par four.

I miss it too. Except occasionally I see it on a par 5...

But that doesn't make golf less exciting for me. I've learned to adapt and stay with the times.

But what I'm saying is that from a buyer's point of view, what is Graphalloy showing, in terms of specs, that demonstrates the difference in these shafts? At least with DG shafts, there's an obvious difference between X's and R/S's, (the amount of steps in the shaft).

If you don't understand shaft flex, then your participation in this particular discussion really should come to an end.

It's very easy to tell the difference between R, S, and X shafts, particularly in drivers. Oftentimes you don't even need to hit the ball. Graphalloy (True Temper) is merely saying they make that particular shaft in those flexes. Some shafts don't come in all three (R, S, X), some only come in lady/senior flexes, and so forth.

But honestly, if I'm browsing a shaft catalog and I came across that particular set of specs, I'd be inclined to think that they're basically offering the same thing just with different packaging.

Uhm, and a different flex. Which is really the point...

What I AM saying is that there are so many shafts out there that any real differences between manufacturers is miniscule. Kick-point, weight and torque are about it.

Flex (not all "S" are the same). Appearance. Tip diameter.

Beyond that is simply hairsplitting and something that I believe is lost on the average golfer.

Given we've not yet defined "the average golfer," I'll leave this one alone except to say this: nearly every golfer would benefit from being fit for a driver, including the shaft in that driver. It would behoove them to learn what range of shafts and characteristics suit them.

And whatever differences do exist on that hairsplitting level - quantifiable as they may be - they are not of such significance as to have any major effect on performance.

You are

very wrong here. Given shaft A from manufacturer A in 45" length, mid kick point, 3 degrees torque, and an "S" marking weighing 75 grams, and shaft B from manufacturer B with the SAME characteristics, there will likely be differences. Why? Because the manufacturers have different flex ratings. That's why. And I can hit a stiff 3-degree-torque shaft horribly and hit another with nearly identical specs really well. In fact, I did so last year when I went to a driver fitting. And I watched 20 or so other golfers experience the same thing(s). Not only measurable, but noticeable differences in performance between very similar shafts. So I can not only say I disagree, but I feel safe in saying that you're wrong.

My point in all of this is that golf is one of those marketplaces where when someone comes out with the next "great thing", you can be sure that there will be hundreds of follwers all looking to cash in on it. Thus the endless stream of shafts flooding the marketplace.

I don't think shafts are "the next great thing." I think we have a lot of shafts because there are a lot of different kinds of golf swings. It's about more than swing speed. Fourteen guys with the same exact swing speed will have 14 very different swings and, if properly fitted, anywhere from 7 to 14 different shafts to perform their best.

It's gotten to the point where people are spending more time deciding what shaft to use than they are actually swinging a golf club and I think the whole thing is silly.

My driver fitting took about 30 minutes...

This is a game, remember? We're not designing instrumentation for interstellar spacecraft, so why are we treating it as if we are?

Because if I'm going to spend $400 on a driver, I'd like it to have the best shaft

for me installed in it.

[JPsuff]

iacas,

Let me be the first congratulate you on bringing new meaning to the word: "Didactic".

Tell me, do you get struck often?

[ragontona]

Just watching the back-n-forth on this issue, and agree and disagree with both iacas and JPsuff on various points.

But I noticed something funny. JPSuff's going off on the equipment, and how most golfers wouldn't feel the difference between A and B... but then I looked at the sig block.

Dude, that's a highly-specialized set of sticks you got there with some pretty fancy schmantzy shafts.

So basically the vibe I'm getting is that all the technology's cool for you 'cuz you're a low-handicapper, but the rest of us shlubs can't tell the difference and it wouldn't matter.

Didactic with a smidgen of hypocrisy, I say.