Jump to content

TheHacker

Member
  • Posts

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TheHacker

  1. I have 2002 Titleist FM's in the bag. I have spent a lot of money to replace them with better and newer equipment. The problem is there is not really any better equipment out there for me.

     

    Yes, they release a new set of clubs every two years, that are marginally better than the previous years, but really the difference is in forgiveness. Those that do not need the forgiveness don't reap much of the rewards with these clubs, but I have a hi capper friend that plays all Titleist new equipment and AP1's with Tour AD shafts and he has never played better in his life.

     

    I think one common misconception about Titleist is that it's all player's clubs and not very forgiving.

     

    But the offerings from Titleist in the past 5 years has been very forgiving, especially their drivers. As for their irons, you pretty much get what you bargained for. If you got yourself a set of Titleist blades, how forgiving can they get?

     

    So yes, chosen correctly, a Titleist set can work as well as any other brands in the hands of a high capper.

  2. The only one was a 56 degree wedge. I don't know what it is about that degree, but still can't hit it to this day. Also bought a 54 degree wedge I hit the same distance as a 52 but needed better gaps. Ended up getting a 52 and 58 and it's really been about the best spread I can ask without gaming a 56.

    Probably its the bounce. 56 deg wedges are usually designed to be a sand wedge with rather substantial bounce. Unless you are hitting it off very fluffy lie or soft sand, you just may not like it very much.

     

    I'm just guessing.

  3. For me it was the original Nike driver, you remember the blue one. It was awful. How bad was it? It was so bad the Callaway C4 almost replaced it. I still cannot look at a Nike golf clubs no matter how much they get raved. 

     

    I had that one! When it first came out, I bought the 400 cc version... which apparently was good enough for my hacker swing. But then I dented the clubhead at the driving range when I took a practise swing and hit a pillar on the back swing. Can't believe how fragile it was.

     

    After that dent, it never feel quite the same, and I quickly trade it off for a TM driver (I think... that was so many years ago).

  4. It was like having to face my shame four business days later.  I think I actually gave up drinking for a week or two after this one and the rule going forward is my iPad and phone are taken away after 8 beers.

     

    The correct response should had been... go get some more drinks to drown out the shame.

  5. Don't get me wrong, as my signature indicates, I definitely think Titleist produces great products.  However, I think Titleist may tend to "rest on its laurels" a bit and does things "the way we've always done it."

     

    Of all the company reps I spoke with at the PGA show this year, while the Titleist group was "Best Dressed," they were also the most difficult to distract from their "internal discussions" and the least informative when answering questions about their products.

     

    When I mentioned I game the 913 D2 driver and wanted to know what specific improvements they'd made in their 915 models I was told, "we made it longer."

     

    So, I guess that "technically" they sprinkled some "distance dust" on the face of the driver this year...

     

    I think their mantra has always been "We bring you yesterday's technology... tomorrow"...

     

    Every new product they launch them to be not much of a change from the previous one. So much so I can't tell the difference between a MB710, 712 and 714.. likewise for all their metalwoods.

     

    But they do have great products, as I have been using their irons for quite many years now.

  6. For me... it's the SLDR driver. For those of you who followed, I raved a lot about the driver, and how the fitting process found me the supposedly best shaft combo for my swing.

     

    Well... the honeymoon period is over. The SLDR depends on me having all cylinders firing well at the same time too much, and there's way too much hit & pray involved. Think I'll fall back on my old cleveland dst driver.

     

    Think I'll probably eBay it sometime soon.

  7. I'm glad you brought this back up.  I've been looking for a club to fill a void in my bag and I asked my cousin if he had a 5w I could borrow.  The only one he had was an old V-Steel and he has it in the bag.  He is a NCAA D1 player that switches clubs more than anyone I know, yet always goes back to the V-Steel.  That should tell you something.

     

    Nice pick up.

     

    With so much fanfare about adjustability being the buzzword in golf equipment nowadays, there are still people who appreciates a simple club that just gets the job done reliably.

     

    Frankly my SLDR remains one of the most unreliable club in my bag after a few months.

  8. I always wanted a decent condition v steel 3 wood, but I wanted it with a steel shaft. Tried one years ago and the control was brilliant - cracking low stingers.

     

    Getting rare to find one that's not battered now.

     

    Nothing says player more than a battered 3 wood :)

    • Like 1
  9. Thought I like to revive this rather old thread.

     

    Just bought one (used) off eBay cheap - $46... and very excited about it. Something about it's a very simple,  utilitarian design really attracts me. The newer generations of fairway wood - like my RBZ is too "over designed" in my opinion, and in all likelihood does not perform better than the older ones.

     

    Like all stock shafts in TM clubs of old, it's might not be as good as we all like, so I'm going in with rather tempered expectations. Well the money I saved could be put into getting a better shaft for my new (old) fairway wood. If this experiment turns out good, think I'm gonna be hooked on buying old clubs and giving them a new lease of life!

  10. I think this could be a really good year for him. Even though yesterday was abysmal the swing looked great and he found the fairway with the driver a lot.

    His full swing looks great!

     

    His short game... hmmm... seem to flub his chips / pitch a bit. But I doubt that's something that will trouble him for long.

  11. For all of Tiger's detractors who says he has lost it.... 

     

    I would gladly give one of my kidneys to be able to play like him in his worse form. Hell... I'll throw in half my liver if I could put like him as well  :rolleyes:

  12. Speaking of wearing watches when playing golf, I only wear my trusty G-Shock whenever I play. Unlike mechanical watches, G-Shocks are light and yet tough. Also because they are relatively cheap, I don't feel so bad about scratching my G-Shocks.

     

    And in case you are wondering, wearing a watch does not affect my swing in anyway, it's just a matter to get used to.

  13. I think watches are for many a personal statement about who you are, it is also probably the only acceptable jewellery in some conservative corporate environment. Also a good mechanical watch is something that could be passed down to the next generation and it will continue to run well over the years. Some even gain antique status and become a valuable collectible item.

     

    A smart watch however, is just another gadget which you buy, and it may work seamlessly with your smartphone now; but in two years time when you want to change to the latest and greatest smartphone, this smart watch would be unlikely to work well with the new phone. And from now till then, I imagine there would be regular software updates which has to be done to fix bugs which seems to come packaged with the product every time.

     

    Also because of it's limitation is size, a smart watch can only display very little useful information, and have very limited functionality. If you need to send a message, or take a picture, you still have to take out your smartphone. So it is a somewhat mediocre watch with some added features and you have to charge it everyday, just like your phone. Once the battery runs dry - we all have days when we forgot to charge our phone, the piece of technology is no better than a piece of jewellery.

     

    Electronics in general (we all know - computers, laptops, phones) degrades over time, and build-in obsolesce is very much designed or engineered into the product. How many of us have never experience our electronic goods giving up the ghost shortly after it's warranty expires? And if we try to get it repaired, we find that it's cheaper to just replace the darned thing. Smart watches are the same. It is not designed to last, it is designed to make money for Samsung, or Apple.

     

    The watch collection which I have build up over the years, I plan on passing down to the next generation. A good mechanical watch is not just a time piece, it tells a story about what it's owner went through, and even carries with it valuable life lessons and values which the owner wants to pass down to the next generation. So there's a lot of intrinsic value that comes with a watch to me that goes way beyond just telling the time.

  14. Even club manufacturers agree robot data doesn't cross over to real people swinging the club for review purposes. They definitely use them in their R&D, very helpful there. But when it's time to see what a club does for real, they want third party, real golfers doing it. A robot has no feel, can't tell you what to expect if you hit a shot toward the toe or give you dispersion patterns based on how people make contact. A robot doesn't release the club the same as a human. There are countless dynamics to a person's swing that a robot can't get feedback on.

     

    Sure having a pool of 100 testers over 50 rounds with each club would be great. That's not realistic obviously, and doing it with a robot instead would be pointless because the results wouldn't translate to you when you swung the same club.

     

    The problem is those "real" golfers aren't the same as me, or any other consumer. The whole deal is I am not convinced that human "real" golfers offer any more value than testing with a robot.

     

    A least with a robot you can control the variables like swing speed, angle of attack, face angle etc. You can even vary these factors and graph the results.

     

    But human testers are unreliable, they get tired, they have their personal preference, they have that "what feels good for them" factor, which is totally subjective.

     

    So using statistics and subsequent reviews from human testers offers very little value.

  15. Back to my original premise which might have been clouded thinking, I think it's neither the club head, nor the golf shaft that matters. It's in the golfer's head, how the club feels to him, and how he swings to feel "comfortable" with the new club head / shaft combination. In some ways it's the Indian, not the arrow, at least not just the arrow.

     

    Feel and sound matters, and provides the feedback to the golfer which ultimately affects performance. This is where golf fitting comes in. Taking the numbers,and feedback from the golfer - too light / too heavy, too flexible / stiff / boardy, the fitter relies on his knowledge of what he has, put together a combination that works best for the golfer.

  16. The shaft feel is important. The right angle of attack and loft is important. But if you have a shaft that is moving all over the place, your up the well known creek.

     

    What I have proven with this method is the right shaft can bring the golfer to hitting the center of the club face more consistently. And, it will actually increase the golfers swing speed. Those are the most important factor of a driver.

     

    The old fitting instructions. No Tip. Is rediculous. I am seeing better performance with tips as much as 4 " off the tip. I am talking better spin, launch angles, variance, and distance.

     

    But you are right about feel. My shafts don't feel broady with huge tips. Strange but true.

     

    I agree with you up to a certain point. However, a shaft is not capable of moving all over the place by itself. Its behaviour is dictated by how the golfer swings it, and how the golfer swings the shaft, is highly dependent on how the shaft feels to him.

     

    But one point I think we definitely will agree on, is the value of properly fitting. We live in the age of instant gratification, and it is so easy to buy a golf club online without going through a fitting session, only to find that after the honeymoon period, the golf club is awful for the golfer. The the golf goes on his search for a better game once again. Its a complete waste of money.

     

    He should get himself fitted for the best performing driver for his own swing characteristics. The numbers don't lie. Your wallet and your golf game will thank you for getting fitted. 

  17. I'd respectfully disagree on the matter of the shaft. I think many of us have seen huge differences in results through shaft changes on the same head within a fitting. I've seen huge results just from same shaft, same head different weight and/or length of the shaft.

     

    It's the whole package and it's not one size fits all although a better player probably can adjust and manipulate misfit equipment quicker than most.

     

     

    No worries on disagreeing with me, that's the point of this forum.

     

    IMHO, a shaft's specs has less influence on a player than how it feels to the player. The weight any how lively it feels when swung, provides the feedback to the player which ultimately affect how he hits the ball.

     

    My experience is when playing an unfamiliar shaft, the first hit would usually be respectable but not quite on par with what I am used to. But subsequent hits might get better or worse depending on how I try to swing to replicate the same feel that I am accustom to with the shaft that I had been using for a while.

     

    It is the extra effort, or reduced efforts that makes a difference in performance. So I opined it's the feedback loops to the human player that plays a more drastic difference to the final performance of the club. Eventually the golfer gets used to this new shaft and sort of figures how how to handle it properly. Then the performance more or less plateau, and if he goes back to the old shaft that he was so familiar with, it felt weird and performed weird.

     

    That's speaking from personal experience. Again, I may well be totally wrong, feel free to disagree.

  18. For all his faults, Tiger Woods is still a darned good golfer, and at his worst form, can outplay any one of us anytime. Then again, he does that for a living, most of us don't.

     

    I think the problem with his game isn't so much the swing mechanics. Maybe it's something between his ears. Maybe he subconsciously (or not) know that he has ran out of the good karma to keep winning & sinking the clutch putts that he needs so much to stay on top.

     

    At the end of the day, we all know fully well... your golf swing (game) is something that is borrowed, and can never be owned. Enjoy when playing well knowing fully well there's more to life than hitting balls into a 4 inch hole.

  19. One thing that the testing protocols preferred by my golf spy is to have human testers try out the clubs then obtain the numbers based on limited numbers of shots played on the clubs being tested.

     

    However, if we are to be really scientific about it, we all know that the human golf is the most unreliable golf testing machine there is. The human golf testing "machine is also subject to fatigue which influence how the club perform in his hand. And that is assuming other factors like bias & prejudices doesn't in some way affect the outcome of the shot played with a particular club.

     

    I have always voiced out the need for machine testing of a golf club's performance under a certain fixed test parameters - like club head speed, launch angles etc.

     

    But noooo......! Some experts voiced their opinion that machine testing has very limited benefits because golf is played by humans, therefore human tester feedbacks are more valid.

     

    I remember there was a discussion in the blogs quite sometime back, and I gave up trying to put my point across after a while. It's useless mooting a point when others are so set in their ways. For me I just take whatever testing reviews with a pinch of salt. To me it's just a fun day for the lucky testers with very limited benefit to me as a consumer.

     

    Bottom line - human testing - the sample size is too small, and the testers are not consistent, therefore the test outcome is of limited value.

  20. Good looking, no doubt.   Will the slot make 'em pop like it did for the Rocketballz?

     

    Couldn't hurt.

     

    If they get the same Titleist feel and stability with some more slot-springy length, I'm in!

     

     

    For the price, it better  :)

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...