Euro Tour

[drewyallop]

Well, I asked you whether you agreed that you held entrenched views? I don't think you answered that one (explicitly)

I also asked what were the changes in equipment design, for blades and wooden drivers, between the '50s and '80s that created more forgiveness. I don't think you answered that either.

You asked me about driver data. Being a decent, reasonable sort of chap, I'll answer your question. Again - since I've already posted this in this thread.

But in a wee bit more detail - look at smash factor figures. For 2011, smash factor varied across the whole tour a whopping 0.034, from a high of 1.485 to a low of 1.451. Median was 1.48. In other words, half the field (the half including your favourite, Furyk) is within 0.3% of each other in terms of their consistent ability to hit it out of the screws.

Don't you think that's quite impressive consistency?

I'm talking about consistency in terms of a middling strike of course. Because that's what clubhead forgiveness relates to. If you want to argue that modern clubs are easier to deliver square, then please explain why. Or maybe those longer shafted, lightweight drivers are actually HARDER to square at impact, which might in part explain low FIR stats, but wouldn't fit with your belief that the game has just been made ridiculously easy by a bunch of rocket scientists for a bunch of pampered hackers.

Good argument birly. BTW how can the median be as same as the highest smash factor?

 

[drewyallop]

Drew - when I hear talk about the CoG being moved backwards from the face, I assume that the conversation is about cavity-backs, not blades. If we're talking ancient and modern blades, then my assumption is that there is very little scope for moving the CoG rearward. With a shorter hosel, you might see the CoG closer to the centre of the face - although from his product line, I don't think Hogan ever realised this for himself.

The flat face on his woods is interesting. I'm sure it's true from a number of accounts but I'm not sure what it tells us. Regardless of the bulge and roll on his driver, his club must have had gear effect. I can't think what the advantage would be of a flat face - maybe he liked the look. Maybe he liked to scare himself at the prospect of a toed snapper. Doubtless, we'll be hearing shortly that there was no bulge and roll because Hogan never missed the sweetspot (although I believe there are quotes from the man himself that would contradict this). I would maintain that a flat driver face is simply bad design - there's no advantage. Aesthetics over function.

It could well be that Hogan wasn't much of a designer. His personal set up didn't make it into his company's product line, and his latter products didn't make it into his tournament bag. He hated pings, which suggests to me he didn't understand them. I don't think he understood the importance of CoG positioning. And he gave us "the speedslot". And he kept giving us pinned necks long after it was necessary. He did do great quality - but not great design, IMOP. And I LIKE the clubs.

A few things birly. Woods mentioned that a lot of improvements have been made in "blades" since the old days; making them more forgiving. I may be wrong but doesn't putting a "muscle" on the back of a blade move the COG back?

My point of driver face curvature was that less curvature will penalize an off-centre shot more. More curvature = more gear effect and this will bring the ball back. But I am going from memory of Tuxen's and Woods' presentations. Could be completely wrong.

 

[drewyallop]

The funny thing is though there is not much literature on the subject, most all of the conclusions drawn from the analysis of data conclude the driving distance and driving accuracy stats are statistically insignificant.

One of my friends who is trying to make the tour likes to take the stats down. Fairways, greens, and putts. I tell him it's not so simple.

Side note...last January I brought my findings about what categories were statistically significant to one of my golf pro buddies, sand save percentage was one. The other was my crack about how driving distance actually showed up as a negative coefficient, meaning, the more money the players made, the lower their driving distance (this is the guy who hits it like Dustin Johnson). It was very marginal, but it was there. He responds "Luke Donald and David Toms haven't won anything in...I don't know how long."

David,

Have you done a correlation on white belts and driving distance?

 

[birly-shirly]

A few things birly. Woods mentioned that a lot of improvements have been made in "blades" since the old days; making them more forgiving. I may be wrong but doesn't putting a "muscle" on the back of a blade move the COG back?

My point of driver face curvature was that less curvature will penalize an off-centre shot more. More curvature = more gear effect and this will bring the ball back. But I am going from memory of Tuxen's and Woods' presentations. Could be completely wrong.

Drew - it depends what design factors are being talked about.

I'm not sure that a basic forged blade or muscleback offers much scope for significantly altering the MoI of the clubhead, which is what I primarily think about in terms of clubhead forgiveness. Taking weight out of the heel, by shortening the hosel, and redistributing it in the toe, would help I imagine. And if you take weight out of the hosel and put it anywhere else, then you are inevitably moving the CoG somewhat rearward. However, I'm not sure that the practical result will be dramatic. Maltby published some clubhead MOI figures as part of his playability listings - but I'm not sure that I can find MoI figures for old iron heads. If you look at his listings for modern clubs, you'll see a slight variation in blades, but not much.

A muscleback might move weight back marginally, but remember that you're bulking out the lower half of the clubhead, which sits farther forward than the upper half of the clubhead.

Lastly, it's always possible that Paul Woods remarks about modern blades refer to Ping's interpretation of blade...

However, I would be genuinely interested to hear of how, or in what way, modern blades are more forgiving than their predecessors.

My best guess is that it's nothing to do with MoI per se, but sole profiles and the club's tendency to dig. Personally, I think of this as a playability and a fitting issue more than "forgiveness" but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

Re face curvature - I think you're slightly off-base in terminology. Either that, or I am. My understanding is that "gear effect" is the effect on the spin-axis of an off-centre strike, which grows increasingly noticeable as the clubhead's CoG is moved back from the face. In other words, "gear effect" is the curvature in the ball flight as a result of an off-centre strike. The bulge and roll on the face doesn't affect or change the gear effect, but it changes the starting direction of the ball to make allowance for the gear effect.

So I agree that less curvature makes the clubhead less forgiving of off-centre strikes - but strictly speaking, the curvature doesn't either increase or reduce the gear effect, it offsets it.

Sorry - my inner pedant is on day release today...

 

[drewyallop]

Drew - it depends what design factors are being talked about.

I'm not sure that a basic forged blade or muscleback offers much scope for significantly altering the MoI of the clubhead, which is what I primarily think about in terms of clubhead forgiveness. Taking weight out of the heel, by shortening the hosel, and redistributing it in the toe, would help I imagine. And if you take weight out of the hosel and put it anywhere else, then you are inevitably moving the CoG somewhat rearward. However, I'm not sure that the practical result will be dramatic. Maltby published some clubhead MOI figures as part of his playability listings - but I'm not sure that I can find MoI figures for old iron heads. If you look at his listings for modern clubs, you'll see a slight variation in blades, but not much.

A muscleback might move weight back marginally, but remember that you're bulking out the lower half of the clubhead, which sits farther forward than the upper half of the clubhead.

Lastly, it's always possible that Paul Woods remarks about modern blades refer to Ping's interpretation of blade...

However, I would be genuinely interested to hear of how, or in what way, modern blades are more forgiving than their predecessors.

My best guess is that it's nothing to do with MoI per se, but sole profiles and the club's tendency to dig. Personally, I think of this as a playability and a fitting issue more than "forgiveness" but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

Re face curvature - I think you're slightly off-base in terminology. Either that, or I am. My understanding is that "gear effect" is the effect on the spin-axis of an off-centre strike, which grows increasingly noticeable as the clubhead's CoG is moved back from the face. In other words, "gear effect" is the curvature in the ball flight as a result of an off-centre strike. The bulge and roll on the face doesn't affect or change the gear effect, but it changes the starting direction of the ball to make allowance for the gear effect.

So I agree that less curvature makes the clubhead less forgiving of off-centre strikes - but strictly speaking, the curvature doesn't either increase or reduce the gear effect, it offsets it.

Sorry - my inner pedant is on day release today...

You know more than I on this subject birly so I am probably wrong. I am going to watch Tuxen/Woods again on gear effect and off centre hits. I don't think Woods explains how blades are made more forgiving - probably a subject that is Ping company confidential. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[drewyallop]

Drew - it depends what design factors are being talked about.

I'm not sure that a basic forged blade or muscleback offers much scope for significantly altering the MoI of the clubhead, which is what I primarily think about in terms of clubhead forgiveness. Taking weight out of the heel, by shortening the hosel, and redistributing it in the toe, would help I imagine. And if you take weight out of the hosel and put it anywhere else, then you are inevitably moving the CoG somewhat rearward. However, I'm not sure that the practical result will be dramatic. Maltby published some clubhead MOI figures as part of his playability listings - but I'm not sure that I can find MoI figures for old iron heads. If you look at his listings for modern clubs, you'll see a slight variation in blades, but not much.

A muscleback might move weight back marginally, but remember that you're bulking out the lower half of the clubhead, which sits farther forward than the upper half of the clubhead.

Lastly, it's always possible that Paul Woods remarks about modern blades refer to Ping's interpretation of blade...

However, I would be genuinely interested to hear of how, or in what way, modern blades are more forgiving than their predecessors.

My best guess is that it's nothing to do with MoI per se, but sole profiles and the club's tendency to dig. Personally, I think of this as a playability and a fitting issue more than "forgiveness" but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

Re face curvature - I think you're slightly off-base in terminology. Either that, or I am. My understanding is that "gear effect" is the effect on the spin-axis of an off-centre strike, which grows increasingly noticeable as the clubhead's CoG is moved back from the face. In other words, "gear effect" is the curvature in the ball flight as a result of an off-centre strike. The bulge and roll on the face doesn't affect or change the gear effect, but it changes the starting direction of the ball to make allowance for the gear effect.

So I agree that less curvature makes the clubhead less forgiving of off-centre strikes - but strictly speaking, the curvature doesn't either increase or reduce the gear effect, it offsets it.

Sorry - my inner pedant is on day release today...

Yeah birly you are exactly right about gear effect. Just reviewed the video again. Woods said that with an almost flat faced wood (Hogan) and an off-centre toe hit of 1/4 inch you are deep in the left shmenge.

Also I got this: old blades had long hosels and this moves the COG even farther forward. The farther forward the COG the less the gear effect on off centre hits. At the limit, where the COG is exactly parallel with the ball COG, there is no gear effect and the club face moves straight back. There is no rotation about the COG. And the result is a weak shot. Hit an old blade on the toe and you quickly become familiar with that sickening feeling.