Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Sandbagger

About NativeTxn

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/02/1980

Personal Information

  • Your Location

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So, I ended up doing a fitting with Bo at Golf Tech in Plano, TX today. It was very helpful in seeing the numbers and my tendencies with my stroke. I went in fully intending to want to add a mallet to the couple of putters I have at this point, which are both Anser style - Cleveland Classic I and an old Ping Ally. I hit several with the Cleveland since that's the one I play. They all rolled on line, slight in to out path, face averaged about +0.4 degrees open at impact, average of about 1.46 efficiency, all of the putts were in the putter's sweet spot, and I was hitting the ball basically straight through (I.e. I wasn't hitting at an upward trajectory or at a downward trajectory). The biggest area for improvement was the skid/distance before the ball actually started rolling. He said that the arc in my stroke and the rate of closure lends itself to a putter with slight toe hang (I pretty much knew this ahead of time after dabbling with the iPing app, but it was nice to get confirmation). Then we talked about what I was looking for and told him I was interested in testing some mallet style options so we grabbed an Odyssey SL Black 7S and 10S. I started with the 10, and pulled every single putt to the left of the cup. He said that it was likely due to not being used to the added weight of the 10 vs the Cleveland, but my closure rate increased so the face went from the 0.4 degrees open to over 1 degree closed at impact. Then we tried the 7, and even though I was trying to compensate and not close it as fast, I was still pulling most of them to the left. The numbers were better than the 10, but still not as good as the Cleveland. So we went and he grabbed a Scotty Phantom 5.5 and also adjusted my putter from 3 degrees down to about 2.25 degrees of loft to try to reduce the skid distance. I hit several with the Scotty followed by a few more with the Cleveland after the loft adjustment. The Scotty was definitely better than the Odysseys in terms of the numbers, but still wasn't quite as good as the Cleveland, especially after the loft got decreased, which reduced the skid distance to where he said you generally wanted to see it. At that point he said that I really would be best served by sticking with a blade style putter. He said that I could get a mallet and work on adjusting my stroke to work well with the mallet and get the numbers where they needed to be, but is that really what I wanted to do with a new putter? Or did I want to get something that would maximize my overall stroke? This made perfect sense to me, and was interesting given that I was all geared up to find a higher MOI mallet, but the numbers simply showed that wasn't the best bet (at least at the moment). He then asked if I wanted to try a few blades or just have him throw a new grip on my Cleveland (I had told him that I wanted to get one of the more midsized grips since the Cleveland had a pretty thin stock grip on it) and play around with some blades if I still wanted to get a new one in the future? Told him I'd like to hit a couple of blades and see what that looked like. So, we pulled a SL Black 1 and a Scotty Newport. I hit the SL first, and sank all but one of the putts, the numbers were pretty similar to the Cleveland with the exception that the skid distance had actually decreased a little more from the Cleveland, even post adjustment. Efficiency, closure rate, and everything else was fairly similar. Then I hit the Newport. I won't lie - it felt really, really nice. The efficiency jumped up to about 1.53, but all of the other numbers were basically the same. At that point, he said that if he was going to go with a new one, he'd suggest the Odyssey since the Cleveland is milled already. He said that Scotty's efficiency was higher, but that wasn't that big of a deal in terms of overall performance and it mainly meant that the ball came off the face a bit hotter from the Scotty than the Cleveland or the Odyssey. He said that in terms of cost, unless I just really wanted a Scotty Cameron, he didn't feel like the price difference would be justified since the numbers were so similar. I told him that for today, I thought I'd just get a new grip on the Cleveland and he said he thought that would be a good approach and that would give me an optimized gamer to use while I played around with blades for a while if I decided I did want to get a new one. So, overall, it was an enjoyable experience and pretty interesting since I'd gone in with my mind set on getting some sort of mallet style. But numbers don't lie. I also appreciated his candor and honesty when it came to not trying to push me into the more expensive Scotty or even pressuring me to buy from him while I was in the store. I'll keep working on trying to find a new blade style, because while I don't dislike the Cleveland, I'm not married to it, and I don't see any downside to checking out other options.
  2. I am considering/interested in getting a putter fitting, mainly to confirm my stroke type, and then get the length, lie, loft measurements and what not. I've dabbled with the iPing 2.0 app on my phone, but not 100% sure I'm entering in some the info correctly to ensure a proper result. I'm in Frisco, TX, so I've got basically all of the choices in a reasonable distance from me - PGA SS, Club Champion, GolfTec, Cool Clubs, etc. I know the general suggestion is to at least find a place that uses a SAM, but beyond that, does anyone have insight or thoughts as to which might be the best for a putter fitting and/or experiences with any/all?
  3. NativeTxn


  4. Might also try: http://www.clubfinders.com/index.shtml
  5. I'm not sure where they ever say that their product PERFORMS BETTER - it says "Compare features and performance to ____". It never says that it performs better (or at least I couldn't find such a statement) - it simply says compare. That being said, Pinemeadow does state that they provide a BETTER VALUE. There are two sides to that coin - one says that you can pay more for something that is higher quality and it should theoretically last longer; therefore, providing a lower cost per unit of time (whether it be months, years, etc.). The other side says that if you can get performance and/or quality that is, let's say, 80% as good as the "original" for 1/3 the price, that that is the better value. I tend to subscribe to the former personally. The comparison to ibuprofen stands on the fact that in both cases (clones and ibuprofen), they are bringing to your attention that you can compare this product to the name brand product. Then it is up to you, the consumer, to decide what you want. I know some people who swear by Advil or Tylenol as compared to the generic, and that is fine for them - they will pay more. It is up for debate as to whether they are getting better performance versus if they used Equate. Hell, I won't eat generic Frosted Mini-Wheats because I haven't found one that I like as much as the original Kellog's version. Because of that choice, I pay more for my name brand cereal, but that is my choice. And far be it from me to suggest that anyone is in any way ripping Kellog's off by purchasing a generic frosted mini-wheat (which by the way probably wouldn't contain the exact same ingredients and therefore would be "similar but different") because that is absolutely not the case. As I've said before, you're obviously welcome to disagree, but I will not change my mind to think that clones are somehow bad because they aren't manufactured by an OEM until someone lays out a persuasive and cogent argument to that effect.
  6. By all means that is your choice, and I certainly respect your opinion on the matter. As you can see from my sig, I've only got one clone, and other than that hybrid, I don't use them. However, I still see absolutely nothing wrong with someone who wants to play them, and I never will. I've really never read a truly cogent argument as to why clones are bad. Sure there are negatives to them, but there are positives too - just like anything in life. I've heard people say that their stealing the OEM's designs, etc. They're definitely using the designs to make their own clubs, but that is certainly not the first time that that has happened, and there is nothing wrong with it either. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the clones cannot be exactly the same as the OEM clubs, because it is also highly likely that the OEMs have patents on their particular club designs that would prevent another company from copying them exactly (i.e. the measurements, dimensions, etc.) I've heard people say that the OEM's spend tons on R&D; and the clone manufacturers are hurting the OEMs financially. That doesn't hold water because you could argue that every time someone buys a used club or set of clubs instead of a new club or set of clubs, that person is hurting the OEMs financially since the OEMs get exactly zero dollars or cents from someone purchsing a used club. At the end of the day, while I don't play clones other than the one hybrid, I just don't see anything wrong with someone else stocking their entire bag with clone clubs if that is what they want to do. And also at the end of the day, I certainly respect your right to disagree with me. And I very much appreciate the complement about my formatting!
  7. I've never really said anything on the other "clone debate" threads, so I'll just throw my opinions out on this one. To me there is nothing wrong with clones. However, everything is wrong with counterfeits. Pinemeadow and GigaGolf are not trying to fool you into thinking that the clubs they are selling are actually Ping, Callaway, Taylormade, etc. It is VERY clear that they are not - i.e. the clones definitely resemble the brand name clubs, and it is often very easy to tell which exact club they are modeled after, but they put their own company name on the club and their own model names on the clubs. Heck, Pinemeadow even tells you to compare the features and performance of the ZR1 line to the G10 line ( http://www.pinemeadowgolf.com/golf-c...s/zr1.irons.v2 ), or the Command BK Irons to the TM R7 ( http://www.pinemeadowgolf.com/golf-c...ons/command.bk ), and every other club they sell that is a clone of a brand name club. They aren't trying to fool anyone into thinking that their clubs are ACTUALLY a brand name club like the websites from the Chinese counterfitters that are selling a brand new, 8-iron set of G15s for $390 ( http://www.easybuygolf.com/Ping-G15-Irons-Set_199.html ). In that respect, I would analogize that clubs from GigaGolf and Pinemeadow are like generic drugs in many ways. Walmart isn't trying to trick you into thinking that the Equate Ibuprofen is ACTUALLY Advil. They are simply telling you to compare the active ingredient(s) in Equate Ibuprofen to the active ingredient(s) in Advil, and then it is up to you to decide whether you want to pay $8 for 50 tablets of Advil or $5 for 100 tablets of Equate Ibuprofen. I don't see how anyone that is in any way coherent could believe that clubs from GigaGolf or Pinemeadow are actually clubs from the brand names. And as long as people go in knowing that they aren't going to get any trade-in value and very little, if any, resale value on clones, then I don't see the harm with clones. Yes, I realize that in many cases you can put together a set of quality, used OEM clubs, for less than $500 (and sometimes even less than that). However, I don't see how that is relevant if someone would rather just buy clones. And if clones allow people to get involved in the sport to see if they like it, and offers a way to expose more people to the game, for a relatively small cash outlay then I fail to see how that is bad in the long run. My $0.02.
  8. You can try this link: http://www.pga.com/profinder/ It won't necessarily tell you who you will work with, or learn from, the best (only meeting them and going through at least one lesson with them would do that), but it will at least give you a list of pros in your area to start working from.
  9. I am aware of who Ralph Maltby is, and I am quite familiar with his MPF Ratings. And obviously I respect the fact that he has been involved in the "golf world" FAR longer, and in a far different capacity, than I have. That being said, not only does he state that increased offset only provides marginal help, I also have to take with a grain of salt the statement of a man whose own Playability Factor rated the TM R9 at a 97 (which from the MPF Ratings he has put out over the the last 4 or so years is the lowest rating I have seen for a club). Heck, the Nike VR TW forged club is rated at 516, and I doubt that there is anyone that would honestly argue that the Nike VR TW is easier to hit than the R9. There are plenty of other instances where his "ratings" do not exactly seem accurate. So again, I am going to respectfully disagree with Mr. Maltby, and all the others who argue that additional offset allows enough extra time to square the clubface to actually help a golfer hit straighter shots or help fix a slice. To this day, I have not seen anyone provide a cogent and well-reasoned argument to show that that is the case. . . including Mr. Maltby. It seems to me that the "extra time to square the clubface" is almost always a "second benefit" or "additional reason" argument - honestly, I have never seen it put out there by anyone as the primary and/or only reason given for having offset in the club. While it is good to have more than one benefit, from the responses I've read and seen from "experts" or directly from the club manufacturers, most of the time this argument is almost a "well, people won't really settle for just being able to get the ball up in the air easier using a club with more offset. We need to give them another reason - maybe one that will help "fix" their poor ball flight that results from poor swings." I think that NCSU_MSE hit the nail on the head. As I've said before, I think you're arguing about such a small amount of offset, and that small amount of offset does not provide enough "extra time" to make any appreciable difference when a person is swinging a golf club at 75+ MPH. The numbers simply don't add up.
  10. I don't care what you believe or who you believe (including me) - but I'm also not the only one that thinks the claim that offset gives you extra time to square the club face is a BS. All I'm saying is use some common sense and don't just accept something as true because you found it on the internet (Google included). And I think if you actually thought about the idea that a few millimeters of offset is going to make a difference on squaring the face when swinging a golf club 75+ MPH that you'd come to the conclusion that it doesn't add up. But maybe not. . . Like I said before, you (and anyone else for that matter) are more than welcome to disagree with me.
  11. 1) Ah yes, the old "if it's on the internet, it must be true." 2) Just because I have a high handicap (because I started playing less than a year ago), doesn't mean I don't have common sense or an understand of physics. 3) It'd be like arguing that a baseball player moving an inch back in the batter's box gives them "extra time" to hit a pitch. When things are moving that fast (e.g. a golf club head moving at 75+ MPH), that small amount of distance (i.e. offset of a couple millimeters ) simply is not going to make an appreciable difference at all. While you're certainly welcome to disagree with me, I'm going to continue to believe that the argument that offset helps reduce slice or gives you extra time to sqaure the face is inaccurate, at best.
  12. Offset has nothing to do with extra time to square the club face at impact. Not sure where that originated from, but it is incorrect. I've seen plenty of other posts where people have emailed the club manufacturers and someone in customer service simply copied the standard reply, which included a statement that it gives you more time to square the face. But think about - trying to make the argument that a few millimeters of offset are going to give you "extra time" to square the face when you're swinging the club at 75+ MPH simply does not add up. Furthermore, when you set up to a shot, you've already "used up" any offset anyways because you have set the club square to the target line and directly behind the ball. The face travels from address back to address position - at least that is the goal. Therefore, offset does nothing to allow you to have extra time to square the club face. It has nothing at all to do with extra time to square the face or helping correct a slice. If that were the case, the draw irons would have massive offset. Instead, they have additional weight towards the heel of the club face (i.e. closer to the shaft) which helps the face close faster to promote a draw (which would naturally help reduce a slice). The reason for higher offset is that it moves the COG further back, which in turn helps make it easier to get the ball in the air. Getting the ball in the air is often one of the biggest problems for beginner and high handicappers. So it makes perfect sense that SGI and GI clubs have more offset than clubs geared toward better players since the vast majority of beginners and high cappers will be using SGI and GI clubs.
  13. For my face, ears and neck, I use Neutrogena Age Shield Face Sunblock (I have 70 SPF right now, but it comes in a range of SPFs). It's specifically designed for your face, so it's not greasy, and I've never had to reapply it even when I'm outside for a while. You can get it at any Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, etc. For other exposed areas I typically use Bullfrog - usually use spray because (1) easier to apply in the first place, and (2) I don't have to worry about cleaning my hands, should I need to reapply it on the course.
  14. Where do you live? Reason is that there may be some "local" golf shops that have new and used equipment, and they usually have better prices and are often quite helpful.
  15. There are actually three different ones: The WHT is a 340g head. There are two black i series that I could choose from - one with a 340g head, and the other with a 350g head. However, all three are the same length, which surprised me a bit since I figured the 350g head would be on a 33" or 34" shaft. Maybe it was reshafted or lengthened at some point. . .
  • 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...