jaskanski

Three points to be made here. First off, no shaft is ever the "engine" of any golf club. You, the person swinging the club is the engine. The shaft is merely the "transmission" along which the energy is transferred. Secondly, it's now 2018. Gone are the days when "made for" shafts were of a lower quality and of dubious performance. At the end of the day, club OEM's carefully select the shaft to best compliment the greatest target audience to the club - that is the best overall average which will sell the biggest units. Not some junk shaft that will be a flop to the majority of golfing abilities. The handcrafted shaft might fit a small proportion of golfers who can discern a advantage into using it, but bear in mind the cost to performance ratio is used up by the labour utilised to make it - the extra expense is not necessarily a superior product in terms of tolerance, specification or performance. Third and last - to get the best out of any driver, a fitting is a MUST. Once you have a shaft to head combination that has been optimised to fit you, then any talk of superior products simply do not apply - because by definition, there can't be any.

If you have the mental ability to focus, then any other distraction is fine - including friendly chit chat. If on the other hand you're in your own bubble and seldom make even eye contact with your opponent, then you at least need to be courteous - especially when you lose. Personally, I tend to think that either stance seldom changes the outcome - so it is usually best to choose the option that gives the most satisfaction - for me, that it is a friendly chat. After all, it is just a game folks. Right, Curtis?

Roughly in order of appearance... Macgregor JNP Ram Tour Grind Mizuno MP 14 Tommy Armour 845 Ping Eye 2 Cobra Greg Norman Forged Ran FX Tour Forged Titleist 990 Titleist762 Cobra Norman Grind CB Taylormade Tour Burner Ping S59 Tour Titleist 690.CB Mizuno MP 33 Mizuno MP 52 Titleist 690MB Titleist 690.MB Ping S56 Titleist 660 Titleist 710MB Titleist AP2 710 Titleist AP2 712 Titleist AP2 716 Titleist 690.MB (again lol) Taylormade Tour Preferred MC 2014 (present) It's probably fair to say that the 690's are my favourites, but I never really had a club I didn't like. They all had their own subtle qualities that you have to game to appreciate. The current MC's were a surprise, but thus far have lived up to their reputation.

Well no - you are probably confusing club path with face angle, which are two different things. The weighting in any specific area (e.g. heel or toe) of a club is to lessen the tendency to twist for off centre strikes. This is basic kinetics and MOI in action. If however the swing path and face angle are hopelessly out of sync (usually as a result of a poor swing) then all the weighting in the head to combat twisting is a complete waste of time. So apply weighting to get your club path and face angle correct first by all means - whether by swing weighting or MOI matching to achieve this - but don't expect any discretionary weight placement to have any effect on off-centre strikes before you have your face angle relative to your club path first.

Yeah - some of those older Gibsons sure were heavy beasts with all that mahogany. Wouldn't mind picking up one again for old times sake though.

I used to have a 72 Les Paul but sold it some time ago - big mistake, but I needed the money. I now have a Fender Telecaster blacktop, which is a little gem of a guitar and very capable of many different tones and styles. And it isn't quite a PITA to keep in tune like the old Les Paul was - but I guess you never quite lose the liking for an old classic. A bit like golf clubs I guess.

Because weight in the hosel is useless - it doesn't form any striking part of the clubhead and creates an unnecessary mass away from the centre of the club face. The problem is, hosels are necessary to attach a shaft to the head (although Callaway among others created zero hosel designs) and it makes altering loft and lie a lot easier. It is true the driver designs are more sensitive to weight adjustment than irons for the reasons outlined by chersey, but it's worth noting that it takes a lot (and I mean a LOT) of weight positioning before you can alter ball flight. Discretionary weight positioning can enhance swing path and strike tendencies, but they can't fix or alter ball flight to the extent that it will straighten out a hook or slice. Another point to note is that length plays a role in weight placement. As you get longer ( a driver the extreme example) then small amounts of weight adjustment to the head will dramatically alter swing weight and flex. As you get shorter, the same weight is less noticeable. Lead tape is still the easiest quick and dirty way to alter (add) swing weight for any club, but don't go thinking that putting it heel or toe will dramatically alter the MOI or CoG of the club -it won't.

The stock weight is 10 or 12g depending on the shaft option. The SF Tec is heel weighted as it is, so any increase in weight will merely increase the static swing weight and weaken the flex slightly. It won't fix a swing fault which causes slices and fades. I'm guessing this is your problem, since you would hardly be using a draw bias driver if you tend to hook the ball. Increasing the loft will help close the club face to promote a straighter flight for a slightly out to in swing path, but there is nothing you can do to correct a classic slice by any means of club adjustability. You need to fix the swing fault instead.

Graphite will degrade eventually (mostly due to UV radiation) but the amount of stress needed to cause the plys to break down is generally a lot more than the average swing. I've got some graphite shafts that are over 10 years old and still perfectly playable. I don't dispute that many pros change out their shafts on a regular basis, but they are probably paying zilch for the privilege and even if they aren't, they normally have enough coin not to worry about the cost.

Get fit for your wedges as you would your irons - simple. What makes wedge fitting more critical though is loft - the lie is much more prone to affect ball flight and direction the higher loft gets, so wedge fitting is a must. The sole will interact with the ground more than any other club, so fitting is critical. The wedge will tend to be opened and closed in play more than any other club so fitting is critical. Lastly, wedges will tend to have a different shaft than your irons, be a different brand, be different in length progression, be heavier in weight and will have a completely different CoG. So guess what? Stop listening to anecdotal evidence on what you should be doing. Get fitted for wedges.

I wouldn't read too much into it. For the record, True Temper probably has the most confusing and contradictory shaft designation and naming system known to man.

There are basically two schools of thought on ball position relative to club. One is a constant ball position in the stance regardless of club type and length, the other is progressively moving the ball back in the stance from driver to wedge. Both have proven validity, but only one has the advantage of being easier to replicate from shot to shot. For this reason alone (and maybe because some of the most successful golfers of all time also used this technique) I tend to favour the constant ball position. If I need to move the ball in the air I may alter the ball position slightly, but for the majority of shots the single ball position proposal works just fine. For the amateur and higher index players out there, a set up routine that eliminates any errors prior to the backswing (i.e. grip, stance, alignment, ball position) are the fundamental building blocks of hitting better shots. If you don't already possess a set up routine that takes this key requirement into consideration, then the constant ball position theory certainly makes this a lot easier to perfect.

Sure it can. To be honest, ANY shaft that is INCORRECT in terms of length, weight, flex, bend point, etc will cause any sort of erratic or bad shot in any direction. Combine this with ill fitting equipment in terms of loft, lie and weight distribution and you have a potential recipe for disaster. That is why the only real way to tell if you have the correct shaft and/or equipment is to get fitted.

Well the development of interchangeable weights has certainly helped in letting golfers attain their ideal swingweight - whatever that may be. Some like it really heavy, some like it really light. Modern drivers can be adjusted to suit most tastes and specifications, so no matter what the finished length and the component mass is, the swing weight preference can be achieved. Where you start to run into problems is when you try to alter a build that has been engineered to feel and perform in a certain way. From this point, you have no other option but to completely overhaul the build and make the length swing weight and flex perform as you would like it. I don't really think that D4 for example is any kind of ideal balance - it's just a figure you tend to end up with when the components are largely similar. For example, the driver head size is limited to 460cc so the head mass is usually very similar provided the head construction is the same - composite materials and thinner walls are all very well but the total discretionary mass has to be moved somewhere to make the ball flight dynamics work. No surprise it tends to end up low to assist in making ball flight easier with lower spin - they end up within a few grams of each other. Shafts tend to be similar in mass distribution (although there are plenty of counter-balanced shafts) and in finished OTR length, combined with similar grip spec and you tend to end up with D4 - not by design but by good old coincidence. If you take the example of a shorter driver with a smaller head size, the SLDR Mini comes in at D3 in standard spec. It's important to remember that the swing weight scale is merely a representation of mass distribution along the length of a club and naturally different people will have a different perception of how a club "feels" when it is swung. Some are very sensitive to changes in swing weight and balance and can detect very small changes from their preferred set up. Others can't tell a difference if you added 5 points. So regardless of what the swing weight scale actually says, the player still has the overall decision on what feels the best.

The answer is no, so long as the shafts are the same balance point. Swingweight is basically an expression of the balance of the total club - not an expression of the total mass. If you add weight to the head the swing weight will go up, but the length and overall mass of the club will also have an effect on the overall balance of the club. As soon as you cut down any club, the swing weight drops because the mass has to be shifted further back to achieve the same balance point. It doesn't seem like a big deal when cutting a club down an inch or two, but when you realise the effect it has on the point of the club that is furthest away from your body when you swing it (i.e. the club head), then it is the most important swingweight component to get right. On the other end of the club, the swingweight change is less noticeable because the fulcrum is now nearer the body (i.e. your hands), so grip mass is less critical perhaps, but still has the same effect on the total balance of the club. The point is, it's less discernible to the senses when you swing the club, as opposed to the head which is very discernible when you swing the club. The swing weight merely describes how the total mass is distributed along the total length of the club, not how the individual components mass are calculated. So it's possible to have a heavy shaft with a shorter length to have a lower swing weight than a much lighter shaft with more length.

You loose 3 swingweight points for each 0.5" you shorten the club - so for 2" you'll be loosing quite a substantial 12 points, which would take a D4 down to a C2 for example. To restore swingweight, you need to add approx 2g of weight for each point so you'll be looking at 24g minimum to get the swingweight back. Not too difficult with interchangeable weights but you run into further problems - shaft cpm and flex are affected with each amount of weight you add (or subtract) so adding 24g could weaken the shaft flex by a full flex, meaning it will also possibly ruin the feel of the club too. Always factor in what you will end up with before making any alterations to a club, especially when you are taking parts of it away. The best compromise would be to choke down on the club with your grip and remove less from the butt if you really have to. Check to see the results before cutting anything.

As a general rule of thumb (but by no means an absolute) aftermarket shafts are usually targeted towards "known specifics" of a golf swing and a golf club spec. This means that if someone is looking for a specific shaft characteristic in terms of weight, kick, FCM, bendpoint and feel etc, it can normally be found and utilised in the assembly of a particular club for a particular swing. The more specific and exotic the search criteria is, this may be directly related to the unit cost. The problem is, consumers normally relate cost with quality and performance - i.e. the higher the cost the better the shaft must be. This is totally false. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of very good quality "aftermarket" shafts out there that cost less than 50 bucks and if sited to your requirements they will be more than a match for anything 10 times the cost. You just need to find the right shaft - this means finding a decent fitter. Many unscrupulous "boutiques" will tend to steer you towards some high-end shaft for a hefty upchage and bamboozle you with anecdotes about how shaft X is the best that money can buy. Use your BS filter accordingly. What I can say is that many stock shafts are indeed one and the same as the aftermarket version or at the very least just as good in quality and performance as the perceived "better aftermarket version". This is 2017 folks - the days of the top OEM's using any old junk to sell their claims of performance are long gone - they must indeed walk the walk they're talking. Back in the day of early graphite shaft production, then there could well have been a justifiable case for aftermarket being a lot better than stock shafts, but not today. Unfortunately, too many people still believe in what their peers told them some years ago and try to "buy" a game. I'm here to tell you right now, that money would be better spent on lessons to get better results. YMMV.

Agreed. I suspect they are formulating their own brand of whisky as we speak.

Point taken, but I never said theirs was the best. Unlike the OP, who's premise suggests that Miura are the best in the business. Whatever.

What makes you think they're the "best in the business"? Because someone else told you they were? Their irons are probably sold more on reputation rather than actual playability. The same could be said for Rolex watches or Rolls Royce cars - great products but are they any better than anything else for their purpose? The putter thing is probably the same. The irons have a reputation, the putters don't. Likewise, Jack Daniels make great whiskey but their barbecue sauce sucks. There's no reason for any product to fit with consumer recognition or "loyalty" based on the name or product awareness alone, but if Miura made shaving cream, then some schmuck would buy it based on their perception of the marque.

I thought it was about time I uploaded my witb, so I finally found some spare time to do so... All Titleist and all pretty much old school... Driver - 983K 10.5 Fujikura Fit On 11 six tour spec stiff 3 wood - 980F 15 Grafalloy Prolite 3.5 stiff other wood - 975F 20.5 Grafalloy Prolite 3.5 stiff 3 iron - 990 DG S200 stiff soft stepped 4-PW 690.MB DG S300 SW - 54 10 jokey SM4 LW - Custom grind Vokey 200 58.5 Putter - Newport 2 Studio Stainless The patented Jaskanski wedge system . The lobber is basically a hand ground 258-08 with uber relief so it can be flopped open from virtually any lie. The leading edge is razor sharp too. Originally a 59 degree but tweaked to 58.5. The 200 series was as good as it gets IMHO, but sadly no longer conforming. Not that I care that much - my competitive golfing days are far behind me these days. Occasionally I'll swap it out for an SM4 L grind 60. Odd man out is a 990 3-iron. I used to use a 690MB 2-iron, but the softened set up of the 3, combined with a 7wood/hybrid type set up offers more versatility to my old bones. The 2-iron still gets an outing on windy links though..690 irons are my all-time favourite and pretty easy to obtain when they (eventually) wear out. I think this is my 5th set. Dowelled and Sensicored for added feel. Other sets have come and gone, but these irons are the best. The old 975F was a classic. Great sole for playability from tricky lies and rough, it's virtually like a modern hybrid. Nice flight without too much spin and not a hook machine like some hybrids. Putter is a Newport 2 stainless that's been through the custom shop - lime green grip and cavity paint work mods, but other than that pretty much standard 34". There you have it - a bag for the "traditionalist" I guess, but still one which works against just about anything available today

A simple wooden tee peg has about 20 uses as a training aid that I can think of.

Good news indeed. It's also nice to know your fitter is a decent fellow and suggests the best "fit" was the one you already have - unlike so many other "fitters" who are only interested in selling you clubs with expensive shafts.

I wish I had a penny for every OEM that contradicted what they said about the previous years model with it's current model. In the case of Tmag, I guess that would make me pretty rich. But if I also had an additional penny for every piece of internet info passed off as wisdom from a self-proclaimed expert, then I would probably need to quit my day job too. If you think that CoG location can radically transform your game, then I see no reason not to explore that avenue and come to your own conclusion. The point is, that is what most OEM's are counting on too.

Guys, the point is - there is a big difference between being fitted for real and fitting a robot. What I mean by that is it's a lot easier to crunch launch numbers at an imaginary ideal that a robot could achieve - a set amount of figures that promote "optimal" distance. However, in the real world the only thing that is consistent is inconsistency itself. That means if even a robot hit 20 shots, not one of them would be identical. The odd dimple or minute anomaly in the ball makes the difference. For a human however, this inconsistency is a much broader margin. The swing is not as repeatable, the face angle is not identical - and neither is the dynamic loft, spin, speed etc. This leads to a wide set of figures which are then thinned down using mean, median and mode mathematics which give an overall "average" picture of trends, traits and baselines. The disparity in these trends depends on the ability of the golfer and the fit of the clubs. The fitters job is to find the best set of clubs to give the best chance of matching those trends to a launch "window" - an imaginary spot in the sky where it would be "ideal" to launch a ball through. The size of the window depends again on the ability of the golfer and the fit of the clubs - e.g. an accomplished golfer would hit a wider window more successfully with a better fitting set of clubs. The wider the launch window, the less "optimal" the figures become, but the easier it is to launch through it. The more the figures trend towards "optimal", the smaller the launch window becomes and the ability to reach it. It's that simple. Where CoG fits into that proposal is within the small window - the attainable by ability and fit, but by no means will CoG ever make the launch window bigger, or will make it any easier to hit. That is difference between fitting a human and getting a set of numbers to fit your argument. Either one will work eventually, but the latter simply doesn't happen often enough to be of use to any golfer of any ability. It's all very easy to look at 10 shots on Trackman with one club and compare them with 10 shots with another, but anyone who considers themselves "fitted" after this process must have no idea of what a fitting entails. It cannot be achieved by hitting balls into a net at a superstore either. It takes a lot of analysis of a lot of shots with the human eye - before launch data even gets involved. Golf is a sport played by humans - and it takes a human to decipher human nature. The LM data is just there to prove what the ball did.