Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Plays from the Tips

About acerimusdux

  • Rank
    Well Established Member

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. But if they thought the flagstick were hurting, they would always have the option to remove it. Manufacturers and Course Superintendents will only go in that direction if that is what golfers want. So why shouldn't golf be that way, if that's what golfers want? If it goes too far, to where the flagstick is actually meaningfully changing the putting game as you suggest, I think many golfers would actually request more traditional flagsticks. I'd even be fine with allowing courses to have a local rule which requrires removal of the flagstick on the green, if they think their flagsticks would provide unfair assistance. But I think that it should mainly be up to the local course management to see to it that their course is playing fairly. And the flagstick seems to me generally an integral part of the course. It doesn't make sense to me for governing bodies to be mandating a penalty for hitting an integral part of the course on some shots, and then not on others. How much the flag helps or hurts isn't determined by whether the stroke is made from on or off the green. Maybe because golfers getting some assistance on chip shots wasn't seen as a problem? Whether it's a chip or a putt, the shot has to be on target for the flag to matter. This may happen more often on putts. But if that becomes a problem, I think course operators would do their best to find a reasonable balance, so that the flagstick is not unduly influencing play. But this would only happen if the rules change leads to an insignificant number of compaints from golfers who think that the flagstick is making short putts too easy. If one type flagstick clearly helps the ball to fall in, an another type clearly hurts, than shouldn't there be a middle ground somewhere where you could have a flagstick for which there is no measurable net benefit between leaving it in or taking it out? I'm not sure why course operators wouldn't gravitate more towards using such flagsticks. And I think that golfers, courses, and the market might do a better job of finding that middle ground than the regulators.
  2. Yes. I think most players are also already aware of pace of play concerns. There are already plenty of things which the rules permit which players avoid because they would be time consuming and thus discourteous to fellow players. Such as having the flag removed on an 80 yard approach shot, for example. So I think if the rules permitted, the vast majority of players would simply leave the flag in. And this would likely be widely recommended. Pulling the flag on long puts especially would seem to be both unnecessarily time consuming and not in the players interest.
  3. But doesn't this also imply that any excessive advantage could be eliminated by simply using thicker flagsticks? Here is one test one Superintendent did with different size (and material) flagsticks: http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/holen/article/2008jun22.pdf If a thicker flagstick eliminates the advantage of leaving the flagstick in (don't think this test is comprehensive enough to say for sure unless it has been repeated elsewhere), then wouldn't that also eliminate the need to retain a penalty for hitting the stick? And even if they don't actually regulate the flagstick, I think it's pretty much the job of course designers and superintendents to make sure a course is setup in a way that provides reasonable challenges which reward golfing skill. So I think better courses, if this change were made, might simply gravitate towards using flagsticks which provide no significant advantage when left in on puts, (and would thus eliminate as well the same advantage that is currently already being provided on chips).
  4. My view is, right now, for drivers, you are probably getting the best bang for your buck by going with a major brand, with models that are a few years old (from places like Rock Bottom Golf). With adjustable drivers, you can always customize a shaft later by ordering whatever shaft you want, in the flex you want, cut to the length you want, installed into the appropriate adaptor for your brand name head. And you can order that from one of the component companies, like Golfsmith or DiamondTour, if you like. So might as well have the brand name head to start. But for irons, I think the best bang for the buck for those on tight budgets might still be the component companies like Alpha, Hireko, GolfWorks, or Gigagolf. I just think iron technolgy has changed less dramatically over time, and older tried and true designs will generally work fine. And with cast 431 stainless steel, people are kidding themselves if they think there are going to be any higher quality steel or tighter tolerances on major brands. What you might get on more expensive clubs are a nicer finish and cosmetics, and in some cases more complicated designs with use of composite materials to provide some dampening and better feel. In some cases, there may also be newer face techologies which do provide some increased forgiveness on off center hits, but I doubt that the differences there are that great. So I think getting into the right type of club head for your game, and getting it built to your specs, are probably more important than the brand.
  5. And the ankle is on the circumference of that circle, or really even a little outside of it, not within it. So why would you be making a radius around the ankle? Again, you shouldn't rotate around the ankle, you should rotate away from it. So even if you rotated parallel to the ground, then the basic geometry says the distance between the ankle and hip must still increase. To keep that distance the same would just about require rotating on an incline that is tilted in the wrong direction. It's just hard to imagine what the swing you are describing looks like. Sway so bad you really do end up centered over the trail ankle, followed by a massive reverse pivot?
  6. Are bowling, curling and hurling not games?
  7. My thoughts: 1. Up to date technology probably matters more in the driver than in other clubs. Still, the most important thing is to be well fitted. And, even here, there's really nothing wrong with technology that is 3-4 years old. Best value for budget hunters here might be 3-4 year old brand name equipment, which can even be brought new. I just got a brand new Callaway RAZR Fit extreme on Rock Bottom for $90. And if you are trying to fit yourself, the ability on these clubs to adjust weight (weight ports), loft, face angle (adjustable hosel), and even swap out shafts, will make it easier for you to get to the proper weight, length, launch, etc (and experiment a little). In my experience, not worth wasting any time with knock offs and off brands with driver, I think this is where you will see the biggest difference in quality and results with better equipment. 2. Fairway woods and hybrids, probably still best to stick to major brands, though I've done OK here myself with some component brand (Acer) woods. But probably won't hurt if they're a few years older, so look at pre-owned, try to find what you want in terms of length, lofts, shafts, grips. 3. Irons are probably less critical to be up to date with the latest. Even relatively inexpensive component heads don't really perform much differently from more expensive clubs, spending more generally buys you more feel and finish. More important is to get into the right type of head for your game. In this case, your Di9 are already wide-soled game improvement clubs with low COG and high MOI. I don't think you'll notice that much difference with newer irons. Probably better to spend on lessons, or on fitting to make sure your current irons are really suited to you in terms of lengths, lie angles, etc. 4. Putter I think is probably where technology matters the least. There are some new things out there that can supposedly help a little (evnroll ?), but I think for the most part a putter is a flat piece of metal on the end of a stick. And finding one you like is very much personal preference, and not really related much to cost. On a tight budget, I'm reluctant to spend more than $50 on a putter. And I doubt a new putter will do any better for me than a decades old cheapie that I'm comfortable with.
  8. Also, in addition to making it easier to adjust loft and lie, it also makes it easier to change out shafts. You just order a new shaft installed into the appropriate adapter. You aren't supposed to make changes mid-round, but you could easily make adjustments to shaft as well as loft or face angle depending on what course and conditions you are playing that day. Maybe you are playing a tight course that day, and it's been rainy so the ground is soft, for example. So you put in a shorter shaft for more control and dial up the loft a bit for more carry. Nice option to have, anyway.
  9. Yes, but was that due to blades vs. cavity backs, or forged vs. cast? It could be either. It could be impurities caused by the casting process (more tiny air bubbles in the metal) are causing more inconsistency on those center hits. But it could also be simply the design of blades putting more weight behind the center is the cause. It is possible to make cast blades. I wonder if they really are less accurate than forged blades.
  10. To be fair, it appears we've also moved on from "plenty" and "loaded". :) Now if we can also move back onto topic.... I doubt whether there's any performance benefit at all in having irons forged. And technically, there are also irons that are cast with a softer metal, if you like that feel. But I'm doubtful that cast vs. forged (or harder vs softer steel) really impacts full swing iron shots at all. I'm slightly more open to the possibility it could matter with short game wedge play. Though slower speeds mean you are also less likely to feel the difference, right? But there are many players, especially good ones, who seem to prefer forged, softer steels. Even though they are more expensive, less durable, etc. And do grooves even wear more quickly? I think I've read where lie angles may even need to be readjusted after awhile (though I guess one advantage of the softer metal is that bending for adjustments is easier in the first place).
  11. For convenience, can't beat Cocoa Beach Country Club right off the Minuteman Causeway. And I haven't been there yet, but Duran in Viera seems worth a look, about a half hour away.
  12. It depends on the elasticity. In a perfectly elastic collision, where the material immediately returns to it's prior shape, there is no energy lost. But that probably exists only in theory. In reality the ball does likely incur some internal deformation which doesn't immediately bounce back, and which leads to some loss of energy. In fact, the reason more deformation is good for the driver face may be that this causes less deformation of the ball (and less energy loss). But the amount of deformation alone can't tell you which ball is losing more energy, if comparing different materials.
  13. Yes, but you would think the firmer material would deform less. But it still isn't losing any less energy. So the difference must be in the elasticity of the materials. It's not a universal law that more deformation will lead to more energy loss. A more elastic material can deform more while losing less energy. For example, carbon fiber composites are stronger and lighter weight than titanium alloys. But they wouldn't be used in a driver face, mainly because they don't have the elasticity of titanium alloys. For that matter, the titanium alloy face is usually made very thin. Why? Because then it will be more flexible. A thinker face would deform less, but would then produce less spring effect and less ball speed. In fact, beta titanium is no longer used very often in conforming heads, because COR limits mean that a very thin face would exceed limits, and thus the face would have to be made thicker than normally desired for weight distribution reasons. So somewhat stiffer titanium alloys are used today that can be made thinner while staying within limits. I'm just saying something similar is probably occurring with balls. They likely could make firmer balls today that produced higher ball speed, but they would no longer be conforming. So conforming low compression balls now perform about the same as conforming high compression balls (for ball velocity).
  14. Thanks, I wanted to post that chart, couldn't get it to work. But that shows also, C.O.R. is actually higher at the lower speeds, and so the most efficient energy transfer is occurring at those speeds. So it isn't needed to deform or "compress" these balls a certain amount in order to get efficient energy transfer. I'm speculating that firmer=faster might be true of the kind of material used in the core if it were allowed to be engineered for maximal speed and distance. I think the lower C.O.R. at higher speeds there is by design, in order for balls to remain conforming. The standards generally apply at the equivalent of high swing speeds.
  • 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...