Question:
Excellent point, David. You’ve helped me a lot. I wonder though about the attachment of the shaft and hosel. I doubt that their mass can be completely subtracted from the equation through impact–possibly the reason many good players hit nearer the hosel on full swings. Jeff N
Don’t they often try to partially offset that by 1) making the club taller as it goes from heel to toe 2) adding thickness at the toe I’ve noticed that true blade clubs tend to have massive hosels… Why is that? I assume it is in order to acheive a reasonable swing weight since there is so little metal in the blade itself… dsc – acssysdsc
Response:
David, I agree that the clubface rotates around its COG when suspended as you described. but the original poster was speaking of the clubhead as part of the complete club during the swing. The clubhead DOES rotate around the shaft during the swing until it makes contact with the ball and/or ground. If the clubhead rotated around it COG during the swing it would show up on all stroboscopic photographs of the golf swing as excess wobbling of the shaft. I can’t recall seeing any excess shaft wobble on any that I have ever seen. Any arguments?? BT
Response:
David, I agree that the clubface rotates around its COG when suspended as you described. but the original poster was speaking of the clubhead as part of the complete club during the swing. The clubhead DOES rotate around the shaft during the swing until it makes contact with the ball and/or ground. If the clubhead rotated around it COG during the swing it would show up on all stroboscopic photographs of the golf swing as excess wobbling of the shaft. I can’t recall seeing any excess shaft wobble on any that I have ever seen. Any arguments??
Nope, I agree. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
I’m not so sure. I have seen video of a clubhead/ball at impact and it pretty clearly shows the clubhead rotaing around the shaft at impact. If you can believe Wilson this was the reason for the fat shaft design – to reduce the twisting of the clubhead making it more stable at impact. From the number of companies that have come out with oversized shaft tip clubs I’d say they probably think this is the case. If I’m not mistahen the new hawkeye is oversized even though they don’t use it as a key selling point. Sean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve had a theory about clubhead design for a while now that I can’t seem to prove or disprove for myself, so I put it to all of you. Put simply, a smaller clubhead length yields more accuracy for the somewhat accomplished golfer. For simplicity’s sake lets visualize only the leading edge of an iron. What I’m suggesting is that the shorter head puts the sweet spot closer to the axis about which the face rotates–the hosel. As clubheads get longer the sweet spot moves further out from the axis. The closer to the axis, for a given size ball, the less in/out and out/in movement of the face’s contact point at impact. First problem, the club face does not rotate around the hosel, it rotates around the sweet spot. You can prove this to yourself by hanging a weighted string from the grip end of the club and allowing both to hang naturally. The string will pass right through the sweet spot or longitudinal center of gravity. This is the true axis of the club (flail) in the downstroke. If you rotate the club you will see that it rotates around the string (sweet spot) and not the hosel. If the club face did rotate around the hosel than impact on the face would twist it open every time. Ever thought why impact on the hosel side of the sweet spot tends to close the clubface? The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. The advantage of a narrower clubhead would be that it places all hits closer to the sweet spot. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. The advantage of a narrower clubhead would be that it places all hits closer to the sweet spot.
Ahh… now here’s another one for you.. would this theory hold true for a putter as well, considering the trend towards heel toe weighting these days? Ben
Response:
The advantage of a narrower clubhead would be that it places all hits closer to the sweet spot. Ahh… now here’s another one for you.. would this theory hold true for a putter as well, considering the trend towards heel toe weighting these days?
If you notice face balanced putters have the shaft positioned so that it would run through the sweet spot. I don’t know if this is the reason why they balance, but it puts the sweet spot and impact on the axis of the shaft. To answer your question, heel toe weighting decreases the putters tendency to twist on off center (sweet spot) hits. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
As a small aside, there’s appreciable wind resistance to a clubhead. Overcoming that resistance uses energy that would otherwise go towards clubhead speed. I don’t know how much resistance there is, but you can gain a sense of it by holding your clubhead out of the car window when you’re traveling at speed. That’s part of the resistive torque your arms and wrists are working to overcome. Try it. have someone drive at 70 or so (assuming it’s legal and safe) and assume your grip and stick the club out the window. Takes a bit more effort to hold it in the airstream than you might have thought, huh?
Response:
You’ve actually tried this? Wow! I love that there are people who would go to this much trouble in the name of golf. I guess I’m not the only lunatic here. Keep up the good work. Jeff N ajw29585 writes:
<… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Try it. have someone drive at 70 or so (assuming it’s legal and safe) and assume your grip and stick the club out the window. Takes a bit more effort to hold it in the airstream than you might have thought, huh?
Response:
Excellent point, David. You’ve helped me a lot. I wonder though about the attachment of the shaft and hosel. I doubt that their mass can be completely subtracted from the equation through impact–possibly the reason many good players hit nearer the hosel on full swings. Jeff N David writes:
I’ve had a theory about clubhead design for a while now that I can’t seem – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -to prove or disprove for myself, so I put it to all of you. Put simply, a smaller clubhead length yields more accuracy for the somewhat accomplished golfer. For simplicity’s sake lets visualize only the leading edge of an iron. What I’m suggesting is that the shorter head puts the sweet spot closer to the axis about which the face rotates–the hosel. As clubheads get longer the sweet spot moves further out from the axis. The closer to the axis, for a given size ball, the less in/out and out/in movement of the face’s contact point at impact. First problem, the club face does not rotate around the hosel, it rotates around the sweet spot. You can prove this to yourself by hanging a weighted string from the grip end of the club and allowing both to hang naturally. The string will pass right through the sweet spot or longitudinal center of gravity. This is the true axis of the club (flail) in the downstroke. If you rotate the club you will see that it rotates around the string (sweet spot) and not the hosel. If the club face did rotate around the hosel than impact on the face would twist it open every time. Ever thought why impact on the hosel side of the sweet spot tends to close the clubface? The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. The advantage of a narrower clubhead would be that it places all hits closer to the sweet spot. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
I’ve considered this and know you are right about the sweet spot issue. I may have been misleading by calling the contact point on the face the ’sweet spot’. I should have only referred to it as the ‘center of the clubface’ or ‘designed impact point’–both small points regardless of design. This properly takes the other factors of clubhead design out of the equation such as perimeter weighting, moments, etc. The concern would then be focussed only on the factor I’m addressing–distance from hosel to designed impact point. Jeff N – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -ajw29585 writes: You’re not quite on the money. The sweet spot is the center of percussion in engineering terms, and that’s the point where imact will impart NO twisting moment to the clubhead. Here’s a simple example of center of percussion – swing a rod – a broom handle for example, at a post. You’ll feel very little ’sting’ when the point of impact is about 2/3 of the way out. The rod just stops. If you hit it towards the tip, your hands will sting because the rod end you’r holding will want to move forward. If you hit it towards your hands, the rod end you’re holding will want to swing back, becaus the rod will try to twist around the pole. You get what engineers would call maximum enegry transfer when you hit the sweet spot.. The whole point of moving the weight of the clubhead to its outside edge is to make the the sweet spot appear ‘bigger’. Actually, what happens is that the twisting moment is smaller for a given mis-hit, if the weight is well away from the point of impact. It’s less sensitive, or, in club-maker’s language, more forgiving. I hope this helps.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Randy writes: I’m no engineer, but herein lies the apparent flaw in your thinking. The larger the arc, the less acute the angle is. Figure it out — if a player had very short arms and swung very much around his body (not great technique), the "circle" of his arc wouldn’t have the clubhead square to the target very long. But if he were swinging a 6-foot-long golf club (good luck), though the angles would be essentially the same (circles are circles are circles), the DEGREE to which the clubhead would vary off-line within a few inches of impact would be far less in the longer club. Assuming, of course, he made the same swing on the same plane with both clubs. Randy
I definitely understand what you are saying here Randy. It is this logical point that has me a bit confused. It makes sense, but does it hold up when we add the ball and the linear motion of the hosel. It is my understanding, considering only the rotation, that a point far from an axis/hosel moves at a much faster rate than a point close to the axis/hosel. So for a transient connection with a given sized compressable ball how does this factor affect timing and the positioning of the clubface at impact? I would guess that more force can be applied to the strike with a longer clubface for this reason, but accuracy may be diminished because of the rapid speed of the further impact point. And can the linear motion of the hosel really be subtracted out of the problem? It seems that it can, but I’m not positive. But the more I think about it, the less it seems that my theory holds up. But I do want to be sure. Jeff N
Response:
I don’t think offset would have any effect on this. It would simply offset the ball position. Jeff N – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Ben writes: I’m new to this game, and I’m probably missing something, but based on your reasoning, the ideal clubhead doesn’t have to be as short as possible. It just has to be on the same vertical axis as the shaft, such that there is no offset, the sweet spot being directly aligned with the shaft’s axis. Ben T I’ve had a theory about clubhead design for a while now that I can’t seem to prove or disprove for myself, so I put it to all of you. Put simply, a smaller clubhead length yields more accuracy for the somewhat accomplished golfer. For simplicity’s sake lets visualize only the leading edge of an iron. What I’m suggesting is that the shorter head puts the sweet spot closer to the axis about which the face rotates–the hosel. As clubheads get longer the sweet spot moves further out from the axis. The closer to the axis, for a given size ball, the less in/out and out/in movement of the face’s contact point at impact. Lets picture two leading edges–one with a sweet spot 4 feet from the hosel and another with a sweet spot at the hosel or just barely beyond it; or just picture the 4′ edge with a second sweet spot at the hosel. To further simplify lets look at the path of the hosel coming into impact as linear(parallel to the target line) rather than curved. So both sweet spots/impact points are curving around a linearly(targetward) moving axis through impact. Although the face angles at any time are exactly the same for both impact points, since they form concentric arcs, the ‘at the hosel’ impact point nearly follows the linear movement of the hosel whereas the 4′ impact point must move sharply outward to strike the ball and sharply inward after impact. So the golfer’s timing and precision come more into play with the longer clubface. The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. I’m no engineer obviously, but this seems correct to me. What do you think? Jeff N
Response:
Oh.. I’m sorry, I misread your post. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Jeff N – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Ben writes: Your theory is that the closer the sweet spot is to the axis about which the face rotates, the more accurate the club is. What I’m saying is that the extreme case of this is when the sweet spot is *on* the axis. If your theory is true, then it can’t be more accurate than that. Ben T I don’t think offset would have any effect on this. It would simply offset the ball position. Jeff N Ben writes: I’m new to this game, and I’m probably missing something, but based on your reasoning, the ideal clubhead doesn’t have to be as short as possible. It just has to be on the same vertical axis as the shaft, such that there is no offset, the sweet spot being directly aligned with the shaft’s axis. Ben T I’ve had a theory about clubhead design for a while now that I can’t seem to prove or disprove for myself, so I put it to all of you. Put simply, a smaller clubhead length yields more accuracy for the somewhat accomplished golfer. For simplicity’s sake lets visualize only the leading edge of an iron. What I’m suggesting is that the shorter head puts the sweet spot closer to the axis about which the face rotates–the hosel. As clubheads get longer the sweet spot moves further out from the axis. The closer to the axis, for a given size ball, the less in/out and out/in movement of the face’s contact point at impact. Lets picture two leading edges–one with a sweet spot 4 feet from the hosel and another with a sweet spot at the hosel or just barely beyond it; or just picture the 4′ edge with a second sweet spot at the hosel. To further simplify lets look at the path of the hosel coming into impact as linear(parallel to the target line) rather than curved. So both sweet spots/impact points are curving around a linearly(targetward) moving axis through impact. Although the face angles at any time are exactly the same for both impact points, since they form concentric arcs, the ‘at the hosel’ impact point nearly follows the linear movement of the hosel whereas the 4′ impact point must move sharply outward to strike the ball and sharply inward after impact. So the golfer’s timing and precision come more into play with the longer clubface. The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. I’m no engineer obviously, but this seems correct to me. What do you think? Jeff N
Response:
I’ve had a theory about clubhead design for a while now that I can’t seem to prove or disprove for myself, so I put it to all of you. Put simply, a smaller clubhead length yields more accuracy for the somewhat accomplished golfer. For simplicity’s sake lets visualize only the leading edge of an iron. What I’m suggesting is that the shorter head puts the sweet spot closer to the axis about which the face rotates–the hosel. As clubheads get longer the sweet spot moves further out from the axis. The closer to the axis, for a given size ball, the less in/out and out/in movement of the face’s contact point at impact.
First problem, the club face does not rotate around the hosel, it rotates around the sweet spot. You can prove this to yourself by hanging a weighted string from the grip end of the club and allowing both to hang naturally. The string will pass right through the sweet spot or longitudinal center of gravity. This is the true axis of the club (flail) in the downstroke. If you rotate the club you will see that it rotates around the string (sweet spot) and not the hosel. If the club face did rotate around the hosel than impact on the face would twist it open every time. Ever thought why impact on the hosel side of the sweet spot tends to close the clubface? The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back.
The advantage of a narrower clubhead would be that it places all hits closer to the sweet spot. David Golf Instruction Homepage http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/3628/
Response:
The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. The advantage of a narrower clubhead would be that it places all hits closer to the sweet spot.
Ah yes… hit the sweet spot or nothing because that is all there is. dsc – acssysdsc
Response:
I just realized something that would actually favor a *longer* face. If the ball is placed back or forward of the ideal position, the longer face has more room for error than the shorter face. For a given error in ball placement, the angle of the short face would be extremely off of square as opposed to the long face being only barely off of square at impact. Jeff N
Response:
Good (blade) players DO consistantly hit their balls close to the hosell. The closer the sweet spot is to the shaft, the less influence leverage has on torqueing or twisting the club. But that Long club face is neccessary for BALANCE.
The only time I ver gripped a professional model blade it was a Mizzuno (don’t recall the model number). When I looked down, it appeared to me that the blade was not much wider than a golf ball… I wouldn’t call that a long club face. Not sure about your statement of it’s necessity… necessary for who, pros or amateurs? dsc – acssysdsc
Response:
You’re not quite on the money. The sweet spot is the center of percussion in engineering terms, and that’s the point where imact will impart NO twisting moment to the clubhead. Here’s a simple example of center of percussion – swing a rod – a broom handle for example, at a post. You’ll feel very little ’sting’ when the point of impact is about 2/3 of the way out. The rod just stops. If you hit it towards the tip, your hands will sting because the rod end you’r holding will want to move forward. If you hit it towards your hands, the rod end you’re holding will want to swing back, becaus the rod will try to twist around the pole. You get what engineers would call maximum enegry transfer when you hit the sweet spot.. The whole point of moving the weight of the clubhead to its outside edge is to make the the sweet spot appear ‘bigger’. Actually, what happens is that the twisting moment is smaller for a given mis-hit, if the weight is well away from the point of impact. It’s less sensitive, or, in club-maker’s language, more forgiving. I hope this helps.
Response:
the 4′ impact point must move sharply outward to strike the ball and sharply inward after impact.
I’m no engineer, but herein lies the apparent flaw in your thinking. The larger the arc, the less acute the angle is. Figure it out — if a player had very short arms and swung very much around his body (not great technique), the "circle" of his arc wouldn’t have the clubhead square to the target very long. But if he were swinging a 6-foot-long golf club (good luck), though the angles would be essentially the same (circles are circles are circles), the DEGREE to which the clubhead would vary off-line within a few inches of impact would be far less in the longer club. Assuming, of course, he made the same swing on the same plane with both clubs. Randy
Response:
I’m new to this game, and I’m probably missing something, but based on your reasoning, the ideal clubhead doesn’t have to be as short as possible. It just has to be on the same vertical axis as the shaft, such that there is no offset, the sweet spot being directly aligned with the shaft’s axis. Ben T – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve had a theory about clubhead design for a while now that I can’t seem to prove or disprove for myself, so I put it to all of you. Put simply, a smaller clubhead length yields more accuracy for the somewhat accomplished golfer. For simplicity’s sake lets visualize only the leading edge of an iron. What I’m suggesting is that the shorter head puts the sweet spot closer to the axis about which the face rotates–the hosel. As clubheads get longer the sweet spot moves further out from the axis. The closer to the axis, for a given size ball, the less in/out and out/in movement of the face’s contact point at impact. Lets picture two leading edges–one with a sweet spot 4 feet from the hosel and another with a sweet spot at the hosel or just barely beyond it; or just picture the 4′ edge with a second sweet spot at the hosel. To further simplify lets look at the path of the hosel coming into impact as linear(parallel to the target line) rather than curved. So both sweet spots/impact points are curving around a linearly(targetward) moving axis through impact. Although the face angles at any time are exactly the same for both impact points, since they form concentric arcs, the ‘at the hosel’ impact point nearly follows the linear movement of the hosel whereas the 4′ impact point must move sharply outward to strike the ball and sharply inward after impact. So the golfer’s timing and precision come more into play with the longer clubface. The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. I’m no engineer obviously, but this seems correct to me. What do you think? Jeff N
Response:
What I’m suggesting is that the shorter head puts the sweet spot closer to the axis about which the face rotates–the hosel.
This would depend on the distribution of mass…Which is what perimeter weighting is all about. In essence you are correct, but I wonder about the heightened effect on mishit balls…??? The closer to the axis, for a given size ball, the less in/out and out/in movement of the face’s contact point at impact.
Either this is wrong or I just don’t understand you.The ROTATION will be less, but the distance moved on the path of the clubhead would be the same regardless of the distance from the hossel impact occurs. The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. I’m no engineer obviously, but this seems correct to me. What do you think?
I think the margin for error on such a clubface would be so small it would be impossible to hit a "Good" shot…???? Food for thought… Good (blade) players DO consistantly hit their balls close to the hosell. The closer the sweet spot is to the shaft, the less influence leverage has on torqueing or twisting the club. But that Long club face is neccessary for BALANCE. ]]]Z[[[
Response:
Your theory is that the closer the sweet spot is to the axis about which the face rotates, the more accurate the club is. What I’m saying is that the extreme case of this is when the sweet spot is *on* the axis. If your theory is true, then it can’t be more accurate than that. Ben T – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t think offset would have any effect on this. It would simply offset the ball position. Jeff N Ben writes: I’m new to this game, and I’m probably missing something, but based on your reasoning, the ideal clubhead doesn’t have to be as short as possible. It just has to be on the same vertical axis as the shaft, such that there is no offset, the sweet spot being directly aligned with the shaft’s axis. Ben T I’ve had a theory about clubhead design for a while now that I can’t seem to prove or disprove for myself, so I put it to all of you. Put simply, a smaller clubhead length yields more accuracy for the somewhat accomplished golfer. For simplicity’s sake lets visualize only the leading edge of an iron. What I’m suggesting is that the shorter head puts the sweet spot closer to the axis about which the face rotates–the hosel. As clubheads get longer the sweet spot moves further out from the axis. The closer to the axis, for a given size ball, the less in/out and out/in movement of the face’s contact point at impact. Lets picture two leading edges–one with a sweet spot 4 feet from the hosel and another with a sweet spot at the hosel or just barely beyond it; or just picture the 4′ edge with a second sweet spot at the hosel. To further simplify lets look at the path of the hosel coming into impact as linear(parallel to the target line) rather than curved. So both sweet spots/impact points are curving around a linearly(targetward) moving axis through impact. Although the face angles at any time are exactly the same for both impact points, since they form concentric arcs, the ‘at the hosel’ impact point nearly follows the linear movement of the hosel whereas the 4′ impact point must move sharply outward to strike the ball and sharply inward after impact. So the golfer’s timing and precision come more into play with the longer clubface. The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. I’m no engineer obviously, but this seems correct to me. What do you think? Jeff N
Response:
I’ve had a theory about clubhead design for a while now that I can’t seem to prove or disprove for myself, so I put it to all of you. Put simply, a smaller clubhead length yields more accuracy for the somewhat accomplished golfer. For simplicity’s sake lets visualize only the leading edge of an iron. What I’m suggesting is that the shorter head puts the sweet spot closer to the axis about which the face rotates–the hosel. As clubheads get longer the sweet spot moves further out from the axis. The closer to the axis, for a given size ball, the less in/out and out/in movement of the face’s contact point at impact. Lets picture two leading edges–one with a sweet spot 4 feet from the hosel and another with a sweet spot at the hosel or just barely beyond it; or just picture the 4′ edge with a second sweet spot at the hosel. To further simplify lets look at the path of the hosel coming into impact as linear(parallel to the target line) rather than curved. So both sweet spots/impact points are curving around a linearly(targetward) moving axis through impact. Although the face angles at any time are exactly the same for both impact points, since they form concentric arcs, the ‘at the hosel’ impact point nearly follows the linear movement of the hosel whereas the 4′ impact point must move sharply outward to strike the ball and sharply inward after impact. So the golfer’s timing and precision come more into play with the longer clubface. The ideal clubhead would therefore be one as short as possible to allow enough room for the ball and error–probably a tiny cavity back. I’m no engineer obviously, but this seems correct to me. What do you think? Jeff N