Jump to content

Dave Tutelman

Member
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from ryan.mzzz in Arm Lock Putting Should Be Illegal   
    I did precisely that in 2002. Pistol grip turned sideways and up the wrist several inches. Functioned pretty much the way my arm lock putter does today.
     
    I didn't like it then, because I had trouble controlling distance -- even though it was uncanny in getting the line right. But in my early 70s I developed the yips. The arm lock putter controls it better than anything else I can do.
  2. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from d.lama in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    It is certainly worth noting that this progression of swingweight is a step in the direction of MOI matching. In fact, if the swingweight changed by about 2/3 of a point from each club to the next, it was a very good MOI match.
    Bobby Jones's career predates swingweight. But I have read that his clubs were matched by the head weights times the square of the length. This is also closely related to an MOI match.
  3. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to Scooter 328 in Retired BUT playing less golf!!!   
    I was blessed to retire at 62. 3 years ago. I have always loved the game. I only could get in around 20-25 rounds a year when working. Now I play over 100 rounds per year, and go on golf trips. I am very fortunate to have friends i get to play with. That's the key for me.  
  4. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to RoyF in Retired BUT playing less golf!!!   
    I'm also retired and think the key to keeping desire to play mostly has to do with having one or more groups to play with. I play with a group of mostly retired guys that play Tue, Thu & Fri. I also play with a mixed group (some retired, most younger) that play Sat & Sun. The two groups are both enjoyable,  but very different. The money we play for is small,  but it is an incentive to care and want to play well. So if you don't have regular groups to play with,  perhaps look for that. And as others have said,  it sounds like you are enjoying retirement, which is what your goal should be,  regardless of how much golf that entails, congratulations. 
  5. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from TJ Hall in Retired BUT playing less golf!!!   
    I retired 22 years ago. The plan was golf twice a week with a bunch of friends whom I knew from work. That turned out to be 3 times a week: twice with my regular crew and once doing a free-lance walk-on to keep variety in the venues. I'll be 83 next month, and I'm still walking the golf course 3 times a week, year round. This is in NJ; I may get less than 3 times a week in the winter if the courses are closed for snow. But most weeks I can still get in 2-3.
    I found that was the most fun I could have, my best use of retirement. Sounds like yours has turned out to be something else. That's great for you! If the something else is more fun than golf, then you're in great shape. BTW, my son got a job in the mountains of AZ, and loves it there. His exercise is hiking in the bluffs and canyons around Sedona, which he can see from his front porch. Either way, whether you'd rather golf or hike, if it's what you want it's a great life!
  6. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from tony@CIC in Retired BUT playing less golf!!!   
    I retired 22 years ago. The plan was golf twice a week with a bunch of friends whom I knew from work. That turned out to be 3 times a week: twice with my regular crew and once doing a free-lance walk-on to keep variety in the venues. I'll be 83 next month, and I'm still walking the golf course 3 times a week, year round. This is in NJ; I may get less than 3 times a week in the winter if the courses are closed for snow. But most weeks I can still get in 2-3.
    I found that was the most fun I could have, my best use of retirement. Sounds like yours has turned out to be something else. That's great for you! If the something else is more fun than golf, then you're in great shape. BTW, my son got a job in the mountains of AZ, and loves it there. His exercise is hiking in the bluffs and canyons around Sedona, which he can see from his front porch. Either way, whether you'd rather golf or hike, if it's what you want it's a great life!
  7. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to funkyjudge in Playing With Different Handicaps   
    Almost NOTHING bothers me more than slow players on the golf course, and that definitely includes golfers who spend 8 to 10 minutes looking for a lost golf ball. I generally say something like “the three minute search period has long passed; just drop a ball and play on”. Some guys take it well; others get downright nasty when I remind them that we need to pick up the pace of play.
    One great thing about the guys that I played with yesterday is that no matter how badly they played, we all maintained a great pace of play, keeping up with the threesome ahead of us. All four of us were walking (I carried my bag, the other three had push carts). The front nine took only 1:35, but the back nine was a little slower because things got backed up just a bit. Still, we walked the full 18 holes in just over 3:30.
  8. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from cksurfdude in Retired BUT playing less golf!!!   
    I retired 22 years ago. The plan was golf twice a week with a bunch of friends whom I knew from work. That turned out to be 3 times a week: twice with my regular crew and once doing a free-lance walk-on to keep variety in the venues. I'll be 83 next month, and I'm still walking the golf course 3 times a week, year round. This is in NJ; I may get less than 3 times a week in the winter if the courses are closed for snow. But most weeks I can still get in 2-3.
    I found that was the most fun I could have, my best use of retirement. Sounds like yours has turned out to be something else. That's great for you! If the something else is more fun than golf, then you're in great shape. BTW, my son got a job in the mountains of AZ, and loves it there. His exercise is hiking in the bluffs and canyons around Sedona, which he can see from his front porch. Either way, whether you'd rather golf or hike, if it's what you want it's a great life!
  9. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to Josh Parker in Playing With Different Handicaps   
    First choice is playing with someone better than me.  Gives me the opportunity to learn and push myself.
    Second choice is it doesn't matter when it's with friends.  It's about enjoying the day and hanging out.  
  10. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to hohjoe in Retired BUT playing less golf!!!   
    I retired three years ago this past February. I went from playing golf 10-12 times a year to playing 3-5 times a week. It seems as though that's all I do, but I'm having fun and haven't lost any desire or motivation to play.
    As long as you are doing what you enjoy, then continue. If you get the golfing bug again it sounds as though you are in the right spot geographically.
  11. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to TJ Hall in Retired BUT playing less golf!!!   
    I have the urge to go play golf but can’t due to working and family things (kids!)…but if you are enjoying activities outside of golf, that is part of retirement also.
     
  12. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to cksurfdude in Retired BUT playing less golf!!!   
    So in other words you're ENJOYING retirement and keeping BUSY and having a GREAT TIME??!!??
    Gee that's too bad 😉😆
    That's one of nice things about retirement that I'm enjoying .. do what I feel like on my schedule! (..well most of the time...)
  13. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to Donn lost in San Diego in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    Well Dave, I just read your "short" life bio on yr site.  That's quite a life.  Kind of parallel to Karsten Solheim, tho Karsten never actually earned a college degree.  It touches me a bit.  I had 2 cousins (Rosenberg) who were EEs, worked with Einstein at Princeton on occasion.  Einstein once did his Charlie Chaplin imitation in his living room for my great aunt in Trenton or Princeton.  And in my generation, I was born in 54, another cousin at Bell/Lucent did research work on gallium chips.  
  14. Hmmm
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from Josh Parker in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    BigBoiGolf implies that you want to build to the club's moment of inertia rather than swingweight. I've been saying this for about 30 years.

    At that time, MOI meters were somewhere between expensive and nonexistent. So I came up with a way to MOI-match a set of clubs using a swingweight scale. It is only fairly recently that reasonably priced MOI meters have become available, and by that time I was very comfortable with estimating MOI with my swingweight scale. But my goal is still MOI matching.
    Here are a couple of articles I wrote about why swingweight matching is nonsense, how to do MOI matching with a swingweight scale, and my first cut at estimating MOI match with a swingweight scale (from 30 years ago, with the help of TJ Field).
  15. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from nvizble1 in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    BigBoiGolf implies that you want to build to the club's moment of inertia rather than swingweight. I've been saying this for about 30 years.

    At that time, MOI meters were somewhere between expensive and nonexistent. So I came up with a way to MOI-match a set of clubs using a swingweight scale. It is only fairly recently that reasonably priced MOI meters have become available, and by that time I was very comfortable with estimating MOI with my swingweight scale. But my goal is still MOI matching.
    Here are a couple of articles I wrote about why swingweight matching is nonsense, how to do MOI matching with a swingweight scale, and my first cut at estimating MOI match with a swingweight scale (from 30 years ago, with the help of TJ Field).
  16. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from KC Golf in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    BigBoiGolf implies that you want to build to the club's moment of inertia rather than swingweight. I've been saying this for about 30 years.

    At that time, MOI meters were somewhere between expensive and nonexistent. So I came up with a way to MOI-match a set of clubs using a swingweight scale. It is only fairly recently that reasonably priced MOI meters have become available, and by that time I was very comfortable with estimating MOI with my swingweight scale. But my goal is still MOI matching.
    Here are a couple of articles I wrote about why swingweight matching is nonsense, how to do MOI matching with a swingweight scale, and my first cut at estimating MOI match with a swingweight scale (from 30 years ago, with the help of TJ Field).
  17. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from MIGregB in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    Julius, I'm an engineer, so it is a little hard for me to completely drop the technical stuff. But the first page of my web article about swingweight and MOI, while somewhat technical, avoids the math and keeps the explanation to words and pictures. You might find it a good introduction. Or maybe not.
    If you get through the first page, continue on until you are in over your head. No matter how far this is, you are going to learn a bunch about the topic.
  18. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to JohnnyGibble in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    Had this same issue with a “fitted set” of Mizuno irons JPX 923 hot metal HL. Lie angles were suppose to be 1 degree flat. After doing some lessons my coach asked if I was playing them long. Got them checked and they were all .5 inch long and lie angles were all 3-4 flatter than they were suppose to be. Got them shortened and lie angles moved back to standard been better ever since.
  19. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from MIGregB in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    That is part of it, perhaps even a big part. But weight (really mass) and force are useful for static feel and motion in a straight line. As the club picks up speed, more of the motion is rotational. At impact, 80% of the clubhead speed is due to angular velocity and only 20% to linear. (Could be more biased than that; I've seen studies go down to 87-13, but none more equal than 80-20 for decent golf swings.)

    So we need to account for angular motion as well. That means torque and moment of inertia, which are the angular equivalents of force and mass.

    Weight and CG reflect the zeroth and first moments of the club's mass. In order to reflect rotational acceleration/motion, you also need the second moment of the mass -- the moment of inertia.
    How does this fit golf reality? In fittings I have seen where each club was separately fit until they all felt the same, the set was very close to a moment of inertia match and not very close to a swingweight match. That means it probably isn't all about the transition nor static feel, but rather about feel as the club approaches impact -- rotating more than translating.
  20. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from MIGregB in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    That's a "yes but". People with a swingweight scale who don't understand it thoroughly might conclude "swingweights all over the map" when in fact the build accurately accomplished exactly what was needed. A properly MOI-matched set will not all be the same swingweight. Unless you graph the swingweights and notice they are carefully sloped (but not identical), you might conclude this is a sloppy set.
  21. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from MIGregB in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    It is certainly worth noting that this progression of swingweight is a step in the direction of MOI matching. In fact, if the swingweight changed by about 2/3 of a point from each club to the next, it was a very good MOI match.
    Bobby Jones's career predates swingweight. But I have read that his clubs were matched by the head weights times the square of the length. This is also closely related to an MOI match.
  22. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to Julius in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    hi Dave - well, that was a lot!! I visited your site, fascinating stuff there.  Thank you for sharing that.  Realistically it is all much more than I would have ever thought about when I am playing the game.  I see you have a lovely family and an interesting life, you are blessed to have all of that AND be able to play this game until your current age - truly blessed!!  Thank you again for sharing. 
  23. Like
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from MIGregB in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    We're very much in agreement here, BigBoiGolf. Even to our opinion of what Russ Ryden is doing. Just a few things I'd like to point out.

    A lot of the discussion -- too much in my opinion -- is centering around the fact that 14" is not a pivot or fulcrum for anything real. While true, that completely misses the point. The inventor of swingweight, I am almost sure, picked 14" empirically, because it simulated moment of inertia across a wide variety of clubs. That, and not any physical reasoning, is behind the number 14".

    If you look at the graphs I mentioned in my previous comment, you will notice that swingweight and moment of inertia track very well against one another, if all you vary is head weight or overall shaft weight or club length. If you consider swingweight to be a "cheap and dirty" way to measure moment of inertia, the errors are less than 10% for each of those club properties. (That relationship falls apart completely when you look at grip weight. We'll get back to that in point #3 below.) Until the 2000s, it was quite expensive to actually measure MOI, which cannot be done statically. (Well, either expensive or tedious and math-intensive.) So a swingweight scale was a remarkably good shop tool for getting an approximate MOI match. Very few of the clubfitters who used the tool every day knew that, but physics and history strongly suggest it is true.

    With 20:20 hindsight, here are a few things we need to think about when we think about swingweight:
    I have shown elsewhere that a really good MOI match can be obtained by doing a swingweight match with a sloped swingweight of a little over one point per inch of club length. This gets much closer to a true MOI match than a straight swingweight match does. All of this -- the origin of the swingweight scale, the sloped swingweight match, etc -- depends on varying length and clubhead weight only. There is a second correction for changes in shaft weight. Anything else simply does not fit the model, and can give nonsense results if you do them to match swingweight. That includes different weight grips, counterweighting, lead tape in the middle of the shaft, etc. The talk about a D-0 telephone pole is no more than a joke based on this truth. If you think about when swingweight was invented (the 1940s), there was not much choice in shaft weight and even less in grip weight. So swingweight worked fairly well as an MOI surrogate for the clubs you could build back then. With today's ability to play with shaft weight profiles and grip weights, swingweight is no longer a reliable surrogate for MOI -- unless you are careful not to use those "knobs" to adjust your clubs.
  24. Love
    Dave Tutelman got a reaction from Julius in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    Julius, I'm an engineer, so it is a little hard for me to completely drop the technical stuff. But the first page of my web article about swingweight and MOI, while somewhat technical, avoids the math and keeps the explanation to words and pictures. You might find it a good introduction. Or maybe not.
    If you get through the first page, continue on until you are in over your head. No matter how far this is, you are going to learn a bunch about the topic.
  25. Like
    Dave Tutelman reacted to HikingMike in Why are we still using Swingweight?   
    Nice! Great read, thanks. I finished it, though didn’t read any of the linked material. 
×
×
  • Create New...