From: Otto on

"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)> wrote in message

> Daly's extra long back swing is ideal for more flexible shafts. He's
> tried stiff shafts, and says he can't hit them.

The other extreme would be Allen Doyle--very short swing but he generates a
ton of flexion in the shaft.

I wonder if he uses stiff shafts?

Anyone know?


From: Martin Levac on

"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)> wrote in message
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:10:35 -0500, "Martin Levac"
> <vac3(a)> wrote:
>>Ok Howard, I'll bite. Most people hit the ball farther than what?
> Farther down the fairway than they do with clubs that don't go as far.
>>How about
>>farther than the target, would that do? How about closer to the target
>>instead, would that do better?
> For various values of "target". But in general, a driver isn't used
> to put the ball on the green. It is used to hit a much bigger
> fairway. The top players don't even mind trading some more yards
> for a bigger chance of hitting out of trouble.
>>I thought drivers were designed to hit the
>>straight ball, I could be wrong. I forgot about that latest Callaway
>>FT3 that Phil used to good effect. The one that's designed to hit the
>>ball. What's wrong with straight anyway, not good enough for Phil?
>>How many people do you know hit the ball 300 yards with today's equipment?
>>mean people you know personally and have seen it with your own eyes where
>>the ball went. How many people do you know send the ball 150 yards with
>>same equipment? I know many 150 yarders but only one proven 300 yarder. Oh
>>hear a bunch of stories about amazing achievements at some time or another
>>but none of these people can do it at will except that one guy. I even met
>>one guy brag about 287 yards he did once long ago, brag!
> So what has that got to do with whether someone uses a driver to hit
> the ball long? Long is relative.
>>My personal experience tends to disagree with "drivers are designed to hit
>>the long ball". But it certainly looks like it's designed to hit the
>>short ball into the woods, that's for sure.
> Then tee off with your short irons.
>>Or maybe it's not the equipment,
>>it's the swing. Well, if we match the equipment based on the swing and the
>>swing is flawed to begin with, I think the equipment we'll select will
>>probably be just as bad as the swing itself, don't you think? That sounds
>>logical to me.
> Of course - but when we tee off with a driver - no matter what your
> ability - we are trying to hit the ball long. Our target will
> almost always be a larger target than when we are using our short
> irons.
>>On the other hand if we select the very best equipment regardless of the
>>swing, I think that the swing has a much better chance of being good at
> The discussion is what the very best equipment is. I noted that a
> lot of people prefer more accuracy with the short clubs and more
> distance with the long clubs. Certainly that applies to Tiger and
> Phil - and they carry equipment that they have determined is the very
> best for their goals.

Do you remember the advice you were given a long time ago when you started
playing? "Let the club do the work." When I use the driver, I'm not trying
to send the ball far, the club will do that for me nicely with its long
shaft and low loft, I just want to send the ball straight. In fact, that's
what I want to do with all my clubs and all my clubs are designed for a very
specific distance. I don't know of any club that's designed to send the ball
crooked into the woods but that's what it looks like to me when I see all
these people playing golf. Maybe it is the equipment afterall.

I'm sure Phil's goal is to send the ball into the woods and lose like a
champ as a result. But maybe in this case it's not the equipment, it's the
player. Now that doesn't tell us much about the equipment at first glance
but it sure tells us a lot about the player which makes us doubt his choice
of equipment at second glance. See how that works out in favor of neither
the equipment nor the player?

Let us do a little exercise to understand how important it is to send the
ball straight over far.

If you could send the ball straight to your target every time but only 200
yards, what kind of score would you make on any course of your choice? Then
do the same exercise but with 300 yards. Calculate score like so:

For 200 yards.
Hole less than 200 yards: 2 strokes.
Hole 200 to 400 yards: 3 stroke.
Hole 400 yards and more: 4 strokes.

For 300 yards.
Hole less than 300 yards: 2 strokes.
Hole 300 to 550 yards: 3 strokes.
Hole 550 yards and more: 4 strokes.

It's understood that you send the ball very close to the target but not in
the hole, hence the one for every hole. It's understood that you use the
driver off the tee but the 3W off the deck, hence the 300-550 yards. Anyway,
if you used the driver off the deck, the difference on my course would be 1

For my course, I get results of 15 under par for 200 yards and 21 under par
for 300 yards. Wow, 300 yards is indeed better than 200 yards. Look!, it's
21 under versus 15 under. Don't get too excited about that, 15 under par is
already extremely good for a player who can only send the ball 200 yards
away. I don't understand what's wrong with people who want to send the ball
300 yards when they can't even send it straight at 200 yards.

Hell, even if that player didn't putt very well and always made two putts
per hole, he'd still score a very respectable 3 over. For a guy that can
send the ball only 200 yards, that's very impressive indeed.

After you've done this little exercise, apply it to actual PGA tournaments
to see if it would place well.

Then, see if you can't make a club that allows a player to send the ball 200
yards very straight to the target every time. I don't know what parts you'd
choose but I'd start with the stiffest shaft I could find just to be on the
safe side.

From: Martin Levac on

"bill-o" <assimilate(a)> wrote in message
> On 6-Feb-2007, "Martin Levac" <vac3(a)> wrote:
>> The quality of a tool is determined primarily by its ability to perform
>> the function for which it was designed and built. The better it can
>> perform
>> its function, the higher its quality. The worse it can perform its
>> function,
>> the lower its quality. What is the function of a golf club shaft? Can a
>> rigid
>> lever transmit the same power more precisely than a supple lever? Is a
>> golf club shaft a lever?
> Perhaps you don't understand that people are individuals (c-�-d diff�rent)
> that require individual (c-�-d diff�rent) solutions. Do you really believe
> that everyone should swing with the same shaft? Your absolute statements
> are
> worthy of LLLarry.
> --
> bill-o
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Perhaps I do understand but I'm just an individual requiring an individual
solution. I don't believe anything. Don't let that stop you from believing
anything you want, though.

From: Howard Brazee on
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:02:23 -0500, "Martin Levac"
<vac3(a)> wrote:

>After you've done this little exercise, apply it to actual PGA tournaments
>to see if it would place well.

It's easy to note how often people who drive 200 yards win PGA

But I'm not a pro - just because the pros don't follow your
recommendations, doesn't man that they aren't suitable for me.

It may be a good thing for my score if I choose to leave my woods in
the car, and only use clubs that will go 200 yards or less. That
would be because I wouldn't be as far in the woods with my misses,
giving me a better chance to find my ball in play. I suspect
though, that those shorter misses won't make that much difference. And
my decent shots won't be nearly as much fun.

If I don't see a significant accuracy gain, and see a significant fun
loss, I won't trade my woods for irons just to hit the ball shorter.

For me "accurate" means "in the fairway" for tee shots, or "on the
green" for approach shots. Being more in the middle of the fairway
isn't worth as much as being farther down the fairway.

>Then, see if you can't make a club that allows a player to send the ball 200
>yards very straight to the target every time. I don't know what parts you'd
>choose but I'd start with the stiffest shaft I could find just to be on the
>safe side.

That's because you uniquely believe that the stiffest shaft will keep
the ball straight. My own experience is limited - but I was less
accurate with stiffer clubs and my hands hurt more.
From: Dave Lee on

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC(a)> wrote in message
> I'm toying with the idea of building a new set of irons in the near
> At the rate that I typically proceed on such things that would mean
> 2007 :-)
> An accepted "golf truism" that I have heard more than once is (roughly)
> right flex shaft is the most flex that you can control" (where stiffer
> less flex). Particularly with irons I wonder why it really shouldn't be
> stiffest flex that you can tolerate swinging".
> I know that I seriously dislike driver shafts with stiff tips. I honestly
> don't know if they hit the ball worse for me (or hell - maybe they are
> better). But I don't like the feel at impact.
> I don't seem to have that reaction to stiffer iron shafts. And I just
> see any upside to more flex other than how it feels. The downsides are
> clubhead droop that will vary depending on how hard you swing the club and
> similar considerations for the other directions of shaft flex. The "droop
> thing" in particular seems to be a real negative to me as it means that if
> the lie is right on a full swing then it will almost have to be too
> for a chip shot.
> Any comments on this? I recall some discussion on this a while back, but I
> recall that it seemed to go off in other directions. Well, of course it
> Dave - this is RSG :-)
> dave

Guess I'll stick this here for lack of a better place.

I was on the range today and the only good thing I'll say is that it was
sunny. The rest of the story is mid-30's, breezy, and the range balls had
been stored in the range shed overnight with a low in the teens. But with
the sun (and lots of layers) it was tolerable.

I was hitting the following collection of clubs.

1) mid 90's Hogan Apex (channelback) blade 5i/6i reshafted with TT Tx 90 A

2) mid 90's Hogan Apex (channelback) blade 5i with stock Hogan #4 shaft

3) Cleveland Ta3 (cavity back) 6i reshafted to match #1 above

4) KZG Forged IIM cavity back 5i with TT Tx90 R flex 5i

5) KZG Forged blade with Rifle 6.0 shaft

6) Tommy Armour Silver Scot cavity back 5i/6i with stock R flex shaft

7) Titleist DCI 762 cavity back 6i with TT DG S300 (stiff) shaft

8) early 70's Titleist cavity back 5i with stock R flex shaft

9) mid 90's Hogan Apex (channelback) blade 2i (just for grins) with stock
Hogan #4 shaft (stiff)

I really only had two strong reactions to all this.

1) It is REALLY fun to hit a 2i well. It just isn't fun when it hits the
front of the green and rolls off the back. And it isn't fun to hit one off
the toe either (for example).

2) I'll swear that there isn't a hill of beans difference between all these
clubs (other than the obvious such as some having stronger lofts than
others). Maybe I liked #4 and #7 a bit better - maybe. Yesterday I loved #4
and today it was more neutral. But I'll swear that I'd alternate between the
stiff shafted Apex 5i and the A flex Apex 5i and while they didn't feel the
same, I honestly don't know which one I preferred.

Tough to be a real darksider when everything tastes like vanilla :-)