Jump to content

jaskanski

Member
  • Posts

    1,072
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from Syks7 in Let's Talk Lie Angles   
    pretty sure our friend McGolf covered this in his YT channel.
     
     
     
  2. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from Shapotomous in Let's Talk Lie Angles   
    pretty sure our friend McGolf covered this in his YT channel.
     
     
     
  3. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from cnosil in Let's Talk Lie Angles   
    pretty sure our friend McGolf covered this in his YT channel.
     
     
     
  4. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from cnosil in Let's Talk Lie Angles   
    If you want to see the extremes of credibility, try this experiment yourself:
    Glue a tee peg temporarily to your clubface on a wedge. When the clubface is square at 'standard' lie angle, it will be pointing directly to your target line. Now move the handle a bit to mimic a different lie angle up or down. See how much off target the tee peg is now?
    As lofts get more extreme, the bigger the difference it makes. Try it with a lower lofted iron to see how the target line changes. For the sake of argument, if the loft on a club was zero, then any lie would be the same, ignoring sole to ground.
    This is why lie angles on wedges is critical if you play them to a certain position. If you open or close the face at address, the extent isn't as significant, but then again, if you're opening or closing the club face, the leading edge won't be pointing to your target line anyway.
    Worth trying out to make sure you have the correct lie to a neutral square position though. It makes a difference, trust me.
  5. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from brogies in Iron loft adjustment / bounce question   
    Yes - since the head of a golf club is one solid piece of metal, whatever you do to one part of it, everything goes in the same direction. If you are reducing loft by 1 degree, you reduce bounce by 1 degree. Simarly, if you increase loft by 1 degree, you increase bounce by 1 degree.
    Does that affect the bounce in terms of playability? That's for you to decide and by how much you're altering any loft (2 degrees in your case) which will add 2 degrees of bounce. P790's tend to have quite a bit of bounce in their lower irions (correct me if I'm wrong but the PW is 10.5 degrees?? - that's sand wedge territory..), so if you're not a big divot taker and have a shallow angle of attack and play from firm ground conditions, you may encounter a bit of a problem with ball striking.
    If I were rocking a 20 index, I'd be inclined to leave the lofts at stock. Just my opinion.
  6. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from cnosil in Iron loft adjustment / bounce question   
    True - but I think the chances of a 20 handicap having 5 degrees of forward shaft lean and a square face with a set of irons which are generally considered to be mid to low handicap range are frankly low. And under the misguided notion that extra loft will help with getting the ball in the air (it will to some extent, but not in the way the intent is there) I think the brutal truth is that this is not an equipment issue, this is more an ability issue.
    On the back of that assessemt (just an opinion and not an ultimate recommendation to the OP) I would suggest going to see a professional for a swing assessment and for them to recommend something to suit their game, rather than pulling the trigger on a blind buy set of irons, which look great and perfom well in the right hands, but are possibly not the solution they are looking for in terms of function to swing mechanics. Respectfully.
  7. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from RickyBobby_PR in Iron loft adjustment / bounce question   
    True - but I think the chances of a 20 handicap having 5 degrees of forward shaft lean and a square face with a set of irons which are generally considered to be mid to low handicap range are frankly low. And under the misguided notion that extra loft will help with getting the ball in the air (it will to some extent, but not in the way the intent is there) I think the brutal truth is that this is not an equipment issue, this is more an ability issue.
    On the back of that assessemt (just an opinion and not an ultimate recommendation to the OP) I would suggest going to see a professional for a swing assessment and for them to recommend something to suit their game, rather than pulling the trigger on a blind buy set of irons, which look great and perfom well in the right hands, but are possibly not the solution they are looking for in terms of function to swing mechanics. Respectfully.
  8. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from RickyBobby_PR in Iron loft adjustment / bounce question   
    Yes - since the head of a golf club is one solid piece of metal, whatever you do to one part of it, everything goes in the same direction. If you are reducing loft by 1 degree, you reduce bounce by 1 degree. Simarly, if you increase loft by 1 degree, you increase bounce by 1 degree.
    Does that affect the bounce in terms of playability? That's for you to decide and by how much you're altering any loft (2 degrees in your case) which will add 2 degrees of bounce. P790's tend to have quite a bit of bounce in their lower irions (correct me if I'm wrong but the PW is 10.5 degrees?? - that's sand wedge territory..), so if you're not a big divot taker and have a shallow angle of attack and play from firm ground conditions, you may encounter a bit of a problem with ball striking.
    If I were rocking a 20 index, I'd be inclined to leave the lofts at stock. Just my opinion.
  9. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from William P in *Opinion: New Titleist Drivers, Ugly or New thing of Beauty?   
    Ditto.
    To be fair, Titleist couldn't really be accused of ever making an ugly driver (from address) but whatever has been before, the GT range is just another evolution of what they have been doing for some time. Not ugly, not under-performing, not totally bad in any way. Just...well, Titleist. Which ain't a bad thing I guess.
    I ended up with the Mizuno STZ for the record. Price had a major part in that decision.
  10. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from cnosil in 6X or 5X to Adjust for Swing Weight & Flex?   
    I've seen people better off by trying clubs out and seeing what works, so in essence you've done the hard work and the right thing already. The worst thing in the world is 'playing the label' as I call it.
    There are many snobs out there saying 'uh...so you're only playing R-flex then?' when the response should so often be 'yup - and there's my ball ball in the middle of the fairway 20 yards in front of yours'. The label didn't make an iota of differnce - playing what makes it work did. Go figure.
  11. Like
    jaskanski reacted to Josh Parker in 6X or 5X to Adjust for Swing Weight & Flex?   
    If it works, it works.... As many have already said, it doesn't matter the swing weight.  What matters, is it works for you, and you see positive results!  
  12. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from Josh Parker in 6X or 5X to Adjust for Swing Weight & Flex?   
    I think @cnosil pretty much nailed it.
    The elephant in the room is that you hit it much better than your current gamer - would it have made any difference knowing the swingweight beforehand? I'm guessing no, however the post-testing knowledge has sown a seed of self-doubt on the back of a number for measuring static balance, rather than overall performance.
    The same goes for flex really - it's just a figure to label a shaft of a particular brand and a particular weight to a particular length. Using it as a yardstick to make a comparison with anything else is as previously stated - meaningless. The only metric that has any relevance is the one I've underlined above.
    Just my 2 cents.
  13. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from Rob Person in *Opinion: New Titleist Drivers, Ugly or New thing of Beauty?   
    Ditto.
    To be fair, Titleist couldn't really be accused of ever making an ugly driver (from address) but whatever has been before, the GT range is just another evolution of what they have been doing for some time. Not ugly, not under-performing, not totally bad in any way. Just...well, Titleist. Which ain't a bad thing I guess.
    I ended up with the Mizuno STZ for the record. Price had a major part in that decision.
  14. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from MLBoulder in 6X or 5X to Adjust for Swing Weight & Flex?   
    I think @cnosil pretty much nailed it.
    The elephant in the room is that you hit it much better than your current gamer - would it have made any difference knowing the swingweight beforehand? I'm guessing no, however the post-testing knowledge has sown a seed of self-doubt on the back of a number for measuring static balance, rather than overall performance.
    The same goes for flex really - it's just a figure to label a shaft of a particular brand and a particular weight to a particular length. Using it as a yardstick to make a comparison with anything else is as previously stated - meaningless. The only metric that has any relevance is the one I've underlined above.
    Just my 2 cents.
  15. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from cnosil in 6X or 5X to Adjust for Swing Weight & Flex?   
    I think @cnosil pretty much nailed it.
    The elephant in the room is that you hit it much better than your current gamer - would it have made any difference knowing the swingweight beforehand? I'm guessing no, however the post-testing knowledge has sown a seed of self-doubt on the back of a number for measuring static balance, rather than overall performance.
    The same goes for flex really - it's just a figure to label a shaft of a particular brand and a particular weight to a particular length. Using it as a yardstick to make a comparison with anything else is as previously stated - meaningless. The only metric that has any relevance is the one I've underlined above.
    Just my 2 cents.
  16. Like
    jaskanski reacted to Aaron White in Rebuilding my 710 AP2's   
    here is how my first build turned out

  17. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from Northern Monkey in How thick do you think the rough should be?   
    It's a tough one, but ultimately it's one for the course to decide.
    "rough' should be thick enough and tall enough to let you know (a) you shouldn't have put it there and (b) penal enough not to be an easy recovery.
    To put it bluntly, it's probably better than  hitting it oob, into a water hazard or a bush or similar hazard where you have no other option, but the intention is to make it as playable part of the course, albeit not under ideal circumstances.
    The definition isn't written in stone, but the course set up must have some definition of what is the putting green, what is 'fairway' and what is anything else in between. To be honest, the greenkeeping decision on what constitutes 'rough' and how they enable it has a dramatic effect on how much actual greenkeeping the course has to implemment - it's a lot easier to maintian 'rough' once a week or month, rather than the greens or fairways which may need more attention on a much more regular basis. Rough is good from many perspectives, not least of which is environmental, drainage and agrimony. So it's not just there to punish wayward golfers, it also there to protect the course itself.
    Of course, rough can also be imployed as a deterrent to longer hitters, or least add a certain amount of 'risk versus reward' to the chosen shot. It can be used to control run off in certain directions to protect other greens, fairways or tee boxes. It ain't just there to tick us off!
    Either way, the old 'play it as it lies' implies - and if you've put it there, you need to deal with the immediate consequences. Viva la rough!
  18. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from StrokerAce in How thick do you think the rough should be?   
    It's a tough one, but ultimately it's one for the course to decide.
    "rough' should be thick enough and tall enough to let you know (a) you shouldn't have put it there and (b) penal enough not to be an easy recovery.
    To put it bluntly, it's probably better than  hitting it oob, into a water hazard or a bush or similar hazard where you have no other option, but the intention is to make it as playable part of the course, albeit not under ideal circumstances.
    The definition isn't written in stone, but the course set up must have some definition of what is the putting green, what is 'fairway' and what is anything else in between. To be honest, the greenkeeping decision on what constitutes 'rough' and how they enable it has a dramatic effect on how much actual greenkeeping the course has to implemment - it's a lot easier to maintian 'rough' once a week or month, rather than the greens or fairways which may need more attention on a much more regular basis. Rough is good from many perspectives, not least of which is environmental, drainage and agrimony. So it's not just there to punish wayward golfers, it also there to protect the course itself.
    Of course, rough can also be imployed as a deterrent to longer hitters, or least add a certain amount of 'risk versus reward' to the chosen shot. It can be used to control run off in certain directions to protect other greens, fairways or tee boxes. It ain't just there to tick us off!
    Either way, the old 'play it as it lies' implies - and if you've put it there, you need to deal with the immediate consequences. Viva la rough!
  19. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from sirchunksalot in Grayson Murray   
    Totally shocked and saddened. Thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. RIP big guy.
  20. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from William P in Grayson Murray   
    Totally shocked and saddened. Thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. RIP big guy.
  21. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from Northern Monkey in Who is the best player without a major?   
    Adding Aberg and Fleetwood to the list.
  22. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from Rob Person in Who is the best player without a major?   
    Adding Aberg and Fleetwood to the list.
  23. Like
    jaskanski reacted to 3Putt4Double in Who is the best player without a major?   
    Gotta include Fowler, Kuchar, and Zalatoris..I think my vote would be Homa though.. Mac can get hot and play with anyone in the world but he's extremely streaky.. Victor is also a solid pick but I think he will get one.. He's young and playing top notch golf
    Max
  24. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from bens197 in Partner dilemma   
    Golf has it's foundations built on three pillars of principle:
    Honesty
    Integrity
    Courtesy
    It goes without saying that if these can't be met on a casual level basis when playing with friends for fun, or playing in competition on a seroius level, then it's not worth bothering to call it golf.
    As the 3 pillars work both ways for all players, you owe to yourselves and your alleged third wheel to have an honest conversation, with integrity and courtesy to all parties to find an amicable resolution.
    Dilemma is when the are two (or more) difficult choices with possibly equally unfavourable alternatives. So if you don't see it as a diffificult choice to the conversation above, problem solved.
  25. Like
    jaskanski got a reaction from tdroma98 in Partner dilemma   
    And this, lol
×
×
  • Create New...