Thin2win

I have a JB 56 and a 286 52, I equally love them both. I tried I few other wedges this year and went right back to sub 70

too bad they sent you a left handed set.

Moving to Spokane on the 3rd of August. Looking forward to finding a new home course, must be OneWheel Friendly(looking at you angrily Qualchan). Hoping that Wandermere has a friendly policy and I can play there. Buy if not... Meadowood was really nice, really inexpensive and friendly.

Just beware when golfing with @Kenny Bhe has jedi skills around the green. He also refuses to look at the ball when putting which is pretty next level.

Bah, go for the v3!

I agree with Mark, and I don't. Yes, the stock shaft is a good shaft. The OEM's definitely pick a few shafts that produce good to great results for the big part of the bell curve. And for a big chunk of the curve, finding actual measurable on course between stock and aftermarket would be hard. Our changing swing from one tee to the next introduces a much larger dynamic then a shaft could account for. And I think this is were Mark has drawn the line. For 99% of golfers(self included). the money spent on a new shaft would do much less than money spent on a set of lessons with a good pro. Mark is a great teaching pro and is probably annoyed with the buy a better game gearhead crowd. but where I think Mark misses is that with everything, quality does matter. and repeatability does matter. We have all been fit, I just went earlier this year. I tried... I don't know, 10 different shafts. If I just looked at the average distance and spin for them, the numbers would have been nearly identical for the most part. But if you look at the dispersion chart on how it got those numbers, you get some real differences. I definitely saw some that were +/- 15y in distance and +/- 40y in L/R dispersion, and others that were +/- 5y in distance with L/R in the +/- 20y. The averages were the same, but taking the one that hits a smaller target is obviously important for scoring. The strokes gained on a different shaft are definitely less than the strokes gained on lessons. But there are strokes to be gained, and even if that is only 1 every other round, that is real and 1 per round, 2 per week for a PGA pro is a lot of money.

I disagree, I know he is holding out on you. He secretly had all clubs shipped to his house so he can try everything first.

At least you made the putt. Great shot.

Well all you so called PNW Spies. You missed a great time in golfing in the Spokane area last week. @fixyurdivot and @Kenny B , his wife and I spent 5 great days golfing. We hit up, Meadow Wood(one of the best values I've ever played in golf), Circling Raven(spectacular in every sense), Indian Canyon(not my cup of tea), Chewelah(its out there, but its pretty), Qualchan(narrow and gimmicky at times), and Liberty Lake(pretty standard muni). The shot of the week probably goes to Kenny's wife, who bladed her approach from about 140y out on #15 at Qualchan. However, that bladed ball bounded and bounced down the fairway with vigor, hopped up on the green and drilled the flagstick straight on to drop for an eagle. @fixyurdivot switched to the left hand low putting technique in the middle of the trip and might not look back. And if anyone needs a lesson on how to chip and putt, @Kenny B is the best I have ever seen around the greens. His up/down % is tour caliber. We ate well, golfed a lot and had a good time. Really do hope to see more of you at the next iteration of this meetup.

I believe that Willows runs one, but I can't provide any details. I'm a bit too far north for that knowledge.

With what @revkev said, High on face is Lower spin, and Lower of face is Higher spin. But either one could give you more distance depending on what you need. If you only have 1000 rpm of backspin now, more would help keep the ball in the air, and if you have 3000rpm now, less would help the ball fly lower and roll out more giving you more distance. Swing speed, launch angle and angle of attack all play big factors into what any individual would need for more distance. But in real general numbers, backspin in the 2000-2400rpm range with a corresponding launch of 17° to 13° is generally ideal. I.E, 2OOO rpm at 17° is likely a good pairing of numbers, while 2000 rpm at 13° might be too low of rpm for most people.

I still like you. But you are testing the limits with these kind of comments.

Yes, come on up. I'm spending this week golfing in the Spokane area with @Kenny B his wife and @fixyurdivot

Skagit, but only for another month. Moving to Spokane in July

I heard about this one, sorry you missed the putt.

To echo @Kenny B, it shouldn't be too surprising that after 1000's of shots across a spectrum of testers they all average out about the same. Every manufacturer builds them to maximum face speed, that parameter hasn't changed in a long time. That said, for an individual tester, there will be a much much bigger difference. A single tester could see multiple strokes per round difference between clubs that on average have fractions of strokes on the overall.

Nope, but they sure look nice. My wife started making bespoke headcovers this years so I have some of hers that I rock.

We all just do what we can to make this a happier place.

@MaxEntropy It was a warm but windy day in the northern reaches of Bellingham. @gavinski91 paced the green, tested the wind, felt the grain of the grass. This was after all, his first potential eagle. 10 minutes prior he had no idea this moment was about to arrive. He was in the midst of the CCC#3 use every club in your bag before you could use the same one again challenge. He had strategized for this upcoming par 5 and had driver available. A well hit tee shot with a helping wind gave him a real opportunity at reaching in 2. An opportunity that he quickly seized with a well struck approach that left about 20' for eagle. Now, on the green, an eagle truly within grasp he focused on the putt like a magnifying glass on an ant. He took aim and struck the ball pure, on pace and on line: With the arrogance of a Greek god he started walking it in as it approached the cup. And as the ball slid past the hole on the high side, he knew he had failed. That life was not fair, that his efforts would not be rewarded, and that maybe had worn square toed golf shoes he would have made this putt. Capturing these moments on film were definitely my best shots of the day, and ones that I will never forget, and never let Gavin forget.

very well probably true. If Tony(or whoever) could just share the 100 point scale they are using so we all know what the grades are based on, that would make this process more transparent and easier to follow. Without that, it is kind of like waiting to see what the Russian judges(sorry to any Russian Judges out there) were going to give a performance back in the day before judging was given a very strict scoring system. Even the MGS forum testers have a scoring system, 19 our of 20 on feel etc., that they are expected to use so that when they put up their final score out of 100 readers can see where those points were gained and lost. The blog, which is read by probably more people, is using less stringent scoring standards. I don't think that the 73 is the wrong score, but with the flow of the article, I thought it was off. And if I did, I'm sure other readers did too. And trying to keep up the MGS brand and values, I would think that being transparent here would only bolster the scores given to each ball. All that said, 73, what a crap ball, Callaway sucks, never playing their stuff!! JK.

Yeah, the last two labs have left me scratching my head a little. I don't think Tony has an ounce of malice in him and if the CS X LS was the best thing ever he would have said as much. But without some transparency as to how the final score is derived, that 73 is hard for me to understand. 1 bad ball, a true cost of just 3% off MSRP, and a score of 73? I don't see how that pans out. Reading the article and getting to the end I was thinking this was going to rate in the 90's. I'll keep reading the ball labs because, I do enjoy them. But right now, they are kind of data without context. I'm sure Tony is working on the context, but until we can say that X% of weight difference equates to X distance lost or gained. Or a core out of center does X to the ball flight, etc, we are really just having a beauty contest. On the Podcast Tony and Team are always talking about how the ball matters, and since find it cut it, I've been echoing that song as well. I know it is a different test, and it isn't easy to do, but putting data to the "bad balls" is the mission I put before you. "We choose to test this ball in this lab and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too." -what my mind believes Tony says every time he sits down at his work bench.

Hey buddy, I had an eagle today on 18. Have you found yours yet?

I've never been to a McMenamin's. But I do comment on the boat one somewhere in south western Washington along I5 every time we drive to Portland.

I think you might be more at home over in the club ho anonymous stream.

Welcome to the boards! The Portland area is full of spys. And ummm, beer. I'm sure that isn't related.