MOI or Frequency Matched? That is the question....

[GolfSpyC]

Really, that's the question. Talking with different builders and this isn't a question of precision as much as it's one of philosophy. So, I'd be interested to hear thoughts, feedback, opinions from builders and players....

 

Builders - Which one do you prefer and why?

 

 

Players - If you could have a set custom built for your, would you go frequency matched or MOI?? 

[jaskanski]

Each to their own I guess, but as a general rule of thumb better players tend to prefer frequency matched or frequency tuned sets, whereas higher handicap players (who have tried MOI matching) tend to prefer this.

The reasoning is quite simple:

Better players tend to "know" what shaft they want and what performance aspect they want from it. They don't tend to need assistance in ball flight and they don't tend to have any difficulty in finding the centre of the clubface. They tend to like the feel of a continuous flex frequency through the set, or at least a progressive frequency slope which gives predictable results in launch and spin - and therefore accurate yardages. Last but not least, they tend to prefer a constant swing weight.

 

On the other hand, higher handicap players tend to have one favourite club which they hit better than others. This can be taken advantage of in the form of MOI matching, making it more likely for the player to hit each subsequent iron in the set with a similar amount of ease or consistency. Good news if you struggle to hit the ball consistently well with conventional sets.

 

Fitters are at a crossroads with the two. On the one hand, a pure "blueprinted" set is the ultimate goal for any club builder, but a set of irons which best compliments the players swing style and tendencies is the ultimate goal of the club fitter. I see both sides of the coin. 

For the purists, the conventional swing weighted set is still the #1 preference among the professional ranks and better player categories. From the fitting standpoint, both frequency and MOI matching still have to fit the individual in terms of weight, length, flex, loft, lie and swing tendency, before the decision can be made by the player in which way to go.

For me, conventional swing weighting and frequency matching is a lot easier - but that's just my opinion.

I'd certainly like to hear the thoughts of those who have compared both methods and their preferences.

[BIG STU]

Jaskanski you nailed it. On my stuff I try to get close on the frequency matching but I do not have a machine --yet- I do mine by sight and feel with an old school deflection board. The clubs that I have built for me in the past usually check pretty darn close on the Frequency counter when checked. I can take a club I build for me and after warming up I can usually tell if I have it right for me. For me I build with a lot of tip kick now because I have gotten older---- back in the day I used stiff tips. I also "cheat" on my bottom end kick by using lead tape back and low on the irons

[PlaidJacket]

I'm not adding anything here but; my irons are all MOI matched. (Wishon 771csi) I've never been fit using frequency matching. My clubs do feel better and are more consistent than any of my older sets. My fitter didn't even ask me which method I'd prefer. I don't think at the time I had an opinion either. He just said that's what he'd do. Fine with me as it turns out.

 

Question is... what would be the difference if I were able to try one set MOI matched and the other frequency matched? 

 

Question: What if I dropped my hcp. down to a 1. (won't happen) Would I need Frequency matched clubs since I'd now be a "better" player? Hell, I can be a "better" player on any given day. Just not every day. Ha.

[GolfSpyC]

Each to their own I guess, but as a general rule of thumb better players tend to prefer frequency matched or frequency tuned sets, whereas higher handicap players (who have tried MOI matching) tend to prefer this.

The reasoning is quite simple:

Better players tend to "know" what shaft they want and what performance aspect they want from it. They don't tend to need assistance in ball flight and they don't tend to have any difficulty in finding the centre of the clubface. They tend to like the feel of a continuous flex frequency through the set, or at least a progressive frequency slope which gives predictable results in launch and spin - and therefore accurate yardages. Last but not least, they tend to prefer a constant swing weight.

 

On the other hand, higher handicap players tend to have one favourite club which they hit better than others. This can be taken advantage of in the form of MOI matching, making it more likely for the player to hit each subsequent iron in the set with a similar amount of ease or consistency. Good news if you struggle to hit the ball consistently well with conventional sets.

 

Fitters are at a crossroads with the two. On the one hand, a pure "blueprinted" set is the ultimate goal for any club builder, but a set of irons which best compliments the players swing style and tendencies is the ultimate goal of the club fitter. I see both sides of the coin. 

For the purists, the conventional swing weighted set is still the #1 preference among the professional ranks and better player categories. From the fitting standpoint, both frequency and MOI matching still have to fit the individual in terms of weight, length, flex, loft, lie and swing tendency, before the decision can be made by the player in which way to go.

For me, conventional swing weighting and frequency matching is a lot easier - but that's just my opinion.

I'd certainly like to hear the thoughts of those who have compared both methods and their preferences.

 

 

Thanks for those thoughts - That really makes a lot of sense to me - I love both concepts - and more than anything, I love watching someone who really cares about building a set exactly to whatever specifications they're after - 

 

That said, I've played both MOI and Freq. matched sets and played them both successfully as I think "better players" can adapt and learn how to play either set - But I've always felt that in an MOI set the 3-5 iron have felt too light for me and I can't really feel the club through the swing. I don't have that issue in a frequency matched set - 

[GolfSpyC]

I'm not adding anything here but; my irons are all MOI matched. (Wishon 771csi) I've never been fit using frequency matching. My clubs do feel better and are more consistent than any of my older sets. My fitter didn't even ask me which method I'd prefer. I don't think at the time I had an opinion either. He just said that's what he'd do. Fine with me as it turns out.

 

Question is... what would be the difference if I were able to try one set MOI matched and the other frequency matched? 

 

Question: What if I dropped my hcp. down to a 1. (won't happen) Would I need Frequency matched clubs since I'd now be a "better" player? Hell, I can be a "better" player on any given day. Just not every day. Ha.

 

 

For me, the main difference is in the lower irons. Honestly, 8-PW I didn't see a huge difference, but when you get down into the 3 and 4 iron, I couldn't feel where the clubhead was during the swing and therefore had very little control over these clubs - 

 

I think if you did a freq. matched set with something like DG AMT shafts, you'd get the best of both worlds with a consistent set, but b/c of the lighter weight in the long irons, you'll swing them a little faster and launch them a little higher...

[BIG STU]

For me, the main difference is in the lower irons. Honestly, 8-PW I didn't see a huge difference, but when you get down into the 3 and 4 iron, I couldn't feel where the clubhead was during the swing and therefore had very little control over these clubs - 

 

I think if you did a freq. matched set with something like DG AMT shafts, you'd get the best of both worlds with a consistent set, but b/c of the lighter weight in the long irons, you'll swing them a little faster and launch them a little higher...

Depends on the player and their swing. Sometimes with the lighter faster thing they loose consistant control and accuracy, Then sometimes it does not have any effect on those two things. Like I said depends on the player and their swing

[revkev]

Thanks for this thread. I'm learning about a topic I had never even considered. In this case I don't know if it's good or bad but I love learning new stuff. The bad would be me standing over a five iron from 180 thinking, "if only this were MOI matched I could get it there!"

[Noodler]

You must be running into a lot of builders that are "old school" if they're still talking frequency matching.  Frequency matching is really going extinct as we've realized that there's a lot more to shaft fitting and matching beyond measuring the flex at only the butt end of the club.  Shafts now have full EI profiles published - there's no real point to just doing a butt flex match unless you like fooling yourself into believing that it's meaningful.

 

MOI matching produces real quantifiable improvement for ALL golfers, not just high cappers.  This does not take the place of shaft fitting, so really it's not an "either or" question.  I was just pointing out that frequency matching for shaft fitting is no longer reliable.

[jaskanski]

I dont know where you get your info from either, but MOI matching is about as old as regular swing weighting. 

[Noodler]

Yes, MOI matching is the "original" swingweighting, but I don't believe I referenced how long MOI matching has been around in my reply, nor did I imply that it was the "new" thing.  I only pointed out that frequency matching is an outdated "old thing".

[jaskanski]

Yes, MOI matching is the "original" swingweighting, but I don't believe I referenced how long MOI matching has been around in my reply, nor did I imply that it was the "new" thing.  I only pointed out that frequency matching is an outdated "old thing".

 

Odd - there must be an awful lot of pro golfers on tour using an "outdated" method of iron set build.

[GolfSpyC]

You must be running into a lot of builders that are "old school" if they're still talking frequency matching.  Frequency matching is really going extinct as we've realized that there's a lot more to shaft fitting and matching beyond measuring the flex at only the butt end of the club.  Shafts now have full EI profiles published - there's no real point to just doing a butt flex match unless you like fooling yourself into believing that it's meaningful.

 

MOI matching produces real quantifiable improvement for ALL golfers, not just high cappers.  This does not take the place of shaft fitting, so really it's not an "either or" question.  I was just pointing out that frequency matching for shaft fitting is no longer reliable.

 

 

I guess my question would be then, if we understand EI/Bend profiles of shafts and we can now fit players into shafts quite accurately, why do we still need the EI information for the build? Seems to me most of the high end custom builders use frequency matching still....and that includes tour vans..

[jaskanski]

I guess my question would be then, if we understand EI/Bend profiles of shafts and we can now fit players into shafts quite accurately, why do we still need the EI information for the build? Seems to me most of the high end custom builders use frequency matching still....and that includes tour vans..

 

 

Well yes and no.

Ei bend profiles help the fitter to match a shaft to a particular swing tendency. EI graphs don't really effect the build, unless you're building mixed or flighted sets. 

With todays modern high end shafts, the frequency build within a set can vertically be assured without the need for constant frequency matching via machine. However a lot of pros DO favour a particular swing weight within a set and DEMAND a constant flex and frequency progression throughout the set. Even with the Auditor computerised MOI matching machine, achieving this flex to frequency ratio is impossible with MOI matching - remember that the fitting parameters of length and weight have to be achieved too. 

I'm not here to bad mouth the MOI matching theory or say that it's an inferior process, but the only real way to tell their effectiveness according to statistics is via handicap range - pure and simple. The data simply doesn't lie.

If someone wants to undergo an MOI fitting then thats fine by me, but the timeframe and cost of the fitting and build is going to be virtually double that of a normally swing weighted set - another fact for you.

[GolfSpyC]

Well yes and no.

Ei bend profiles help the fitter to match a shaft to a particular swing tendency. EI graphs don't really effect the build, unless you're building mixed or flighted sets. 

With todays modern high end shafts, the frequency build within a set can vertically be assured without the need for constant frequency matching via machine. However a lot of pros DO favour a particular swing weight within a set and DEMAND a constant flex and frequency progression throughout the set. Even with the Auditor computerised MOI matching machine, achieving this flex to frequency ratio is impossible with MOI matching - remember that the fitting parameters of length and weight have to be achieved too. 

I'm not here to bad mouth the MOI matching theory or say that it's an inferior process, but the only real way to tell their effectiveness according to statistics is via handicap range - pure and simple. The data simply doesn't lie.

If someone wants to undergo an MOI fitting then thats fine by me, but the timeframe and cost of the fitting and build is going to be virtually double that of a normally swing weighted set - another fact for you.

 

 

I guess that's part of what I was trying to say is once you have someone correctly fit, there's no reason to reference the EI profile or take tons of frequency measurements along the shaft when building - If anything, you can spine/flo and check butt frequency as you go to make sure you have exactly what you want.

 

However, if you are using exceptionally high end components (shafts which are built to exceptionally tight frequency tolerances) and headweights which are spot on, sounds like you could use a frequency machine  to check for quality, but it's not necessary...

[jaskanski]

I guess that's part of what I was trying to say is once you have someone correctly fit, there's no reason to reference the EI profile or take tons of frequency measurements along the shaft when building - If anything, you can spine/flo and check butt frequency as you go to make sure you have exactly what you want.

 

However, if you are using exceptionally high end components (shafts which are built to exceptionally tight frequency tolerances) and headweights which are spot on, sounds like you could use a frequency machine  to check for quality, but it's not necessary...

 

You are correct. And that is why you have "tour issue" components on most tour vans.