My opinion on today's Golf equipment

[rkangrah]

So last weekend, I went to a Golf Demo session offered by a bunch of golf makers. You name it Titleist, Taylormade, Cobra, Nike were there. I tried a bunch of their latest clubs offering. After spending half an hour hitting their golf clubs, my conclusion is this: The drivers today are way too long and looks too big (especially Cobra). Also they feel too light for my liking. The irons is just as forgiving as the previous models back in 2010. Some irons are longer because they tweak the loft. 7 iron becomes 8 iron and so on.

 

What happen to the size of drivers? I like when they make about the right size even for 460cc drivers. I love the size and the shape of Taylormade R7 Superquad. It looks good on the eyes and feel good when you swing it. I hope they will make a similar driver in the future. Even R11S looks big compared to R7 Superquad.

 

So I think Custom Fitting is a must for everybody. You must have the right weight of shaft in order a club to feel right and perform the best. Without custom fitting you will waste your money on off the rack golf equipment.

 

So that's a bit of my opinion on todays equipment.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

Size is a matter of taste I guess but I'm with you on too long and too light. I posted another thread about how I had to go all the way back to a 2005 model Callaway FT-3 to find a lefty driver with 11 or more degrees of loft that is "only" 45 inches long.

The only pseudo-driver I've been able to hit well among recent models was as 44" (actually just a fraction over 44" by my measurement) Cleveland Launcher FL 3-wood with 15 degrees of loft. The problem is, being a 3-wood it really has to be teed up barely off the ground so I don't have a lot of up-down forgiveness nor can I tee it forward and catch it, if not on the upswing, at least level.

But the FT-3 is medium weight (314g) and a manageable length at about 45-1/8" to the end of the grip cap. My protractor says about 11-1/2 or 12 degrees of static loft (although measuring by hand is dodgy at best) and I hit this one real well. That's still a half-inch too long but at least in the ballpark.

The Cleveland XL270 I had tried most recently was over 47" to the end of the grip cap. I'll bet not one golfer in 20 can control a club that long. Heck, even choked up two to three inches it's hard to square the face. Before that I had a Diablo Octane driver that was great in terms of loft (11.5 degrees nominal with a slightly closed face) but it was 46-1/2" long.

So my current bag is semi-retro. I have a 45" FT-3 driver, my fairway woods are a 42" Fusion 5W and 43" Fusion 3W (both also from circa 2005) and my irons are more recent Razr X's from a couple years back. But honestly I could play the same with mid-2,000's Fusion irons or for that matter with any of the X-series irons from that past 10-12 years. I've tried a bunch of clubs lately and seen everything under the sun in various stores and so forth and there's nothing out there that would save a single stroke over my all-used mixed bag of one, two and three generation old clubs.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='rkangrah' timestamp='1345568340' post='5510088']
So last weekend, I went to a Golf Demo session offered by a bunch of golf makers.

After spending half an hour hitting their golf clubs, my conclusion is this: The drivers today are way too long and looks too big (especially Cobra). Also they feel too light for my liking. The irons is just as forgiving as the previous models back in 2010. Some irons are longer because they tweak the loft. 7 iron becomes 8 iron and so on.

What happen to the size of drivers?

So I think Custom Fitting is a must for everybody. You must have the right weight of shaft in order a club to feel right and perform the best. Without custom fitting you will waste your money on off the rack golf equipment.

So that's a bit of my opinion on todays equipment.
[/quote]

You are a WISE man to have come to this conclusion through your observations. One size never fits all.

Rackets and Bats figured out decades ago that baseball/softball players and tennis players could not hit the ball to the best of their ability unless the bats were fit to the right length, weight, and handle diameter for the player - and unless the rackets were fit to the right weight, string type, string tension and grip diameter for each player.

In bats and in high quality rackets the awareness that custom is best for all players is set in stone - you would be hard pressed to buy standard off the rack bats or std off the rack high end rackets.

So why isn't it the same in golf?

It's because in baseball, softball and tennis, the player only needs ONE stick to hit the ball, and the same stick works for RH or LH players. Also you have far fewer fitting specs to deal with in these sports. So it is easy for the bat/racket makers to make their equipment with all the fitting options, and it is easier for their retailers to stock the options too.

Golf? Standard off the rack evolved because selling custom off the rack is impossible from a business inventory standpoint. We use 14 clubs, there have to be different clubs for RH vs LH players, and there are many more key fitting specs in golf clubs than in bats and rackets. Add that all up and it comes to an inventory nightmare to produce all the options let alone to stock all the fitting options. So golf evolved as a std off the rack game and as such, it is the ONLY "stick hits ball" sport in which the equipment is not commonly custom fit for all its equipment's fitting specs to the individual playing needs of the participants.

Why BIG DRIVER HEADS?

Originally it was because the industry found with the introduction of titanium as a head material that they COULD make bigger heads. Ti has a much lower density than steel yet has the same strength. By going larger, the MOI could be increased for better off center hits. Soon after the industry discovered that Titanium has a better strength to elasticity ratio than steel - which meant the COR of the face of a Ti driver could be increased to offer more distance for everyone. In the mid 90s when the science of COR in a clubface was discovered, the designers needed the faces to be larger to enhance their ability to increase the COR. Hence another reason to make large driver heads.

NOW? The reason you do not see smaller driver head options is because of the power of the old marketing adage that says "BIGGER IS BETTER." While designers know they can match the performance of any 460cc head in one that is 375cc, you can't convince the masses of that. The non technically trained minds of millions of golfers will believe BIGGER IS BETTER until the cows come home.

(or until 10 PGA Tour events are won in a season by players using small headed drivers!!!)

TOM

[ZachK]

I don't really agree with the thought that baseball and tennis are common sports for customization. I actually think it's very similar to golf. The professionals, better amateurs, and avid players are going to look into custom options that optimize their results, but the average recreational player is going to buy off the rack. Very similar to golf. The professionals have everything custom fit for them, top amateurs do, and avid golfers/equipment nuts do as well, but the recreational and average golfer aren't going to do that.

I agree that getting properly fit definitely is a huge benefit to the player in all sports, but to think that it's common in recreational/average athletes in other sports seems to be quite off.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

So Tom as a designer would you consider about 375cc and up to be the "big enough to get it done" range? Or put another way, what's the minimum volume you would need to design the best performing driver head you can?

I just dream of the day it's normal to see retail stores and pro shops with most of the drivers being in the 400-ish CC range with 44"-ish shafts. That's just a so much easier to deal with size for a golf club. How are you supposed to even carry an 47" driver with one of these "looks bigger than 460cc" heads on it in a compact golf bag?

[rkangrah]

I think it's not about the volume but more on the design of the driver. Ping G5 is 460cc but look small compare to today's drivers.

I agree size is relative. But if the majority of the golfers, especially who has been playing more than 10 years, say a driver looks big then that driver looks big almost for everybody.

[ZachK]

[quote name='rkangrah' timestamp='1345572858' post='5510578']
I think it's not about the volume but more on the design of the driver. Ping G5 is 460cc but look small compare to today's drivers.

I agree size is relative. But if the majority of the golfers, especially who has been playing more than 10 years, say a driver looks big then that driver looks big almost for everybody.
[/quote]

I agree, my Cleveland Launcher Comp that was 460 looks much smaller than my G15. Size is definitely relative. A more important factor for me when looking down at a club is shape (at least for woods). For irons though I think you will always have those that want a small compact head and that will always be available.

[twgolf]

FYI Titleist drivers are maxed at 45" and the are the smaller head designs that are 440-460cc. The D3 908 and 910 are very nice compact heads at 45".

[ZachK]

[quote name='twgolf' timestamp='1345578554' post='5511236']
FYI Titleist drivers are maxed at 45" and the are the smaller head designs that are 440-460cc. The D3 908 and 910 are very nice compact heads at 45".
[/quote]

I think even the 910 D3 looks bigger than some of the older 460cc heads.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1345571315' post='5510410']
So Tom as a designer would you consider about 375cc and up to be the "big enough to get it done" range? Or put another way, what's the minimum volume you would need to design the best performing driver head you can?

I just dream of the day it's normal to see retail stores and pro shops with most of the drivers being in the 400-ish CC range with 44"-ish shafts. That's just a so much easier to deal with size for a golf club. How are you supposed to even carry an 47" driver with one of these "looks bigger than 460cc" heads on it in a compact golf bag?
[/quote]

If you're talking what's the smallest driver size that could achieve a 0.830 maximum COR, then the answer would be around 150cc - there are some of us who can design fairway woods and hybrids with a 0.830 COR. So in terms of COR size means nothing anymore.

But at those small sizes you could never get the off center hit forgiveness up even close to what is possible now with large size driver faces that are designed with a variable thickness construction. For that you need to have a pretty large size face, one that would be symmetrically compatible with a head volume in the area of 350-375cc at the least.

MOI is a non issue for off center hit forgiveness when compared to a very well designed variable thickness face. A 375cc driver head will never be able to achieve as high of an MOI as a 460cc, but for off center hit forgiveness the MOI is not as important as is a good variable thickness face. Hence it is eminently possible to achieve every top end driver performance element to the max in a head around 375cc.

Dream on about seeing that because no company wants to fight public opinion. And right now, the vast majority of golf consumers really do believe bigger is better. As I mentioned, the ONLY way you could possibly see that change is if somehow a number of tour players began to use smaller drivers AND win with them. Do that and you will see a return to smaller size drivers. Anything short of that and there is no way.

TOM

[GoPokes44]

Tom- I've read your book but I dont remember it being mentioned..... Does a sub 400cc head turn over/square the clubface easier than 460cc? Thanks!

[govols]

If you're having to turn the club over to get it back to square there's something else going wrong & has nothing to do with the size of the club.

[GoPokes44]

[quote name='govols' timestamp='1345589221' post='5512120']
If you're having to turn the club over to get it back to square there's something else going wrong & has nothing to do with the size of the club.
[/quote]

I meant that many beginners have the most trouble drawing a driver vs a 7 iron because of its length. Curious if the size of the head had anything to do with it.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='GoPokes44' timestamp='1345588163' post='5512050']
Tom- I've read your book but I dont remember it being mentioned..... Does a sub 400cc head turn over/square the clubface easier than 460cc? Thanks!
[/quote]

There is a factor in clubhead design called the Moment of Inertia About the Hosel Bore Axis that has a slight, small effect on how much effort is required to rotate the clubface back around to square on the downswing.

This is NOT the MOI that was a high point in golf company marketing a few years ago when everyone was trying to make a driver head with an MOI over 5,000 g-cm2. That MOI is defined about the vertical axis through the clubhead's center of gravity and has to do with how much the head twists in response to hitting the ball out toward the toe or heel side of the face.

This other MOI is defined about the centerline of the bore. The larger the head (especially larger from heel to toe), the farther the CG will be from the center of the hosel bore. As the CG gets farther away from the center of the hosel bore, the clubhead will have more resistance to being rotated back around to square at impact. So this is why some have said that the larger the driver head, the more tendency there can be to slice or push the ball.

BUT. . . . . .

This factor is VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY small when applied to the reality of the downswing motion of the golf swing. For golfers with a high clubhead speed (over 110mph) and who also have a VERY repeating golf swing, you might see a few yards more fade when that golfer hits a 460cc head vs one that is 300cc because of this other MOI.

But for us mortals with our lower clubhead speeds and far more inconsistent delivery of the face to the ball, this is a non issue in club performance.

It falls into the category of a club performance element that we have the ability to measure and quantify but which does not exist in enough difference from high to low to ever get in the way of a golfer's shot performance.

TOM

[BirdieBob]

Many years ago, I believe it was Mizuno, that had a larger head iron design on the market. No others followed suite with a similar design, and eventually the Mizuno iron failed.

Why haven't we seen a much larger head iron come back to the market again? Seem relevent for the inconsistent higher handicappers with more offcenter hits.

Anyone remember that iron? What's the name...photo? This was like 15 -20 years ago.

BB

[TomWishon]

[quote name='BirdieBob' timestamp='1345649077' post='5515678']
Many years ago, I believe it was Mizuno, that had a larger head iron design on the market. No others followed suite with a similar design, and eventually the Mizuno iron failed.

Why haven't we seen a much larger head iron come back to the market again? Seem relevent for the inconsistent higher handicappers with more offcenter hits.

[/quote]

You have to understand how golf companies decide what club models to offer to golfers. Most companies will have several different head designs in development all at the same time. Depending on the company, the technical prowess of their developed at the same time.

What any company decides to actually bring to market and offer depends on several things. The absolute most important of them is "How will the market perceive and react to this model?" All the big golf companies will conduct Focus Groups - where they convene panels of regular golfers of the type that they believe would be more prone to buying this or that model. And it is at these Focus Group sessions that they present the model and get the golfers' opinions for every part of the design from performance to how it looks.

The reason that you do not see very many larger size iron head designs these days is simply because the majority of golfers do not like such designs - there is a higher percentage of golfers who would not want to play with a larger size iron. Hence the companies do not want to make anything that might have a built in negative pre disposition to its popularity.

Typically, no golf company will go against the opinion of the Focus Groups. It's tough enough to generate demand for a product through marketing. To go against the beliefs/perceptions/opinions of people to generate demand is virtually impossible. For most of the big golf companies, they are marketing one model in each club segment at a time. Thus if they put millions behind a club model that the majority of golfers simply do not like, the company can be in deep trouble.

Better stated - the big golf companies are not dumb. They are never going to try to sell anything that they are not pretty darn sure will be received positively by a large segment of golfers.

TOM

[Lamo70]

[quote name='BirdieBob' timestamp='1345649077' post='5515678']
Many years ago, I believe it was Mizuno, that had a larger head iron design on the market. No others followed suite with a similar design, and eventually the Mizuno iron failed.

Why haven't we seen a much larger head iron come back to the market again? Seem relevent for the inconsistent higher handicappers with more offcenter hits.

Anyone remember that iron? What's the name...photo? This was like 15 -20 years ago.

BB
[/quote]

It was the SURE. I bought a set and a friend of mine bought them off me and still games them. They claimed at the time to have the biggest sweetspot available at the time in a cast cavity back design.

[jaxson]

Hey Tom,

I have a quick question on driver shaft length. I currently have a ping I20 that is at standard 45.25". I really like the driver when I choke down about an inch. I have been doing this for some time..... In the past I have cut down drivers and I never get them to "feel" the same. If I was to cut down the ping about 1 inc, how would you recomend adding weight? Hot melt? lead tape? Or just continue to choke down an inch?

I am just worried I will ruin another good driver shaft..

Thanks

[TomWishon]

[quote name='jaxson' timestamp='1345666116' post='5517384']
Hey Tom,

I have a quick question on driver shaft length. I currently have a ping I20 that is at standard 45.25". I really like the driver when I choke down about an inch. I have been doing this for some time..... In the past I have cut down drivers and I never get them to "feel" the same. If I was to cut down the ping about 1 inc, how would you recomend adding weight? Hot melt? lead tape? Or just continue to choke down an inch?

I am just worried I will ruin another good driver shaft..

Thanks
[/quote]

I am a big fan of LOGIC and COMMON SENSE. Both say if you are experiencing a marked improvement in driver consistency by gripping down, just keep doing that and do not mess with that particular driver.

Then if you become curious go find a really good, really experienced custom clubmaker/clubfitter and have him do a full on fitting analysis to determine YOUR best length, loft, face angle, shaft, total weight, swingweight and grip size/style. Get that custom fit driver built and then put the two in a head to head battle over a 2-3 week period to see which one wins.

Reason why is because by experiencing success from gripping down your current driver, you know for sure that a shorter length is helping. But what you do not know yet is if your current driver's loft, face angle shaft, total weight, swingweight are the best they can be for YOU and your size, strength, athletic ability and swing characteristics.

So doing it this way leaves you with a playable driver while you continue your search for your perfect driver.

TOM

[blink3665]

FWIW, I just bought a 380cc driver and I love it. It doesn't look tiny and it is comfortable to look down at. It is much more pleasing to the eye than my F12LS which looked huge. It is almost as forgiving, and it goes almost as far. I cut the shaft down to 44.5 and have been more accurate, which has helped me create better scores than a longer ball from the Adams...

Just my $0.02

[titleist26]

In my experience it comes down to feel. A smaller head just feels more balanced and controllable to me then a 460 even with the same length shaft, swing weight etc.
My driving has improved dramatically by moving to a 420 head and im not looking back.
feel is everything and the more a club feels right to me the less forgiveness I need it to give.