Jump to content

Howard Jones

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Sandbagger

About Howard Jones

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Alhama de Murcia Spain

Your Golf Game

  • Handedness

Recent Profile Visitors

101 profile views
  1. WE have several models for that, and thats why this is so confusing. In a Lab world, we could but up the numbers like you do, but it demands knowledge of the actual club speed on the impact spot and we dont have any LMs who does that 100% correct but Foresight CG2 with HTM comes close. If we use Trackman or Flightscope we are on another system. The radar is behind the club at impact, so it dont know where we made impact, it capture the geometric head (the visual frame or image) and calculate a center of gravity based on that, but we can never make it right since heads of today is made with both carbon fiber and titanium, so weight distribution can be seen, only measured. But the machine will use that same spot on every stroke, so we do have a fixed reference point. IF we now make impact a tad toe side, ACTUAL club speed on that spot is higher that the spot Trackman mesured club speed on, and then we get to see PTR values above 1.5 Example A player where Trackman mesure his club speed to 100 and he makes a impact dead center, we should expect to see a ball speed of 150 or a PTR value of 1.50 If we make impact 0.5 inch against the toe, actual club speed is about 2 mph higher (1.85/1.9) so if the face is still hot out there, we get to see a ball speed of about 152/153 from the same 100 mph club speed and PTR now say 1.52 or 1.53 If we turn those numbers we can put them up like this> 153 ball speed / 102 actual club speed on impact spot gives a actual PTR value of 1.50 so we dont really get above this number, but the player was more effective vs a center impact The player IS more effective when he can boost ball speed with up to 3 mph from the same club speed, and thats why i like Trackman better for this, even if CG2 with HTM is more correct when we compare it to the theory model where we need to know actual club speed in the impact spot so we CANT compare the same club on PTR value between this 2 LM, we can only do that on BALL SPEED since the system they use to judge is totally different and give different return values.
  2. When ball speed is higher, distance is longer, so yes, LPGA players has a average better impact and PTR / Power Transfer Ratio, also called Smash factor, but since PGA has a way higher club speed the difference to PTR is not large enough to equalize the difference to club speed so PGA players is still longer...ball speed tells that story, so focus more on ball speed, less on club speed. Launch and spin is a big mess here since launch is a question of so many parameters from both the players swing and the equipment, so this average numbers is hardly ever representative for the player in from of you. His Angle of attach, the loft he plays on his clubs, the heads VCOG and RCOG, the ball.....put all those parameters from 300 players in a bucket and shake the bucket well, then we get this numbers....average, not representative for anyone, so that number becomes like human nature, where the actual norm is not being normal since hardly nobody hits that norm number, we are all a bit off from the norm in one direction or the other and its the same here.
  3. They vary way more than most think they do. Just take a look into Trackmans PGA Average numbers, they are only average, NOT ideal or anything like that, just the average. There you will find the numbers ive used above for the #7 iron where we see a PTR value of 1.33 as the average. TrackMan PGA Tour Averages Stats Tour stats include: Club Speed, Attack Angle, Ball Speed, Smash Factor, Launch Angle, Spin Rate, Max Height, Land Angle and Carry. TrackMan... Then take a peak into different Trackman blogs....ups, numbers is not even close to average, and tells its large varities here, this is one example, a test between turf and mats and how launch and spin might vary. This player is in the 92-94 mph range with his #7 iron, and a PTR value of 1.38 to 1.4 so he is just like the example above compared to the average numbers for "impact quality" and ability to convert club speed to ball speed. http://blog.trackmangolf.jp/mats-vs-grass-whats-difference/ If we now took the same numbers again, and this time compared this "no name average PGA player" with 90 mph CS and 1.33 PTR and a ball speed of 120, and compare to the player from the blog and say he was average 93 and a PTR of 1.39 average he gets a ball speed of 129.2 9.2 mph more ball speed is more than 18 yards more carry vs the average...from only 3 mph higher club speed, because his PTR is very good. Even among the best players there is huge varieties, so dont think for a second that they are all "perfectly fitted" or have maximized their potential, its not like that at all, they are just like us deadly players, they vary both between players, and the same player vary day to day and stroke to stroke, just like us, just not with so large varieties between the good and the bad ones and less mistakes in general, thats what makes them better than us. so here we got 2 numbers, the average of 1.33 and we have a example of 1.4 or plus 0.07 so that means we also have some down at 1.33 - 0.07 = 1.26 and from 90 CS they will only get 113 as ball speed and thats 7 mph or 14 yards carry shorter than the average number
  4. Give me some LM numbers for both and i can tell, better impact gives a higher PRT value, its that simple, so 2 players with the same clubs and club speed is NOT the same as equal ball speed and distance, it might vary quite a lot, and we see that all the time. Example, the average PGA, PTR for a #7 iron is 1.33 while there is many players up at 1.4 to 1.41. If their club speed was the same and as average, we can do the numbers: 90 mph club speed x 1.33 = 119.7 mph ball speed 90 mph club speed x 1.41 = 126.9 mph ball speed Thats 7.4 mph difference to ball speed, and you can as average use 1 mph ball speed = 2 yards carry so we have 2 players with the same clubs and club speed but with 15 yards difference to carry, all due to impact quality If we now ask, how much higher club speed does player 1 need to hit the same distance as player 2, we get this numbers. 126.9 ball speed (target and equal to player 2) / 1.33 PTR value (same as player 1 has now) = 95.4 mph club speed needed. Player 1 need to raise his club speed from 90 to 95.4 or up 5.4 Mph or 6%..not easy. Its easier to improve impact by better fitted clubs, and better fitted clubs OFTEN means higher club speed for that reason alone, still with improved impact, so its a no brainer really.
  5. Im new on this forum, and very late to this party, but my eyes is rolling when i read what you post here, its not even close to how it works. Lets start with play length itself. Its a question of stance and ability to "move", so both the short and the long end of a set has to be set right for THIS player. The Old school thinking who say distance is 80% loft and 20% added club speed is NOT correct and never has been, since distance is BALL SPEED add a question of impact quality, NOT impact speed. So club speed dont help if impact quality suffer, we DONT gain anything that way. Shaft flex. Cutting dont a club DONT make it stiffer, thats a myth, because we now have to look into what flex slope that shaft model has by nature. A Shaft like DG X100 had a flex slope of 10.8 CPM pr inch, so when we cut a club 1.0" shorter, it MUST be at least 10.8 CPM stronger "to be the same flex", and most shafts respond only with the difference in SW value, so going down 1 inch gains 6 CPM equal to 6 SWP while it should have been 10.8 stronger, so the fact is, we went WEAKER by butt cutting 1 inch. We count it as SS1 at minus 0.5 " and as SS2 at minus 1, the same the other way where added SW EATS flex,. and then 0.5 longer is SS1 and 1.0 inch longer becomes SS2. The shaft itself will bend LESS because its shorter, but FLEX is NOT measure that way, not even on a deflection board since both the CPM and the deflection method is a question of how long this club is. Lie angle progression on todays clubs is average 0.5" between clubs with 4/8" increments so going 1 inch shorter, means we end 1 flat vs where we started from, and should compensate by going 1 upright. (look at original specs for lie, and compare the #3 vs the #5 iron, its most likely 1*, not "a couple of degrees"), but if they was set CORRECT as they was, and now is 1 off, that alone move impact spot and reduce power transfer ratio = lower ball speed and shorter distance, but its more issues in your set. Play length itself is the most important parameter, #2 is total weight, #3 is balance, and im NOT talking SW values, but how THIS player is able to sense Shaft weight vs head weight, and thats very individual. So why did it turn out wrong for you? - Judgement of play length might be wrong, the total wgt/shaft wgt you started from is NOT good for you in the first place, balance was never set right, and now its far off, and lie angle is not set right either, so how can you expect that just cutting them down 1.0 inch would "solve it all"? Solution - evaluate what club in the set works the best now? is it the same club as it used to be or is it now a club in the longer end like the 5 or 6, but it used to be the 8 or 9? IF the answer is, its a longer club than it used to be, then its RESISTANCE during release thats messed up, and you should consider a complete rebuild, and get OFF the flat SW system, because it dont work for most of us. Pick up what used to be your favorite iron, and add lead tape to the head in steps of 2 grams at the time until its to much, and dial back again to the level it works the best. When done rip of that lead tape and put it on a gram scale, and tell what play length that club has, and i can help you with how much weight the other heads needs to become like that club. If i was earlier on this forum, i would have stopped you from cutting down those shaft like you did, and made a different approach to it all, (going 3/8 or 9.5 mm alternative10 mm instead of 4/8" and 12.7 mm) but it still not to late, your clubs can still be improved, but to make a really good fit, its way more that just play length and head weight, its also a question of shaft weight and total weight, and how that weight is distributed on the club. PS! when we lower or hands on the club like you used to do, you got the ACTUAL resistance a shorter club would give (the new SW value 6 point lower at 1 inch), and the feel of flex difference that would give, so nothing changed from that to actually cutting them down, except that the inch above your hand who made a small counterweight is now gone. If they worked good 1 when gripping down 1 inch, they should work just as good after cutting down, and if they dont, they was NOT a good starting point and DID NOT work good gripping down either, they have been "off all the time" so where could they be come "better or worse" when its the same thing gripping down or cutting down? Its still tons of myths about how golf club works, thats what ive been fighting on the net for more than 10 years now, and this case is a school example of mis-understandings, so im afraid the set is "far off good specs for you" no matter what we do with it, but dont give up yet, ask yourself if there now is another club who turns out to be the best vs was it used to be, and then we have at least isolated 1 issue, RESISTANCE or lack of it in the others, since your clubs is SW based. Flat SW value means Progressive HIGHER resistance as we go longer, so your set still has higher resistance as they go longer, but if the favorite club now is a longer club than it used to be, you need a head weight tune up to get the rest into place, and that can be done. Cheers HJ
  • 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...