When talent meets Swing Theory and Physics !

cellosid

Are we about to embark on another element in the evolution of the golf swing ?

Bryson DeChambeau the recently crowned 2015 NCAA Champion has qualified for the US Open. What makes this achievement more interesting is that Bryson, a Physics major, is a proponent of the Single Plane golf swing and uses a unique set of Custom Made Clubs to further his quest for mechanical simplicity.


https://vimeo.com/121580539

PARlance

I always wondered if the average golfer would benefit from having the same size shaft from 7i down (3,4,5,6i all being changed to the 7i size)
What you lose in swing speed potential, surely would be compensated by better strikes. The loft should still do most of the work?

neckedit

Very interesting. ..... *Runs to workshop with hacksaw in hand*

SaveOurLyric

Rien de nouveau sous le soleil.

Remember these ? Late 80s maybe or early 90s.


http://www.freegolfinfo.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=2650382&mpage=1&key=&#2650382

Disappeared as quickly as square head drivers.

I think it shows that a good golfer is a good golfer, and a bad one is a bad one. The tools are irrelevant.

Montgolfier

PARlance wrote: »

I always wondered if the average golfer would benefit from having the same size shaft from 7i down (3,4,5,6i all being changed to the 7i size)
What you lose in swing speed potential, surely would be compensated by better strikes. The loft should still do most of the work?

Yes they would it would make golf a lot easier.
The problem would be to get your iron heads weight the same for each iron.
Industry dictates that Iron heads are designed to have 7 gram increments to allow for a 1/2" change in length.
You could use lead tape and lead hosel weights and buy new shafts (picking your favorite iron as the length and head weight you want)

I done something similar with mine. I reduced the length change to 3/8 and 8 gram change in head weight. It's called Moment of Inertia or MOI. They feel great I have to say.

Montgolfier

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Rien de nouveau sous le soleil.

Remember these ? Late 80s maybe or early 90s.


http://www.freegolfinfo.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=2650382&mpage=1&key=�

Disappeared as quickly as square head drivers.

I think it shows that a good golfer is a good golfer, and a bad one is a bad one. The tools are irrelevant.

No they got chewed up by the giants of the industry taylormade, Callaway etc.
Ever wonder why graphite shafts are longer than the equivalent in steel?
It's because the big company's didn't want to have to produce a different standard iron headweight. So to keep the swingweight the same as the steel version they opted for a longer shaft. Not helpful for the high handicap golfer.
If you get your hands on a set of those Tommy armor I'd keep them for ever.

WHIP IT!

Very interesting.... funnily enough, I bumped into a pal of a pal of mine's at the range recently, played golf with this chap a couple times, lovely golfer playing off Plus-1... anyhoo, I was struggling with the driver and naturally took the opportunity to bend his ear about it... he was hitting big high gorgeous draws one after the other miles down the driving range... as we were chatting, I picked up his (relatively old) driver for a nose and the first thing I noticed was the shaft is about 2/3 inches shorter than mine! He actually shortened it himself! :eek:

Food for thought for us all there...

Dolph Starbeam

I seen this last week on GolfWRX and I'm still unsure on it. I'd really like to see what distances he hits each club.

And I definitely couldn't listen to that putter for a whole round, it sounds horrible.

cellosid

YayaBanana wrote: »

I seen this last week on GolfWRX and I'm still unsure on it. I'd really like to see what distances he hits each club.

And I definitely couldn't listen to that putter for a whole round, it sounds horrible.

Certainly of great interest is how B DeC controls his distance, I guess this single length concept is not new, but he has taken this a step further with the introduction of massively over sized grips and head weights to marry in to his Single Plane Swing concept.

Hope he continues his current form and perhaps we may get to see some TV coverage from his US Open debut. He is bound to attract a lot of Media interest ?

Montgolfier

cellosid wrote: »

Certainly of great interest is how B DeC controls his distance, I guess this single length concept is not new, but he has taken this a step further with the introduction of massively over sized grips and head weights to marry in to his Single Plane Swing concept.

Hope he continues his current form and perhaps we may get to see some TV coverage from his US Open debut. He is bound to attract a lot of Media interest ?

He probably adjusts lofts to what ever distances he needs.

FixdePitchmark

First of all, it looks awful - but I guess , when you do something new , it is new. A bit like when Sergio did that thing putting - no, that still looks awful.

He is a top golfer and is working for him.

But - I think it is bad Physics if people forget that by reducing length you are reducing speed - if we put say a 7iron shaft in a 4 iron, it is an 8 mph change - combined with smash factor there is a 1.5 multiplier with that. Meaning you are down 12 mph.

And to go on about energy for a second - the energy in ball is a squared relationship. ( I accept drag is also a factor).

So it is working for him - but lads around here with low swing speeds - taking away their gearing (shaft length) - need to proceed with caution.- particularly when you considering the multiplying reducing influence of smash factor on lower speeds and poor contact (reduced Smash Factor).

I accept club head size for normal golfers here is an interesting idea.

So if you go for a 7 iron length 5 iron- it will only go about 170 yards - we need 5 irons going near 190 yards to play this game as it is supposed to be played.

interesting idea.

Montgolfier

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

First of all, it looks awful - but I guess , when you do something new , it is new. A bit like when Sergio did that thing putting - no, that still looks awful.

He is a top golfer and is working for him.

But - I think it is bad Physics if people forget that by reducing length you are reducing speed - if we put say a 7iron shaft in a 4 iron, it is an 8 mph change - combined with smash factor there is a 1.5 multiplier with that. Meaning you are down 12 mph.

And to go on about energy for a second - the energy in ball is a squared relationship. ( I accept drag is also a factor).

So it is working for him - but lads around here with low swing speeds - taking away their gearing (shaft length) - need to proceed with caution.- particularly when you considering the multiplying reducing influence of smash factor on lower speeds and poor contact (reduced Smash Factor).

I accept club head size for normal golfers here is an interesting idea.

So if you go for a 7 iron length 5 iron- it will only go about 170 yards - we need 5 irons going near 190 yards to play this game as it is supposed to be played.

interesting idea.

You would have to add 14 grams to the 5 iron to maintain the swingweight so that would give you extra smash factor plus lofts can be bent to give you whatever distance you want. This might need an interesting new winter project.

PARlance

Gearing and smash factor are all well and good Fix, but the reality is that most golfers can't hit 3,4,5 irons (Most golfers falling into the 10+ hc category). So they/we struggle to use it as designed.
On average a high hc'er would struggle to get an average of 170 from a 4i. A good strike may go 190, but for every good there will be a bad.
I'm generalising obviously but I think most will admit to having issues with lower irons.

From what I've seen, being able to create a faster swing (and thus increasing smash factor) doesn't really matter if you're taking an inch of turf before you hit the ball.
My thoughts would be that be shaving a bit of maximum distance, average distance would be increased via less variance.

neckedit

FixdePitchmark wrote:

So if you go for a 7 iron length 5 iron- it will only go about 170 yards - we need 5 irons going near 190 yards to play this game as it is supposed to be played.

Don't get this rationale at all?
The vast majority of players don't hit the 5 iron 190 consistently, a shorter shaft will give them a chance to find the centre of the face, which in turn increases Efficiency or smash factor which increases performance overall. Not saying its for everyone but in theory it would/can.

DuckSlice

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

First of all, it looks awful - but I guess , when you do something new , it is new. A bit like when Sergio did that thing putting - no, that still looks awful.

He is a top golfer and is working for him.

But - I think it is bad Physics if people forget that by reducing length you are reducing speed - if we put say a 7iron shaft in a 4 iron, it is an 8 mph change - combined with smash factor there is a 1.5 multiplier with that. Meaning you are down 12 mph.

And to go on about energy for a second - the energy in ball is a squared relationship. ( I accept drag is also a factor).

So it is working for him - but lads around here with low swing speeds - taking away their gearing (shaft length) - need to proceed with caution.- particularly when you considering the multiplying reducing influence of smash factor on lower speeds and poor contact (reduced Smash Factor).

I accept club head size for normal golfers here is an interesting idea.

So if you go for a 7 iron length 5 iron- it will only go about 170 yards - we need 5 irons going near 190 yards to play this game as it is supposed to be played.

interesting idea.

so if i dont hit my 5 iron 190 yards im not playing the game correctly? The only correct way to play the game is to play so that you enjoy it, in my opinion.

moycullen14

Playing a quick 9 last night, I had an incident that made me think of this very thing.

Left a ball on the lip of a bunker, so at address my left foot was in the bunker about 2-3 inches below my right foot. 'This will be manky' says I, expecting a horrible hack from such a bad stance.

The weird thing was it felt fine. I bent my right leg and went down the shaft (Oooerr, missus) on a 7 iron and was very comfortable. The result? The best 7-iron I have hit in years - Long, high, straight. From a normal stance, I don't think I could hit it as well. Is this an example of what he's talking about?
Maybe it was a fluke but the fact that it 'felt' right makes me think there is something in it.

I would definitely agree with the posters above that the success rate is much lower with the lower irons. In fact, I don't use anything lower than a 6-iron anymore, having replaced the 5, 4 & 3 with hybrids over the years.

The very odd time I try a 5 iron now, I can barely hit it - the contact is usually appalling - thin or fat.

I think I would be happy to lose 10 yards or whatever from an iron if I was 'guaranteed' a good contact.

I guess you could simulate this by going down the shaft a bit. Must give it a try....

FixdePitchmark

neckedit wrote: »

Don't get this rationale at all?
The vast majority of players don't hit the 5 iron 190 consistently, a shorter shaft will give them a chance to find the centre of the face, which in turn increases Efficiency or smash factor which increases performance overall. Not saying its for everyone but in theory it would/can.

And I'm saying from a theory never underestimate velocity.

And from physics never underestimate v^2.

neckedit

FixdePitchmark wrote:

And I'm saying from a theory never underestimate velocity.

FixdePitchmark wrote:

And from physics never underestimate v^2.

Ivet no Idea what your saying to be honest.

cellosid

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

First of all, it looks awful - but I guess , when you do something new , it is new. A bit like when Sergio did that thing putting - no, that still looks awful.

He is a top golfer and is working for him.

But - I think it is bad Physics if people forget that by reducing length you are reducing speed - if we put say a 7iron shaft in a 4 iron, it is an 8 mph change - combined with smash factor there is a 1.5 multiplier with that. Meaning you are down 12 mph.

And to go on about energy for a second - the energy in ball is a squared relationship. ( I accept drag is also a factor).

So it is working for him - but lads around here with low swing speeds - taking away their gearing (shaft length) - need to proceed with caution.- particularly when you considering the multiplying reducing influence of smash factor on lower speeds and poor contact (reduced Smash Factor).

I accept club head size for normal golfers here is an interesting idea.

So if you go for a 7 iron length 5 iron- it will only go about 170 yards - we need 5 irons going near 190 yards to play this game as it is supposed to be played.

interesting idea.

I personally find his mechanics a ''thing of beauty'' ! I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. His lines and angles portray a mechanical efficiency and simplicity to me. He's a human ''Iron Byron''

As regards his physics, he is a great study with his choice of custom equipment and ''Single Plane'' mechanics to further the debate of ''Clubhead speed'' versus Clubface pressure''
?

mike12

Think most of us find when we choke down on a club we will often hit it as far just because we make better contact. I wonder what lofts he has and are the club's heavier to adjust the swing weight.

LinksLad

If he hits half the fairways, I'd say Tiger has found his new swing coach.

Dolph Starbeam

http://www.golfwrx.com/308080/bryson-dechambeau-witb-2015/

alxmorgan

I've been trying a 43.5 inch driver for last few rounds. Confidence increase is big as club feels way more manageable. No noticeable distance loss

FWVT

I call bullshít on the idea that having the same length will:

a) cause you to hit the sweetspot easier, and
b) therefore hit the ball further

People are forgetting about the difference in the weights of the clubheads. From 9 iron (282 g) down to 3 iron (240 g) there is a 7 g (3%) decrease in clubhead weight per club.

The momentum, p, is what imparts energy to the ball and is defined as mass × velocity (m×v). The velocity is proportional to the radius. If the shaft stays the same length as the clubhead gets lighter then less energy is imparted on the ball. Loft has only a partial effect. To counteract the loss in momentum a longer shaft is required.

I have no idea how people think that having a 3 iron shaft the same length as a 9 iron will make them hit the sweetspot more easily. That must mean they already hit their 9 iron on the money 10 times out of 10. Wow.

Montgolfier

FWVT wrote: »

I call bullshít on the idea that having the same length will:

a) cause you to hit the sweetspot easier, and
b) therefore hit the ball further

People are forgetting about the difference in the weights of the clubheads. From 9 iron (282 g) down to 3 iron (240 g) there is a 7 g (3%) decrease in clubhead weight per club.

The momentum, p, is what imparts energy to the ball and is defined as mass × velocity (m×v). The velocity is proportional to the radius. If the shaft stays the same length as the clubhead gets lighter then less energy is imparted on the ball. Loft has only a partial effect. To counteract the loss in momentum a longer shaft is required.

I have no idea how people think that having a 3 iron shaft the same length as a 9 iron will make them hit the sweetspot more easily. That must mean they already hit their 9 iron on the money 10 times out of 10. Wow.

Wow is right, read the earlier posts.

JIdontknow

FWVT wrote: »

I call bullshít on the idea that having the same length will:

a) cause you to hit the sweetspot easier, and
b) therefore hit the ball further

People are forgetting about the difference in the weights of the clubheads. From 9 iron (282 g) down to 3 iron (240 g) there is a 7 g (3%) decrease in clubhead weight per club.

The momentum, p, is what imparts energy to the ball and is defined as mass × velocity (m×v). The velocity is proportional to the radius. If the shaft stays the same length as the clubhead gets lighter then less energy is imparted on the ball. Loft has only a partial effect. To counteract the loss in momentum a longer shaft is required.

I have no idea how people think that having a 3 iron shaft the same length as a 9 iron will make them hit the sweetspot more easily. That must mean they already hit their 9 iron on the money 10 times out of 10. Wow.

He has the different iron heads all weighing the same, all clubs weigh the same having same swing weight etc, so it's just the loft, likewise he doesn't have the clubs numbered but has the loft / degrees on them instead. It's an interesting concept he's trying and if nothing else he has gotten publicity, playing this week in St Jude too, think I saw him in the betting list.

neckedit

FWVT wrote:

People are forgetting about the difference in the weights of the clubheads. From 9 iron (282 g) down to 3 iron (240 g) there is a 7 g (3%) decrease in clubhead weight per club.

I don't think it's been forgotten at all, as its been mention a few times in earlier posts.

Dolph Starbeam

He is one of the later starters today so I'm sure we'll get to see some of him play.

I just don't see how it works. I can't see how a single swing works. Not every shot is a full shot, how does he change his swing to play a fade, draw, high or low shot? You can't do it all with a single swing and as said above just because all the clubs are the same length it doesn't mean he is going to strike it 100% every time, how good are his bad strikes?

He is obviously doing something right to have won the NCAA championship, definitely going to be interesting to see. Hope they do a swing analysis at some stage this week.

cellosid

The noted Custom Fitting Specialist Tom Wishon is reported to be testing some same length Iron prototypes with a end of year release.

Has Tom been impressed by the exploits of B DeC and is anticipating a renewed interest in SL Irons ?

Here is an extract from a lengthy article by Tom on Club Fitting :



''The old adage, “the longer the club length, the higher the clubhead speed” only happens for golfers who have a later/very late unhinging of the wrist-cock release on the downswing. Each golfer achieves their highest clubhead speed the moment they complete their release of the club on the downswing. From that point on, the clubhead speed drops.

In addition, the longer the length of the club, the higher the moment of inertia of the fully assembled club will be. And the higher the MOI of the club, the more stress the club puts on the golfer’s swing path and release. Add one more undesirable effect that comes with longer club lengths – for virtually all golfers, the longer the length, the more they hit the ball off-center.

For golfers with an early-to-midway release, as well as golfers with below average golf athletic ability, going longer with the driver to achieve more distance often results in the opposite effect – a loss in distance due to no increase in clubhead speed with an increase in the number of off-center hits.

From our fitting research, the golfers we have found who have the greatest chance of gaining distance from a longer length are those with a smooth tempo, late release, good sense of swing timing and rhythm and a slightly flatter swing plane. If you fit this description and you are in search of more distance, by all means have a go with a 46-inch or 47-inch driver! If not, and that means if you lack two or more of the above swing characteristics, you’ll do a lot better with a driver no longer than 43.5 to 44 inches (men) or 42 to 43 inches (women). ''

He goes on to further state that shaft length for Irons are still within 0.5" of standard length from past decades and that changes in Iron shaft length have far less of a direct relationship to distance that Drivers.

Here is the link from that lengthy article: http://www.golfwrx.com/119316/the-most-important-fitting-elements-for-distance/

I feel what is of great interest is that B DeC set out on a quest some years ago as a kid to find a better way ? This lead him to explore the Single Plane Swing concept and then look at Custom Equipment. I'm sure the advent of Launch Monitors and High Speed Cameras accelerated his progress. Not to mention,... it has been stated on another Forum that the support of wealthy parents enabled him to pay $2o+k for his Irons ?:eek:

cellosid

YayaBanana wrote: »

He is one of the later starters today so I'm sure we'll get to see some of him play.

I just don't see how it works. I can't see how a single swing works. Not every shot is a full shot, how does he change his swing to play a fade, draw, high or low shot? You can't do it all with a single swing and as said above just because all the clubs are the same length it doesn't mean he is going to strike it 100% every time, how good are his bad strikes?

He is obviously doing something right to have won the NCAA championship, definitely going to be interesting to see. Hope they do a swing analysis at some stage this week.

His unique approach also worked in the highest company as he got to -11 ahead of notable Tour Players to eventually finish 3rd in Open Regional Qualifying.

His SP mechanics help him maintain his body angles throughout his swing, and his Sl Irons add an assurance that all his Iron play have the same Set Up and Swing Plane.

I think this kid is on to something ?

moycullen14

I went out last night to try and simulate a common shaft length on all my irons.

It seemed to work (sort of). Connections were much better and very little loss of distance.

On the first 6 holes, I was either on the green or the fringe in regulation - great! I proceeded to have 4 bogies, 1 par and 1 double (a nightmare-inducing 4 putt). :eek:

After that all thoughts of swing planes were gone and I went off to the putting green, a nervous wreck.

Damn you, Golf. It's like trying to herd cats.

Senna

I have an old ping g15 3 iron lying in the house, I might take a hack saw to it and cut it to 37 inches, stick a cheap grip on it and see how it goes.
I'm imagining the low stinger shot would be a lot easier to hit with it.

valoren

So his irons are essentially 6-irons (where the clubhead is the same weight) but the lofts are different? Very interesting concept. It works for him obviously.

It reminds me of cycling where the majority of cycling shoes are designed so that the cleat is positioned over the ball of the foot. Why? It's just the way it is I guess.

However, some argue that it should be placed over the arch of the foot where more power is generated.

It seems as if club sets and cycling shoes are designed the way they are because.....that's just the way it is and the way it's always been.

Montgolfier

Senna wrote: »

I have an old ping g15 3 iron lying in the house, I might take a hack saw to it and cut it to 37 inches, stick a cheap grip on it and see how it goes.
I'm imagining the low stinger shot would be a lot easier to hit with it.

Make sure you have some lead tape and then use the link to calculate the swingweight

http://www.leaderboard.com/swingwt.htm

Goodluck

cellosid

YayaBanana wrote: »

He is one of the later starters today so I'm sure we'll get to see some of him play.

I just don't see how it works. I can't see how a single swing works. Not every shot is a full shot, how does he change his swing to play a fade, draw, high or low shot? You can't do it all with a single swing and as said above just because all the clubs are the same length it doesn't mean he is going to strike it 100% every time, how good are his bad strikes?[/HTML]

He is obviously doing something right to have won the NCAA championship, definitely going to be interesting to see. Hope they do a swing analysis at some stage this week.


One of the major benefits of the SP swing with SL Iron shafts is the ability to consistently deliver the club head effectively through the impact zone. This is not an impairment to the golfers ability to work the ball,......but a distinct advantage. All the demands of a particular flight can be dialed in at set up,..... it's just basic geometry, ball placement and club face orientation !

cellosid

Look what I found !!

DuckSlice

He is -2 thru 5. Hopefully they show some of him on sky!

SevesThreeIron

etxp wrote: »

He is -2 thru 5. Hopefully they show some of him on sky!

Might be missing something but if all his clubs are the same length isn't he also making wedge, 9, 8 and 7 harder to hit than normal?

JIdontknow

SevesThreeIron wrote: »

Might be missing something but if all his clubs are the same length isn't he also making wedge, 9, 8 and 7 harder to hit than normal?

He would probably argue he's making them easier to hit as they are all the one length, be it 5 iron or PW, same swing weight, length, swing pattern, etc so I guess it's the repetition that leads to consistency. It's really the two faces of the coin, some could argue that his wedges are harder to hit but then the counter argument is as I said above, it's certainly an interesting development!

LinksLad

Driving Distance ---- 293.0
Driving Accuracy ---- 28.57%
Greens in Regulation ---- 61.11%
Strokes Gained - Putting ---- 2.475

DuckSlice

I would love to see his yard ages for each club. See does he have any gaps!

cellosid

From Tom Wishon, the noted Custom Fitting expert:

'' Brendan Muldoon January 14, 2015
Tom, there has been a lot of discussion amongst some of my clients recently about one length irons – you indicated to my son, Michael, who lives and plays in France, that you might be looking into the design of a set – any news on this – I would really love to try out this concept but do not want to through the prebuilt route that is the only one currently available.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but would this not entail a fairly radical departure from the old gapping of lofts as well as a change in the 7g weight difference between clubs? Theoretically it all makes an awful lot sense but the cost of tooling might be prohibitive.
Regards
Brendan
Reply

Tom Wishon January 14, 2015
Brendan
I have designed the clubheads for a single length set but as yet the date for when these might be released is up in the air and not yet known for sure. But it will happen and possibly in the summer I think. One of the main challenges I faced was how to set up the head designs and loft gapping so that the set could deliver a proper distance difference between each club and still not end up hitting the ball too short in the low loft clubs or too long in the high loft clubs. That took a little work, but I do think that the heads I have designed can do that for most golfers.
Because each club would be built to the same length, that means each head has to be designed to be the same exact weight and the same lie angle too. The main benefit of a single length set comes from the fact that the lengths, the total weights, the headweights and the balance points would be identical in every club. Doing that means you then have matched all three moments in each club in the set so that every club then would swing precisely and exactly the same for trying to gain better shot consistency. So there can’t be any weight increments between the heads since they have to all be the same headweight. And as such this has to be done with all new designs for each head.
So keep in touch and hopefully the remaining obstacles, none of which are technically related to the design, can be resolved so this set could come out sometime a little later this year. I don’t think it will be for every golfer from a mental perspective, but that being said, theoretically from a performance standpoint, it could.
TOM ''

It appears that B DeC's Golf Coach has a numbers of kids on SL Iron Shafts and many are on Golf Scholarships.

He uses the ''Schy Circle''(think upright Explanar) as an effective learning tool for the SP Swing. Will be very interesting to see if SP Swing mechanics resurrects the SL Iron Shaft concept ???

FWVT

What about the R&A and USPGA rules regarding club design? Any rules that would go against this type of revolution?

stockdam

So why not just carry one iron which has an adjustable loft? OK you may want your long irons to be cavity backs and your shorter ones to be musclebacks so maybe carry two or three adjustable irons.

Having wedges with shafts the same length as 6 irons doesn't sound a good idea.

For most people I would suggest using standard length clubs between 7 iron and wedge and then keeping the shaft length constant from 4 iron to 7 iron. It will help a bit but won't transform your long game. Maybe use hybrids to replace your long irons.

I don't see much "revolution" in what he is doing as I don't think it has been thought through enough. He probably isn't the best short game player as his wedges are a couple of inches longer than standard.

Also remember that all pros have oodles of talent and time to practice so no matter what they play with they will be on another level to most amateurs.

FWVT

stockdam wrote: »

So why not just carry one iron which has an adjustable loft? OK you may want your long irons to be cavity backs and your shorter ones to be musclebacks so maybe carry two or three adjustable irons.

Having wedges with shafts the same length as 6 irons doesn't sound a good idea.

For most people I would suggest using standard length clubs between 7 iron and wedge and then keeping the shaft length constant from 4 iron to 7 iron. It will help a bit but won't transform your long game. Maybe use hybrids to replace your long irons.

I don't see much "revolution" in what he is doing as I don't think it has been thought through enough. He probably isn't the best short game player as his wedges are a couple of inches longer than standard.

Also remember that all pros have oodles of talent and time to practice so no matter what they play with they will be on another level to most amateurs.

Good point about the short irons. I would find it difficult to play a Mickelson flop shot with a 6-iron shaft, even choking down on it. Too much shaft on the inside.

SaveOurLyric

cellosid wrote: »

Are we about to embark on another element in the evolution of the golf swing ?

No.

He has talent. But I would guess his unorthodox clubs choice is hindering rather than helping him. And the resurgence of this idea will fade away with him.

Unless I am missing something, there is neither swing theory nor physics as its basis. The idea that 'swinging clubs of the same length is more consistent than having to adapt to different length ones' is just that. An idea. Or whimsy. Certainly not physics. He is clearly a very competent golfer with the basis of a good swing - as proven by his driving with a standardish driver. Clubs evolved as we know them as a balance of length and loft creating the most useful distance gaps over many years, and despite golf being one of the most gear tinkering sports, and even this particular idea having been tried several times before, the same general parameters are arrived at. And ideas of equal length irons ditched.

There is even less theoretical basis to it than low-friction tees, low profile shoes, long driving underpants, or dare I say it, club fitting.
A curio. But get a proper set of clubs and he would have a better future in the game.

Montgolfier

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

No.

He has talent. But I would guess his unorthodox clubs choice is hindering rather than helping him. And the resurgence of this idea will fade away with him.

Unless I am missing something, there is neither swing theory nor physics as its basis. The idea that 'swinging clubs of the same length is more consistent than having to adapt to different length ones' is just that. An idea. Or whimsy. Certainly not physics. He is clearly a very competent golfer with the basis of a good swing - as proven by his driving with a standardish driver. Clubs evolved as we know them as a balance of length and loft creating the most useful distance gaps over many years, and despite golf being one of the most gear tinkering sports, and even this particular idea having been tried several times before, the same general parameters are arrived at. And ideas of equal length irons ditched.

There is even less theoretical basis to it than low-friction tees, low profile shoes, long driving underpants, or dare I say it, club fitting.
A curio. But get a proper set of clubs and he would have a better future in the game.

The only thing that influences the irons that we produce today is profit.
It's doesn't make economical sense to produce heads with extra weight. Using more raw material for extra weight costs more to produce. It's much easier to compensate for that with a longer shaft. Tube steel is cheaper so the longer the shaft the higher the swingweight goes.
If we the public were happy with the products we bought off the shelf why would we buy new stuff.
That's the way it is now every year new products to help us play better.

SaveOurLyric

Montgolfier wrote: »

The only thing that influences the irons that we produce today is profit.
It's doesn't make economical sense to produce heads with extra weight. Using more raw material for extra weight costs more to produce. It's much easier to compensate for that with a longer shaft. Tube steel is cheaper so the longer the shaft the higher the swingweight goes.
If we the public were happy with the products we bought off the shelf why would we buy new stuff.
That's the way it is now every year new products to help us play better.

Right. So in sum : club manufacturers wont sell a set of irons that might be better because they would use an extra few grams of steel ? Expensive stuff steel....
Pull the other one.

If there really were a game-changing design manufacturers would be all over each other in court to patent it and get it to market.

And you really think they bring out new products every year to help us play better ? They just change the graphics and the marketing spiel. Gullible golfers 'upgrading' is their route to profit because they have no genuine game improving development to sell.

Montgolfier

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Right. So in sum : club manufacturers wont sell a set of irons that might be better because they would use an extra few grams of steel ? Expensive stuff steel....
Pull the other one.

If there really were a game-changing design manufacturers would be all over each other in court to patent it and get it to market.

And you really think they bring out new products every year to help us play better ? They just change the graphics and the marketing spiel. Gullible golfers 'upgrading' is their route to profit because they have no genuine game improving development to sell.

Your not thinking big enough SOL a few grams in one head multiplied by the global market demand probably in the billions!!! Is a lot of money by any stretch of the imagine.
Not to mention the new tooling costs.

If there is game changing clubs out there your right they would buy the patent but wouldn't produce anything unless it was more profitable.
A lot of the revolutionary designs come from small companies like scor golf who want a piece of the pie.

http://www.scorgolf.com/

SaveOurLyric

Montgolfier wrote: »

Your not thinking big enough SOL a few grams in one head multiplied by the global market demand probably in the billions!!! Is a lot of money by any stretch of the imagine.
Not to mention the new tooling costs.

If there is game changing clubs out there your right they would buy the patent but wouldn't produce anything unless it was more profitable.
A lot of the revolutionary designs come from small companies like scor golf who want a piece of the pie.

http://www.scorgolf.com/

Yeah, you're probably right. Its all just one big stitch between the global steel companies, the R&A, and the launch monitor manufacturers. And we are the mugs playing with clubs of different lengths. A stitch up, I tells ya. A stitch up. Oh, and the tooling manufacturers are in on it as well.

Montgolfier

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yeah, you're probably right. Its all just one big stitch between the global steel companies, the R&A, and the launch monitor manufacturers. And we are the mugs playing with clubs of different lengths. A stitch up, I tells ya. A stitch up. Oh, and the tooling manufacturers are in on it as well.

I'm really just saying custom clubs don't come cheap. Believe what ya like after that after all ignorance is bliss.