RickyBobby_PR

For sure. PXG started out as a high end exclusive niche brand that many thought wouldn’t last 3-5 years. Some niche brands are there to build a brand and then offload it to someone else. Not sure how much the ones who are more inclined to buy higher end products looked at the brand and said it’s the same people from matrix and decided not to consider the brand at all. High end golf products have a very small market outside of places like Japan where high end is very popular. To be sustainable you have to get the buyers in the virtual door. LA golf imo wasn’t good at marketing and drawing in that audience. Their story didn’t resonate with people either. With Mizuno and Wilson I was just pointing out that in the industry even having a more mainstream name and a large business portfolio doesn’t guarantee you can break into the market shares that the other companies have. Golf shaft wise there’s already an established market from fujikura, PX, Mitsubishi, Graphite Design that have a hold on the market share that’s tough to crack

I choose coaches based on personal experience or based on people I trust and their personal experiences, or those within the industry that have a high reputation for being good and helping golfers, very similar to how I choose my nutrition and training coach. When I take lessons it’s with the goal of taking several over the course of the year so I don’t want to waste time trying different coaches so it’s not just pick a random coach and see what happens. I do the research to ensure that we have a chance of meshing on philosophy and teaching approach. i don’t need them to watch a launch monitor to say x and why are happening. I prefer it’s used as a comparison if before and after. I like to see ball flight so indoor lessons for non movement type changes has to be outdoors.

That’s what nice brands do. They don’t want to be associated with cheap or any other type of description as the more mainstream brands. From a marketing perspective they didn’t really have anyone that connects with the general golfing public that would encourage those who buy otr clubs, don’t get fit and many who play what they see on tv that could sell their equipment. Paige despite her large social media following isn’t influencing any club purchases. She didn’t do it for PXG either. Her social media following isn’t for the actual content she puts out which is not all the great. even on the mainstream side it can be hard. As big as Mizuno and Wilson are they have a very small percentage of the market share on any product.

You are thinking of what the Olympics used to be. Its as much a spectacle as it is a competition. Look at the money spent on the opening ceremonies and the production of it. The goal is to draw viewers to watch the games. The bigger the names, the more chances at something amazing happening builds anticipation and tells a story that draws the fans. Unless there and amateur or minor league type athlete who has a compelling life story there’s nothing to tell about them. We knew who Michael Phelps was before he got to the Olympics because of the amazing things he was doing in their swimming season and at the Olympic trials. Same with many of the gymnasts, divers and so on. These athletes gives the media a story to tell and that story draws more eyes and keeps them involved. We watch what they put on, what sports at the summer Olympics draw the most viewership, track and field, swimming, gymnastics. For niche sports you need to have bigger names to get the viewers. Despite gods popularity in a small percentage of the world it’s a niche sport. More people are going to watch the bigger names than they are the no names. I’m wouldn’t watch the Olympics if it was a bunch of no names in any sport. Take away the big names of gymnastics, while what they athletes who would go may be good they aren’t the elite and can’t do what the elite do, otherwise they would be elite. The networks, the io , sponsors need viewers. Recognizable names get them that. Using random numbers It could be the difference of a couple hundred thousand watching and a million people watching.

I do that with my otr scotty if I don’t have a non scotty headcover on it. People don’t steal seemore putters

While the Olympics is somewhat about the athlete it’s about the sport itself the modern day Olympics as is the case with all forms of professional entertainment is about viewership numbers. Having less than the best participating doesn’t draw the attention of the viewers. The only exception is liv golf. They have some of the top names but for a various number of reasons one being the format nobody watches it. Having professional golfers draws the eyes to the sport.

Doesn’t take that type of setup. The face is going where your face is pointed and the ball is moving based on path relationship to the face. You have a big difference between the two that causes that type of movement. It could how you are using wrist and your body in the backswing that’s causing issues in the downswing that’s creating this type of bal flight. Our faults get worse as the club gets longer. If you are hitting slices with the longer clubs I’m guessing there’s and over the top love and your face is wide open while your path is going way left. Post a video non YouTube and let’s see a dtl line and face on.

Deviation as in standard deviation of 1-2°? If so that’s just measuring the amount your path was changing. 1-2° isn’t bad but it’s not great. Or was your path 1-2° either in to out or out to in? Not saying your fitter was bad but or good but there are lots of fitters with years of fitting experience that nao aren’t that good. If the issue is the hair wrist then search for how the wrists work in the backswing. If you have video of your swing post it and we can see what’s going on. Baseball players have a tendency to not do some of the important things in the swing that are needed. There are lots of stories around golf forums of ex baseball players some at high levels of amateur play with lots of speed and bad mechanics because the moves that feel powerful aren’t so in the swing. Steep swings and out to in paths are pretty common and open faces with the out to in hit the heel and slice the ball

There is no standard for flex so how do you know you need a stiff flex? You could have a shaft the graffaloy shafts that’s play stiffer than the letter stamped on the shaft, same with project X hzrdus shafts. it could be simple as a different design profile or weight is better for you. If you are going to get fit then the fitter will determine what’s best for you, doing it on your own is a long and can be an expensive road. Grip is pretty easy to find go to a store and get one of display grips and find what fits you. In a fitting the entire clubs and components are important. The weight of the shaft, the stiffness profile which is the design profile of the shaft not the letter code. Length of the shaft, how the shaft and head feel together. as for ball you find a ball you like on the green, around the green, with irons and you play that. The you fit the driver to the ball. Some info on what I was talk about with the letter flex code not having a standard and saying you need a certain flex Shaft Myth #3 – The letter flex code on the shaft tells me how stiff the shaft is No it doesn’t because there are absolutely no standards in the golf industry for how stiff any of the shaft flex codes are. Every golf company and shaft company is free to determine how stiff their various shaft flex letter codes are to be. As a result it is very common for the R Flex from one company to be similar in stiffness to the S Flex from another company or the A Flex from a third company. Not only that, but it is very common for a flex in one model of shaft to be stiffer or more flexible than the same letter flex in a different shaft model from the same company! There is no better proof than to offer a clear illustration. Following is a graph comparison of 7 different R-Flex shafts, from 6 different companies. These shafts were all measured using the same methodology to graph the comparative stiffness at 7 identical points along the length of each different shaft. The numerical measurements represent cycles per minute (CPM) of frequency measured with a 454 gram weight on the tip end of the shaft. For comparison of the relative stiffness for all these R Flex shafts, focus on the CPM measurements for the 41 in and 36 in columns in the data chart. At these points on the grip end of the shaft, a difference of 7 CPM in the 41/36 measurements is equivalent to one full flex, based on averages from more than 2000 different shafts. (when the tip weight is reduced to 205g, a 10cpm difference is equivalent to one full flex level) As you can see, among these 7 shafts there is a relative stiffness difference of 28 CPM, which is nearly four full flexes – and yet all of these shafts are labeled by their respective companies as being an R Flex shaft. Pic 1 refers to the above Next let’s look at a graph comparison of a number of the R Flex shafts from different shaft models, all from the same company. Within these 6 different R Flex shafts all from the same company, can be seen a range in basic stiffness of 19.5 CPM, which equates to a difference of nearly 3 full flex levels. Yet all are labeled as R flex shafts. Pic 2 refers to the above It is VERY IMPORTANT to understand that such variations are by intent and DO NOT represent a mistake or lack of quality in any manner by these companies. Remember, each company is free to determine their own standards for the actual stiffness for what each flex of each shaft is to be. It is not wrong – it just is the way it is. What’s wrong is when golfers do not know this and make buying decisions based only on a meaningless letter code imprinted on the shaft. So the next time you head out to buy a new club(s) or a new shaft, please remember that R does not equal R, S does not equal S, and none of the letter codes equal each other. If you want another good reason for why it is worth it to be professionally custom fit by an experienced custom Clubmaker, here is yet another one of many reasons to do so. Many of the experienced clubmakers are well aware of the variations among the flexes of all the shafts and can guide you into the very best shaft selection for YOUR swing characteristics.

Who told you that you have a good path and good form? what were they basing it on? If your club face is open 13° form isn’t good and path may not be that great. A face that open is either grip is wrong, improper use of the wrists in the whole swing, some issue that is causing the handle to raise The cause for why the face is open needs to be identified then a drill or drills can be determined

You are using sports that are much more popular world wide than golf is. Golf is very much centered with popularity in a few countries. those sports are also team sports by design where golf isn’t a team sport. Those sports have enough participation to be able to have equal amount of participants for each sport. You can’t have a team event when most countries can only field a single person if they are lucky. You can’t put country a and country b together on a team.

Again from a viewing perspective for professional sports there isn’t an audience for sports like baseball and golf. But when it comes to the Olympics the audience grows by a lot. The entire world is watching the Olympics even for sports they wouldn’t watch outside of the Olympics. It helps the Olympics and the various sports to have the best of the best from each country competing. It’s to showcase the sport. Nobody is watching to see some college kids compete. You don’t grow your sport internationally with amateurs. It doesn’t matter the sport people want to see the elite of the sport. I am heavily involved in powerlifting. Live streams for non elite competitions get very little views. The high level with the best of the Blbest competing get tens of thousands of view and in some cases like the Sheffield gets hundreds of thousands. For Olympic golf you have to have a world ranking to qualify so yes it would be the ones on the professional level.

This is the grip that pretty much every good teacher recommends, Ben hogan talked about it as well. The grip should be in the fingers of both hands. The lead had is how it’s described in the video and the trail it goes across the middle two fingers. There really shouldn’t be different grips for anything other than chips when you grip a non putter. Sure you can maybe weaken or strengthen the grip but then placement goes in the same place regardless. Proper grip goes along way to helping with correct wrist set and arm movement

The largest viewing audience for professional golf is in the United States. The Olympics are watched by the entire world. It brings more eyes to the sport, it can inspire someone who wasn’t interested before to take up the sport and helps grow the game. Showcasing the best golfers at the Olympics does that. Showcasing a bunch of college kids not so much. It’s the same with the world games. The viewership for those is worldwide. The attention the Olympics and world games brings to loads is underestimated by many. Theres a reason the IPF is working hard to get powerlifting in the Olympics. There’s excitement for raw powerlifting being added to the world games along with equipped powerlifting. There are athletes around the world who are working hard to qualify for the world games. It’s game changing for the athlete and the sport. Not to mention from a financial perspective those with the broadcasting rights want to draw viewership, recognizable names do that, the Olympic committee wants eyes on the product.

Nobody wants to watch a bunch of amateurs, mid level talent play in any of the sports. Fans want recognizable names, they want to see the best perform at the sport. Outside of events like basketball and baseball that were using amateurs all the other sports were sending the best of the best to participate. Those other sports like track and field, swimming, etc we got to see those athletes perform on at various competitions throughout the years in between each Olympics, then we get to see them at Olympic trials and qualifying events. Really wasn’t the case with basketball and baseball. You were getting college athletes going against the best athletes from other countries whether they were pros or at the elite level. Almost like the world baseball classic. The U.S. sends some top names but most aren’t the best of them best meanwhile the other countries send their best.

Well there’s two different bmx riding events and mountain bike event. Theres break dancing. Skateboarding to name a few non tradition events. The format is the same a regular tournament. When it’s comes to the Olympics you can’t have a proper team format like the Ryder/president cup due to the lack of available golfers in the smaller countries and it would be against the Olympic spirit by saying those single golfers can’t play because it’s a team event. The Olympics is a showcase of athletes from around the world. Competing in the same format for how golf is played makes sense. The format for how other sports are generally played doesn’t change. We don’t change how swimming competitions are done in the Olympics from all other swimming competitions because it’s the Olympics. Track and field doesn’t change.

It is one swing, length of club, ball position cause a change in the swing plans, but the actual swing itself is the same.

What quality are you referring to? they are both mass produced shafts so the quality of build for each is about the same as well as every other mass produced shaft. If you are talking quality of performance then that has nothing to do with the shaft itself but how the shaft works for the golfer and the golfers swing. There’s no bad shaft just a bad fitting shaft. some info from Tom Wishon Shaft Myth #6 – The more expensive a shaft, the better its quality and the better it performs There are few things in the golf industry that have become as much of a sore spot with me as this matter of shafts that cost $100, $200, $300 and even more. Shoot, I remember when we all thought a $40 shaft was expensive! What’s even worse are the uninformed golfers who see these $100 – $300 shafts and automatically form the opinion that if it costs that much, it has to be a really good shaft. You want to know what the definition of a “good shaft” is? A good shaft is any shaft that has been very accurately matched for its weight, overall stiffness, bend profile, weight distribution and torque to a golfer’s clubhead speed, transition force, downswing tempo, wrist-**** release, strength and sense of feel. That’s the definition of a “good shaft” and it has absolutely nothing to do with brand, model or price. There are 5 different specifications that determine the performance differences between shafts. 1) mass (weight); 2) overall stiffness (flex); 3) bend profile (distribution of the stiffness over the length of the shaft); 4) weight distribution (balance point); 5) torsional stiffness (torque). Two of these, the weight and the torque, are definitely related to the cost of the shaft. The lighter the weight and the lower the torque of a shaft, the more expensive the shaft will be to make. In other words, if you want to make a very stiff 45 gram shaft with less than 3? of torque, that shaft is going to cost a lot more money to make than a 65 gram softer flex shaft with 5? of torque. . . but not $100 to $300 by any means. The other three shaft design elements, a shaft’s overall stiffness, bend profile and balance point, are not even close to being as price sensitive as the weight and torque. Standard modulus (low cost) graphite raw materials can be used to make any flex, bend profile or balance point from soft L to very stiff X. Yes, many of the high dollar shafts are actually made with more expensive raw composite materials. But they don’t need to be made with such expensive materials to achieve their weight, flex, bend profile, balance point and torque. In my career I have measured the specifications of literally thousands of different shafts, and from my experience, I have yet to see a $100 to $300 shaft that could not be duplicated for weight, flex, bend profile, balance point and torque and sold at a normal profit in the industry for an aftermarket price of $25 to $50. Shaft Myth #10 – How a shaft performs for a golfer is an indication of its quality No, how a shaft performs for a golfer is an indication of how well the shaft’s weight, flex, bend profile, balance point and torque were FIT to the golfer’s size, strength, athletic ability and swing characteristics. Remember what I said about “good shafts” and “bad shafts”? There are no such things. There are only well fit and poorly fit shafts. Shaft quality is more a case of how consistently can the shaft maker hit each one of the production specifications for each shaft they make within a very narrow range of error tolerance, shaft after shaft after shaft. And believe me, by no means does the cost of a shaft guarantee this definition of shaft quality. In my shaft research work, my shaft data base now includes nearly 2000 different shaft models. In doing this, I get a chance to measure all sorts of specifications on a lot of different shafts from most of the shaft manufacturers in the world. When you measure multiples of the same model and flex of shafts, you get the chance to see who maintains tight error tolerances and who doesn’t. And I can tell you, the price of a shaft is not always related to how consistent or how tight the tolerances are for a company’s shafts. Some of the high dollar shafts do display very tight, consistent error tolerances. Some don’t. And some of the lower priced shafts show a very high level of shaft to shaft consistency while again, some do not.

They have to prep the shaft, install the adapter, put a grip on it, build the club. They don’t really have shafts just laying around with tips on them. I know because I have talked to guys who work there and they have to rotate throughout the different parts of the business, they spend time in repair, assembly, fitting, customer service

I agree. I doubt they would say the exact content that’s not there. They give the general reference to what you don’t get access to not the number of courses/videos to content of them.

The current ods is strong enough and it has proven since its implementation that there isn’t the big jump in distance that as seen when the prov1 came out. It’s done its job and as you pointed out and confirmed what many of ja shave said and dd the USGA it’s not the equipment. Technology hasn’t overcome it because ball despite its design characteristics can’t exceed the parameters in the ODS, the ball itself is still limited to those specs as is the driver to the CT test. It doesn’t matter what technology is used in design and material construction it’s limited in its effectiveness to overcome the ods and Ct. The modern ball isn’t longer and faster than the meant it to be. Its the same distance specs and 2004 and the ruling bodies changed the speed apsect in the odd from 103 to 115 to keep up with the swing speeds of golfers in the 2000s which also hasn’t changed. 20 years later is too late to try and put the toothpaste back in the tube because a new leadership hates the modern game and is influence by the very rich of rich of golf course owners and designers. Bryson still hit 182 mph ball speed which is what is around normal on tour, the spin and aerodynamics are better in the new ball. Even though he gets better speed the new ball still has to beach the initial velocity transfer and ods. So we are supposed to believe the ruling bodies about all their data and conclusion but then you say the USGA equipment guy who has evaluated all the data is wrong in his conclusion. That contradiction doesn’t work. but despite all this tell me the specific problem that is caused by the distance the current ball goes?

You have to research the instructor and see what their feedback is from other students. Sometimes it trial and error if finding one that clicks with you. Theres lots of ways of going about working on getting someone’s swing better, depends on the instructors philosophy and how they attack fixing issues. I’ve been multiple good instructors and they all have shad different approaches than the other for what they wanted me to do. You have to understand a lesson isn’t going to fix issues overnight and it takes weeks and weeks to make small changes even remotely start to take effect .but if your instructor didn’t provide you with some kind of practice plan or you didn’t ask then the instructor isn’t that good, also it’s a two way street and asking what you should practice and how. But a book on the mental game isn’t where to go for determining what is a good practice plan. It varies by student and how they learn The purpose is to ignore the negative reactions of the shot you just had that put you in a bad spot. Rather than focusing on what just happened you have to deal with the shot at hand and be positive about that shot at hand so that you have a chance at executing the shot at hand rather than maintaining the negative thoughts about the last shot, its affect on the score and thinking about what happens if I miss this one too

Missing your point of this reply. never disputed the modern ball isn’t faster than then ball in 2004. Have constantly said the ball specs are the same for the last 20 years under the current ODs. So we agree. Yes he gets more speed out of the left dash became the construction is better suited for his swing. Again no disagreement nor did I talk about it other than he noticed more than the 11-15 yards the ruling bodies have claimed, which also goes to the point of the Nike being shorter. Ive stated numerous times in this thread that it’s not the equipment and that it’s the golfer, and that the USGA equipment guy said the samething. So again no disagreement.

It’s not the purpose of the book or what he writes about. This is why imo using books, your or videos and going about swing changes and practice alone is a bad idea. Using guidance and a watchful eye of a good instructor willl speed up the process of improving and give you a practice plan. If you are having negative thoughts negative things will happen. They are thoughts that we can’t avoid.but have to get rid of right away

This explains the spin numbers, smash and ball speed. Your hits on the top of the face are going to be high launch and low spin, depending on how high and where in relation to center this isn’t a good thing especially from a gear effect standpoint. The higher spin is probably coming from adding loft at impact and hitting low on the face, probably from early extending and have to flip and use the hands to try and square the face and hit the ball. Im going to lean towards the fitter isn’t as strong based on his comment about max heads (they have higher moi so it helps with gear effect) they will spin higher than non max heads, how much is dependent on the golfer but when you hit then all below center all heads are going to spin more. Also based on how I’m reading your experience of the fitting I’m going to say he’s probably not a strong fitter. It doesn’t sound like he was willing to try some extremes to see if they might work. Yes inconsistencies in contact from inconsistent compensation for swing flaws do make things a little harder than someone with a repeatable swing, but a good fitter thru their eyes and the questions they ask the golfer during the fitting can see good swings vs bad swings, normal miss bs big miss and what the golfers good swing and ball flight is and for them to that. Doesn’t sound like the fitter considered length or messing with weight as options. I won’t suggest anything because I’m not there with you hitting balls and watching ball flight and hearing your feedback. My suggestion find a different fitter and see what happens there.