Question:
Bob Dietrich wrote (referring to pros switching manufacturers): " The manufacturers make a set that is exactly like the clubs the pro was playing so the pros doesn’t have to adjust anything. " So I guess that means that OEM’s are cloners, too!! (in a weird way of looking at things) Circles within circles …. or should I say threads within threads within threads. "Ethics", anyone??
I was talking about the club’s feel, not its appearance. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. However, you are right. There is an ethics issue here. Bob Dietrich
Response:
Bob Dietrich wrote (referring to pros switching manufacturers): " The manufacturers make a set that is exactly like the clubs the pro was playing so the pros doesn’t have to adjust anything. " So I guess that means that OEM’s are cloners, too!! (in a weird way of looking at things) Circles within circles …. or should I say threads within threads within threads. "Ethics", anyone?? Bob Barthle "Fascinating!" Spock
Response:
Then how come so many of the pros use cavity back/perimeter weighted clubs?? Aside from the obvious ..that they are being paid by manufacturers to use a particular club, I don’t believe most pros would use something that did not benefit their game.
Well, I think you hit the big nail on the head with your first answer. IMO most of the pros can play with a large variety of clubs and get very good results. If the amount that the manufacturer is willing to pay the pro outweighs the probable very small difference in performance you can guess what the pro would play. In a different world, what would ne interesting would be to see what the pros would play if they had to buy their own clubs and they could not accept payment for using anyones clubs. Dwight Williamson All expressed opinions are mine and mine alone.
Response:
Then how come so many of the pros use cavity back/perimeter weighted clubs?? Aside from the obvious ..that they are being paid by manufacturers to use a particular club, I don’t believe most pros would use something that did not benefit their game.
I think Venturi’s point was that the cavity back/perimeter weighted clubs mean much more to the high handicapper than the pro… Not that the pro does not get something from them also…. Senior Programmer/Analyst Marywood College Scranton, PA
Response:
On Sunday, CBS was killing time because of the tournament cancellation and Ken Venturi addressed this question.. His answer was that cavity back/perimeter weighted clubs really do not benefit the Pro because they hit the ball on the same spot ("size of a dime") time after time. He argued that the technology behind perimeter weighting and square-grooves has only helped the higher handicaps get closer in relation to the Pros. =
Then how come so many of the pros use cavity back/perimeter weighted clubs?? Aside from the obvious ..that they are being paid by manufacturers to use a particular club, I don’t believe most pros would use something that did not benefit their game.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –4583) writes: <lots of good stuff snipped As has been pointed out, the pros play a very different game. For most of us, hitting the club solidly and consistently is the major challenge. In theory at least, Cavity backs help you do this. Pros on the other hand, do this consistently and are looking to "work" the ball for optimum effect by making use of the effects of hitting the ball "wrong" on purpose. Cavity backs that diminish this effect hurt them. Is this really what the pros do. All the instruction books I’ve seen which talk about shaping the shot just talk about having the club open or closed with respect to the swing path, not trying to hit the ball with a different part of the clubface. Surely closing the face a few degrees is a lot more reliable than trying to miss the sweetspot by a precise amount. It’s also just as easy to do with a cavity back as a blade. So either blades are no more workable than cavity backs (and certainly Pavin has no trouble working his), or there is a flaw in my logic. You choose. Cheers…Andy
I’m not an expert on workability, but pro’s have told me that it is easier done with blades, because cavity backs are designed to hit the ball straight. (Although I’m not saying that it is impossible to work a cavity back as Andy points out, Pavin does just fine) But that isn’t the only reason pros use blades. Blades actually go farther than cavity backs when hit properly because more of the clubhead’s weight is behind the ball instead of around a cavity. jeff
Response:
<lots of good stuff snipped As has been pointed out, the pros play a very different game. For most of us, hitting the club solidly and consistently is the major challenge. In theory at least, Cavity backs help you do this. Pros on the other hand, do this consistently and are looking to "work" the ball for optimum effect by making use of the effects of hitting the ball "wrong" on purpose. Cavity backs that diminish this effect hurt them.
Is this really what the pros do. All the instruction books I’ve seen which talk about shaping the shot just talk about having the club open or closed with respect to the swing path, not trying to hit the ball with a different part of the clubface. Surely closing the face a few degrees is a lot more reliable than trying to miss the sweetspot by a precise amount. It’s also just as easy to do with a cavity back as a blade. So either blades are no more workable than cavity backs (and certainly Pavin has no trouble working his), or there is a flaw in my logic. You choose. Cheers…Andy
Response:
A couple of points. First, the game the touring pros play is a far different one than you and I. They have much less need for the forgiveness of a cavity back, since they hit the sweet spot a fairly high percentage of the time.
On Sunday, CBS was killing time because of the tournament cancellation and Ken Venturi addressed this question.. His answer was that cavity back/perimeter weighted clubs really do not benefit the Pro because they hit the ball on the same spot ("size of a dime") time after time. He argued that the technology behind perimeter weighting and square-grooves has only helped the higher handicaps get closer in relation to the Pros. Senior Programmer/Analyst Marywood College Scranton, PA
Response:
The average handicap in 1980 was 16.8, the average handicap in 1993 was 16.8. Cavity backed clubs and other game improvement features
But what efffect has the golf explosion had on these numbers? Seems like everybody plays golf now, whereas maybe only golfers played before the explosion. them. But they are not. Statistics show that the touring pro’s shoot 2-3 strokes worse with cavity backed irons. How many players on tour
Can’t compare Tour players to duffers. Tour players intentionally try to hit draws and fades and sometimes even hooks and slices… that’s harder to do with cavity backs… or so it is written. The duffer just wants to hit a realitively straigh ball. Harder to do with blades… or so it is written. won last year using Ping irons? What percentage of wins were won with cavity backed or Ping irons? The figures are probably lower than people expect.
It’s irrelelavent what the pros are doing to the mid to high handicapper. As long as the golfer is willing to reach deeper into his pocket to buy that magic wand will the manufacturers keep marketing game improvement clubs. Of course I’ve heard the stories of how golfers bought that new set of clubs and drastically took strokes off their game. But honestly, aren’t they really trying to say the problem wasn’t with their swing, it was the old clubs fault?
Well, I think there is something about getting a new club or clubs. Maybe it’s that it looks different which causes you to pay attention or something. But I have noticed that people often do play better for about 1-2 weeks when they get new clubs. Then I guess they get used to them and start returning to old habits. Maybe the secret is to have 2 sets and switch back and forth… but for the most part the clubs only play a small part in the equasion. A good swing with a so-so club will always beat a bad swing with the best club made. Dudley Cornman Systems Programmer Academic Computing Services – EKU *** When it comes to boats… *** *** I’d rather have a new boat than a used boat… *** *** I’d rather have a Baja than a Bayliner… *** *** I’d rather have a used Bayliner than no boat at all… ***
Response:
The average handicap in 1980 was 16.8, the average handicap in 1993 was 16.8. Cavity backed clubs and other game improvement features will last for several weeks. But as soon as the placibo effect wears off the golfer is back where he started. As the average handicap shows, the golfers input of new technology has changed the output very little.
This is a great example of the problems in drawing conclusions from statistical data. Between 1980, and 1993, club technology was one of the things that changed, but consider some of the others: Courses got harder: the 1980’s were the decade of target golf, with every new course built featuring island greens, penal bunkers, roller coaster greens, etc. The players changed: In 1980, golf was out. Only the serious played the game, and certainly only the serious maintained handicaps. Tennis and racketball were the sports of the beautiful people. In 1993, golf was in. Everyone wanted to play and I suspect a lot more people maintained handicaps. The handicapping/rating systems change continuously, meaning that a 16.8 in 1980 doesn’t mean the same thing as a 16.8 in 1993. In short, you can’t draw any conclusions from statistics like this because there are just too many other uncontrolled variables that effect the measurement. If cavity backed irons were game improving they would be winning on the tour every week and every pro would be using them. But they are not. Statistics show that the touring pro’s shoot 2-3 strokes worse with cavity backed irons. How many players on tour won last year using Ping irons? What percentage of wins were won with cavity backed or Ping irons? The figures are probably lower than people expect.
As has been pointed out, the pros play a very different game. For most of us, hitting the club solidly and consistently is the major challenge. In theory at least, Cavity backs help you do this. Pros on the other hand, do this consistently and are looking to "work" the ball for optimum effect by making use of the effects of hitting the ball "wrong" on purpose. Cavity backs that diminish this effect hurt them. Consider Cars: Most people are better drivers with automatic transmissions and power steering, but how often do you find them on race cars? As long as the golfer is willing to reach deeper into his pocket to buy that magic wand will the manufacturers keep marketing game improvement clubs. Of course I’ve heard the stories of how golfers bought that new set of clubs and drastically took strokes off their game. But honestly, aren’t they really trying to say the problem wasn’t with their swing, it was the old clubs fault?
Yes, the quest for the magic wand drives a lot of purchases, but if you know your swing, skip the hype, understand the technology, and pick the equipment that matches your game, most folks can buy a stroke or two of improvement with their clubs. — Warren Montgomery
Response:
If cavity backed irons were game improving they would be winning on the tour every week and every pro would be using them. But they are not. Statistics show that the touring pro’s shoot 2-3 strokes worse with cavity backed irons. How many players on tour won last year using Ping irons? What percentage of wins were won with cavity backed or Ping irons? The figures are probably lower than people expect.
A couple of points. First, the game the touring pros play is a far different one than you and I. They have much less need for the forgiveness of a cavity back, since they hit the sweet spot a fairly high percentage of the time. Also, I believe there are quite a lot of touring pros now using some type of cavity back irons. I don’t have any information on this, other than paying attention at a PGA event and a Nike event last year. No numbers, but I was suprised by how many players were using cavity backs, not how many weren’t. As for your contention ("statistics show") that tour players would average 2-3 strokes less with blades, this is absolutely absurd. This is equivalent to the difference between the Vardon Trophy winner and the guy trying to squeeze into the top 125. Sure they are getting paid to play a particular brand club, but don’t you think they would trade that $20K or so to make an extra million in prize money ? Tom D.
Response:
) writes: If cavity backed irons were game improving they would be winning on the tour every week and every pro would be using them. But they are not. Statistics show that the touring pro’s shoot 2-3 strokes worse with cavity backed irons. How many players on tour won last year using Ping irons? What percentage of wins were won with cavity backed or Ping irons? The figures are probably lower than people expect.
First of all, Billy Mayfair finished second on the money list in 1995, and he uses Ping irons. Pavin finished fourth, and he uses cavity backs, as does Jim Gallagher jr, who finished 8th. But the reason why many players on tour use blades is because they hit the sweet spot almost every time. The average amatuer doesn’t. IF and ONLY IF you can hit the sweet spot consistently, blades will go farther than a cb will because more of the weight is behind the ball. The pros also like to work the ball a lot, which is easier done with blades, but the average amatuer doesn’t even need to worry about this because they are trying to hit the ball straight. And as far as that statistic goes, that’s the pros. If a similar statistic was done for the average golfer, I would be willing to bet that they would shoot much better with the cavity backs. jeff
Response:
: Statistics show that the touring pro’s shoot 2-3 strokes worse with : cavity backed irons. David, With respect, this sounds a bit far fetched. What’s your source? Are you saying that blades are 2-3 strokes better *per round* than CBs? Why then are Colin Montgomerie and Sam Torrance using Callaway BB irons and Titleist DCI’s if their scoring averages could be 2-3 strokes better with blades? How come these guys are No1 and No2 in Europe despite using CBs? —
Response:
Seems like there has been an explosion of new features on golf clubs in the last few years. I’d be interested to hear whether people think any of these are true improvements or just passing fads i.e. will these features still be around in a few years. I think some of the things on the list are not true improvements, but will still be around in a few years. The reason is the bandwagon effect that improves profits of the club manufacturers. That said, here’s my cut at Andy’s list: Cavity back irons Yes
The average handicap in 1980 was 16.8, the average handicap in 1993 was 16.8. Cavity backed clubs and other game improvement features will last for several weeks. But as soon as the placibo effect wears off the golfer is back where he started. As the average handicap shows, the golfers input of new technology has changed the output very little. If cavity backed irons were game improving they would be winning on the tour every week and every pro would be using them. But they are not. Statistics show that the touring pro’s shoot 2-3 strokes worse with cavity backed irons. How many players on tour won last year using Ping irons? What percentage of wins were won with cavity backed or Ping irons? The figures are probably lower than people expect. As long as the golfer is willing to reach deeper into his pocket to buy that magic wand will the manufacturers keep marketing game improvement clubs. Of course I’ve heard the stories of how golfers bought that new set of clubs and drastically took strokes off their game. But honestly, aren’t they really trying to say the problem wasn’t with their swing, it was the old clubs fault? David
Response:
m GMT My favorite example is graphite shafts. For reasons I’ve posted often so I won’t post here, graphite shafts are an improvement for a rather small minority of golfers. But they are a big revenue/profit item, so I see them growing rather than going away.
This one of my favorites. OEM club maker offers their SuperDuperDriver in either steel or graphite. Pricew with steel is say $130, price with graphite is say $270. $140 for a graphite shaft?? The MOST expensive shaft that I could find in a quick perusal of the Golfsmith 95 catalog wa $70. It appears tthat the OEMs not only charge a premium for graphite, but charge a premium for offering the chance to buy graphite. Doesn’t make any difference to me, I would take the steel shaft (of my choice) over the graphite even if they were the same price, but I do find this ‘premium premium’ pricing curious. Seems to fit directly in with Dave’s ideas on a big profit maker for the manufacturer. BTW, I have from time to time been curious about titanium shafts (until I remember the price of ~$50 per shaft) and I am wondering if any of you club makers out there have built and/or played with them? Any opinions? Dave
Dwight Williamson All expressed opinions are mine and mine alone.
Response:
Seems like there has been an explosion of new features on golf clubs in the last few years. I’d be interested to hear whether people think any of these are true improvements or just passing fads i.e. will these features still be around in a few years.
I think some of the things on the list are not true improvements, but will still be around in a few years. The reason is the bandwagon effect that improves profits of the club manufacturers. My favorite example is graphite shafts. For reasons I’ve posted often so I won’t post here, graphite shafts are an improvement for a rather small minority of golfers. But they are a big revenue/profit item, so I see them growing rather than going away. That said, here’s my cut at Andy’s list: Cavity back irons Yes Graphite Shafted woods Probably Graphite Shafted irons For few, but will grow faster than actual performance deserves. Oversize Woods Probably Oversize irons Possibly Offset woods Possibly yes, probably no. Offset irons Probably Low balance point grapite shafts Unlikely Bubble shafts Unlikely Flare shafts Just say no Ultra lightweight graphite Possibly, but mostly as a profit-enhancer unless the process makes them possible for a lot less money with a lot less torsion. Titanium heads Unlikely, unless the hype factor wins. Titanium shafts Unlikely Frequency-matched sets Probably, it’s one of the few real improvements that costs more and is worth something. Face-balanced putters Probably One of the things that struck me as I was trying to do this is the dependence of the answer NOT on the technical merit of "does it do anything for the golfer’s game?" but on how "yuppified" the game becomes over the next few years. For the past few years, we’ve been seeing an influx of money into the game, money that believes: - Technology can solve any problem. - Organized training can solve any problem that technology can’t. If you look at big-corporation culture, it isn’t hard to figure out where this comes from. And it explains the fantastic sales of big-figure prices on: - Clubs, as long as they’re sufficiently exotic in materials or features. - Schools. Not a lesson a week plus practice, but concentrated lessons. The former makes it very difficult to base an answer to the "longevity" question on any actual performance improvement. The latter is a questionable educational practice that has become increasingly popular in corporations. Oh well, off my soapbox now. Cheers! Dave
Response:
Seems like there has been an explosion of new features on golf clubs in the last few years. I’d be interested to hear whether people think any of these are true improvements or just passing fads i.e. will these features still be around in a few years. The sort of things I’m thinking of and my personal opinions on whether they offer true improvements for some players are; Cavity back irons Yes Graphite Shafted woods Probably Graphite Shafted irons Possibly Oversize Woods Probably Oversize irons Possibly Offset woods Unlikely Offset irons Probably Low balance point grapite shafts Unlikely Bubble shafts Unlikely Ultra lightweight graphite Possibly Well you get the idea. Feel free to add features of your own. If there are enough responses I’ll compile a review.