Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4935 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I've been contemplating changing out my 3 and 5 wood for a 4 wood as is the current trend. But, there are some holes the driver is too much off the tee and I use a 3 wood.

How much real life difference in distance can I expect using the 4 instead of the 3? I know the articles say that the 4 is as long or longer, but I think that's calculated from launch monitor data and pro golfers. What can a high handicap recreational golfer expect?

Thanks.


Posted

I play a 4 wood 17 degree Titleist 910f but I can adjust it to a 3 wood degree or a 5 wood degree which is great. I think sometimes a strong 3 wood could just take the driver out of play completely as some people do not strike drivers as good as the woods or hybrids and I have played many round with no driver or 3 wood and only a 5 wood in the bag an shot very low scores. Distance is not always everything!


Posted

According to E. Michael Johnson in a May 2011 Golf Digest article...

The results of a 2009 launch-monitor test by Golf Digest found everyday golfers who swing less than 85 miles per hour actually carried the ball five yards longer with a 4-wood as opposed to a 3-wood, while those swinging more than 85 mph hit the 4-wood eight yards longer. (Elite players still hit 3-woods farther than 4-woods). In both instances the ball went higher too, providing a softer landing for those using the club on approaches into greens.

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2011-05/golf-johnson-equipment-0530#ixzz2EbC9HBwc

Above article link also has info on Tour pros and the 4W.

This summer, I went from a Calla X.Tour 3W (15*) and a 19* TM Raylor (5W, more or less) to a RBZ 3W.HL (17*, so it's a 4W) and an RBZ 7W. Had hook problems at first (regular RBZ FWs have slight draw bias and a 45 gr. shaft), but a thicker grip seems to have lessened this problem.

Anyway, when I swing smoothly, an OK hit with the "4W" goes 210 yds., about 10 yds. longer than an excellent hit with the old 3W.

General cautions:

  • Really test hit any FWs - especially those with lightweight shafts - to make sure they fit your swing.
  • Look at the specs sheet for the model before building a new FW mix. The RBZ "4w" and the 5W are only 2 degrees different in loft. I dumped the 5W - fortunately before I hit it - in favor of the 7W.

Basically, 4W = 17*, 7W = 21*; 4W had an inch longer shaft.

So... 4W goes 15 - 18 yds. longer than the 7W.

Focus, connect and follow through!

  • Completed KBS Education Seminar (online, 2015)
  • GolfWorks Clubmaking AcademyFitting, Assembly & Repair School (2012)

Driver:  :touredge: EXS 10.5°, weights neutral   ||  FWs:  :callaway: Rogue 4W + 7W
Hybrid:  :callaway: Big Bertha B16 OS 4H at 22°  ||  Irons:  :callaway: Mavrik MAX 5i-PW
Wedges:  :callaway: MD3: 48°, 54°... MD4: 58° ||  Putter:  image.png.0d90925b4c768ce7c125b16f98313e0d.png Inertial NM SL-583F, 34"  
Ball:  :srixon: QStar Tour - Divide  ||  Bag: :sunmountain: Three 5 stand bag

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I don't think I've lost noticeable distance by switching to a 4 wood. I still get about the same distance as my regular playing partner when he tees off with his 3 wood, which was the case when I carried my last 3 wood (07 Burner). For me, I think it's about the same when I hit the 4 off the tee, and definitely better off the deck than my old 3 wood.

In my Sun Mountain 14 Way Stand Bag:

Driver - Ping G30 10.5* : Fairway - Ping G30 18* : Hybrids - Titleist 915H 21* & 915 H 24* : Irons - Mizuno JPX 850 Forged 5 - GW : Wedges, Vokey 54.14, Vokey 58.12 : Putter - Scotty Cameron Studio Select Newport 2 or Ping Craz-E-R  : Ball - Bridgestone B330RX, Cart - Cliqgear 3.5


Posted

I had a Ping G15 4 wood for a while and it seem just as long and my G15 3 wood. I just made the switch to all Titleist and went with a 4 wood instead of a 3. I lowered the loft and with the shorter shaft I get about the same distance but it's easier to control. I've only used it one round so far, but I can already tell I made the right choice.


Posted

Thanks for the replies.  I presently use a Ping G15 driver, so th G15 4 wood will be the first one I look at.

Curious about the new G25 also.


Note: This thread is 4935 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 41, June 14.  I spent 10 minutes, half hitting W half hitting 6-iron, practice shots (indoors, off a mat, into a net)
    • Day 620 - 2026-06-14 Got some work in before and after lessons. Definitely didn't adduct my arms 130° in doing so.
    • Day 79: played 18. Shot a +5 76. Iron play was much better - 11 GIR. Hit a drive 380. Normal day. 
    • Day 14 (14 Jun 26) - Continued work with irons (8i-Pw), hard foam balls and getting consistent impact - same as previous drills - using gates for 1/2 and “simulated” course conditions on the second half.  
    • I like discussing the golf swing. Whether you call it "swing theory" or what, I like to talk about things that can expand the potential for what I know and understand. As a scientist, I like being shown that I'm wrong, too, because as I've said a bunch of times… "you're wrong and here's why" is an instant opportunity to upgrade my knowledge. I also like to help golfers, and one of the things I'm most glad to have moved away from from 15 years ago was the "Hands In" idea from S&T. Jim Waldron is often credited (probably rightly so) with explaining why so many Tour players and good players talk about "keeping their hands in front of themselves" while it appears that they're moving their arms around their bodies. From over 30 years ago: I've also got videos like… this (Instagram link here😞 I'm happy to say that I've become friends with Shaun and Mike at Athletic Motion Golf (AMG), too. I tend to get along with other smart folks who measure things, who look critically at information, who don't assume that what they thought 20 years ago holds true today. I get along with folks who look for chances to instantly upgrade their knowledge. Andy Plummer remains one of the people who does not look for these opportunities. He didn't care in early 2013 when we had evidence that the information in their S&T 2.0 DVDs was bogus, and they seemingly don't care now. They've been attacking (it's their favorite pastime) AMG in particular for the better part of a year now. There have been a few shots back at them from AMG (like… this), no doubt. But as is typical of the AMG fellas, it's with measured data. Well, recently, Andy took yet another shot at AMG: https://www.instagram.com/p/DZfHe0DuPXC/. Andy demonstrates that true power in the golf swing comes from doing stuff like this: Andy claims that the idea that the arms mostly lift and lower, while the body turns, is bogus. What golfers should be doing is using "angular velocity" to abduct and adduct their shoulders to move the club fast like this (above). Then he makes a ridiculous example of what AMG supposedly teaches, but misses by a mile. Now, it doesn't take a biomechanist to know that you can't possibly swing as Andy demonstrates. His right arm is so far around and behind him that his left arm would have to grow several feet to reach the grip of the club (or alignment stick), and a follow-through with the right arm position like that would be absolutely silly. But, it's a demonstration, so let's not read too much into it. However, I find ideas like this dangerous. Again, I like to help golfers, and in my opinion, the idea that you should abduct and adduct your arms a lot is a dangerous one. There's some adduction and abduction going on, but… it's not much. Anyway, this statement was posted: 130 degrees of dynamic range of horizontal abduction and adduction is quite the claim! I posted some comments to Andy and others, and was issued a challenge: Well, okay then. Here's Bryson's lead shoulder adduction: This measures the angle between the "virtual spine," the left shoulder, and the elbow. Bryson has a 97.34° "adduction angle" at P1, a 62.53° angle at P4, and returns to an 89.21° angle at impact. Rounding, that's a change of 34° from address to the top, and then a change (back toward the angle at address) of about 26° from the top to impact. If we want to worry about only horizontal abduction and adduction (where D = adduction and B = abduction): Left shoulder: 8.33° D, 38.74° D, 14.67° D Right shoulder: 1.03° D, 55.75° B, 14.04° B If we call moving the arms farther around you as negative, those are changes of -30.41° from P1 to P4 for the left shoulder and +24.07° from P4 to P7 for the left shoulder and -56.78° and +41.71° for the right shoulder. I have no idea on earth where he gets 130°. From the last frame of Bryson's swing where he's at 126.98°? But the lowest that number gets is 62.53°, for a range of 64.45, or less than half of the 130° claimed (plus it includes part of the swing, post-impact, that has no bearing on what the ball does). For good measure, another pretty good player: Left: 22.55° D ➡️ 33.35° D (∆ 10.8°) ➡️ 17.36° D (∆ 15.99° from P4, 5.19° from P1) Right: 15.03° D ➡️ 24.29° B (∆ 39.32°) ➡️ 1.93° D (∆ 26.22° from P4, 13.1° from P1) Of the biomechanists and experienced 3D users (on any platform), none of them have seen anything like 130° of dynamic adduction/abduction from a good player P1 to P7. And, like my little joke above, even if you go to the end of the swing, you rarely get much more than a little over halfway there. Maybe Andy is adding them? He does say in the video "and then add it to that with the lead arm." (I think that's what he says, but this isn't an additive type system.) I regularly coach golfers out of positions with a lot of adduction and abduction. I regularly work golfers away from moving their arms around their bodies. Even my juniors (the ones who have paid attention anyway! 🤣) can recite "arms = up/down, body = around." Like this: So, I don't know where this leaves us. Andy claims to have seen something on GEARS that shows 130° of dynamic adduction/abduction. I'm open to being wrong, but… I don't think I am here on this one. And, until that comes to be, I will continue to stand up for what I think is the best information, and do my best to work with golfers toward simpler, easier moves that don't get them stuck. Simpler, easier moves like the moves Tour players and great players tend to make, not complicated, difficult moves. Shaun and Mike said it in a video once where they demonstrated that the average Tour player adducts their lead arm 20° across their chest from the top to impact (P4 to P7), while the amateur often tries to go 40°. They said something like "the amateur is trying to move their arm TWICE the distance in the same amount of time as the professional athlete." Yep. The swings of great players are often easier and simpler. They are not abducting and adducting their arms much in comparison to average golfers. As a smart man once said: "Why would you teach something (abduction in this case) that bad golfers already do?" On a related note… the S&T crowd continues to be… well, who they've been as long as I've known them. Take this comment for example: I mean… I would think that this is pretty self-explanatory, but then again… I didn't think it needed explaining to begin with. P.S. As I was finishing up this article, another biomechanist replied with something so simple I hadn't even thought of it as I had immediately jumped into looking at the actual measurements: "90 doesn’t even seem physically possible.“ No, sir. It doesn't.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.