Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by jaskanski

  1. It all depends what you're trying to match. If  you like the idea of ascending weight from long iron to short irons as the Ping AWT offer, then your choices on a graphite equivalent at the same weight and profile are rather limited. If you can find them (?) the Mitsubishi Tensei AV White AM2 would be close, but the cost would be off putting - and perhaps challenge the idea of the cost of getting fitted to what you want again. 


  2. The Gunmetal Lin-Q is a shaft designed for fast swingers with a hard transition and move at the ball.  Aggressive players looking to control tempo would benefit from a shaft like this with a 70g + weight and stiff tip and mid sections. Price is reasonable in the 200-250 range. 

    Cons - not for smooth swingers with moderate tempo or those looking for higher launch. UST claim a unique fibre technology with added strength at a lower weight - but what manufacturer doesn't these days in their range? Overall feel is firm to stout with a lower torque models - UST have their usual blurb on energy storage, stability, straighter longer drives etc - which is pretty much a sales gimmick without being properly fitted for this shaft. Or any other shaft in their range.

  3. 7 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

    Absolutely nothing wrong with used equipment and, in many ways, makes good sense - particularly if your inclined to switch up the bag often. Last generation clubs can be had new or near new for significant discounts.  My recommendation, if you have not done so, is to get fitted and establish some specs.  That way you can really zero in on finding used gear that meets what you need... at least be much closer to center target.  Not sure where this outfit is, but those look like 1970 prices.  A Truespec full bag fitting is north of $350.00.  Presuming they have Skytrack or GCQuad LM systems and good reviews, I'd jump all over that.


    I saw these prices and thought "are they from the 1970's" lol. 

    No idea how they make any money out of club repair and adjustment services either - but the old adage "you get what you pay for" is probably ringing alarm bells if you think you're getting a quality fitting at those prices. Maybe they have Elves to help or something?

    • Haha 1
  4. I usually stick with a players type iron for the simple reason of distance control - not to maximise distance. Irons after all are usually for hitting specific yardages. So taking one more club to hit a specific yardage in specific conditions is natural to me.

    I dabbled with the GI "distance" irons and sure enough they gave a healthy increase in distance, but the disparity between best and worst strikes was ludicrously wide. Occasionally, you even got the odd bizarrely long yardage for no apparent reason (case in point Ping i500 4-iron with "power spec" that went 240 yards on occasions.

    You can't play with that. Instead, I prefer an iron with a consistent yardage disparity. In other words, if I want a 160 yard shot, I know I'm going to get it plus or minus a couple (maybe 10 on a bad day :D) yards. I can live with that.

    What I can't live with is an iron that goes plus or minus 30+ yards. That's crazy. So club up I say - and enjoy the solid consistency of a blade or players iron. I'm 55 BTW.

  5. 519166680_ScreenShot2020-09-14at3_30_43PM.png.5eb29672d46ce6dab56c0be6eda4531e.png.2dcdef116b360ab32c217a7d5228a027.png

    Like I said - it depends on how you load the shaft. The KBS Tour EI curve in red compared to the PX LZ in blue. (KBS Tour V in brown for comparison).

    It also depends on how Titleist are measuring their shafts - the KBS Tour is famously incrementally stiffer along it's length as the EI curve demonstrates quite nicely with a rather flat linear style curve. If you measure from mid point to the tip, it will be stiffer overall as Titleist suggest. The PX LZ is much stiffer initially in the tip but then dips before flattening out in the middle - it may well be measured at a lower cpm because of this contrast from tip to mid. Again, the same story plays out in the mid to butt measurement as it is stiffer it an increase towards the butt - however again the contrast could be measured as lower in cpm. Think of two stiff sections connected by a more flexible middle (like the Nunchuck). The KBS Tour on the other hand has a more lateral flex increase and flatter EI curve, meaning the difference in measured tip to mid, and mid to butt sections appear to measure stiffer in cpm. Overall butt frequency will measure as stiffer too.

    But it how the shaft profile plays that makes the difference. Smooth swingers with a smooth transition, but with an early release will see lower flight and spin than someone with a later release with the PX LZ. Harder transitions will be more thankful of the butt and tip stiffness of PX LZ in terms of launch and spin control for the same release. It all depends on the load and release how the shaft reacts. 

    Titleists graphic probably covers how average joe would expect to see it play on paper, but even they qualify it with a caveat to get fitted. You can't take everything on paper as face value if you haven't tried it for yourself. The specs are really too close to call it one way or another on overall performance. This is a classic example of this.

    • Like 3
  6. At the risk of chewing on some salty cornflakes - I would say: They are not the same shaft, they are not the same length, they are not the same loft, they are not the same weight distribution, they are not being delivered at the same AoA. It's probably and extreme difference (in your own words) because there is an extreme difference between a driver and a 3W for the factors previously mentioned. You're comparing apples to oranges, so any comparison is not really worth getting your gears ground about. 

    • Like 2
  7. They are not poles apart in terms of weight and flex, but depending on how you swing and load the shaft the results may be slightly different in launch and spin. The LZ has a stiffer tip section and slightly stiffer butt - the mid sections are very similar. The LZ would give a tad lower launch and spin, but as stated it would depend on how you load and release the shaft.

    Not sure if I would personally ditch the 3H in favour of the HMB though - the hybrid would probably offer greater forgiveness, probably greater distance and more versatility.

    The age old advice is try before you buy.

    • Like 1
  8. One thing is for certain. In 12 months, it'll be worth half the amount it originally was. So it does pose the question - is it worth the money? Probably not if it doesn't return any value - either in residual cost if you sell or performance to you if decide to keep it.  If it performs well, you could save a lot of money with patience and waiting until it's heavily discounted. So is it worth your own time?

    Equipment only really reveals it's true value when you either wish you had bought it earlier or if you owned it once and wish you still had it. 

    • Like 3
  9. On 12/9/2020 at 4:51 PM, RI_Redneck said:

    Yes, Tom's writing and videos are FAR from outdated. They actually convey information you can't get in most fitting studios. LM tech has given the golf world tons of needed information and is vital for proper fitting these days. However, IMHO, that information has overshadowed the need to pay attention to THE GOLFER and the input about the feel of the club. The numbers need to be optimal, but the feel of the club must also be right.



    Back in the day, Tom was like the oracle when it came to club fitting. His findings and principles still hold true today.

    The proliferation of the LM has certainly assisted in crunching the raw data in ball flight dynamics, but it must be noted that any LM data is historic - in other words, you get to know after you hit a shot.

    Tom pioneered the fitting of certain club heads and shafts to golfers swing style and tempo. Depending on how you swung your club, how strong the transition was, how early or late you tended to release the club - had a profound effect on which type of head and shaft you should be looking for. It came as no surprise either that the length and weight of a shaft were critical factors. 

    The subsequent LM data only served to prove how right he was - and you could see it in the dynamic results. Devices such as Trackman which could calculate the ubiquitous "smash factor" or how well you struck the ball highlighted one simple fact - hit the centre of the club face to achieve the maximum distance. The chances were for most average golfers, this was easier to achieve with a shorter than the longer "standard" shafts OEMs were selling to make the distance claims look real. This gave fitters a tremendous boost in isolating the type of shaft to suit a player from the myriad of models available. Tom was also instrumental in starting a database of shafts and their characteristics and EI curves.

    If you ever had a question about the golf club, Tom had an answer for it. The LM validated his thoughts - and then some. On the back of the tech, there is always the theory behind it: CoG, MOI, spin loft, face angle, loft, lie - you name it - Tom was ahead of the curve.

    • Like 3
  10. Do people avoid getting fitted? Yes - all the time. 

    Do they have a quantifiable reason not to? No - never. Other than:

    It's too expensive

    I don't know where to get fit

    There's no fitters near where I live

    I'm too old

    I'm too young

    My swing is not repeatable

    My swing has changed

    I'm working on my swing first

    My last set didn't work

    I don't play enough to justify it

    I play to a professional standard with OTR clubs or any clubs I choose because I'm special like that



    • Like 4
  11. 26 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

    Except for the +1/2" length on my PE2's, and +1" on my G410's, both were off-the-rack.  It stands to reason that a healthy population of players fit well to off the rack; standard length, lie, and loft.  These are "standard" for that reason.  It would make no sense for OEM's to stuff shelves with clubs that fit the tail ends of the bell curve.  I also estimate that maybe 20% of those "standard" folks would, following a competent fitting, find some adjustment to one of these specs and perhaps grip and/or grip size to be an improvement.

    This is a good point. 

    How many "stock or standard" specs are exactly as they claim? 

    It has been well documented about the tolerance levels some clubs are built to at a certain cost. Length, loft, lie, weight - you name it - are all built at some level of tolerance to be mass produced at a reasonable cost to the consumer. Not many, if at all, are what is known as "blueprinted" (do a search) - or assembled to the exact published specs. Some fitters (*ahem - others are available*) can build a set to these tolerance levels on request - or any other specification for that matter - for a cost. At least you know what you're getting. 

    Point 2 - each OEM has their own "standard" specs. This could be in length, lie and swing weight which could be totally different across brands. A lot of people refer to their irons as "+1" and 2 degrees upright" for instance, but this only relates to a known reference starting point - which as we have already established is ultimately variable. Therefore it is better to refer to a specific measured length and specific measured lie angle to compared apples to apples. Just saying...

    • Like 1
  12. Anything is possible. 

    There is a tendency however to fit "into" a stock offering (in whatever guise it comes) rather than fitting the club to yourself. There is a distinct difference.

    Of course, club OEMs will try to get their stock offerings to roughly match the largest target audience possible - and any person picking it up at first will try to adapt to fit into the stock offering. It may not "fit" with any natural physical measurements, it may not "fit" with any swing tendencies or strengths and it may not "fit" with the goal in mind for playability, course conditions or shot shape. But the human body and mind being the unique and clever thing it is will always try to adapt to meet the subtle changes necessary to meet the expectation. There are some drawbacks however - in adapting to suit, it can lead to set up and swing tendencies that are not ideal to your physical stature and strength, which if left to develop further can turn it negative swing characteristics, bad habits and ultimately frustration when it comes to consistency - the mind wants to fight the body for dominance in the swing and it can lead to over analysis leading to even more frustration and doubt.

    Fully fitted on the other hand takes this element of doubt out of the equation - leaving the mind to work in harmony with the body to produce the desired result. Natural swing and posture are complimented. If nothing else, it removes the question of "fit". You know the clubs are built to your spec, for your body and swing, so that only margin of error left is your own ability. You can't blame your tools in other words. 

    OTR? yes they can work - but there will always be that nagging doubt that "if" they were tweaked in one way or another they could be better. If you are willing to accept a tolerance level of "close enough" or "this will do" the OTR will likely meet this expectation. If you have them built to spec in the first place, the "what if" factor disappears, allowing you to concentrate on your game rather than your equipment.

    The last factor (but by no means the least significant) is personal preference. Everyone has them and the chances of finding every one of them in one OTR club are slim - there is always a specific element that attracts us to a particular club or brand, such as look at address, sole width, offset (or lack of it), shaft type, even the humble grip - but trying to get all those elements that we as individuals consciously or subconsciously prefer is....not possible without third party intervention on some level. That is not always possible with "stock"..

    • Like 2
  13. Yes - the two screws attached to the head need removing. It might be a case of the screws may have epoxy on them - but if you're heating the head anyway to remove the shaft, you could also apply direct heat to the screws to help them budge.

    The option to send the SC may be more appealing too...

    • Like 1
  14. There are 4 screws at the back that need removing - two attached to the main head for the back weight and two attached to the outer ring. This will leave the main head stripped ready for treatment - the shaft will need to be removed by heating the head gently with a blow torch to break the epoxy bond. Voila - you now have all the component parts ready for refurbishment. Shot blasting works well to remove the old paint from the head and weight.

    It's worth noting that Scotty Cameron also offer a refurbishment service by return post if you don't feel up to it.

    • Like 2
  15. 29 minutes ago, Middler said:

    Fair enough. Care to quantify? How much can lessons and practice alone improve your scoring? And how much can fitting alone improve your scoring (aside from the unfortunate minority who happen to be grossly misfit)?

    I think many people are led to unrealistic expectations re: fittings to improve their game. If you’re buying clubs anyway you might as well get fit. But as long as your clubs aren’t grossly misfit, which you can find out for free, a paid fitting and new clubs may provide a small improvement if any.

    Length isn’t primary for most of us. A fitter will recommend a 1/2” or 1” change in length, when most of us play with a range of lengths of about 9” every day, about 44” to 35” driver to wedge? By all means if you’re getting fitted to buy anyway, but crucial otherwise?

    I know quite a few single digit players who buy off the rack. But if you want to spend extra to be sure, that’s fine.

    Lessons and practice are knowledge. The beauty is, you can apply that knowledge to any set clubs you ever own in the future.

    As for fitted clubs, ever wonder how they make lessons and practice easier? Example - it's been said numerous times about the correct set up with grip, stance, ball position, alignment - before you even start your backswing - can have a tremendous influence over the outcome of a shot. Get those fundamentals correct in your set up, and you stand a pretty good chance of hitting a good shot. Question: is it easier to set up a club that is built to your physical stature and hands that one that is not?

    I think we know that answer. So you're in good shape before you even swing. Now let's pose another question: is it easier to swing a club that is balanced for feel and weight and length than one that is too heavy, too light or too short or long?

    I think we know that answer too. Final question: is it easier to return a club head squarely at impact with a club that has the correct flex and shaft profile, married to the correct face and lie angle than with a club that is too stiff/weak, with to much/little offset with the incorrect lie angle?

    Hmmm - that's a tough one. I think it might be with the fitted club?

    Can you see a pattern emerging here? As a fitter, we simple eliminate the variables which have an influence over ball flight and control them into a set of parameters that give a greater chance of success. That's just plain logic based on physics. And it's hard to argue the case otherwise.

    • Like 8
  16. The "optimal" launch parameters rely on 3 things: speed, launch angle and spin. Of the 3, speed is the most important in dictating how far a ball will travel. The other two combine to give optimal launch characteristics. That means too much launch and spin will have a negative effect on total distance, just as too little launch and not enough spin will also cost you yards. Speed - you can never get enough for total distance.

    If you experiment with the Flightscope trajectory optimiser here:


    ....you can begin to see how launch parameters effect distance - and how spin isn't the bad guy all the time.


    • Like 1
  17. Just about all of the top OEMs offer a custom fitting system to get the right club or clubs in your hands to get the most out of them. When you think about it, the more OEMs can get their equipment to fit the potential end user, the better it makes them look as a brand. Every brand has their reputation at stake if the BS doesn't match with the performance.

    First comes market coverage. OEMs will always gravitate towards equipment components that fit a wide spectrum of golfers - it's not much use to offer high-end or niche shafts that only fit a small portion of potential customers. Much better to have a shaft that fits 25% of the market population than one that fits 10% of the market. This is also aimed at cost and market trends. For this very reason, left handed golf clubs for instance are produced is much fewer quantities - simply because the target audience is smaller. Some OEMs won't even offer some options in lefty as there is either no market or profitability in it.

    Secondly comes "options". This is sometimes free with some purchases but it also comes in the ubiquitous form of "upgrades" which the end user is well advised to try before buying to see if the cost is worth the potential benefit. A $300 shaft "upcharge"  is only worth the cost if it outweighs the "standard" or zero charge shaft by a long margin.

    Lastly is integration. Do the woods offering fit in with hybrids? Do the hybrids compliment the irons? Do the game improvement irons fit in with the distance gapping of the players irons? Are the wedges matching or available? Can all of these be ordered at request? Pretty much all the major OEMs offer this kind of options with their range of clubs. You just need to make an informed choice of which brands suits your eye, your needs and your wallet. Demo days and "tour truck' visits are made for this kind of try before you buy sales pitch.

    The long story short is "off the rack" is not really going to fit anyone specifically, but is engineered to "fit' an imaginary average golfer who will pay for a product without seeking any adjustment or optimisation for their physique and swing. If you can live with that proposal then fine. If you're looking for something more bespoke that can help improve or enhance your game, then you need to look beyond OTR and get fitted.

    I really have no idea of why so many people are reluctant to get fitted. The cost isn't really that prohibitive (as discussed some options are free with some purchases), the pro is not going to ask you to strip naked and laugh (honest) and the potential improvements are massive. In fact, can you give one reason why buying OTR is better? I didn't think so.

    • Like 3
  18. 48 minutes ago, Kanoito said:

    It's not much to ask, but are YOU willing to pay for that service?

    And this is where the penny drops.

    Club fitting, just like many other businesses are a simple time and materials proposal. You pay for my time and the components I provide.

    Sure, I could give you the full works from grip to toe on everything that could make a difference to your game - but by the time we had finished around 2 days would have passed and you would be looking at bill that would be more than double the cost of an OTR set.

    If you want to try out every conceivable shaft and head combination that is available to see what works - that'll be another 180 days +.  In the meantime, my electricity, insurance, rent and tax is still due which is covered under my laughably slim margin.

    I usually invite millionaires into the fitting studio with open arms, but even they have limits about what to expect when paying for a service. And frankly, I don't have time to spend with time wasters.

    • Like 7
  • Create New...