jaskanski
-
Posts
1,047 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
FAQ
Tests
Classifieds
Store
Group Buys
Posts posted by jaskanski
-
-
anything that isn't tip stiff
-
I'm using the Bridgestone Tour B RXS.
Unlike many others when it comes to fitting a ball into their game, I like to work from the putter backwards, so if it feels good off the putter, chips well around the green, spins on wedge and approach shots, consistent flight, trajectory and distance off the irons, and last of all and least important (relatively from my perspective) driver distance - it checks the boxes. Pricepoint compared to others is an added bonus, so it's an easy win for me for now.
-
4 minutes ago, Josh Parker said:
It's a great baseline and very helpful in targeting a certain type of ball.
100% - there's no reason 'on paper' why I ended up using the ball I do from the test results which ranked it as decidely average, but it's what I like and what works best for me. Bridgestone Tour B RXS won out against the AVX. Go figure.
-
Exactly. Better to test the ball for yourself to see how it reacts. For me, it's all about feel and spin at 35 yards. I'm not discrediting the test or methodology which is very helpful in target golf ball selection, but when it comes to picking your gamer, only self discernment will truly get you to a final choice.
-
Besides - I think the test methodology pretty much admits this is the least accurate of all the tests:
35-Yard Wedge
The wedge portion of the test was designed to replicate a greenside shot of 35 yards. Rather than calibrate to specific launch and spin targets, we configured the robot to hit the calibration ball approximately 35 yards (total).
Test ParametersTest Averages (All Balls)
Club Used: PXG Sugar Daddy II 56°Total Distance: 37.3
Swing Speed: 37 mphBall Speed: 39.6
Calibration Launch Angle Target: n/aLaunch Angle: 37.3
Calibration Spin Target: n/aSpin: 5,489
-
Apologies - I didn't look at the data set - I was just going on the comments of the OP.
But now i have seen the data set - is it flawed because of the filters that you can apply? In addition, roll out is a very inexact science as friction (with the ground, the ball and gravity) comes into play with cover material and dimple pattern having some effect on this in terms of initial ball speed (off the face) and residual ball speed when the ball started to roll out and what sort of 'bounce' the ball had on first landing (nobody ever measures this metric). The speed the ball was rolling at (forwards once spin/bounce had depleted), relative friction between the two surfaces (the ball and the ground) will determine the roll out distance to some extent.
That's my guess anyway. But I tend to hit balls for myself to see what they feel like and how they react rather than relying on data which (as we've seen in this scenario) can be interpreted with a pinch of salt.
-
That data set set is pretty meaningless and incomplete without ballspeed and launch angle. Or the quality of the strike - particulrly on short wedge shots.
-
I voted the Ryder Cup. Not that I don't like the Masters, but if there's one thing that it doesn't have, it's a history that pre-dates the other majors - or the Ryder Cup...
-
If you fancy something different, try a Gurkha. This particular one is a treinta (30th anniversary) robusto.
Delicate, subtle and delicious. If you're looking for the perfect cigar to go with afternoon tea and a slice of cake, look no further.
-
1. Woodhall Spa Hotchkin
2. Walton Heath Old
3. Carnoustie
4. Ballybunion Old
5. Bethpage Black
6. Royal North Devon
7. Royal County Down
8. Sunningdale Old
9. Wentworth West (pre 2004)
10. Pebble Beach
Honourable mentions to Bandon Dunes, Royal Troon, Royal St. Georges and St. Andrews Eden
-
If competitive golf is getting you down - give up competitive golf. For me, the pleasure of golf as a sport, or receational hobby or whatever lies in the enjoyment of the game - period. If you're struggling to enjoy it, then take a step back and figure out why you first took up golf in the first place. If it was purely for the winning, then you've probably missed the point. For me, everytime I step out on to a golf course, or even to casually hit balls at the range - is a win. Golf is it's own reward and it belongs to everyone who wants to make it that way. That's just my opinion - I hope you find your mojo in one form or another in the near future.
- Larryd3, cnosil, mbrodeur86 and 2 others
-
5
-
Ping JAS Anser WTi
-
I hate to say it, but everything about them looks wrong. The script on the back is wrong, the sole number stamp is wrong (it's looks cast rather than stamped) the sole profile is wrong and just about every Australian Blade I've ever seen had a straight muscle shelf rather than this profile - which looks like a knock off from the same ilk as the 690 clones that crop up now and then. I could be wrong, as there were a lot of different models in the Australian Blade history line, but these are just too similar to the 690's, that they probabaly came from the same fake factory and where they have the same casting moulds as the Titleist clones.
-
-
Perdomo Resrve 10th Annisversary Maduro Robusto. And black coffee. Not a bad combo before settling down to watch the Scottish Open.
- Headhammer and No3PuttLaLa
-
2
-
3 hours ago, DoubleBogeyDad said:
@jaskanski very nice! Is it punched? Or a v-cut that's just off frame?
It's a punch - didn't want to risk spoiling the cap with a cut.
-
HDM Epicure No.2. A quality smoke that is worth the extra. Enjoyed it to the nub.
-
Certainly a lot nicer bunch of folk on here than any other the other forums.
- TENBUCK, GolfSpy_APH and T.Sibley
-
3
-
The weights used in Ping i20's are a sort of plastic and tungsten combo if I recall. Adding lead tape to fill the gap may seem like a quick and dirty option, but without knowing the true weight of what came out, replacing with lead tape could be problematic. I guess you could swingweight an existing iron with a weight in it and try to match the swingweight with lead tape or a similar solution, but the overall density of the amount required may throw out the key MOI placement the weight port was also designed for - not just for swigweight adjustment. I would be inclined to wait a while and let Ping sort them out, but there's nothing wrong with trying out a reversible solution in the meantime to see how they play out.
-
The general rule of thumb for iron shafts is to go with the most flexible shaft you can comfortably control. If you're between Regular and Stiff, that would probably mean going to Regular and seeing if your dispersion is acceptable.
The Regular shaft may help somewhat with distance, but if you've slowed down your swing anyway your distance will suffer as a result. For overall distance, ball speed is still king. No shaft will instantly give you more ball speed - the person swinging the club is responsible for generating that element. But a more flexible shaft may help in achieving this in your swing.
Best of luck in your golf game.
-
1 hour ago, LICC said:
What point are you trying to make, bringing up tournaments when the courses were 700 yards shorter and the setups were not as you described that you want to see?
The point is - there is no point in rolling back the ball which is the topic of this discussion. Any player has the ability on their day to demolish any course if allowed to. The ball has nothing to do with it.
Maybe we should roll back the players? Like maybe make Bryson to wear a lead glove and an eye patch?
-
6 minutes ago, LICC said:
Was Winged Foot set up that way in 2020?
There is no strategy in targeting a small landing area. Hit the one available spot you're good, miss and you're not. That is not strategy.
Was the Masters set up that way in 1976 when Ray Floyd posted 271? Or Jack in 1965? Was St Andrews set up that way when Curtis Srange shot a 62 in 1987?
I'm sorry, but your reasoning has no relevance or logic. Dechabeau's strategy other than bombing everything he can is what exactly? Did it work out for him at the Masters with his 'strategy'?
-
2 minutes ago, LICC said:
So more woods and irons off the tee... boring. This is about keeping strategy and challenge in the game. Not about leveling the field.
There has always been strategy and challenge in the game. The trouble is, in the professionall game, the way that courses have been set up with slick fairways and little real protection of any note, the driver bomb and gouge tactic has become a dumb reach no brainer. Take that option off the table, no matter what ball you're using you have more strategic options.
-
2 minutes ago, chisag said:
... To be fair the rule has nothing to do with leveling the playing field. Golfers that hit the ball farther should have an advantage! Just like golfers that putt well have an advantage on Tour speed greens. It has nothing to do with "relative bias" and everything to do with protecting many of the old established curses as well as courses that will be built in the future.
Correct - that's essentially what I said. If the longer hitter has an advantage anyway, then why roll the back distance to whatever limit - they still have an advantage!
Like I said - if you want to protect courses, then do something about courses - without adding length naturally...
Help Please!!!
in Golf Balls/Shafts/Grips
Posted · Edited by jaskanski
I'm not entirely convinced that the ball is the primary culprit for increased spin. A lot depends on where you're hitting it on the clubface, regardless of AoA. For modern drivers where shaft lengths exceed 45.5" an all too typical strike pattern is the slight low heel, purely because the shaft is too long if it hasn't been fitted properly. See attached chart of how much spin increases with only a relatively modest off center hit - the low heel (even with twist face TM) is your enemy here. If you have the launch data, it could help to validate this theory.