Shaft Stiffness and Irons
in [Golf]
|
From: david s-a on 5 Feb 2007 16:42 Martin Levac wrote: > "The quality of a shaft is composed of these components: Flexional rigidity, > torsional rigidity, tensional rigidity, weight, weight distribution, > durability, geometry, compatibility to other materials for assembly into a > golf club." > None of these characteristics, especially rigidity, have anything to do with quality. (Go study QA 101) If bullshit were music you would be a f#@*ing brass band mate! No offence intended, of course! cheers david
From: Bobby Knight on 5 Feb 2007 17:23 On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:08:47 -0500, "Martin Levac" <vac3(a)REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote: > >"Bobby Knight" <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >news:b97fs2533r4algduidqgu19il26eejat97(a)4ax.com... > >> Now. I guess that you will say that extra stiff shafts are the only >> ones that have real quality. Ergo, if you have a swing speed of 85 >> and want the best quality shaft, screw the obvious. Buy X-shafts. >> >> Bullshit is called. But I'm not the first, or last, to say this. >> bk > >If you looked at it differently, it would make the world of difference. Try >it: > >"I will select the best equipment possible regardless of my ability." > >The best equipment with regards to golf is the one that will allow me to >produce the most accurate shots. <clip> If that is so, then why do manufacturers produce more than one shaft ? Don't even try the $$$ situation. It would be much more profitable to only make one shaft for the manufacturer, and they could charge whatever they want. Your argument is full of holes .. ___, \o | / \ . �Someone likes every shot� bk
From: Martin Levac on 5 Feb 2007 17:30 "david s-a" <dsantwyk(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:52pmmiF1or8htU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Martin Levac wrote: > > >> "The quality of a shaft is composed of these components: Flexional >> rigidity, torsional rigidity, tensional rigidity, weight, weight >> distribution, durability, geometry, compatibility to other materials for >> assembly into a golf club." >> > > None of these characteristics, especially rigidity, have anything to do > with quality. (Go study QA 101) > > If bullshit were music you would be a f#@*ing brass band mate! > > No offence intended, of course! > > cheers > david If you meet a tennis player, please mention it to him, would you? I'm sure he'd have something to say about rigidity being one aspect of quality in a racket. How about the hockey player or the baseball player, I'm sure they have a good idea of what role rigidity plays in their ability to strike the puck and ball with accuracy. But never mind the sports. While we're on the subject of telling others to go places, go study the nature of a lever. You'll learn some interesting things about that. Such that the primary purpose of a lever is to transmit power from one end to the other. The more rigid it is, the more accurately power can be transmitted through it. That sounds like it could be useful to know when it comes to golf. And then since accuracy is so important in golf, I'd say that a high quality club is one that allows great accuracy and since a rigid lever allows greater accuracy, I guess that makes it of high quality. Conversely, a more supple shaft would be considered of lesser quality. Don't you think I'm pretty good with logic? Thank you, you are too kind. I don't want to disagree with you but I must: All of these characteristics, especially rigidity, have everything to do with quality. Perhaps you prefer to consider only one characteristic that determines quality, that which allows the ball to be sent far? Let me see, if far is good then farther must be better, yes? Ok, I understand that part. Let me ask you a question so we all know exactly what that means. Farther than what? Yes, that's what I asked, farther than what. I meant, is farther than the target better than closer to the target, that's what I was leading up to. Ah, come on, don't leave, play with me. Martin Levac
From: Bobby Knight on 5 Feb 2007 17:54 On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:50:28 -0500, "Martin Levac" <vac3(a)REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote: > >"Bobby Knight" <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >news:fcbfs2th8ftgkiko5h73r2972kt0n3hvvm(a)4ax.com... <clip> >> If that is so, then why do manufacturers produce more than one shaft ? >> Don't even try the $$$ situation. It would be much more profitable to >> only make one shaft for the manufacturer, and they could charge >> whatever they want. >> >> Your argument is full of holes >> bk > >I can't not use the money argument because that's the only argument that the >makers can't ignore. <clip waaaaay too many words> >Martin Levac > The sheer volume of print that you have to use for such a simple thing is telling. You have to obfuscate because you just don't know what you're talking about. I'm done with this because your arguments are circular, and unimpressive. ___, \o | / \ . �Someone likes every shot� bk
From: Martin Levac on 5 Feb 2007 18:20
"Bobby Knight" <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message news:g7dfs2hpep1llqnmb5t3rjv34fbp3i605t(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:50:28 -0500, "Martin Levac" > <vac3(a)REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> >>"Bobby Knight" <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >>news:fcbfs2th8ftgkiko5h73r2972kt0n3hvvm(a)4ax.com... > <clip> >>> If that is so, then why do manufacturers produce more than one shaft ? >>> Don't even try the $$$ situation. It would be much more profitable to >>> only make one shaft for the manufacturer, and they could charge >>> whatever they want. >>> >>> Your argument is full of holes > >>> bk >> >>I can't not use the money argument because that's the only argument that >>the >>makers can't ignore. > <clip waaaaay too many words> >>Martin Levac >> > > The sheer volume of print that you have to use for such a simple thing > is telling. You have to obfuscate because you just don't know what > you're talking about. > > I'm done with this because your arguments are circular, and > unimpressive. > ___, > \o > | > / \ > . > "Someone likes every shot" > bk So is that your way of saying you're out of "facts" and arguments? No, my arguments are not circular. For an argument to be circular, it must rely on itself. My arguments don't rely on themselves, they rely on external laws, Newton's laws of motion to be precise. Perhaps you mean that they are repetitive, that's fine, they are. I admit they are unimpressive. Reality has the nasty habit of being both repetitive and unimpressive. It's much more entertaining to go to a movie to see lies and more lies. Martin Levac |