Jump to content

Mike Boatright

Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mike Boatright

  1. 2 minutes ago, iacas said:

    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.

    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. On April 12, 2016 at 8:29 AM, saevel25 said:

    You'd never see that type of increase in speed. Golf companies have been testing aerodynamics of drivers for years now. 

    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.


    It doesn't matter if the driver is 460 cc or 330 cc. Mass is mass. 

    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. 4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

    Tough to say. If the objects are analyzed in the world of free falling, just taking into account gravity they would hit the ground with the same velocity. 

    vf = √(2gh)

    I am not entirely sure how much air resistance there would be on a 2 story drop with a sphere versus a metal can. In the end a driver is not  a metal can. Drivers are very aerodynamic. Callaway worked with Boeing, you know the company that designs air planes, to design their new driver. A metal can is not a good comparison. 

    I would say the velocities would be very similar and in that regard the 5 lb can would do more damage. When push comes to shove I rather be hit with a lighter object falling versus a heavier one. Who would you rather try to catch from hitting the ground, a 12 year old or a 300 lb middle age? 


    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. On 6/23/2013 at 0:38 PM, Jeremie Boop said:

    Ok, I shortened the clips from the grass and combined a full speed and 30% speed into one clip. Sorry about the spammed posts. Just trying to put something up that will be of more use



    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. 1 hour ago, saevel25 said:
    2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

    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.


    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. 

    2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

    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. 

    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. 10 hours ago, b101 said:

    Ok, thing is, golf is about getting the ball in the hole, not what number you can produce on a swing speed monitor. Let's try this a different way. How many fairways do you hit and how far do you hit it on average, including the mishits? 

    Yet from every swing of yours I've seen, you aren't in balance and can't hold your follow-through. Everything is about hitting it as hard as you possibly can and that can't lead to good results.

    Happy to say otherwise if you are actually hitting a load of fairways, but based on pretty much every post you've made, more speed is the last thing you need - this is a compliment, you can clearly hit it a long way. However, it seems to be all you are interested in, which just doesn't add up if you're trying to reduce your scores. If you're competing against mates for who's got the biggest balls for bashing driver as far as you can with no regard for direction, then carry on.

    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. 2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

    I decided to model my club head speed based on the club weight and length. 

    I used Excel to come up with an equation for how I react to the change in club weight and length. My swing weight for my clubs is pretty consistent at D2-D4. That is pretty much a non-factor for me. 

    Here is a graph of a projected ball speed due to the change in club head weight only. 

    Club Head Weight.JPG

    This is why 200 grams is near the top end of the optimal club head weight range, from 180 to 205. Notice that all the drivers today are made with a club head weight in that range. 

    Before or after that range the ball speed drops off due to club head weight either causing me to swing slower or not producing a high enough smash factor. 

    This makes a lot of sense. At the higher end the overall weight causes the club to slow down faster than the increasing smash factor can make up for. At the low end the club head speed increase due to the lighter club but it can not keep up with the smash factor decreasing due to the change in club head weight. 

    Even if I cut my club head weight down so it only weights 155 grams. At that weight I would swing around 121 mph. 

    YET!!! , I would only produce 168.5 mph ball speed. Which is 1.5 mph LOWER than my average ball speed on an optimal strike. 

    If I wanted to really optimize my ball speed I would go with a 190-195 club head. So about 8 grams less would give me about a 1/10th of a degree more ball speed. :-D

    If I compared the optimal overall distance between my 200 gram club head and the 155 gram projected value, 

    155 gram driver head would get me 296 yards carry
    200 gram driver head would get me 299 yards carry 

    I will say this. The results in the distance are marginal. Yet this is where the pro's of modern golf club technology make the 200 gram driver the better club. 

    With a lower weight you would have a smaller club. A smaller club means a reduced sweet spot and lower MOI. My test was based on optimal strike. Golfers do not hit the sweet spot 100% of the time. I could easily claim that the ball speed on average, for the smaller club, would be even less due to off-centered hits causing a loss in ball speed. 

    Will a lighter club create a faster swing speed, yes. Does that compensate for the loss in ball speed due to the decreased head weight, NO!

    Also note, 3-woods, which have a smaller profile are actually made to be heavier than a driver. Golf companies know you can't have a super light club head because of the loss in the kinetic energy transfer at impact. 



    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. 6 minutes ago, b101 said:

    Ok, I'm trying, but this is just wrong and goes in the face of logic. Try swinging a pane of glass on a stick or a very long shafted putter as fast as you can and see where it gets you... The weight promotes stability, which you need in order to create :

    a) favourable loft conditions

    b) stability and therefore consistency

    I'm also unsure why you keep going for more swing speed. In your swing thread it's clear that you have enough, but what you don't have is control. The ideas you put forward in this thread may (and I'm being generous here) increase your speed, but you have way less control. 

    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.

    download (3)ball.jpg


  10. 5 minutes ago, b101 said:

    With the best will in the world, what is the point of this thread? We know the golf club manufacturers have all been playing around with weight for ages and are at the level of moving weights back and forward or side to side to maximise speed. Do you really think they haven't tried a lighter driver?

    Let's say, for argument's sake, that you can swing it faster and that the mass isn't having an effect. You still wouldn't hit the centre of the face anywhere near as often and mishits would be far more penal. Why else do you think the tour pros choose a shorter shaft (most are playing near 44.5 inches) over the stock 46 inch shaft that the manufacturers put out to sell speed and distance to the consumers? Along that lines, why are the tour players not all playing the 'better player' versions of each driver, which has a smaller head. Answer: less forgiveness is a bad thing, which means you need a bigger head.

    I know I've written about head size, but they've made the 460cc heads as light as they can, so I can only imagine you're encouraging smaller size heads with longer shaft. If that's the case, just bag a three wood. I really don't get what point you are trying to make...

    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?


  11. 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.

  12. 26 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

    I forgot this little gem. Let the video speak for itself. 






    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.

  13. On 4/11/2016 at 4:23 PM, saevel25 said:

     I forgot this little gem. Let the video speak for itself. 

    Mizuno JPX-850 - Hollow
    Taylormade R15 - Hollow
    Cobra King LTD - Hollow
    Ping G30 - Hollow
    Nike Vapor Pro - Hollow 
    Callaway Double Black - Hollow
    Wilson Staff - Hollow



    Irrelevance Why nit pick on the hollow thing it's irrelevant the the topic and isn't what I meant cool video though :)




  14. This is very un scientific, but will show to some extent the difference between swinging a standard 200 gram driver head vs a 155 gram version of the same shaft length. Iv'e seen these results over and over again and would assume the same results with different users over hundreds of trials.

    Please forgive the poor quality I used windows movie maker and a cheap 12 megapixel camera.


    specs: Cobra s speed 200 gram head 70 gram s fujikura shaft 44.5 inches

    Prototype Callaway 5.5 ounces 155.922 grams head with a 60 gram shaft 44.5 inches

    Callaway razr x reg flex motore 50 gram shaft +1/2 inch or 45 inches

  15. 14 hours ago, saevel25 said:

    Please use similar units. A golf ball weights about 46 grams. 

    Prove it. Where is your proof on this? What facts do you have to back up this claim? By backing up I mean a good number of people tested to see if this is true. 

    You'd never see that type of increase in speed. Golf companies have been testing aerodynamics of drivers for years now. 

    Not legal. If you actually did time to look at the USGA equipment rules you would know this. 

    Note item c in the figure. You are not going to get a driver designed like that putter past the USGA. 

    sorry boss 1.62 ounces =46 grams who cares

    I have tested it hundreds of times it's factual

    Yes you would see that much increase in speed and for some maybe even more I have gotten into the 138 mph rang going hard that's a 25 mph increase.

    That's weird that some of those cavity type drivers are non conforming why? It wouldn't have an effect on cor so that's kinda odd?

  16. 16 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

    What is the meaning of this random assortment of words?

    Dude, please, proof read your posts.  You're giving me a headache. I'm sure you have a point to make and it could possible spur some interesting conversation, but not until you figure out how to make your posts comprehensible. 

    Then don't read it or respond it's plain as day.

    13 hours ago, freshmanUTA said:

    Aw man, I was just throwing some wacky ideas out :/ Still like seeing that taylormade prototype tho

    The maximum weight for a ball is 1.62 ounces, and balls are not permitted to exceed this and still be used in tournament play. Most balls are manufactured to be ...  source golf smith.


    I have tested it myself by taking a titleist titanium d driver by sawing the head in half. I'd did the same with a callaway ft tour driver. I have a legitimate swing speed radar the results are plain to see from my testing. The callaway with a standard 45 inch shaft get's into the 128 mph range and the titleist being a littler heavier and shorter at 42.5 inches get's into the 119 range for me. I swing it smooth 104 with a reg club and smooth 112 to 115 with these guys I have a few photos of em and I will try to find em.


    The reason im referring to only a marginal 100 grams and the ball weight 1.62 ounces is the fact is negligible and seems feasible. The other guy was talking about rocket ships,physics gravity etc.. 

  17. I have this driver and might test it's head in weight. I't feels far lighter than 200 grams and was high tec for it's day.

    4 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

    And, to put this back in the golf context, what happens to the swingweight of the club? Are you going to be able to feel the clubhead at all, or will it be like swinging a bare shaft? It kind of goes back to a question I've heard posed. What would you rather be hit by? A Ping Pong ball going 100MPH, or a Ping Pong ball sized bearing going 50? Which would have more effect?

    I get all that being that it's very scientific and all. The golf ball weighs 1.68 ounces i'm only talking 100 grams less it makes a huge difference in club head speed. If a 200 gram driver bar none goes 250 yards at 100 mph and 250 yards with a 100 gram driver head at 130 mph no matter the circumstances then it's just a dream. Testing needs to be done.

    4 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:




    5 hours ago, freshmanUTA said:

    What if we had drivers the shape of the Scotty Cameron Futura XR. You know took the Nike cavity driver design and just kept two long hollow Fangs and a majority of the mass directly behind the ball. I know the fangs on the Futura aren't hollow, but on a driver they could be.

    Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm joking about this or actually wondering how it would work...


    It could potentially work and be legal. A solid putter like that could weigh 325 grams though and would feel very heavy. A driver design like that with a thin titanium face no body and less weight could work that's what i'm talking about testing needs to be done.

  18. 8 minutes ago, iacas said:

    All the drivers being produced by any of the big companies are hollow.

    To keep it simple for you guys yes internally hollow. Nike has taken the bottom out of it and re positioned the weight as I have explained. The idea is to re position the weight with a 100 gram head to maximize smash factor to the same as a heavier head that's it. Possible maybe maybe not? I think so you guys are getting lost in trivial matters again are not getting this at all!!. You think I'm stupid when you guys are not getting what I'm saying it's humorous. It may be possible and could be done one day. It's like im talking to 12 year old's about car mechanics and gas mileage and you spout off about how all cars have motors it won't work yada yada.. It's theoretical has nothing to do with the fact that all drivers are hollow. Nike was a depiction of how they took the bottom out of it and positioned the weight. Probably still 200 grams,but maybe it's doesn't have to be with the correct design and weight positioning.

  • 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.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...