acerimusdux

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

Are bowling, curling and hurling not games?

Maybe Martin was distracted as well.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

Yes, but I think that is impacting mainly spin, not distance. At least in modern balls. But I do think different materials can perform differently at different speeds. I used to make fun of people using the "drop test", by saying is was only relevant if you had a 13 mph swing speed. But if one degree of hardness or compression was always better, regardless of speed, then the drop test might have worked! I think it used to be true though, that hard covered distance balls went farther than softer covered performance balls. Today I think "distance" ball is a misnomer for those balls, which really aren't going any farther. I think it also used to be true that higher compression cored balls gave more distance at higher swing speeds, which were in danger of "overcompressing" softer cored balls. But lower compression balls performed better for lower swing speeds, which didn't compress the firmer balls enough to achieve sufficient COR. But I think improvements in materials and design have made those things mostly irrelevant in modern balls, apart from some extremes. A ball like the ProV1 is really a mid-compression ball today, which will give near to the maximum ball speed attainable for most plausible real world swing speeds. This is written by a guy from Wilson, who was obviously promoting the Duo, but I think it's basically correct. Modern balls mostly have higher COR at lower swing speeds, and are able to do so across a range of compressions. So compression becomes more about feel, spin, trajectory.

I guess maybe different people will have different understandings of what is meant by "compressed". But this is pretty close to what I imagined. Granted, this is illustrating a 150 mph impact, so a little harder than anyone can actually swing, so I guess exaggerated a bit for demonstration. The core of the ball really is still essentially a "rubber-like" material. I think when "fully compressed", you are no longer getting any more resilience from the material, and thus no additional speed. A ball could simply split in two, for example, if "fully compressed". But even without that occurring you could be causing structural damage within the ball that could reduce it's future resilience. So I think "fully" compressed is a misnomer, and not what you actually want.

Really it depends on the COR of the materials used. A superball will bounce higher than a pool ball, for example. It is true that it's easier to make a firmer golf ball with a higher COR. But USGA limits on initial velocity prevent them from being made with as high a COR as they could be. And so at this point in time, I think recent lower compression balls are achieving the same initial velocity limits, and ball speeds generally, as firmer balls. But if anyone is gaining distance from lower compression balls, that's probably also due to differences in spin performance and not the idea that the ball needs to "compress" in order to achieve velocity. And it likely won't be much related to swing speed. So, minimum swing speed for ProV1: 1mph.

I guess another point is, there are no real standards for measuring flex, so an "A" flex in one model can even be equivalent to an "S" flex in another. Might want to know what model shaft the Nike driver is. I think the stock shafts sometimes do run a little more flexible than after market shafts, as well.

Yup. Marty is also describing the left wrist cupping when cocked, but not the right. He may have a strong grip with the right. With the right hand a little more on top at address, it might also cup some when the club is lifted. The grip also determines whether there is a need to flatten or bow the left wrist at the top of the backswing, or even by impact. Perhaps with a weaker right hand, the OP might also find he would be able to deliver the club with some left wrist cup at impact without flipping. I believe key #3 was originally referred to as "flat left wrist", but that this was abandoned because the evidence showed it was really grip dependent. Some good golfers are flat, some are cupped, some are bowed. The main challenge for many of us with key #3 (now "inline impact") is to avoid flipping. I wonder how often those problems might be grip related.

It really has nothing to do with age. It depends really on swing speed, how aggressive or smooth you are from the top of the swing, and personal preference. The "A" Flex, which is called "senior" today, used to stand for "Amateur". As a guideline, if you are hitting your 5-iron more than 150 yards, or driver more than about 220, or a little less than that if you are aggressively loading the shaft from the top (or have a quick tempo), you might want something stiffer than an A-Flex. But it really comes down mostly to feel. The shaft won't directly impact the performance of the club that much. At a slower speed, you might actually gain a bit of distance from the kick in a more flexible shaft. At a faster speed, the problem will come if the feel of the shaft being more flexible causes you to alter the speed and timing of your swing.

But where more distance control is needed, you can always use less club, choke down a bit, use a 3/4 swing, etc. Hitting down seems a relatively inefficient way to control distance.

1. Aim left, swing down target line? He could be trying to correct a tendency to pull here, by forcing you to hit in to out at it. I don't know that you would want your back foot turned any farther left than square (perpendicular) to the target, but that and the front foot open seems good for a pitch shot, and could even be used on a full swing. At least you should be able to hit a ball from that position. You will slice though if you have your weight too far back. So he may be trying to get you to work on keys two and four here. But it still sounds a little more like a drill than "how to swing". 2. Weight towards target on backswing? So long as you keep your head and torso back, and shift your hips towards the target, absolutely. More key two. 3. Weight on toes? I'm not sure the point of this, really. At address, you might want the weight mainly on the balls of the feet, but it doesn't seem necessary to me to keep it there, surely it moves throughout the swing. 4. Head over the ball, weight 50/50, rather than back? I don't understand the head over the ball part at all. As for the second part, if by "weight" he means pressure, it should feel about 50/50 at address (and you could even have 60% forward to start). But then the pressure moves throughout the swing. That said, even if there are possible explanations for some of this, if you aren't clicking after three lessons, I'd go ahead and get a new teacher. As for how weight and balance should start off and move, here's a good look at a couple of examples: https://youtu.be/APW2I8d4ngw?start=264&end=646

I also have a swing speed in the low 80s, and at that speed, I think your optimal distance is going to come with a launch of around 17+ degrees. So I find I don't really need a fairway club of less than 18 degrees. You can get sufficient launch with a 12-14 degree driver because it's on a tee and you can hit up on it a bit (and it is best to learn to do so at those swing speeds). But it's not any use to you hitting off the fairway, it will only cost you distance even with a good strike.

Yeah, I just ordered a Callaway Razr Fit Xtreme for $90. My first big name brand club, actually. Usually prefer to get a club made to the right size and specs, rather than buy off the rack. But it won't cost too much to just have the shaft trimmed. And all the other adjustment I'll need is built in. With the weight ports, I'll be able to adjust the swing weight back up after it has been cut down. Golfworks still has after-market weights for this club if I need them.