jaskanski
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
FAQ
Tests
Classifieds
Store
Group Buys
Posts posted by jaskanski
-
-
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...
-
Let's put the whole ball roll back into perspective - how many actual pros fall into the category of 'they're just too darn long' ? Maybe 80-90 at best? Lest's say above average Rory McIlroy needs his average 326 yards rolled back to 300 yards to 'protect' courses. That means a ball that will (on average) travel 26 yards less - which is around 8%.. Another pro who hits on average 300 yards, now has their disatnce cut down to 276 yards (the same 8%) - so who still has an adavatage? Yup - Rory. The whole ball roll back is a total nonsense that doesn't create a level playing field - it just creates a new relative bias. And it's the same relative bias that existed 50 years ago. You hit it longer than the next guy - you have an advantage (provided you can keep it in play). Simple solution - make it more difficult to keep it in play (without adding excess course length) by using strategic run off areas of rough, ditches, hazards, whatever, to mean there is no advantage whatsoever to hitting in excess of 320 yards, because you'll either be OOB, in rough (and I mean rough), in water, in a bunch of trees, or in a hazard which is no easy escape. It's totally doable (with the possible exception of ANGC) because it's how courses used to be before everyone on tour got some sort of sense of entitlement that courses need to look like contender for a beauty pageant. They don't - but all you hear about is pros whining about how difficult it is to break par on a course with an element of difficulty beyond it's length. Welcome to our world pro buddy, welcome. Just use the same ball and suck it up. That's the whole original point of golf rules right?
-
The whole 'bifurcation' and roll back discussion is an age old discussion that can probably date back to the 1960's - when a few of the more powerful players could easily out drive anybody else on a given day.
Fast forward to today and little has changed - apart from golf courses themselves which a far too manicured for their own good.
With regards to the debate then and now - lengthening courses and restricting golf balls has the same effect - it still gives the longer players the same advantage. It still doesn't take into acount the amount of 'average' hitters would have picked up major wins and the amount of 'above average' hitters who miss cuts. It's an issue that doesn't need fixing nor does it need an 'fix' that plays into the hands of the very same palyers who the ruling bodies claim to have some sort of an unfair advantage.
Same equipment for all, otherwise it isn't golf as I know and grew up playing it. Sure, it woulf be great to see tour pros of today using 42" steel shafted wooden headed divers with balata balls - but the game has moved on since then and so has everyone else who tees it up on a casual basis who abide by the same set of rule rules as everyone else in the world. The elephant in the room is still talent - some have it more than others and that's the way it always has been since whenver golf was invented.
-
If you've been playing Mizuno for a while, it's hard to find anything that beats them for feel and quality at a reasonable price point.
I'd suggest a trip down to Bearwood Lakes for a fitting session:
https://www.bearwoodlakes.co.uk/the-course/coaching-and-fitting/
It's a Performance Fitting Centre which is a plus and the swing DNA system takes a lot of the BS out of shaft selection. Loads of options and great bunch of guys.
Alternative Performance Fitting Centres can also be found here:
- DStar, GolfSpy_APH and tony@CIC
-
3
-
The AV Raw basically takes the concept from the previous Tensei series and stiffens up the tip profile further. The downside is the weight goes up slightly from like for like previous specs. On the plus side, the feel is not sacrificed by the increase in tip stabilty, and there are more TX rebar flex options if you are a high ball speed / fast tempo player. The see thru butt section makes it look rather stunning to show the metalised fiber weave as well. One for fashion conscious ball crusher.
- AH1980MN and GolfSpy_APH
-
2
-
The best golf tip is that there aren't really that many good golf tips - but you have to listen to an awful lot of golf tips until you find that out...
Seriously though, there will always be golf balls, golf clubs and golf courses - the only downside is one day there won't be another day, so enjoy it while you can.
-
I guess the 3 biggest mistakes are measure, measure and measure.
Tip sizes, bore sizes, butt width - don't take anything as written - measure it.
Head weight, shaft weight, grip weight, any weight - measure it.
Length, loft, lie, bounce, offset, face angle - measure it.
As for flex, cpm, bend point, etc - oh boy....don't make me explain it again.
-
As a general rule of thumb, hard-stepping a shaft once makes it 1/3 stiffer in flex. To get to the next flex category (ie Regular in this case) you would effectively need to hard step 3 times (ie using for example the 8-ron shaft in the 5-iron) which would mean you will be found wanting for more shafts in the lower irons.
The other problem is length if these existing shafts have previously been trimmed to length for their respective iron#.
If tip trimming to get the flex to where you need to be, you run into problems with the available parallel tip section you may have and with a weight as you lose it with the trimming.
These are just some of the issues you may encounter when considering a hard-step. For this very reason - and for the same reason shafts come in different flex categories in the first place - I always say get the right weight, length and flex shaft in the first place and build a set accordingly. If you try to make something out of something it wasn't really intended to be in the first place, you get problems.
The takeaway is if you want Regular, buy Regular - not Soft Regular.
-
Saddened to hear the news of Tom Weiskopf's passing aged 79.
That swing - a thing of beauty. RIP Tom.
- Paul Hedrick, ryan.mzzz and Kenny B
-
3
-
If you hit every club in your bag high, the chances are it's not going to to cured by a shaft change. This is probably one of the most common self-diagnosis for high ball hitting high handicappers, because they think a stiffer, 'low spin-low launch' shaft will be a silver bullet for their problem. It won't.
Go and see a pro and get them to look at your swing first before making any further decisions on what is or isn't the right equipment.
So-called 'fitters' who recommend one product on the basis of a few swings are basically no different to you guessing what is a good fit either. Don't try to work it out for yourself, because you will ultimately waste time and money and end up with frustration. if you play golf on a golf course, which is near where you normally play, or where you travel to play, there will be a professional to help you. Personally, I don't buy the 'there's no one near me' excuse because it basically states that you can't be bothered to make the effort to find the answer.
- cnosil, null and RickyBobby_PR
-
3
-
Just dropped the venerable Titleist 975F 20.5 degree back into the bag - ousting a 2021 Mizuno CLK 3H.
The old 975 is just money at the moment.
-
https://mygolfspy.com/review-dynamic-gold-dg-pro-iron-shafts/
The write up on the DG Pro is pretty good.
Comparing DG to PX has been done to death really and if you don't know either shaft and it's profile, you really don't know golf. A simple trip to any club fitting (and DON'T tell me there isn't one anywhere near you in the continent of Northern America) will make it easy to compare these two shafts which are still the two most popular iron shafts worldwide by a significant margin. Period.
-
Yes they do.
-
-
Not many!
It used to be Grafalloy Prolaunch Red in driver, 3wood and 3H and then Dynamic Gold for everything else - even the putter.
Fast frorward to now and it's Hzardus Smoke RDX Black in driver and 3 wood, Mitsubishi Tensei CK Blue in 3H and same DG in everything else.
-
Grafalloy Prolaunch Red Original. Pure stability in motion and a nice tip stiff profile makes for ideal numbers for me on the trajectory I like to play for links golf.
The only thing that comes close is HZADUS Smoke RDX Black which is also on my current rotation depending on head/loft in play.
- JohnSmalls, Shapotomous and MGoBlue100
-
2
-
1
-
I think the generic flared tip was 0.382" but Acushnet made quite a few different Bullseye models with subtle differences (at least 20) so depending on what is stamped on the putter, it could be an odd size. But 0.382" flared tip is a good bet.
-
Oh boy. If there's one question that gets asked more times about a shaft than any other, then this is right up there.
As previously mentioned, it's weight sorted to a greater tolerance than the "regular" Dynamic Gold shaft - +/- 0.5g is the usual tolerance, but it's also important to discern the reason behind it.
Back in the day when True Temper developed the original veneral "Dynamic" shaft, it instantly made a positive impact with players both on the pro circuit and the amateur ranks. When it was noticed that some inconsistencies could be perceived on mass produced sets of shafts, True Temper further devolped the shaft by weight sorting them to a higher tolerance - at the time about +/- 2g for each flex category. This weight sorting was where the term "Dynamic Gold" came from - it was the basic same production batch of shafts but sorted to give better weight tolerance between each shaft and hence give better consistency - remembering in discrete sets of irons with taper tip .355" it's a constant weight shaft and in constant length parallel tip .370" blanks it has the same starting weight (until you trim it).
Fast forward to the modern era when taper tip became the preferred norm for club manufacturers (for ease of assembly tolerances and labour techiniques to trim to length) it was noticed on the advanced ranks of precision club building that the DG shaft could be further refined by weight sorting it even finer to the +/- 0.5g that custom built SETS could benefit from. That's right - SETS.
The whole point of building (and more accurately blueprinting) sets of irons to a high tolerance is to ensure the flex progression between each descending length iron remains as constant as possible. It's pretty pointless to have just 1 Tour Issue iron shaft in a set (eg a wedge?) because it won't be matched to anything else in terms of flex. For Dynamic Gold weight = flex in pure and simple terms. If it's heavier than it's next counterpart shaft, the flex will be stiffer - eg a 130g shaft will be stiffer than a 129g shaft - even from the same flex category of S300. At 134g it becomes S400 - stiffer still.
So when a set is built to a tight tolerance in terms of every component that goes to make it - head, shaft, grip - even the ferrule, the glue or whatever - it's flex can be guaranteed to be more consistent for each given shaft. Hence the reason why Tour Issue shafts were (at least originally) sold only in matched tolerance sets. Each shaft in the set of 8 were weight matched to be within 0.5g of each other. Ironically, it didn't mean different Tour Issue sets were matched the within 0.5g of any other set - only individual matched sets were guaranteed to be on spec - so if you're using one shaft from one matched set batch and using another from a different batch, watch out because it won't be on the same tolerance simply because TT don't have the resources (or the stock for that matter) to weight sort every single shaft they produce. It only weight sort shafts into sets of 8 from a broader spectrum of +/- 2g shafts!
Still with me? Here's the final piece of truth - if you build a set of without paying attention to the same level of tolerance than the Tour Issue can provide (ie 0.5g) then you've probably wasted your money because in order to get the best out of a weight matched set, you also need to weight match everything you're using (remember the heads, grips, glue etc) to take advantage of the flex consistency on offer. Blueprinting is the concept to build to this level of accuracy and will provide a great set of irons. Don't even start talking about spine aligning to get frequencies to match because that's a whole different can o' worms and the stories of the "Tour Issue screen lables are only applied after shafts have been spine aligned" are equal bunk. But we like to play what the pros play right?
- cnosil and JohnSmalls
-
2
-
Yet another case of too little too late. For those with shorter memories, it wasn't that long ago when the average driver length was 42" and the average shaft weight was 100g+ and the average driver size was sub 370cc.
Just like any other sport where strict guidelines where pushed to their logical extremes in their search for a competitive edge, shafts gained length and dropped in weight, with head sizes maxing out at 460cc once the RB's cottoned on to the dramatic shift in efficiency.
Had the RB's enough foresight to see how the pro game changed with these rapid advances in tech, then restrictions could have been put in place a lot sooner to control distance and negate the need to make courses ridiculously long for the average golfer.
Combine that tech with subtle changes in ball construction, course agrimony that encourages superior roll out and the golfers themselves who are no slouches either and you have a recipe for disaster for the vast majority of amateur golfers who struggle to make any advance in handicap index.
Long story short - why stop at 46"? get it down to 45" or less and restore a bit of sanity.
-
The Multi-Step Lite basically came in two "tweener" flexes of A/L and R/S for parallel tip heads. It's a low flex point shaft which means high launch and spin and is generally not really regarded as a stronger players shaft for these properties. Tip trimming would be maxed out to suit a wedge I would think to get it somewhere near "stiff" but nowhwere near Dynamic Gold in terms of flex or bend profile.
Of course, just because there's a label saying "Multi-Step Lite" doesn't necessarily make it so - butt code should be something like TTSU-001-1C if it is.
-
That's a Fonseca. The paper comes off before you smoke it!
-
On 5/12/2021 at 6:41 PM, jaskanski said:
After much deliberation (and almost a lifetime of Titleist use) I've put my faith in the Bridgestone Tour B RXS for this year (as a minimum). It ticks a lot of boxes and now that I don't get any leveraged deals on Titleist balls either, it makes an even easier choice at the price point. An outstanding ball by anyones standards.
Actually, scrap that idea. The Titleist AVX has been more consistent across the board of late. The Bridgestone has it's attributes, but the AVX simply beats it - hands down. Not what I expected, but it goes some way to show why Titleist dominates the ball market by some margin. Worth paying the extra bucks? There's a totally different discussion...
-
Today's smoke is a Joya De Nicaragua 'TLT' - or Tripa Larga de Torcedor. A 'torcedor' is a person skilled in making cigars by hand and 'tripa larga' means long filler tobocco. Construction and burn are both excellent and taste is mellow and nutty. A good value cigar without any pretentions to be anything other than a well made smoke to be enjoyed at your leisure - about an hour of it anyway.
-
Well - here's where I'm at:
Let's say for the sake of arguement that TM have a really sloppy QC and have a failure rate of 1 set in 100. (TM sell a lot of sets and unsurprisingly - they don't, of course, but bear with me).
If one set fails at a statistic of 100/1 followed by another at 100/1 and then a third at 100/1 - all to the same guy in succession - that gives a probability of 1000000/1. In other words, highly unlikely.
On the other hand, if you play golf long enough you get to see and hear of plenty of weird things that happen for no reasonable explanation and these tend to go down as anecdotal folklore. Golf balls hitting birds in flight? Happens all the time. Consecutive holes in one? Been done on several occasions.
The more I talk to golfers over the years, the more stories I hear and the more the yarns they tell, the more they seem like fishermans stories of bizarre twists of fate and/or luck. The likeness to the old story of a fisherman reeling in a fish, which got eaten in the process by a bigger fish - and then in turn eaten by a shark - are remarkable.
The point is - it's not impossible, nor is it completely implausible. But if you've been around long enough to know what you know - you can make you own mind up.
I think it's fair to say that enough time has been given to reasons why ferrules creep and the remedial actions to take - and other sound advice.
Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback
in Breaking News and Debate
Posted
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.