Question:

So Eddie, how did you reach that conclusion? Just wondering the equations used. As far as what we Americans mean by anal rententive — comes from Freud, I believe, describing the type of person who is so obsessed with having things clean, organized that as children they didn’t want to go to the bathroom, etc. Now that’s probably a butchery of the term and the whole field of psychology but it’s the best I can do. I think people overuse and misuse it. And has been shortened to just "being anal." Quite frankly, I find it a little out of place in most conversations. — Joe – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I hate to tell you Americans this but if Hussein decides to kick ass over there you might be in a spot of bother! Why? you ask. I’ll tell you why. I waited a WHOLE THREE days for someone with the appropriate background to check on the tables generated by Steve’s program. This is the one he acquired from Golfsmith and which was supposed to have been produced by a retiree who used to design smart weapon systems for the USAF. Finally, I finally gave up and checked myself. This was not an easy task for a brain-damaged-by-alcohol-and-sport-related-violence, anal-retentive (the latest insult hurled at me by an American – the previous was that I was virtually single-handedly responsible for the DARK DAYS of apartheid – I really manage to piss off a certain type of American, don’t I? Never mind, some of my best friends are Americans  ) jock-type. It involved MATHEMATICS and ARITHMETIC! The short answer is that the program is wrong. A club with a 48" shaft will generate 9% more clubhead speed than a club with a 46" shaft, everything else being equal. If the 46" club is giving 100 mph then the 48" club will give 109 mph. At the 2.8 yards per 1 mph extra, Steve mentioned this equates to 26 yards difference or 13 yards per clubshaft inch. This accords well with my empirical observation of 15 yards per clubshaft inch. Now you can understand the reason for the Hussein warning – your smart weapons systems MIGHT NOT WORK! — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa PS What do Americans mean by *anal-retentive*? It sounds like it means you can’t get the bullshit you’ve been fed recently out of your system. A sort of metaphysical constipation, as it were.

Response:

A club with a 48" shaft will generate 9% more clubhead speed than a club with a 46" shaft, everything else being equal. . John Baima wrote Well, this is not right either theoretically or practically

Okay, I’m not threatened here  All of this physics stuff is way beyond me. It’s just that nobody else was stepping into the breach and I wanna know what’s what. Unfortunately, it’s also a little frustrating. I was quite happy until Steve’s program said there was only a potential difference of 2.8 yards between my clubs for the 2" difference in shaft lengths. That did not seem right to me, but I decided to make the best of it, but wanted confirmation of his numbers first. I calculated the circumference prescribed by a radius of 46" and one of 48" and the distance around the perimeter of one was 9% larger than the other. Please tell me where this thinking is wrong. The ratio certainly matches my empirical experience almost to the yard! From a practical point of view, I thought I’d covered all the stuff you go on to write about, with the comment "everything else being equal". I always believed that, EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, a longer shaft will give greater distance. Swing flaws are for me a different issue. I’m sure that when doing these kind of calcs one can make assumptions with regard to percentage mishits etc, in order to get a theoretical picture. In other words, all that stuff is a given in the theoretical model as being equal between clubs. I wish someone would come up with straightforward answer. My empirical experience is that my 48" club, on average, gives me approx 30 yards more than my 46" club. This is based on actual distances, paced off from markers on the range (I have access to the *other* end any time I like) over 120 balls hit with each club, but at different times. Of course, the dispersal rate was fairly high, but I left out the super long shots and the not-so-super short shots and took a median on the rest. Therefore my empirical experience has covered the 1/2" face mishits, altered swing whatsists, whatever, whatever, etc etc and I didn’t need a fancy program to work it out . What I want to know is – is that extra distance coming from the fact that the longer hitting club has got a 2" longer shaft or not? Or, as the other program implied, is it coming from the lesser loft on the longer hitting club? There’s got to be a simple answer to these questions out there somewhere. To be honest, I thought I’d found the simple answer with my circumference calculations – in fact, I still can’t see where that thinking is wrong. I seem to be saying this a lot lately, but surely in a problem of this kind, when you have *very specifically* stipulated that EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL, then all this stuff about swing changes between clubs etc is irrelevant? By everything else being equal I am stipulating, in my theoretical model, that there is only one variable, ie, shaft length. Calling all mathematicians and scientists, help, help, help, — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

JoePete wrote So Eddie, how did you reach that conclusion? Just wondering the equations

used. Now don’t you go getting all technical on me here, Joe. Equations, indeed! This was ‘rithmetic. I wanted a ratio. So all I did was calculate the circumference of two circles: one with a 46" radius and the other with a 48" radius. A circumference is a distance. Distance over time = speed. I made an assumption that EVERYTHING ELSE WAS EQUAL, ie, the only variable was shaft length. Now the two clubheads, in my simplified example, have to get around the circle in the same amount of time, but one has to go further than the other so it’s got to go faster. Assume the 46" clubhead is travelling at 100 mph. The other worked out at 108.8 mph. So I reckoned the ratio of one to ‘tother was approx 9%. This gives a theoretical additional distance of 13 yards per club shaft inch. My empirical observations were 15 yards per club shaft inch. Which seemed close enough to me. Now you just go ahead and tell where I went wrong and that all that THINKING was for nothing — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

Bengt Nilsson wrote shaft testing methods snipped Bengt to the rescue again! If I’ve tracked you correctly, does the Lund Institute of Technology issue it’s people with white horses? (two vices)

I have more than two vices, thank you, unfortunately none of them are suitable for clamping club shafts. However, you have stirred me into action and I shall try my local Pro Shop to see if they can give me a reading on the shafts. Thanks for the tip! — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

By the way you have a very neat way of telling a person they screwed up  You a magician by any chance? You know, watch my right hand, while my left hand palms your gold coin, kind of thing

LOL, no not a magician. At one point, I was in a far more deceitful profession — corporate public relations. Maybe that is where I learned the ability  to, as some might say, "sugarcoat" criticism. But some times on this newsgroup I’ll see someone rip someone else’s post apart, even if due to an incidental point. While I believe it is very important to correct people to ensure the best information possible, I admire the folks who aren’t afraid of hypothesizing; someone has to start the discussion after all. And I think sometimes in the rush toward accuracy, we discourage people from interjecting stray, but insightful, comments. I don’t take anyone’s comments here as published fact, and I sure hope no one does that with me. Most of what I post is recalled from memory — which, too, has been damaged through a variety of sports and intoxicants over the years <g. But I figure maybe I can jog someone else’s brain just like their posts do to mine. And when I feel like venting and getting into an all  out textual brawl, I can always jump into a Tiger Woods thread! — Joe

Response:

Bengt Nilsson wrote shaft testing methods snipped Bengt to the rescue again! If I’ve tracked you correctly, does the Lund Institute of Technology issue it’s people with white horses?

No, but I could suggest it to the dean. Who’ll play the part of the princess? On the other hand I don’t ride, I play golf (or at least something resembling golf) (two vices) I have more than two vices, thank you, unfortunately none of them are suitable for clamping club shafts. However, you have stirred me into action and I shall try my local Pro Shop to see if they can give me a reading on the shafts. Thanks for the tip! — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Glad to help —Bengt

Response:

JB on EHS empirical data: That’s certainly possible, but most people do not see that amount of increase. For most people, going beyond 44" is counter productive. EHS: Presumably because of increased swing inefficiencies, but also a greater dispersal arc, the latter negating the advantage of the greater distance. Is this correct?

Right. GS in their tests of people showed from 0 to about 10 MPH increase when going from 43-47". Since many peoples’ swing breaks down after 44", the increase in the head speed is lost on the off-center hits. Again, a persons strength, athleticism, etc make a hugh difference in ones ability to gain distance with a longer club. A difference in flex can also add or subtract distance. You can get a 5-15 yard difference with different flexes. Ultralight shafts and other options can also lead to more distance. EHS: Empirically I found that going from 44" to 46" gave me approx 30 yards more, and then the same thing happened going from 46" to 48". However, while the dispersal arc increase from 44" to 46" was still very acceptable, I have not yet sufficiently tamed the 48" so that I can play golf with it. Unfortunately, having (much of the time, not *all*  :-) ), achieved the distances I was looking for off the tees, my practicing has become more scoring oriented and I’m beginning to wonder if I’ll ever tame my gorilla club with relatively little time being spent on it.

I’ve basically given up on driving for awhile. I’m not losing strokes to par due to a lack of distance. I am losing strokes to par :-{ EHS: I feel I understand enough now not to need that question being answered. You have been extremely helpful already. Thanks for the help!

Even from someone from the US who likes Penick )! -John Baima DFW Golf and the Java Swingweight Calculator http://rampages.onramp.net/~jbaima/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Going from the 44" to the 46" I’ve had good results, not only the extra approx 30 yards but also a tighter dispersal pattern. I don’t like blaming the machinery, but now think that the shaft of my 44" Chinese cheapie was the reason for it’s bad results. Hell, I have better dispersal rates with the 48" than the 44". It’s strange actually because the 3 & 5 woods from the Chinese cheapie set work really well for me. The 46" is a ti BBB 9* with a ultra lite, stiff shaft and is therefore a "light" club. The 48" is a 46" Killer Bee 7* (I think, it’s much more upright than the 9*, but don’t how to measure the loft accurately), with the steel head, extended by 2", which added a fair amount of swingweight. I really like the feel of the club. The heft of it, if you know what I mean. The trouble still is, however, that the dispersal rate on the 48" is still too high, although I hit that an additional approx 30 yards further than the BBB when it goes straight. When it doesn’t go straight I can’t find the balls to measure the distance . But the lousy dispersal rate is not the club, that’s my swing, it’s still too inconsistent for the club. But get it right and I hit it a country mile, figuratively-speaking, of course ). I just wish I could tame the beast!

My (un)informed guess is that the shafts on your "Chinese cheapie" and the Killer bee you have extended have flexes too low for you. If you have the equipment (two vices) you can make the following test: clamp the BBB in one vice some distance down (say 2 inches) from the butt end. Do the same (using the same distance from the butt end) with one of the other clubs in the other vice. Now pull both heads down and release them at the same time. You should be able to see which of the clubs that oscillates faster. With a stop watch you should also be able to calculate the relative frequency of one club vs the other. Have fun! —Bengt

Response:

JoePete wrote While there may be some issues with your math,

Yeah! Man, that was so funny when I found out what I’d done. I was soooo pleased with myself for having remembered the formula for calculating a circumference …. go figure. I don’t think my wife’s going to let me forget this one soon. Ah well, it had the primary effect of coercing much more knowledgeable people out of the woodwork and the net effect of getting me the info I was looking for. By the way you have a very neat way of telling a person they screwed up  You a magician by any chance? You know, watch my right hand, while my left hand palms your gold coin, kind of thing I think as John Baima mentioned, it’s possible that as people lengthen their clubs in search of more clubhead speed, they in fact lose speed.

Yeah, it was him. I didn’t worry about that aspect too much because I already had empirical evidence that the ball was going further. Of course it still doesn’t change the fact that you have seen a 30 yard increase by adding two inches to the club shaft …

S’funny, right at the start of this Steve Conlon suggested that a longer club might have the effect of slowing down too fast a hand action and thus give better results than a shorter club. heavier, it exerts a greater torque on your hands. This option is most likely to result in more mishits.

Going from the 44" to the 46" I’ve had good results, not only the extra approx 30 yards but also a tighter dispersal pattern. I don’t like blaming the machinery, but now think that the shaft of my 44" Chinese cheapie was the reason for it’s bad results. Hell, I have better dispersal rates with the 48" than the 44". It’s strange actually because the 3 & 5 woods from the Chinese cheapie set work really well for me. The 46" is a ti BBB 9* with a ultra lite, stiff shaft and is therefore a "light" club. The 48" is a 46" Killer Bee 7* (I think, it’s much more upright than the 9*, but don’t how to measure the loft accurately), with the steel head, extended by 2", which added a fair amount of swingweight. I really like the feel of the club. The heft of it, if you know what I mean. The trouble still is, however, that the dispersal rate on the 48" is still too high, although I hit that an additional approx 30 yards further than the BBB when it goes straight. When it doesn’t go straight I can’t find the balls to measure the distance . But the lousy dispersal rate is not the club, that’s my swing, it’s still too inconsistent for the club. But get it right and I hit it a country mile, figuratively-speaking, of course ). I just wish I could tame the beast! Thanks for all your help with this stuff. — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

Eddie, While there may be some issues with your math, I think you had an admirable approach. Let’s face it: You observe something in your own game and then try to deduce a "law" from that observation. After all that’s how Newton formulated his laws of motion. The same could be said of Albert Einstein, who some say was only an adequate mathematician but a visionary observer. However, if there is one law that I believe in, especially in the golf swing, it’s that you can’t get something for nothing. So more than anything, I’m uneasy about the "all things being equal" approach. If you lengthen the club, the only way this lengthening increases the speed is if you swing in the same amount of time — as you observed. The only way to do this without increasing the effort you exert on the club — probably mostly in your hands, is to lighten the clubhead. Which in turn changes the amount of momentum/force/energy transferred to the ball at impact. If you don’t change the weight, you likely will have to slow your swing. The third alternative is that if you keep the weight in the head the same and you maintain the same amount of swing time, then you must exert a greater effort — because the same weighted clubhead is now further from your hands, it "feels" heavier, it exerts a greater torque on your hands. This option is most likely to result in more mishits. I think as John Baima mentioned, it’s possible that as people lengthen their clubs in search of more clubhead speed, they in fact lose speed. Of course it still doesn’t change the fact that you have seen a 30 yard increase by adding two inches to the club shaft … — Joe

Response:

Don Porter wrote I won’t say that all your thinking was for nothing, Eddie, but you may have made some assumptions in your calculations that aren’t totally true in reality.

I’m absolutely sure you’re right, Don. I’ve written about this elsewhere, but it was just to see whether the 1.4 yards per extra inch was even vaguely in the ballpark. I’m satisfied it’s not. From here on in I work with my empirical data. — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

Zane wrote Hmm. I think there are some sources of error here.

You kiddeth me not. Did I mention that my scientific training was about that of the average tadpole. The clubhead doesn’t move in an arc centered at the end of the shaft, but a point more around somewhere in the swinger’s body.

Actually I believe that there are two arcs or levers: one around the body and the other, within that, from the releasing of the wrist cock.  (The point actually varies during the swing.)  If we guess that the radius is  really about 20 inches longer than 46 inches,  your ratio is 68/66, or about 1.03.  So the long clubhead would be going about 3% faster, or 103 mph. By the way, I can’t see how you got 108.8.  48/46 equals 1.043 (or 104.3 mph). I think you squared the ratio, which is not consistent with your assumption that it goes the circumference (not the area) in the same length of time.  (Circumference is proportional to the radius, not its square.)

{Much helpless laughter} Of course, you are quite correct. I just checked in World Book. {still laughing} I used the area of a circle {more laughter} I mean this is ridiculous!!!!! Anyway it got all of you blighters out of the woodwork, didn’t it? I mean, like no-one was helping me, so I helped myself!!!!!! Oh well, I have a possible solution anyway. Bearing in mind that I don’t actually want the precise figure (I have no need for it) but just to know whether the program’s 0.5 mph per inch is right or not. Already from your example we can see that it isn’t. Hey, maybe we can add the two levers together and still get a respectable increase in speed? — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

EHS: brain-damaged-by-alcohol-and-sport  -related-violence CW: Oh, I see you’re from South Africa. For a moment there I thought you were Australian. EHS: Lived in Oz for a while. Landed Perth, worked Mount (?) Newman iron ore mine, shot ‘roos for a while, cleaned toilets in Sydney while living on the Cross (still called that?), ended up in the Snowies near Wogga Wogga (sp?). My many friends in Oz constantly did their utmost best to contribute to the brain damage. CW: Swedish pro Jarmo Sandelin (you know, he of the tight clothes and shifting ball markers) hits a 52" driver. EHS: I knew someone on the Euro Tour had a long one CW: By your figures though, he’d get an extra 8 x 13 = 104 yards! This seems a better reason to carry a club so long, but doesn’t it sound a bit generous? EHS: {much laughter} Hey, my calcs are bordering on the ridiculous they were so simplified. I was just trying to see whether that program-generated table was anywhere near right. I’m satisfied it wasn’t, is all I achieved. In any event it has also been pointed out that all sorts of inefficiencies come into it. Also the longer the lever the less the increase, relatively speaking. CW: BTW, I hope your figures are right. They explain why my teacher insists I work through coping with my 46" driver over a 44" one … those extra 26 yards off the tee, all other things being *equal* ;-( EHS: Wish I could promise you them, too . Certainly that’s what I got moving from 44" to 46" with the same loft. Might even have been 30 yards. And I needed it, too. Once I’d managed to get the ball to go straight (I think I was born with the wrong genes for this sport – or is it a game? {new thread? – teehee teehee teehee teehee} I’d, in the process, lost a lot of my body leverage, and, especially by rsg standards ( ) was so short off the tee I had to do something! Cheers and have a glass for me! — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa

Response:

(Circumference is proportional to the radius, not its square.) Agree?  (Somebody double check _me_.)

Well I do, FWIW. Eddie, where did you get your 108.8 from? — Richard "The way I see things is that we are scratching our heads when our bums are itchy." – Mike Amm, rsru, 8/5/98 replace "leadtogold" with "alchemist" for email

Response:

John Baima wrote giving specific answers to questions asked Thanks, John. It’s my morning for picking up responses that really help set me straight. I hope you don’t mind a couple of follow-up questions.

hand. EHS: I thought about that and, indeed, that only gives a 6% theoretical increase in speed. However, there is more than one main lever involved, isn’t there? There is the lever from the shoulder to the clubhead and then the lever within a lever that is the shaft length itself with the wrist cocking action. So by just taking the one I thought I was being relatively conservative. JB on EHS empirical data: That’s certainly possible, but most people do not see that amount of increase. For most people, going beyond 44" is counter productive. EHS: Presumably because of increased swing inefficiencies, but also a greater dispersal arc, the latter negating the advantage of the greater distance. Is this correct? EHS: Empirically I found that going from 44" to 46" gave me approx 30 yards more, and then the same thing happened going from 46" to 48". However, while the dispersal arc increase from 44" to 46" was still very acceptable, I have not yet sufficiently tamed the 48" so that I can play golf with it. Unfortunately, having (much of the time, not *all*  :-) ), achieved the distances I was looking for off the tees, my practicing has become more scoring oriented and I’m beginning to wonder if I’ll ever tame my gorilla club with relatively little time being spent on it. JB: The launch angle is very important in distance. To answer you question with certainty, it would be necessary to use one of the fancy machines that measures not just the clubhead speed, but the ball flight angle, EHS: Again, 44" to 46" was same loft, ie, 9*. But the 48" is a 7* club and I understand that could also have been responsible for some of the increase in distance. But understanding where the extra distance comes from allows me to consider my alternatives. For example, if I give up trying to tame the 48" club, I might try a 46" 7* and see what that does, distance and dispersal arc wise. EHS: I feel I understand enough now not to need that question being answered. You have been extremely helpful already. Thanks for the help! — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -etc. I do have some more stats, but they are not easily at hand. -John Baima DFW Golf and the Java Swingweight Calculator http://rampages.onramp.net/~jbaima/

Response:

I calculated the circumference prescribed by a radius of 46" and one of 48" and the distance around the perimeter of one was 9% larger than the other. Please tell me where this thinking is wrong.

Most people would make the measurement from the shoulder, not the hand. My empirical experience is that my 48" club, on average, gives me approx 30 yards more than my 46" club.

That’s certainly possible, but most people do not see that amount of increase. For most people, going beyond 44" is counter productive. What I want to know is – is that extra distance coming from the fact that the longer hitting club has got a 2" longer shaft or not? Or, as the other program implied, is it coming from the lesser loft on the longer hitting club? There’s got to be a simple answer to these questions out there somewhere.

The launch angle is very important in distance. To answer you question with certainty, it would be necessary to use one of the fancy machines that measures not just the clubhead speed, but the ball flight angle, etc. I do have some more stats, but they are not easily at hand. -John Baima DFW Golf and the Java Swingweight Calculator http://rampages.onramp.net/~jbaima/

Response:

46" clubhead is travelling at 100 mph. The other worked out at 108.8 mph. So I reckoned the ratio of one to ‘tother was approx 9%. This gives a theoretical additional distance of 13 yards per club shaft inch. My empirical observations were 15 yards per club shaft inch. Which seemed close enough to me. Now you just go ahead and tell where I went wrong and that all that THINKING was for nothing

I won’t say that all your thinking was for nothing, Eddie, but you may have made some assumptions in your calculations that aren’t totally true in reality. It appears that in calculating the clubhead speed at impact, you’re using a formula that is based on continual accelleration of the clubhead through the swing. In reality, I’m not sure how many golfers’ swings totally fit that model. I suspect a lot of folks reach their maximum clubhead speed somewhere prior to impact and it stays at about that speed through the ball. So I’m not sure the larger circumference created by a longer clubshaft will necessarily translate into a fixed increase in clubhead speed. You may find your swing fits the theoretical model closely, but please remember that there are an awful lot of differing swings out there. — Don Porter Newspaper Reporter & Webmaster Web Page: http://www.datacruz.com/~dporter

Response:

This was not an easy task for a brain-damaged-by-alcohol-and-sport -related-violence, anal-retentive jock-type.

Oh, I see you’re from South Africa. For a moment there I thought you were Australian. The short answer is that the program is wrong. A club with a 48" shaft will generate 9% more clubhead speed than a club with a 46" shaft, everything else being equal. If the 46" club is giving 100 mph then the 48" club will give 109 mph. At the 2.8 yards per 1 mph extra, Steve mentioned this equates to 26 yards difference or 13 yards per clubshaft inch. This accords well with my empirical observation of 15 yards per clubshaft inch.

Swedish pro Jarmo Sandelin (you know, he of the tight clothes and shifting ball markers) hits a 52" driver. By the program’s reckoning, that would give him an extra 8 x 2.8 yards or only 22.4 yards over a 44" driver. You’d wonder why he’d bother. By your figures though, he’d get an extra 8 x 13 = 104 yards! This seems a better reason to carry a club so long, but doesn’t it sound a bit generous? BTW, I hope your figures are right. They explain why my teacher insists I work through coping with my 46" driver over a 44" one … those extra 26 yards off the tee, all other things being *equal* ;-( PS What do Americans mean by *anal-retentive*? It sounds like it means you can’t get the bullshit you’ve been fed recently out of your system. A sort of metaphysical constipation, as it were.

They’ve also got a pre-occupation with "butts". Haven’t you ever noticed how often they use it? … "nice butt", "get off your butt", get your butt over here, etc. etc. Cheers Colin Wilson Trentham Golf Club http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/trentham

Response:

                  (snip) I wanted a ratio. So all I did was calculate the circumference of two circles: one with a 46" radius and the other with a 48" radius. A circumference is a distance. Distance over time = speed. I made an assumption that EVERYTHING ELSE WAS EQUAL, ie, the only variable was shaft length. Now the two clubheads, in my simplified example, have to get around the circle in the same amount of time, but one has to go further than the other so it’s got to go faster. Assume the 46" clubhead is travelling at 100 mph. The other worked out at 108.8 mph. So I reckoned the ratio of one to ‘tother was approx 9%.

                 (snip) Hmm. I think there are some sources of error here.  The clubhead doesn’t move in an arc centered at the end of the shaft, but a point more around somewhere in the swinger’s body. (The point actually varies during the swing.)  If we guess that the radius is  really about 20 inches longer than 46 inches,  your ratio is 68/66, or about 1.03.  So the long clubhead would be going about 3% faster, or 103 mph. By the way, I can’t see how you got 108.8.  48/46 equals 1.043 (or 104.3 mph). I think you squared the ratio, which is not consistent with your assumption that it goes the circumference (not the area) in the same length of time.  (Circumference is proportional to the radius, not its square.) Agree?  (Somebody double check _me_.) Zane

Response:

Eddie: According to Emilee Klein of the LPGA, who tried to gain driver distance by going to a 50 inch driver (from 44), you will get 4 yards per inch if you hit it square.  So 44 from 50 equals 6 inches times 4 yards per inch, equals 24 yards.  This is actually what she gained. Jay – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A club with a 48" shaft will generate 9% more clubhead speed than a club with a 46" shaft, everything else being equal. . John Baima wrote Well, this is not right either theoretically or practically

Response:

I hate to tell you Americans this but if Hussein decides to kick ass over there you might be in a spot of bother! Why? you ask. I’ll tell you why. I waited a WHOLE THREE days for someone with the appropriate background to check on the tables generated by Steve’s program. This is the one he acquired from Golfsmith and which was supposed to have been produced by a retiree who used to design smart weapon systems for the USAF. Finally, I finally gave up and checked myself. This was not an easy task for a brain-damaged-by-alcohol-and-sport-related-violence, anal-retentive (the latest insult hurled at me by an American – the previous was that I was virtually single-handedly responsible for the DARK DAYS of apartheid – I really manage to piss off a certain type of American, don’t I? Never mind, some of my best friends are Americans  ) jock-type. It involved MATHEMATICS and ARITHMETIC! The short answer is that the program is wrong. A club with a 48" shaft will generate 9% more clubhead speed than a club with a 46" shaft, everything else being equal. If the 46" club is giving 100 mph then the 48" club will give 109 mph. At the 2.8 yards per 1 mph extra, Steve mentioned this equates to 26 yards difference or 13 yards per clubshaft inch. This accords well with my empirical observation of 15 yards per clubshaft inch. Now you can understand the reason for the Hussein warning – your smart weapons systems MIGHT NOT WORK! — Eddie Haynes-Smart Cape Town, South Africa PS What do Americans mean by *anal-retentive*? It sounds like it means you can’t get the bullshit you’ve been fed recently out of your system. A sort of metaphysical constipation, as it were.

Response:

The short answer is that the program is wrong. A club with a 48" shaft will generate 9% more clubhead speed than a club with a 46" shaft, everything else being equal.

Well, this is not right either theoretically or practically. I’ve not jumped into this because I do not have the program and I did not want to comment on it directly. On long drivers: The individual differences in clubhead speed and resulting distance loss/gain varies *wildly* between different people. First, the moment of inertia goes up even faster than the swingweight. Some people actually lose clubhead speed with a longer driver. Some, especially stronger people, gain a disproportional amount. Second, you have to factor in the loss of distance due to missing the center of the club by a larger average amount. Again, this varies wildly with different people, but you lose about 5-7% for every 1/2 inch you miss the center of the club. The only way to know this is to use a fancy machine like what Golfsmith has, or to use tape or powder to record the point of contact and then measure the length of the drive. The only way to know what the results will be for any given individual is to give drivers that only differ in length a try. If you want a book that discuss this kind of thing, you can look at _The Physics of Golf_. Since they use partial differential equations, and since few people got that far in math, you can also take a look at the _Search for the Perfect Swing_. -John Baima DFW Golf and the Java Swingweight Calculator http://rampages.onramp.net/~jbaima/

Response: