Jump to content

Mike Boatright

Established Member
  • Content count

    682
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About Mike Boatright

  • Rank
    Dedicated Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Auburn, CA

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    5
  • Handedness
    Righty
  1. Again your just using a play on words it's trivial an irrelevant. 5 pound can,bucket etc.. The point being it's large hollow and weighs more than the compact lighter yet dense 2 pound lead ball. Ill take the homer bucket falling on me all day vs that lead ball,but in a way that's irrelevant were talking golf ball x mass and energy transfer just an idea. I'm not saying iv'e tested this or have seen this as absolute. .
  2. Similar comments and such. I said a 5 pound plastic bucket vs a solid 2 pound lead ball yes. I get it it just fine guy i'm just trying to think outside the lines and harness new concepts and new ideas. You guys are stuck in the idea that tech is as good as it's ever going to get syndrome. I remember 15 years ago some Executive from x box quoted that graphics in the original HALO were as real as it's ever going to get bar none! It's that kind of thinking that get's you nowhere and is kinda arrogant. Is it though how much of that extra 30 or 50 grams is actually being utilized to transfer energy into the ball vs moi and stability? This brings me back to the description I was using stating a 2 pound lead ball dropped on to concrete might apply more force at the same speed from 2 stories up then a 5 pound can or plastic bucket. I'm just assuming this from logic. Figuring this possibility a reduction in say 35 grams and a head design that utilizes 100% of that mass into impact could perform just as good as the heavier 200 gram version. Of course with the same prototype design a 200 gram head would go even farther it would just be harder to achieve clubhead speed. I know mass is mass it doesn't matter... Common sense tells me otherwise with the correct design.
  3. I would love to see some robotic testing hitting a golf ball with a heavier more massive object expanded like this titanium plate vs the more compacted slightly lighter version being the end of this hammer. Just like blades in steel irons direct hits seem to provide more energy to the ball then it's cavity back cousins because of perimeter weighting offer more moi I guess? It adds forgiveness on all around hits on the total face diameter.
  4. The speed would be the same but the direct force would not. The 2 pound ball could kill where the 5 pound homer bucket from the home depot would hurt but bounce off your head. Yes I said this earlier callaways drivers is bad ass they have managed to make the 460 cc driver move as fast as possible within it's structure and weight. I actually have nothing against a 200 gram head my goal here is to find a way to swing something 120 mph without a lot of effort. From testing weight is the most determent factor of clubhead speed not so much aerodynamics. Given the same shaft length and weight with the same grip the lighter head goes much,much faster regardless of how aerodynamic that larger object may be.
  5. My Swing (Jeremie Boop)

    Looks like you could work on getting your swing less up and swing and more circular. It's a fine swing that is just off plane a bit. Your set up needs better posture keep that head up a little and make a finish to the target but slightly left. Notice how high your arms are in your follow through? This indicates a very up and down motion vs slightly up around and through.
  6. Yes. If the club head is lighter then you lose kinetic energy, lose in smash factor. CG location just helps determine launch angel, MOI and spin rates. Sweet spot extends a good ways from the center of the club face. CG is where the center of mass is located. The mass is centered horizontally on drivers already. This had been said before. No you will not get optimal ball speeds because the mass lowers the smash factor as said a lot already. I know it's so weird to me though were talking grams not 5 pounds vs 20 pounds dropping from a 2 story building and figuring which one will do more damage. I will say that a 2 pound ball dropped into a cement object would probably deliver more direct energy vs a 5 pound metal can,at least that's what I can see in my mind.
  7. I'm in it more for the science and fun. I just cut down one of my drivers to 43.5 inches and hit it 250 carry when i hit it well. I'm not a super long hitter and when I playing well find a decent amount of fairways.
  8. That's very interesting I get all of I'm not saying it's wrong. I made the video because a few people on here said you wouldn't pick up clubhead speed with a lighter head. It feels so good to make a very easy swing and hit 115 mph without trying very hard. My question is it simply weight and that's a fact no matter where the weight is positioned? Will the results always have to be in the 190 to 212 grams range? I for one figure the sweet spot on a driver is the size of a golf ball and the rest of the face is a miss. I just weighed this broken ping tsi tec head I have at 212 grams yet it's very small in cc 330 grams. I have hit some of the best drives of my life with this clubs and still figure the sweet spot to be the size of a golf ball maybe a little less even though it's small and always felt a little heavy. So what if they make a 330 cc driver similar to this one in design at 175 grams and less cg placement and more centered mass could that still produce optimal ball speed?. I figure I could probably swing a 175 gram head pretty fast in fact I will add some weight to the callaway to see the results.
  9. I like a good joke as much as the next guy. I hope your kidding though and not one of those the earth is 1000 years old kinda followers are you?
  10. Well yes and no I'm sure tour guys who swing it 119 mph like to feel the clubhead for control. When my swing is on plane it's in control it's much easier for me to do so when I have less effort. I have a swing plane guide and have found the 155 gram club is easier to stay in balance with. I can slow it down to 99 or so with the standard driver but that loses much yardage.. A pane of glass doesn't really apply to a near spherical clubhead? Your correct though some people wouldn't like it until they see the results. Who knows maybe the end result would be 165 grams either way it couldnt look or feel any different in fact it would probably feel more balanced. See picture below here is a sphere on a stick. say it's on a 44.5 inch driver shaft yet the face is as large as the current driver in cm and the head is wrapped around a 300 cc composite design.. It weighs 155 to 165 grams yet it so centered you can feel the head throughout your swing just fine maybe even better. Because it's light you can whale on it yet remain in balance and actually keep it on plane better that the current tin can models. Modern drivers are getting less tin canny and more aerodynamic all the time but it's mostly hype a lot and cool looks. I swung this club on a machine 107 no different than any driver within the last 20 years and it still felt heavy. Don't get me wrong this is a bad ass driver that's designed to move it's 460 cc of wasted materiel as fast as it can and if it was on a shorter lighter shaft I may have picked up speed.
  11. Oh not at all I'm theorizing a smaller lighter overall head at 155 grams with the same face size as the current driver. My test concluded that I could swing the 44.5 inch 60 gram shaft 155 gram driver head 119 mph with ease because of it's head weight vs my 200 gram standard club 110 with measurable effort.. Current drivers are big in the wrong places mostly the body which only provides stability within itself. A smaller body results in less stability needs and with correct engineering more centered mass and the same energy transfer. I'm not sure if companies have done this yet,i'm sure they have tried many of things but not sure if they've done what I have proposed. I believe to certain tolerances less weight can apply the same force if applied correctly. Imagine hitting a large faced small bodied driver that the average Joe could swing 110 mph with ease yet still have the same cubic cm of face area to hit the ball. Forgiveness comes from face size not so much from a large exterior body. Ask your self this what comes in contact with the ball the back of your bazooka driver,the movable weights or the face? Due to a more centered mass they would simply tweak the loft to get the spin low and such instead of adding speed crippling metallic baggage and tungsten weights to make the ball go up. The point of this thread is the average bloke swings it 90 mph and hit's it 230 yards wouldn't be nice to krank it out there 270 legally?
  12. The harder I try, the worse I get

    Maybe your just working hard in the wrong area of your game? Even it out try to hit more greens and less pressure will mount up on your short game. take a 5 from 150 yards if you have to and just hit the green. great golf is great golf but even scrappy golf can make par's all day if you just mange to make greens 2 putt and move on. Forget your previous high scores and focus on straight. You would be surprised how satisfying it is to shoot one or two over for 9 holes from just hitting it in play and striking it poorly. Face it as a 7.7 handicap you could shoot 4 under when your on fire and puring it as intended. In other words you should always manage to score well enough all the time regardless. If your on let it ride if your off slow it down take 2 maybe 3 more clubs and keep it in play without steering it and your consistency will improve score wise.
  13. I think another cool thing about that video is how it shows so much wasted material is used. The face it literally very small in relation the the rest of the club which of course is designed to be stable and flex at impact. I think it works very well in stability but is slowing you down in terms of 12 to 15 mph. How can mass that far and wide away from the ball have an effect on smash factor ask your self this? Reduce the total grams to 155.922 as I have tested and get that 460 cc down to 300 cc of more compacted,yet lighter material and you could have the same hit factor if not more and be perfectly legal. There has to be about 25 to 50 grams of just waste in the modern driver as far as I can see. A wide open face at impact will slice no matter how stable that tin can is. Reduce the weight increase the smash factor on center hits legally and increase your clubhead speed by 12 mph in the process be it hollow or a traditional solid pear shaped driver. It wont matter as long as the 155.922 grams is directed to impact vs stability which is needed for such a huge tin can of a club. Modern drivers are kind of a self fulfilling prophecy all that material is harnessed for stability which only serves to support it's size in the first place. In other words less mass =less needed stability. more directed weight will result in the same hit with increased velocity. Take a large water tanker with no water in it weighing 1000 pounds crashing into a brick wall going 100 mph vs a cement truck weighing 600 pounds full of cement going 100 mph. I would bet the more centered mass of the cement truck would do the same damage.If you increase the speed it would do even more so. Both would be the case but it's obviously easier to move a lighter object to higher speed.
  14. Irrelevance Why nit pick on the hollow thing it's irrelevant the the topic and isn't what I meant cool video though :)
  15. Perhaps check out the video and see the results I'm thinking more centered mass less wasted weight and about 155.922 grams if applicable to hitting the golf ball with the same force as a 200 gram driver.
×

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.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...