Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Wooderson's Achievements



  1. Michael Alma, AR G410 LST 11.9 102 mph Tsi2
  2. Michael Arkansas 13.9 TaylorMade P790 150
  3. All valid points. I know of very few methods to get handpicked heads to known specs outside of buying TaylorMade tour clubs or Wishon. I agree there are manufacturing tolerances, but those have tightened up over the years. MGS does post the stated and actual loft at the bottom of the most wanted driver articles. The past few years the vast majority of stated and actual lofts have been within 1 degree of each other. If the loft specs are met that closely I am certain face angle is too. The thing is I can find only one instance of a company referencing face angle and that is Ping this year with the LST. Even then they don't state what the face angle is. They say, "Its “Tour Square” face sits slightly open and the score-line pattern frames the impact area to aid in alignment. I also agree that if a golfer gets a good fitting that they don't need to know what the published or actual face angle is, but by the same line of thinking do they need to know lie angle. Most manufacturers post a lie angle number for their drivers when it has minimal effect on shot direction. Face angle influences shot direction and shape far more than lie angle. In the end it's up to MGS. I really hope they decide to provide as much information to the consumer as they can to help make informed decisions.
  4. Static face angle. The top 3 driver fitting specs are length, loft, and face angle according to Tom Wishon. And yes you are correct that face angle can be adjusted, but not without affecting loft. MGS already provides us the loft spec. By publishing face angle a knowledgeable golfer can then decide what loft driver head to start with. If I want a ten degree head with a square face angle and MGS publishes that a Ping LST 9 degree head has 8.5 degree loft and a square face angle then I would know this club is not for me as raising the loft with the adapter would get me to 10 degree, but end up with a closed face angle. Now I agree that if a person gets fit by a competent club fitter then it's not necessary, but for the vast majority of us who truly understand golf clubs and can fit ourselves having the face angle verified and published by MGS would be very nice.
  5. Yes getting fit is nice for those close enough to a quality fitter. That's maybe less than 10% of fitters. Is it useful to post length and swingweight specs if people are going to play different shafts and configurations. Their mission statement says they want to inform golfers and ensure they get the most out of their money, time, and performance. Face angle would be a nice spec addition to ensure their mission statement is met. Not critiquing just trying to throw out a tip that would propel them farther past others in club testing and benefit golfers. I think that doing a 2/3 piece ball test would help most golfers also.
  6. Just a couple things that I have been thinking about. In the spec section of your "Best" equipment testing it is imperative that MGS start measuring and publishing face angle data for woods and hybrids. Of all the fitting/selection criteria for golfers this spec is at the top. Secondly, it is time for a ball test that includes more 2/3 piece surlyn options. I can't state enough that the average high handicap golfer would benefit more from the data on those balls. I understand this would probably upset the manufacturers and retailers the most because expensive urethane is where they make their money, but for the consumer it needs to happen. Thank you for taking the time to consider this feedback. If there is a more appropriate place to post please let me know.
  • Create New...