Famous Davis was RIGHT!

[daveperkins]

For a couple of years now, I've been trying to "move on" to the next driver. I put away the 2007 HiBore XL Tour 9.5* with V2 in X flex, and tried out several setups, most recently the HiBore XLS, first with the stock shaft, then reshafted with the V2 in Stiff. I had thought I was doing well with it, liked the MOI, could actually see and feel it work, getting poorly hit shots to go straighter, etc.

Famous Davis, though, noticed I'd lost distance. I figured I was just getting old.

But when we played in Houston awhile back, he noticed my three wood was going as far as my driver. Sure, I hit that three wood big (outknocked his driver on one hole with my three wood :-), but I had not put it together that the driver wasn't getting it done.

So yesterday I hit a jumbo bucket and took out the old 2007 HIBore. I had been out the week before and conditions were the same, and I absolutely was hitting the old driver 15-20 yards longer than the newer one.

Impact sound is nicer too, more thunky and less clanky. I had forgotten how well I did with that thing. The tour head, slightly open at address, nowhere near as stretched-out long, front to back, as the latest models, it felt sort of small as I looked at it. And there is a penalty for missing the sweet spot-- but I think it's more a feel penalty than a distance or accuracy one. Anything close to the middle and it goes fine.

So I was hitting it over or through the back fence yesterday, and the newer driver couldn't get me TO the fence. (fence is about 265 yds from current tee position.)

So, it's back to the future! 2007 technology back in Big Dave's bag, and high hopes for this year's driving. Maybe there's a new driver for me (I have a new Evolver that I haven't tried reshafting yet, will be getting a few of the detach hosels and trying a few different shafts, love the feel of the head), but the old Cleveland soup bowl is going back in the sack.

[SoonerBS]

You are not finished until you have retro back all the way to the steel shafted driver. Sorry, but this is no big revelation.

Once you have gone back all the way to steel, as I have done, then you shall know big knocks and greater consistency.

[oldplayer]

In the same way i am looking at the older "modern classics" to see if the newer stuff can outdo it.I have gotten hold of a titleist 983K as it was a much loved and appreciated driver only a decade ago to see if back to the future is the way to go. I took it to the range and it perform beautifully. The smaller look at set up is very pleasing, the impact sound is great and the ballfight very straight. It seems this head may have a slight draw bias.
I am taking it out on the course today and it will be interesting to see if it measures up distance wise. I expect it will. My bag is starting to look very retro. Smaller headed driver and just about all the other clubs a decade old. It really seems to me that for the more experienced player older is the way to go.
.

[mongrel]

You are not finished until you have retro back all the way to the steel shafted driver. Sorry, but this is no big revelation.

Once you have gone back all the way to steel, as I have done, then you shall know big knocks and greater consistency.

Couple months ago I bought a 10.5% Titleist 975J with a Prolite 3.5 shaft for around $8 or so. I bought it for the shaft since that shaft is still made and lists for almost $40. So just for grins I pulled the Prolite and bought a new Dynamic Gold R300 and put it into that gorgeous little 312 c.c. head and chopped the butt off to play 43.5". Man is that a sweet little stick than I can get into with all my might over the top or severe lag and all it wants to do is go about straight and feel real good. It might be an in-the-bag sure-thing in lieu of 3 wood.

[Kiwi Player]

In the same way i am looking at the older "modern classics" to see if the newer stuff can outdo it.I have gotten hold of a titleist 983K as it was a much loved and appreciated driver only a decade ago to see if back to the future is the way to go. I took it to the range and it perform beautifully. The smaller look at set up is very pleasing, the impact sound is great and the ballfight very straight. It seems this head may have a slight draw bias.
I am taking it out on the course today and it will be interesting to see if it measures up distance wise. I expect it will. My bag is starting to look very retro. Smaller headed driver and just about all the other clubs a decade old. It really seems to me that for the more experienced player older is the way to go.
.

When you find yourself in a tight situation it's great to have experienced clubs in the bag knowing they will have been in that situation before and therefore won't panic. You can't buy that experience with new clubs.

[famousdavis]

I don't think I've gained much yardage in driving distance over the last 10 years. The Mizuno T3 Titanium driver that I purchased back in 1997 goes every bit as far as my latest Callaway FT-Tour driver. However, I like the look of the FT-Tour much more and it's far more forgiving than the smaller-headed Mizuno T3. Plus, the FT-Tour just screams "player", which is exactly what I am.

[Not a hacker]

In the same way i am looking at the older "modern classics" to see if the newer stuff can outdo it.I have gotten hold of a titleist 983K as it was a much loved and appreciated driver only a decade ago to see if back to the future is the way to go. I took it to the range and it perform beautifully. The smaller look at set up is very pleasing, the impact sound is great and the ballfight very straight. It seems this head may have a slight draw bias.
I am taking it out on the course today and it will be interesting to see if it measures up distance wise. I expect it will. My bag is starting to look very retro. Smaller headed driver and just about all the other clubs a decade old. It really seems to me that for the more experienced player older is the way to go.
.

I played a 983k when I was on holiday last year and it is a very sweet club. Not that old either, less than 10 years. It has a draw bias but not as much as most other drivers, just in the hands of someone with a good swing it will tend to draw. Im in agreeance re: old is better. I keep trying new stuff but nothing has come close to the 905R yet. Might be because OEMs have crap shats, but for whatever reason my R feels better, goes straighter, has a better ball flight and is way longer than any new driver Ive hit. I plan on playing in some vardon events this year so it will be interesting to see the bags of low cappers and scratch golfers. I suspect there will be quite a few older drivers in play.

[Pky6471]

For a couple of years now, I've been trying to "move on" to the next driver. I put away the 2007 HiBore XL Tour 9.5* with V2 in X flex, and tried out several setups, most recently the HiBore XLS, first with the stock shaft, then reshafted with the V2 in Stiff. I had thought I was doing well with it, liked the MOI, could actually see and feel it work, getting poorly hit shots to go straighter, etc..

big Dave... I hope that you are going to be right, at least one time. You are crying so loud about your Cleveland Hi-Bore XLS gaybrid so much that I have to try it out. eBayed this club for $20 + $12 shipping, it comes with Fujikura Fit-On M Gold 65 R-flex, did not look as bad as you said... Will try this weekend at the range if not too cold

[famousdavis]

I played a 983k when I was on holiday last year and it is a very sweet club. Not that old either, less than 10 years. It has a draw bias but not as much as most other drivers, just in the hands of someone with a good swing it will tend to draw. Im in agreeance re: old is better. I keep trying new stuff but nothing has come close to the 905R yet. Might be because OEMs have crap shats, but for whatever reason my R feels better, goes straighter, has a better ball flight and is way longer than any new driver Ive hit. I plan on playing in some vardon events this year so it will be interesting to see the bags of low cappers and scratch golfers. I suspect there will be quite a few older drivers in play.

One of the guys i used to play with at Chester Washington (Los Angeles Course) bought a 983K with Aldila NV-65 X-stiff shaft. This guy was close to scratch and immediately gained 25 yards from his previous driver, a Ping TiSi Tec. Hit hit huge power fades with that club.

I think the 905R probably provides even more distance than the 983K. However, every Titleist driver I've tried that came after the 905R has been shorter in distance. I have found the 909 D3 to be much shorter.

[SoonerBS]

Couple months ago I bought a 10.5% Titleist 975J with a Prolite 3.5 shaft for around $8 or so. I bought it for the shaft since that shaft is still made and lists for almost $40. So just for grins I pulled the Prolite and bought a new Dynamic Gold R300 and put it into that gorgeous little 312 c.c. head and chopped the butt off to play 43.5". Man is that a sweet little stick than I can get into with all my might over the top or severe lag and all it wants to do is go about straight and feel real good. It might be an in-the-bag sure-thing in lieu of 3 wood.

I think we have been suckered into believing that graphite shafts will give us a better game and longer distances no matter whether we are talking about irons or woods. Let's figure this out by listing the facts as we know them about graphite:

1.) They are lighter.

2.) If they are lighter, we should be able to swing them faster.

3.) Faster swing speed equates into a larger smash factor at ball strike sending the ball further.

OK, these facts are all great IF we hit the ball in the center of the club face every time we swing. However, faster speed means less possible control of the club, which means off-center shots that are likely to go anywhere, but where we want them to go.

Steel shafts may mean less velocity on swing, but they also mean more control. If we are hitting the ball with more control, then we are more likely to hit the ball towards the center of the club face sending the ball down the fairway and usually further than a mishit club with graphite shaft.

So, while graphite shafts look really cool and we think they are better because they cost way more than steel shafts, there are likely very few golfers that have the swings good enough to take full advantage of the benefits. In other words, the majority of golfers should be using steel shafts in every club they use.

[famousdavis]

I think we have been suckered into believing that graphite shafts will give us a better game and longer distances no matter whether we are talking about irons or woods. Let's figure this out by listing the facts as we know them about graphite:

1.) They are lighter.

2.) If they are lighter, we should be able to swing them faster.

3.) Faster swing speed equates into a larger smash factor at ball strike sending the ball further.

OK, these facts are all great IF we hit the ball in the center of the club face every time we swing. However, faster speed means less possible control of the club, which means off-center shots that are likely to go anywhere, but where we want them to go.

Steel shafts may mean less velocity on swing, but they also mean more control. If we are hitting the ball with more control, then we are more likely to hit the ball towards the center of the club face sending the ball down the fairway and usually further than a mishit club with graphite shaft.

So, while graphite shafts look really cool and we think they are better because they cost way more than steel shafts, there are likely very few golfers that have the swings good enough to take full advantage of the benefits. In other words, the majority of golfers should be using steel shafts in every club they use.

I don't think you made a solid argument for using steel in fairway woods and drivers. You are stating that steel shafts provide more control than graphite shafts. That's not true. The reason someone may become more accurate with a steel shaft is because of the necessity to cut the shaft down so that the club insn't too heavy. Adding weight to the club and shortening the shaft is what truly makes a driver more accurate. Those are the two variables to look at rather than steel vs. graphite.

There are plenty of graphite shafts out there that are heavier than standard graphite but still lighter than steel. These shafts give you the benefit of better feel without becoming so heavy that they affect your swing.

If you want more accuracy and more solid hits, install a heavier than standard graphite shaft and shorten the length to 44.5 to 45 inches. 44.5 inches is very controllable. Persimmon drivers used to be 43.5 inches. Personally, I think cutting down a driver to under 44.5 inches makes the head look too big and it appears awkward.

If you were to use steel, you'd have to cut the club down to under 44 inches to keep weight down. Every 1/4 of an inch means considerable distance loss. If you kept it at 45 inches with steel you'd be swinging a fairly heavy club.

[mongrel]

I think we have been suckered into believing that graphite shafts will give us a better game and longer distances no matter whether we are talking about irons or woods. Let's figure this out by listing the facts as we know them about graphite:

1.) They are lighter.

2.) If they are lighter, we should be able to swing them faster.

3.) Faster swing speed equates into a larger smash factor at ball strike sending the ball further.

OK, these facts are all great IF we hit the ball in the center of the club face every time we swing. However, faster speed means less possible control of the club, which means off-center shots that are likely to go anywhere, but where we want them to go.

Steel shafts may mean less velocity on swing, but they also mean more control. If we are hitting the ball with more control, then we are more likely to hit the ball towards the center of the club face sending the ball down the fairway and usually further than a mishit club with graphite shaft.

So, while graphite shafts look really cool and we think they are better because they cost way more than steel shafts, there are likely very few golfers that have the swings good enough to take full advantage of the benefits. In other words, the majority of golfers should be using steel shafts in every club they use.

Smash factor has nothing to do with clubhead speed. It is just the observed ball speed divided by the clubhead speed. And the theoretical optimum smash factor (maybe some damn physicist could explain it) is 1.5. For example, if you hit a ball with your driver swung at 100 mph and the ball speed is observed to be 150 mph, the Smash Factor is 150/100, or, 1.5. Obviously, hitting the ball center-face with the optimum angle of attack will yield the highest smash factor. The guy who swings 80 mph and achieves a 120 mph ball speed has a smash factor of 1.5. The guy who swings 110 and gets his ball up to 150 has a 1.4 smash factor, a less efficient blow. Of course the latter's drive should carry at least 260 while the former's might carry the 190 yard wide Environmentally Sensitive area.

The material the shaft is made from matters not a whit. Its length and flex profile matter a whole bunch. I can hit my 975J with the DG S300 shaft playing 43.5 center-face a whole lot more reliably than my 905T with a 60 gram graphite shaft playing at 45.5. The trick is to find the lightest shaft with the optimum flex at the longest length at which you can reliably hit the center of the driver face. For some unknown reason, the two graphite shafts I have that let me do this are a Proforce V2 65 gram regular flex at
44.75" and a Proforce AXIV Blue 59 regular at 45". Both are very low speed rated shafts but I can whale on them without losing much control. I had a 75 gram V2 regular in one 905R but it felt too boardy. Still hit almost every ball in that narrow window that Tit put on the faces of the 905's and 907's.

[Not a hacker]

I have had my smash factor measured at 1.49, which explains why I hit it so far with a relatively low ss (100-105). I get maximum distance from my ss. Not sure if the driver face affects smash factor, but I can feel the trampoline effect off the R face.

[mongrel]

I have had my smash factor measured at 1.49, which explains why I hit it so far with a relatively low ss (100-105). I get maximum distance from my ss. Not sure if the driver face affects smash factor, but I can feel the trampoline effect off the R face.

I'm not quite up to your swing speed and I really can't feel the trampoline effect in my R's but have once or two with my 907D2. I think you've got to have everything about perfect-- head, loft, shaft, grip and all the other little stuff. 1.49 with regularity is better than any touring pro, I'd wager. By the way, the highest smash factor numbers I've ever got were last winter in the good Golf Galaxy monitor (before they started charging to use it with mandatory "fittings") with an 8.5* 905T head and a regular flex Maltby MPF shaft with about 35 grams of counterweight at the butt end of the grip. In fact, the computer calculated my best blows at 1.54 or some absurd number that is not supposed to be theoretically possible. I disassembled that club to use the shaft in another driver because I didn't think 8.5* was enough loft for me to play with consistency.

[Fluffy]

I'm not quite up to your swing speed and I really can't feel the trampoline effect in my R's but have once or two with my 907D2. I think you've got to have everything about perfect-- head, loft, shaft, grip and all the other little stuff. 1.49 with regularity is better than any touring pro, I'd wager. By the way, the highest smash factor numbers I've ever got were last winter in the good Golf Galaxy monitor (before they started charging to use it with mandatory "fittings") with an 8.5* 905T head and a regular flex Maltby MPF shaft with about 35 grams of counterweight at the butt end of the grip. In fact, the computer calculated my best blows at 1.54 or some absurd number that is not supposed to be theoretically possible. I disassembled that club to use the shaft in another driver because I didn't think 8.5* was enough loft for me to play with consistency.

Hi Guys,


The highest possible smash factor is 1.53.....

on these swing machines, if for example you hit a driver with 130mph swing speed and get a smash factor of 1.35-1.40,then you would hit around 290meters,bet again,hitting that exact same driver with a swing speed of 113-115mph,get you a better smash factor above 1.45,consistently and puts your distance exactly the same.it does make that much a difference...

PS I found the best launch angle for this swing speed is around 15-16 degrees,Trying to get consistent with my driver I found to hit it more consistent,rather then far,i have to move the ball directly over my left foot,and move my stance a whole club head back,making me put my weight forward,This helped me alot with my fades,(I dont like hitting fades,its a waste of energy)

[Not a hacker]

I'm not quite up to your swing speed and I really can't feel the trampoline effect in my R's but have once or two with my 907D2. I think you've got to have everything about perfect-- head, loft, shaft, grip and all the other little stuff. 1.49 with regularity is better than any touring pro, I'd wager. By the way, the highest smash factor numbers I've ever got were last winter in the good Golf Galaxy monitor (before they started charging to use it with mandatory "fittings") with an 8.5* 905T head and a regular flex Maltby MPF shaft with about 35 grams of counterweight at the butt end of the grip. In fact, the computer calculated my best blows at 1.54 or some absurd number that is not supposed to be theoretically possible. I disassembled that club to use the shaft in another driver because I didn't think 8.5* was enough loft for me to play with consistency.

I was on a shop monitor so you take the readings with a pinch of salt. I think most touring pros would be close to 150 though, they all hit it miles without looking like they are trying.

[FreakOfNature]

Length is all about impact, with a slight boost due to clubhead speed. But really it's all about impact for most players.

You need to compress the ball first and foremost, and to do that you need to transfer as much energy as possible from the clubhead to the ball.

This isn't exactly easy, but knowing what you're trying to do helps, so here's what you need to try to do...

Keep the club moving along the initial plane of the shaft which was set at address. This will move the mass of the club along the most efficient delivery plane and as such will retain the greatest amount of clubhead speed by encouraging the club to take the shortest route back to the ball. That will help you tremendously in reaching your maximum clubhead speed. Speed = energy. The more speed you have the more energy you have to give to the ball.

A direct single plane blow is the most powerful move you can make into the ball. If you don't want to believe me, then find a carpenter who uses a two plane swing to drive nails with a hammer. The physics principles are exactly analogous... deliver the most force with the club/hammer to the ball/nail. There is simply no better way to create both speed and power. The more direct the blow, the more powerful the blow.

Now comes impact. This is where it gets slightly complicated to explain, but it's easier to do than it sounds.

The clubhead must approach the ball on a path which has the center of mass of the clubhead directly approaching the center of mass of the ball. This path should optimally be perpendicular to the loft of the club at the moment of impact. Sounds complicated, I know... but that's just the words doing a good job of getting in the way of the message.

A good visual would be imagining a 6" spike attached to the face of your club at 90 degrees (perpendicular) to the loft, and then trying to take that spike and driving it directly through the center of the golf ball at impact. That will get you the most solid contact, and the greatest energy transfer between the club and ball... in other words, that's how you maximize your smash factor.

Maximum clubhead speed + maximum smash factor = approximately maximum length. Of course there are those nuances of launch angle and spin rate to further accommodate... but those are minimal effect variables which you account for after you learn to swing fast and hit the ball solid. They are the very few yards you can actually buy in this game without ignoring the reality of using longer shafts and stronger lofts; this is the realm of nickel and diming for a few yards, and this is not where the greatest gains are found. Sure, you can buy a few yards with a fitting, but you'll pick up a lot more yards from making proper swings.

I know I've traditionally been a braggart and a showoff in regard to hitting the long ball, but give me this one chance... just trust me. You'll be hitting the biggest bombs of your life. I guarantee it.

There's the old saying "Those who can, do... and those who can't, teach.". I'm 5'10", 165lbs... and the undisputed longest pound for pound player on GR, if not simply the longest... period. For once someone who can actually do it is giving the advice. I'm just trying to help. Dismiss my advice at your own peril.



FON

[Horseballs]

3.) Faster swing speed equates into a larger smash factor at ball strike sending the ball further.

I miss the days when LyleG would see this comment and tear you a new a-hole.
Sooner, you are alone on your quest to justify your steel shafted driver. There is a reason for your loneliness that is independent of the cow sh!t all over your golf shoes.

[SoonerBS]

I miss the days when LyleG would see this comment and tear you a new a-hole.
Sooner, you are alone on your quest to justify your steel shafted driver. There is a reason for your loneliness that is independent of the cow sh!t all over your golf shoes.

In a pasture of cow sh!t, you guys are the cattle while I am the shepherd.

In a process of experimentation, I have stumbled across a combination that allows me to swing with force and yet keep the club on a stable plane. I could have possibly found a graphite shaft that would have done the same, but not without spending a lot of money and wasting a lot of time. Everybody has to find that combination for themselves. BUT, I think a lot of golfers are brainwashed in believing that their answers lie in the newest driver head and an expensive graphite shaft, whenever they may do a lot better with a steel shaft and older modeled club head (although, I don't think the clubhead is that important in the scheme of things). I can say these things because I talk from experience. I'm the guy, who in less than a year ago, went out and bought a brand new Taylormade R11 driver, then purchased two additional shafts for said driver, and played it for 3 months. It is now sitting in one of my old golf bags in my golf room.

All I am trying to say here is that everyone's answer to better golfing equipment may not be going forwards, it may lie in going backwards . . . . . . and, going back further than what Big Dave is eluding to here in this thread.

I'm pretty secure in my thoughts here because I am the only one that has likely stuck a steel shaft in a newer driver head to see how it would perform. I think if more of you guys would do the same, you would find very little if any loss of distance, but a greater degree of feel and consistency in your ball striking off the tee.

However, in the end, it will not put a wrinkle in my sphincter no matter what you guys do or say. If it is your desire, please, by all means, continue to throw money into new exotic shafts and club heads. I've already learned my lesson.

[lorenzoinoc]

In a pasture of cow sh!t, you guys are the cattle while I am the shepherd.

In a process of experimentation, I have stumbled across a combination that allows me to swing with force and yet keep the club on a stable plane. I could have possibly found a graphite shaft that would have done the same, but not without spending a lot of money and wasting a lot of time. Everybody has to find that combination for themselves. BUT, I think a lot of golfers are brainwashed in believing that their answers lie in the newest driver head and an expensive graphite shaft, whenever they may do a lot better with a steel shaft and older modeled club head (although, I don't think the clubhead is that important in the scheme of things). I can say these things because I talk from experience. I'm the guy, who in less than a year ago, went out and bought a brand new Taylormade R11 driver, then purchased two additional shafts for said driver, and played it for 3 months. It is now sitting in one of my old golf bags in my golf room.

All I am trying to say here is that everyone's answer to better golfing equipment may not be going forwards, it may lie in going backwards . . . . . . and, going back further than what Big Dave is eluding to here in this thread.

I'm pretty secure in my thoughts here because I am the only one that has likely stuck a steel shaft in a newer driver head to see how it would perform. I think if more of you guys would do the same, you would find very little if any loss of distance, but a greater degree of feel and consistency in your ball striking off the tee.

However, in the end, it will not put a wrinkle in my sphincter no matter what you guys do or say. If it is your desire, please, by all means, continue to throw money into new exotic shafts and club heads. I've already learned my lesson.

Sooner, I couldn't care what kind of shaft you use, people make mistakes. As an example, there are those who live in the midwest. But five paragraphs on how you don't care what anyone else says is self-refuting.

[mongrel]

In a pasture of cow sh!t, you guys are the cattle while I am the shepherd.

In a process of experimentation, I have stumbled across a combination that allows me to swing with force and yet keep the club on a stable plane. I could have possibly found a graphite shaft that would have done the same, but not without spending a lot of money and wasting a lot of time. Everybody has to find that combination for themselves. BUT, I think a lot of golfers are brainwashed in believing that their answers lie in the newest driver head and an expensive graphite shaft, whenever they may do a lot better with a steel shaft and older modeled club head (although, I don't think the clubhead is that important in the scheme of things). I can say these things because I talk from experience. I'm the guy, who in less than a year ago, went out and bought a brand new Taylormade R11 driver, then purchased two additional shafts for said driver, and played it for 3 months. It is now sitting in one of my old golf bags in my golf room.

All I am trying to say here is that everyone's answer to better golfing equipment may not be going forwards, it may lie in going backwards . . . . . . and, going back further than what Big Dave is eluding to here in this thread.

I'm pretty secure in my thoughts here because I am the only one that has likely stuck a steel shaft in a newer driver head to see how it would perform. I think if more of you guys would do the same, you would find very little if any loss of distance, but a greater degree of feel and consistency in your ball striking off the tee. However, in the end, it will not put a wrinkle in my sphincter no matter what you guys do or say. If it is your desire, please, by all means, continue to throw money into new exotic shafts and club heads.

Nope. I had a TT Lite XL in a 905T head for awhile and hit bunches of practice balls with that club up against my 975J with the DG R300. The T head came out around 2005. When I get another 905R head, I will stick another steel shaft in it. I'd like to try one of the TT DG SL's. Although they are discontinued, a golf supply store near me has bunches of New-Old-Stock shafts from way back. By the way, the 905T with the TT Lite XL in it felt good and I could not miss the sweet spot unless I made an intentional bad swing. But that shaft felt much looser than the DG R300 although it allowed a higher trajectory with both heads the same loft but much different characteristics.

[SoonerBS]

Sooner, I couldn't care what kind of shaft you use, people make mistakes. As an example, there are those who live in the midwest. But five paragraphs on how you don't care what anyone else says is self-refuting.

It is true that I got carried away on the keyboard. I hate that fact. I am ashamed. Likely will not happen again.

[famousdavis]

In a pasture of cow sh!t, you guys are the cattle while I am the shepherd.

In a process of experimentation, I have stumbled across a combination that allows me to swing with force and yet keep the club on a stable plane. I could have possibly found a graphite shaft that would have done the same, but not without spending a lot of money and wasting a lot of time. Everybody has to find that combination for themselves. BUT, I think a lot of golfers are brainwashed in believing that their answers lie in the newest driver head and an expensive graphite shaft, whenever they may do a lot better with a steel shaft and older modeled club head (although, I don't think the clubhead is that important in the scheme of things). I can say these things because I talk from experience. I'm the guy, who in less than a year ago, went out and bought a brand new Taylormade R11 driver, then purchased two additional shafts for said driver, and played it for 3 months. It is now sitting in one of my old golf bags in my golf room.

All I am trying to say here is that everyone's answer to better golfing equipment may not be going forwards, it may lie in going backwards . . . . . . and, going back further than what Big Dave is eluding to here in this thread.

I'm pretty secure in my thoughts here because I am the only one that has likely stuck a steel shaft in a newer driver head to see how it would perform. I think if more of you guys would do the same, you would find very little if any loss of distance, but a greater degree of feel and consistency in your ball striking off the tee.

However, in the end, it will not put a wrinkle in my sphincter no matter what you guys do or say. If it is your desire, please, by all means, continue to throw money into new exotic shafts and club heads. I've already learned my lesson.

OK, I'll bite because I'm interested in what you've done and the results you've exeperienced. What shaft did you install in your Sasquatch driver, what is the length of the driver and what flex? Did you install it? Did they trim it at all?

On another note, I'll give you $100 for your R11 driver via Paypal if it's in excellent condition and if it's 9 degrees loft.

Finally, has anyone out there hit the Cobra Carbon CB irons? I've heard some great things about them and the majority of reviews are positive.

[daveperkins]

big Dave... I hope that you are going to be right, at least one time. You are crying so loud about your Cleveland Hi-Bore XLS gaybrid so much that I have to try it out. eBayed this club for $20 + $12 shipping, it comes with Fujikura Fit-On M Gold 65 R-flex, did not look as bad as you said... Will try this weekend at the range if not too cold

This one's got a nice chunky thunk sound and soft feel, not like a lot of gaybrids. I prefer the red shaft to the gold, but... I bet you like it. Very square, neutral alignment... I love them.

[mongrel]

OK, I'll bite because I'm interested in what you've done and the results you've exeperienced. What shaft did you install in your Sasquatch driver, what is the length of the driver and what flex? Did you install it? Did they trim it at all?

On another note, I'll give you $100 for your R11 driver via Paypal if it's in excellent condition and if it's 9 degrees loft.

Finally, has anyone out there hit the Cobra Carbon CB irons? I've heard some great things about them and the majority of reviews are positive.

Never saw them in person or hit them but Golf Magazine testers rated them #1 in the Better Player Irons category in their 2007 Anual Club Test issue. 3balls had a set on their site today for around $149 and when I clicked on it for more info, they had already been sold. Did you buy them? Probably a good deal if you did.

[daveperkins]

Length is all about impact, with a slight boost due to clubhead speed. But really it's all about impact for most players.....

There's the old saying "Those who can, do... and those who can't, teach.". I'm 5'10", 165lbs... and the undisputed longest pound for pound player on GR, if not simply the longest... period. For once someone who can actually do it is giving the advice. I'm just trying to help. Dismiss my advice at your own peril.



FON

Impact. Square, center-cut, good speed, good path.

Clearly, that other newer driver I was hitting is not delivering the club under these circumstances. I do not know why. But the old one does a better job of it. So I'm baggin' the old one. :-) The ballmarks show that I was doing about an equal job of getting the ball in the center of the face. So it's something other than that. Either the head isn't as good at compressing the ball or the shaft isn't getting the head there at the same pace/path etc.

But the older driver is 15-20 yards better.

[Pky6471]

This one's got a nice chunky thunk sound and soft feel, not like a lot of gaybrids. I prefer the red shaft to the gold, but... I bet you like it. Very square, neutral alignment... I love them.

I hope I will like it, especially if it gives me almost the distance of a 3W but with more reliable shots... then I will love it

[famousdavis]

Never saw them in person or hit them but Golf Magazine testers rated them #1 in the Better Player Irons category in their 2007 Anual Club Test issue. 3balls had a set on their site today for around $149 and when I clicked on it for more info, they had already been sold. Did you buy them? Probably a good deal if you did.

There's two things I admire about you Mongrel, we share the same affinity for club knowledge as well as visiting retail golf stores like Golf Galaxy and online ones like 3balls. You are very astute in your observations of the Carbon CB irons being there one moment and then gone the next. My questions regarding their playability were timely indeed.

[mongrel]

There's two things I admire about you Mongrel, we share the same affinity for club knowledge as well as visiting retail golf stores like Golf Galaxy and online ones like 3balls. You are very astute in your observations of the Carbon CB irons being there one moment and then gone the next. My questions regarding their playability were timely indeed.

Finely attuned minds tend to operate in parallel. The only reason that I knew about them was that I save most of my Golf Magazines because they are chock full of useful evergreen golf info. Including club reviews. Where Larry goes to the range and takes lessons from a Teaching Pro, I will revisit certain old issues when I am having problems with this or that and, after enough repeat visits, I remember where to go in which edition. Same with the annual club reviews. I used the iron club test in 2007 to make a decision to buy a set of used Titleist 755's which finished second to the Cobra Carbon CB's bare a slim margin. I have since sold the 755's-- well, the heads went on Ebay but I still have a good set of stiff Tri-Spec shafts. So all my club test magazines from 2008 to present will provide me with some reference material when a certain club or iron set offered for sale catches my eye. At the rate of depreciation I observe of used clubs, I am on about a 3-5 year lag from new. So next year I may find a suitable 909D2 or D3 head or complete club for $60-75 that I can then play with. Etc.

[famousdavis]

Finely attuned minds tend to operate in parallel. The only reason that I knew about them was that I save most of my Golf Magazines because they are chock full of useful evergreen golf info. Including club reviews. Where Larry goes to the range and takes lessons from a Teaching Pro, I will revisit certain old issues when I am having problems with this or that and, after enough repeat visits, I remember where to go in which edition. Same with the annual club reviews. I used the iron club test in 2007 to make a decision to buy a set of used Titleist 755's which finished second to the Cobra Carbon CB's bare a slim margin. I have since sold the 755's-- well, the heads went on Ebay but I still have a good set of stiff Tri-Spec shafts. So all my club test magazines from 2008 to present will provide me with some reference material when a certain club or iron set offered for sale catches my eye. At the rate of depreciation I observe of used clubs, I am on about a 3-5 year lag from new. So next year I may find a suitable 909D2 or D3 head or complete club for $60-75 that I can then play with. Etc.

I've got magazines going back to 1994 with club reviews. I used to subscribe to a magazine named Golf Club Review. It was a cheap, thin magazine that's sole purpose was to review new golf clubs. At first, they used a really stupid method to rate clubs in that they'd put two different clubs up against one another. The first issue pitted the Callaway Big Bertha 1995 irons against the Ping Zing 2 irons. The Ping Zing 2 irons won the contest amongst the testers but who really cares about that. Eventually, they learned this wasn't working and they started to rate clubs irrespective of one another.

I thought it was a great magazine and perfect for a club ho like myself (yes, I was a club ho back then). I remember paying for a three-year subscription and somewhere during the second year the magazine went belly up and I never received another issue.

Later, Golf Magazine and Golf Digest started doing their own ratings but I've always felt they were worthless. There's no way these magazines can be impartial to companies that pay them millions to advertise. It's no coincidence that all of Wilson's offerings always receive a last place rating when compared to Callaway, Ping and Taylormade.

Golfreview has the best club rating system in my opinion. That's pretty impressive considering how old this site is.

[mongrel]

I've got magazines going back to 1994 with club reviews. I used to subscribe to a magazine named Golf Club Review. It was a cheap, thin magazine that's sole purpose was to review new golf clubs. At first, they used a really stupid method to rate clubs in that they'd put two different clubs up against one another. The first issue pitted the Callaway Big Bertha 1995 irons against the Ping Zing 2 irons. The Ping Zing 2 irons won the contest amongst the testers but who really cares about that. Eventually, they learned this wasn't working and they started to rate clubs irrespective of one another.

I thought it was a great magazine and perfect for a club ho like myself (yes, I was a club ho back then). I remember paying for a three-year subscription and somewhere during the second year the magazine went belly up and I never received another issue.

Later, Golf Magazine and Golf Digest started doing their own ratings but I've always felt they were worthless. There's no way these magazines can be impartial to companies that pay them millions to advertise. It's no coincidence that all of Wilson's offerings always receive a last place rating when compared to Callaway, Ping and Taylormade.

Golfreview has the best club rating system in my opinion. That's pretty impressive considering how old this site is.

Yes, this website has a vast repository of golf product reviews and is an invaluable resource. It is how I found this forum since I was reading club reviews and just clicked on "Forum". Of course there's a lot of meaningless drivel reviews posted by total morons but, like the world of Intelligence, you've got to read and absorb everything available and eventually the truths will emerge. I agree that the magazine tests are largely pablum but I gain the most from reading the reviewers' comments about various clubs. I find that the clubs I've bought that have been reviewed in the magazine editions are all pretty accurately described after assimilating all the comments.

[famousdavis]

Yes, this website has a vast repository of golf product reviews and is an invaluable resource. It is how I found this forum since I was reading club reviews and just clicked on "Forum". Of course there's a lot of meaningless drivel reviews posted by total morons but, like the world of Intelligence, you've got to read and absorb everything available and eventually the truths will emerge. I agree that the magazine tests are largely pablum but I gain the most from reading the reviewers' comments about various clubs. I find that the clubs I've bought that have been reviewed in the magazine editions are all pretty accurately described after assimilating all the comments.

It's interesting, because there truly are two different kinds of golf club aficionados. The first kind are like myself, you and most other people that are interested in trying out many clubs and shafts, interested in reading about them but mostly just enjoy trying out new things on the course.

The second kind, are the guys that are members on golfwrx or similar websites. These guys are more into the science behind how a club is built, groove widths, fitting processes, launch angle, etc. Personally, I think a lot of these guys are posers and way too serious. I understand that having a club blueprinted, spine aligned, properly fitted for lie & loft and weighted just perfectly can have some impact on how you hit the ball. However, I think most of that stuff is overrated and really makes little difference. I think as long as you have the right flex and torque in the shaft and the right lie angle (loft for a driver) then that's really all you need. After that it's really a matter of how much forgiveness you want in the iron and what kind of feel you're after.

[mongrel]

It's interesting, because there truly are two different kinds of golf club aficionados. The first kind are like myself, you and most other people that are interested in trying out many clubs and shafts, interested in reading about them but mostly just enjoy trying out new things on the course.

The second kind, are the guys that are members on golfwrx or similar websites. These guys are more into the science behind how a club is built, groove widths, fitting processes, launch angle, etc. Personally, I think a lot of these guys are posers and way too serious. I understand that having a club blueprinted, spine aligned, properly fitted for lie & loft and weighted just perfectly can have some impact on how you hit the ball. However, I think most of that stuff is overrated and really makes little difference. I think as long as you have the right flex and torque in the shaft and the right lie angle (loft for a driver) then that's really all you need. After that it's really a matter of how much forgiveness you want in the iron and what kind of feel you're after.

I've only gotten into it so that I can end up with the best clubs for me at the least cost. For me, the shaft can make all the difference in the world. I may read 200 reviews in this site of one club and maybe 10 reviews will be of that club with the shaft I have or the club I am looking at has. There is very little useful shaft review info on the web but I have found a nifty set of documents on shaft testing that contain more info that all the shaft manufacturers' published and advertised data put together. There used to be a component seller called Dynacraft. and some years ago, those guys started to do scientific testing on a bunch of different iron and wood shafts. They published annual Club Fitters Shaft Indexes. Recently an internet golf retailer called Hireko Golf bought out Dynacraft but has the Indexes on its site in PDF format. I've saved these files and printed some out so that I'm learning how a shaft might feel to me before actually hitting it. This should be useful because I run into shafts on sale all the time at a couple different stores around here.

Regarding the launch angle and other techical stuff, I had fun last year at Golf Galaxy when I figured out how to boot up their launch monitor computers and set them up for different clubs I was hitting. Sometimes I used to go in there with a couple of my clubs when it wasn't busy and sneak them back into the most remote station and hit like a hundred drives and read the results of each one. Then Corporate must have smartened up because they decided to charge you to use those computers in "Fitting Sessions" and I said to myself, "F*ck it. Nice while it lasted." So yes, I would get me a fancy monitor rig and even build a shed out back to house a hitting station should I get a bit of a windfall. But the real proof of the pudding is on the course. With this driver I just reshafted and weighted and gripped and balanced just right, can I carry the big trees at the inside corner of the doglog on the first hole, at least 230, and get another 25 yards of roll so that I will have 145 to the center of the green? If the answer is "No", its back to the drawing board. And practice tees.

[Kiwi Player]

Yes, this website has a vast repository of golf product reviews and is an invaluable resource. It is how I found this forum since I was reading club reviews and just clicked on "Forum". Of course there's a lot of meaningless drivel reviews posted by total morons but, like the world of Intelligence, you've got to read and absorb everything available and eventually the truths will emerge. I agree that the magazine tests are largely pablum but I gain the most from reading the reviewers' comments about various clubs. I find that the clubs I've bought that have been reviewed in the magazine editions are all pretty accurately described after assimilating all the comments.

Yeah me too. Reading reviews of the 2004 Cleveland Launcher driver and Ta6 irons is what brought me to the forum. I still bag that 2004 Launcher. The rave reviews were correct.

FD, how many years were you posting reviews on this site before you finally discovered our illustrious forum (after prompting from Edgey). Had you not noticed the forum before or did you think you needed a formal invitation from an established member to join?

[famousdavis]

Yeah me too. Reading reviews of the 2004 Cleveland Launcher driver and Ta6 irons is what brought me to the forum. I still bag that 2004 Launcher. The rave reviews were correct.

FD, how many years were you posting reviews on this site before you finally discovered our illustrious forum (after prompting from Edgey). Had you not noticed the forum before or did you think you needed a formal invitation from an established member to join?

I'm pretty sure I found this site back in 2001 or maybe even earlier. I think I posted a review of the Callaway X-12 irons a long time ago. I'll check to see if I can find it but it may be under "Jimmy" or something like that. The other early reviews I did way back then would have been on the Ping Eye 2, Titleist 990, Titleist 962b and the Titleist 976R. I have basically been a golf club enthusiast since 1990.

I worked at a golf store in 1991 for about 2 years while I was in grad school. That's the same year the Callaway Big Bertha came out and changed everything in golf. I remember getting the first 3 of them in. The owner didn't want to purchase very many of them because they were expensive wholesale and retailed for $249. That was an unheard of price for a driver at the time. What amazed me was that every single person who came in a tried one walked out the door with it. The idiot owner still didn't order enough stock and many customers would walk away disappointed. The store is closed now. Big surprise.

I found it. Here's my first review on GR back in 1999:

Review Date August 16, 1999 Overall Rating 5 of 5 Value Rating 5 of 5 Rate this review? 5 Highest4321 Lowest

Reviewed by: Jimmy D (Unregistered User) , [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Scratch [COLOR=blue ! important]golfer[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] , from Long Beach, CA Model Reviewed: Callaway X-12 (Memphis 10) Summary: OK, let me first begin by saying that I have tried just about every iron out there for the last 5 years. I've tried every Ping model (always went back to the Eye 2), [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Mizuno[/COLOR][/COLOR] Model, etc. I could never find an iron that was very forgiving and felt great at the same time. Well, I have found it now. The X-12 irons are fantastic. They have a soft feel, great trajectory, good shaft (Memphis 10)and look pretty good at set up. The long irons are so easy to hit. Just to let you know, I'm a 3 handicap. I can hit the ball low, high, fade it, punch it, etc. I would highly recommend these to any golfer...scratch to beginner. One more thing, I've heard people say things like you can't work these irons...Not true. Besides, I'm a 3 handicap and I rarely try to work the ball. Like most people, just getting on the green is my main objective. These irons help me accomplish that. Customer Service: Similar Products Used: Ping Eye 2+ and square groove, Mizuno Pro Tzoid, Mizuno GRAD, Mizuno MP-14, [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Titleist[/COLOR][/COLOR] 962b, top flight tours, Ping Zing and Zing 2, Ping ISI, etc. Report this review >>