JoePete

Thanks for defining his short-hand. Yes, I agree that will result in a draw. The point I raised, has to deal with what happens at impact on any draw, fade, low shot, high shot, etc. between the ball and the clubface. In order to vary the corresponding spin, you are changing where the clubhead meets the ball. On just this point alone, I return to my statement to the original poster - that feel of where you are hitting the ball becomes integral to developing the muscle memory that allows you to practice and hit these shots consistently. This is why some folks, who have the skill, time to practice, and desire to play shots like this prefer blades over the oversize, perimeter-weighted clubs that are often referred to as "game improvement." If we were working strictly off the physics, clubhead design doesn't matter much. But no one steps up to a difficult shot and hits it right the first time. That's why feel is important to developing the skill to execute these shots. Now as to the issue as to whether the ball is struck on the sweet spot or not, in the interest of amicability, I will pass. But do consider that the ball must leave the clubface with a counterclockwise spin in order to draw. As to whether anyone intentionally mis-hits a shot, maybe the discrepancy is diction, but I can think of any number of shots that fall into this category for me - the intentional snap hook, the into the wind burner, the flop shot, the low wedge, the bladed wedge from the green, etc. Because these are done intentionally, maybe they aren't "misses" but I would call none of them a square shot.

I will just offer some points of reference: Google "presumptive fallacy" - any time someone starts "as you know" "as we all know" etc. it engenders a logical fallacy. As to our differing definitions of mis-hits - it is again employing the presumptive fallacy to say "nobody" uses my terminology. Moreover whether I say intentional mishit, and you say draw, does it really matter? As far as "center of gravity projecting through the club face" thing, I think I politely asked you to clarify a rather vague reference; Your response of my not being "cut out to discuss this" is, again, a fallacious argument (ad hominem). I will just leave you with this one business tip - if you are trying to establish yourself as a teacher of the game, you might want to work on your delivery a little bit. You're probably a great guy, and maybe you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but especially in a forum like this this, you never know who is on the other side, what their credentials are, or what their connections may be.

I agree the design of a clubhead has no bearing on the physics. However, it can have a bearing on someone learning how to use those physics. We are not Iron Byron. If I am trying to get a sense of what I have to do with my swing to draw a ball 10, 20, and 30 yards, the feedback off the clubface (i.e. feel) is important to my being able to dial in those differences. "If you hit a shot, center contact, with a face 2* right, path 4* right," Two degrees open to swing path, which is already four degrees open to target? and that is supposed to draw the ball? You have to have explain your shorthand here - or maybe you mean 2 degrees open and four degrees closed? Also, I am not sure you are using the term "ge ar effect" in its typical sense. For irons it's almost non-existent as the center of gravity on an iron is typically almost on the clubface. If anything most blades are less susceptible to gear effect than game-improvement irons because the center of gravity is closer to the face with a blade. If you are familiar with Dave Tutleman's work, he has a good explanation of gear effect: http://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/gearEffect.php Whether you are talking blades or game-improvement irons, I don't think the factor here is gear effect but moment of inertia. Most game-improvement irons move the weight to the perimeter, away from the center of gravity. This makes them more resistant to twisting on an off center hit (i.e. high moment of inertia). If the ball spins left or right, its more that the ball was not struck on its vertical axis (you have induced spin) . As to where the ball goes off the clubface (before it starts moving), a high moment of inertia (game improvement club) will help slightly as the clubface won't twist as much, and you should also get more length as compared to a more twisting clubhead (i.e. lower moment of inertia). Circling back to the original post, one clubhead vs. another is not going to turn a 20 handicapper into a 10 handicap, but in the hands of someone who wants to practice particular shots so that they can play them, I do believe that the increased feel you get for where that ball hits the clubface is important feed back, but that is not to say it is necessary in order to become a low single-digit player and neither is every blade design better than every game-improvement design in that regard.

Quote: You are only dealing with half the equation. The sweet spot (center of percussion) is only half the issue. It depends where on the ball you hit (left or right of vertical axis). Ultimately what you are trying to do is impart a predictable degree of spin on the ball. Now if you prefer to change your swing path to a degree where you hit the ball flush (i.e. on the sweet spot) just the right amount left or right of the ball's axis, fine. But you can also maintain a consistent swingpath, and instead opt for an open or closed clubface. If the clubface is open or closed, you are in fact hiting the ball slightly right or left of the center of percussion (i.e. sweet spot). As to whether to do so is "virtually impossible" I would disagree. I tend to think the easiest way to hook a ball, for example, is to address it with a closed clubface. Even if when you get into instruction for drawing, like "right palm facing down" etc, this basically amounts to closing the clubface at impact. Whatever the case may be, if you are someone who is conscious of the clubface when you are trying to work the ball, playing - and most importantly practicing - with clubs that give you the right feel for those slightly off centered hits is valuable. Again, it is about muscle memory and the feeback becomes important, not for the one time you try the shot, but for all the times you have practiced it leading up to that point. If you don't want to move the ball or prefer to do so strictly based on swingpath, then feel is not as important to you likely.

Allow me to clarify: I was responding @mvmac 's statement "As you know and as we've said before GI irons are no more difficult to "shape" when hit on the sweet spot than the most blade-like of clubs ." I'll skip over the presumptive nature of the statement and point out that "when hit on the sweet spot" is passive - we don't know what or who is doing the hitting. If you are are talking a machine, then yes, there is no difference in shot shaping capability, as the design of the club head is largely irrelevant. However, if you are talking a human being, the feedback the club gives someone during the course of practice becomes integral to being able to consistently recreate a shot of specific shape, and hence the second part of initial statement "no." Center of gravity projecting through the clubface ... I am not sure I follow this. You can draw an infinite number of lines from the center of gravity through the clubface. If I hit a ball off the toe, I can still draw a line from that point of contact through the center gravity. I think you left something off that definition. But my reference to "slight mishits" to describe draws and fades is that in order to induce the corresponding spin, the ball has to be struck slightly off center (i.e. left or right of the vertical axis). It is possible for that contact to be made on the center of percussion (i.e. sweet spot). Example: the out-to-in pull-fade that feels absolutely flush. In such circumstance, regardless of the club used, you're not going to get a lot of feedback. However, for those who choose to work the ball by having an open or closed clubface at impact, the effect is in addition to initial contact being slightly left or right of the vertical axis of the ball, you are also hitting slightly left or right of the center of percussion. That becomes the feel issue. Maybe that explains my points better.

Good points. He dislodged something that he believes could physically interfere with his swing - a mental distraction only because of its potential for physical interference.

I am not so sure. If you look at 13-2/23 - just shaking water off the leaves on a tree can be a penalty. Note especially the use of the word "distraction," which to me implies the USGA recognizes that even if an improvement is made mostly for mental benefit, it could be a rule violation. Of course where do you draw the line? If there is a divot off to the side and you replace it because it was annoying you, is that a rule violation? Hardly, but again, the rule of thumb I was always given is save any course care until after you play your shot. 13-2/23 Shaking Water from Tree Branch Interfering with Backswing Q.After heavy rain, a player plays a stroke that comes to rest under a tree. A branch of the tree interferes with the player's backswing. Before playing his next stroke, the player shakes the water off this branch in order to eliminate the possibility of dislodged water distracting him. Is this a breach of Rule 13-2 ? A.Yes. In moving the branch, the player removed water which could have caused a distraction and thereby improved the area of his intended swing in breach of Rule 13-2 .

Yes and no. If you consider feel an important component of practicing and shaping a shot, a typical blade offers slight more feedback than something oversized and perimeter weighted. Part of this also depends on how you shape those shots etc. A draw, a fade, a low shot, etc. is technically a mishit when you compare the angle of the clubface to swingpath and target line; they are slight "mishits." It is not about the executing the shot you have, but how you practiced it. On a machine, it doesn't matter. But in the hands of person trying to create a certain amount of muscle memory, the slight differences between clubs can be important, but it is not a 10 stroke kind of importance. A 20 handicapper doesn't need to worry about shaping the ball. Their objective should be the opposite - getting the shape out of their shots. I will also say, that the difference is not inherently blade vs. game improvement. There are some blades that have terrible feel and there are some cavity-back, perimeter-weighted ones that give really good feed back. There is something to said that under the USGA handicap system a scratch golfer hits the ball 250 down the middle. You can be a really good golfer without being able to play a draw or a fade or not even hitting the ball very long. Your friends might call you boring, but you will also be taking their money every weekend.

My comment was mostly in reference to the original post and trying to understand why typically it is not a penalty if you fix a ball mark in the area where, although it is in your line of play, you would not intentionally hit your ball in that manner (you're not trying skull the ball 150 yards, but even if you do and it hits the repaired area it is not a penalty). Similarly, with D13-2/24 it is a penalty to improve your lie (e.g. breaking branches, even accidentally on a practice swing while preparing on a line of play). Just because you then change your mind, it doesn't change the penalty or the advantage offered you - whether you use it or not. What this all falls under is what a player was intending at the time of the action in question. It's a bit like the definition of a stroke. If you accidentally hit the ball, it is not a stroke (but a penalty). Similarly, even if you don't hit the ball, but intend to, it is a stroke (and not a penalty for "whiffing" etc.). In JoeKelly's example, it would be a penalty. See something like 12-2/24 - You take your stance, and then after taking your stance, you change the line of play and that line was improved by your original stance. While there is a change of line of play, there is still an intent to take advantage of some improvement caused by you. Also look at 13-2/0.5 and the examples of likely not improving your line (you grab grass a few yards ahead of the ball to test the wind). Even if the ball ends up where the grass was because you chunk it, it is not a penalty - you weren't intending to take advantage of the improvement even though you gained from it. What happens if you're 10 yards off the green intending to play a flop shot and you skull it across the divot or pitch mark you fixed? That's a good one, a gray area, and gets back to the rule of thumb of not doing any course care in front of you until after you play.

I think this is one of the areas of the rules where intent is critical. It is interesting that the Rules of Golf do inject intent into the rules (definition of a stroke is best example, accidentally hitting the ball is not a stroke per se - it is a penalty and you have to replace). If the affected repair is in the player's intended line of play, then it is a violation. If it ends up being accidental (he tops the ball) no penalty. If after making the repair, the player changes his mind about line of play, it is a penalty because it has now become the intended line of play. While other sports have issues of intention, it is usually something like "intent to injure." While I am not a fan of rules that leave officials guessing as to what someone was thinking at the time, golf is distinct in the "honor code" nature of its rules. This gets back to the premise, though, of don't put yourself in the situation of having to question yourself. Leave care of anything between you and the hole until after you play your shot.

No penalty, but he should be assessed one round of drinks for foolishness. Generally reserve such course care for after you play a stroke to avoid even the appearance of improving your line of play. What would make this more interesting is say he topped his fairway shot. Still, I'd say no penalty, but it might up the assessment to two rounds of drinks.

The problem for most brands is that they are bought and sold by parent companies, which most often, have little understanding of quality golf equipment. That's how you see Dunlop, Spalding, Ram and others rise and fall. Even Titleist, while its ball line has always been strong has seen fluctuations in its equipment. I think the major distinguishing factor when comparing low and high end isn't research and development - Sorry golf equipment has not changed that much (even though it seems like it has) and if there was ever some break through that did make a change, the USGA would be all over it. No, the real difference is in quality and the consistency that comes from it. The top manufacturers build to rather tight tolerances. Whether you are talking a well matched set of irons of a dozen golf balls that all fly the same way, that kind of precision requires money and that is why two clubs looking very similar can be priced so differently. Even when the components in two different clubs come from the same factory (in China) how they are finished and assembled have a huge impact.

There is only one statement of the many that I have heard or read about becoming a single-digit handicapper (i.e. breaking 80) that I have ever seen proven true: Ben Hogan's claim that reading his book (Five Lessons Modern Fundamentals of Golf) and practice will get you there. That's not to say the book has any secret, but it does give you some decent fundamentals and perhaps just as important, reading anything about Hogan will give you an appreciation for practice. But to the core question of game improvement vs muscle back blades, I know plenty of single-digits who play cavity back/game improvement irons. I don't know many high or mid handicappers who play with muscle backs. That said, a blade design tends to provide more negative feedback on mishits. Many also translate this into "feel" if you have the skill and interest in working the ball. These things can help someone with a decent and consistent swing to take their game to another level (whether that is scoring or the enjoyment of working the ball in different ways). The oversize, perimeter weighting of the game improvement clubs minimize the negative feedback and neutralize some of the dispersion on mishits. The ball tends to come off the clubface higher (not always a good thing) making it easier, especially with low irons, to the get the ball up, carry hazards and even hold greens. In theory, those things should help almost any golfer score better under typical conditions. The way to think of it is is if you are 150 yards out and you are just playing to any part of the green (and happy just to hit the green), stick with game improvement irons. When you get to the stage where getting the ball in the right spot on the green from 150 yards becomes an expectations, then your game is at the stage where maybe a blade will make a difference. I prefer blades mostly because it is just that - a preference; sorry some of today's clubs look like rejects from the prop department of the RoboCop movies. The design of the clubhead is probably not as important as the consistency of a set in terms flex, loft, and swing weight.

I just came across this post after noticing a thread asking for the last thing you bought. By "new" Jones bags, I assume you mean their bringing back the old design? About 15 years ago, I had my clubs swiped out of my car. The biggest disappointment wasn't losing my sticks (time for new ones anyway) it was losing the Jones bag I had because they weren't making them any more. Seriously, the golf industry had gone nuts making bags that had more zippers than a Michael Jackson wardrobe. For all purposes you couldn't even find a decent carry bag. Even the "lightweight" ones that had the flimsy fading nylon were overblown with pockets for every gadget imaginable, including a pencil holder?! And yes, what about the friggin' company logo plastered all over the place?? Not only do I have to pay a couple hundred dollars to buy your golf bag, but now I am a walking billboard for you? Don't even get me started about the backpack straps. Maybe if your bags weren't so bulky I would need to strap in like a sherpa to carry it. In any case, when I found out Jones had brought back its classic carry bag, needless to say I was quite happy. The problem is the classic has no bag stand, is a bit flimsy for cart use, and to the question, of protecting graphite shafts, they're OK but not what you might find in other bags. That said, they do make a stand model that is more sturdy and has padding around the dividers. Still pretty much the same design as the carry model (though there are few more zippered sections too). Either way it is hard to beat the bags for clean, simple design and look.

I am not sure I follow the distinction between spine angle and "your inclination to the ground" (inclination of what part of the body?), but in any case, I think many golfers who lack good posture at address benefit from the thought of sticking out your butt. Of course, doing it too much isn't good either and can lead to back issues (What's often referred to as "S" posture these days). If you want the prototypical posture (actually prototypical anything really) look at Adam Scott. Maintaining that lean - whether we call it spine angle or something else - during the swing becomes a lot easier if we start with the hips at the right angle. That allows some separation between upper and lower body. I suspect that is the sensation the original poster felt - his lower body was able to maintain a good balanced position, while his upper body turned right over it. I think a lot of amateurs step up to a golf ball they same way they stepped up to the plate in Little League - standing nearly straight up and down. While that might not be best baseball wise, it is worse golf wise. That's probably where "sticking your butt out" came from as a tip as it gets them tilting their upper body but not hunching over. Sure, the image of steady head can help too, but if the hips aren't in the right spot at address, unless you are yogi with amazing hand-eye coordination, it will be hard to swing with any combination of balance, power and consistency.

Sure, shaft could explain some of that. Also the nature of the driver and hybrid heads can contribute to a higher ball flight. It is not just the loft of the clubhead. Your local pro or decent clubfitter can test and tweak what you have in a half or hour or less. The advantage of going to your pro is that he of she might be able to pick up on other things too.

Technically it is possible to swap out a ball during a round if it is deemed "unfit for play." While mere cosmetic issues don't make a ball unfit, and your fellow competitor or marker must agree a ball is unfit, it's a bit of hard prove one way or the other. I mean if someone in your group says "Oh yeah, this is out of round," it is a bit hard to fight them on that. Especially in a casual round, are you going to hold up the course while you get out a ring and start analyzing things? Even in a tournament, it just becomes a distraction either way. That's why pros just swap balls on the tee every few holes anyway. I think the origin of the rule and also the optional One Ball stipulation for tournament play is that some folks would swap in their "putting" ball when they got to the green, etc. This was all in the days when balls were made far less consistently than today. It wasn't uncommon for a ball to be out of round or balance, but that error could be an advantage in certain cases. Then even when manufacturing improved, you did have the gap between distance balls and balata. For the most part, those distinctions have disappeared. Everything is a distance ball today (knocking on the upper limit of the USGA distance standard).

There's nothing that says you can't have different swings for different clubs, but it does make things a lot harder. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some fixes that you can make up at set up, and the variance in angle of attack might reflect some work you need to do on how you turn - but don't discount the value of setup on such things. Getting your body in the right position to start facilitates a good turn. A half hour with a decent pro and some video might address a lot. You might also be dealing with some club fitting issues (another issue your local pro might catch). If your driver swingweight is different from your irons, you are more likely to swing it differently. I think a lot of folks practice almost exclusively with a driver, under a belief that if they can hit that well, they can hit all their clubs well. I think there is some truth to that. However, especially for the average to high handicap golfer who is still developing their swing, work on those easier-to-hit high irons to get that consistent feel may be more important, and then when you put the driver in your hands, just keep that 7-iron swing and tempo.

A half hour with a pro might help a lot here, but the key is you want to maintain a consistent spine angle from address through impact. Sticking your butt out might help you not only get to a good angle at address but also lock it in throughout. I would say any time you have doubts about address, balance, etc. a few minutes with a decent pro and some video will be a huge benefit. It is hard thing to get right by just relying on your own feel and guess work.

Maybe an issue is that you think it is one or the other? While there might be slight setp changes with the driver, I think most ascribe to a philosophy that one swing works for all clubs. One of the issues with today's drivers is that given their clubhead size, sometimes it can be hard to develop consistency (you don't have that consistent feedback off the clubface). Do you have a 2-iron still (or heck a nice small head persimmon driver would be great) that you take the range. Try that. Develop some consistency and then see what happens when you move to the driver.

I am considering a Kohler trip. Thanks for a lot of good info. Just wondering how much of a crap shoot the weather can be in, say, early to mid-May? Or put another way, when might be the ideal time of year?

Yes, there can be measured physical aspects - like coefficient of restitution - however, I would maintain much greater factors to length off the tee are club length and loft. Bear in mind, that a persimmon clubhead does not result in the meeting of ball and solid wood - the persimmon has inserts of any number of materials - including titanium. Now, yes, club manufacturers enhanced these properties in modern clubfaces by making them so thin that there can be a "trampoline effect." But before looking at the minor things, look at the more obvious characteristics - longer clubs, less loft, but higher launch angle. When comparing old and new, it is almost impossible to get apples to apples. If you had two clubheads - persimmon and titanium - identical weight, loft, and put on a shaft of the same material and length - you would still have very different launch angles, spin rates, carry and roll due to the design differences. It is almost impossible to compare one to the other. That doesn't even touch on the single largest factor in distance increases over the past several decades - the ball. Hence, the Fowler story: Today's 3 iron, in shaft length and loft, is probably not too far from yesteryear's driver. Add in the modern vs. old ball, and the results are not surprising. More than anything, however, you are dealing with much different clubs. Sticking an old persimmon in the hands of someone unaccustomed to it - or vice verse - is a self fulfilling prophecy more than a true comparison.

I think such assessments more reflect what today's players are accustomed to. They have grown up with composite shafts and oversized heads. Yes, there are physical distinctions between clubs of yesteryear and today, but if you were to do this experiment in reverse, take a good player accustomed to playing persimmon and stick a modern driver in his or her hands, not only wouldn't they have some immediate improvement, but they likely would drive the ball worse given their unfamiliarity with the new clubs. Perhaps this is a typo (or I am misreading) but the "sweetspot," aka center of percussion, is by definition the point where there is maximum transfer of energy from club to the ball (anything else off center results in energy being wasted in twisting and turning). The farthest shot will always be on the sweetspot. If you meant a persimmon on the sweetspot vs a new driver on the sweetspot, all things being equal, the smaller clubhead (i.e. the persimmon) typically delivers a more efficient (and longer hit). However, the key is "all things being equal." The real advantage in modern clubheads is the ability to make them larger and lighter. This allows for overall club length to be longer, increasing the opportunity for swing speed. The larger heads, reduce the impact of off-center hits. You sacrifice a tiny bit on the energy transfer for an absolutely perfectly hit shot but you gain on average for all those near perfect hits. You also shift the center of gravity which helps with launch angle (see next comment). This happens more than you might think. While the ball has an impact on this, typically the optimum launch angle (distance wise) is somewhere between 15 and 20 degrees (the ball's spin rate and dimple design will impact its lift and thus its carry). Lots of folks step onto the tee with a low lofted driver (say 8 degrees) and a shaft that is too stiff (very little forward flex at impact) and then play the ball too far back in their stance. They never get that optimum launch angle. However, step in there with a three-wood, which starts out with a loft close to their optimum launch angle, and the ball goes farther than their driver. All this factors into the oversize heads - the shifted center of gravity (back in the club) tends to have the ball come off the clubface higher. The consequence is a large 8 degree driver vs a smaller 12 degree driver might result in same launch angle but the 8 degree has less spin, which results in more run, more distance. Again, I think the issue is that the new materials allow for clubhead shapes and sizes that weren't possible with solid wood. The consequence is modern woods, especially drivers, perform quite differently from those of yesteryear. I find trying to explain why I play persimmon is often like trying to explain manual shift to some kid who has driven an automatic all his life. Like a manual, persimmon requires more work, more thinking, and that's not a bad thing.

Given that the ball flies much farther today (especially compared to balatas) and that clubs are jacked up a full four degrees (if not more) than the clubs of a couple of decades ago, in theory, most golfers are playing shorter courses compared to their counterparts in the 1970s or 80s without going to forward tees. I don't think the issue with pace of play has to do with the length of the course as much as the inexperience of today's golfer vs. that of a few decades ago. To that, blame rising cost of the game and the disappearance of caddie programs.

Maybe I am missing the intended sarcasm? The point of sports is they teach cooperation - not just at a team level but at the individual level of having mind and body work together. In my experience, golf teaches this very well. Unfortunately, we have become so obsessed with outcomes in our society we have completely lost appreciation for the process. Whether you are talking standardized testing, investments, or the way youth sports are structured and taught today, we have no interest in the struggle, only the result. Golf may in fact be the last remaining activity where how you do something is as important as the outcome, but we even see this withering (best example is the ballooning pace of play; attention toward our fellow golfers is being replaced by self-centeredness). As we continue to march down this hyperbolic results-only path, is it any wonder that teamwork - in the workplace, in government, even on the highway - has disappeared?