COG
- Thread starter DCgolf
- Start date
- Status
Well, I do have a thought on my recent experience with drivers. My clubhead cracked so I replaced it with the Cleveland Hi-Bore Monster XLS clubhead. However, the ballflight seemed to balloon too much.
I talked to Golfsmith's clubmaker and he basically said that that head is made for hackers because so much weight is positioned so far back in the head.
So I replaced that head with a new Cleveland Classic head, which has more of a tour-style shape. Voila! Ballflight and sound off the face are much better. So there presumably is such a thing as having the weight too far back in the clubhead.
Virtuoso
New
It's neither good nor bad. Moving the cg forward drops the MOI, and makes it play "effectively" lower even if you don't actually lower the height of cg. So, you get a slightly less forgiving clubhead for ball speeds on mishits, you get slightly more gear effect, which you have to offset with bulge and roll radius, and you get less backspin.....and ever so slightly higher launch. If that suits the player, great.
Virtuoso
New
Wulsy, I honestly don't know much about the 913 D3 mass properties. Nor do I know your delivery angles and how they would interact with the 913.
I respect you too much as a fellow poster to hazard a guess and present it as fact.....which is done often on golf instruction forums.
I will say this, if the 913 is like other previous Titleists that have an open face and a high-heel cg to balance the open face, then a toe hit would hook quite a bit and a LOW heel hit would have a lot of backspin. But every driver design has similar trade-offs. You have to put the cg somewhere....or at least nature has to put the cg somewhere.
I respect you too much as a fellow poster to hazard a guess and present it as fact.....which is done often on golf instruction forums.
I will say this, if the 913 is like other previous Titleists that have an open face and a high-heel cg to balance the open face, then a toe hit would hook quite a bit and a LOW heel hit would have a lot of backspin. But every driver design has similar trade-offs. You have to put the cg somewhere....or at least nature has to put the cg somewhere.
Thanks Virt. That sounds about right to me and ties in with my experience with the club. I don't like massive GE reactions which this club seems to produce so I'll have a look at replacing this badboy with something more forgiving. Lets face it, who hits a driver out the middle anyway?
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Virtuoso, interesting stuff
Article on TaylorMade's forward and lower center of gravity on GolfDigest.com:
TaylorMade reinvents movable weight with new SLDR: Hot List 365: Golf Digest
TaylorMade reinvents movable weight with new SLDR: Hot List 365: Golf Digest
Virtuoso
New
the farthest forward cg's were in the first metal woods, like the original TM Burners, because the faces were very thick. The farthest back have generally been the oversize titanium woods with thin faces. The original persimmon woods are somewhere in between, but they have very low MOI because they are solid, not hollow. Catch it even a little high on the face equals sky ball, low on the face equals grounder, toe ball equals duck hook, etc.
So wulsy, even despite your healthy cynicism, we have made progress.
So wulsy, even despite your healthy cynicism, we have made progress.
- Status