Puring

[Chieflongtee]

I don't necessarily agree but for the sake of the argument click on the link below.

http://www.leaderboard.com/GLOSSARY_PURING

http://recp.rm05.net/servlet/MailVie...MzE5MDUS1&mt=1

http://www.golfsmith.com/cm/display_...CID=C16027x015

[RoyalQ]

Puring, Spining, FLO'ing, I've been spending many, m-a-n-y hours reading about these in the last three years & still confused. AS ARE a lot of tech heads posting in specialized forums (Spinetalkers, Shoptalk, etc.).
I'd rather have my shafts flo'ed, then if I hit a poor shot I know for sure it's the player and NOT the equipment! (like if I needed that!!)
Anyway, thanks for providing a link to that website, looks good.

[Chieflongtee]

Thanks to Natgolfer I understand the language of spines/puring a lot better now. However just like you if I were to buy a set of Michelins or any sets of tires I'd rather have them balanced before I hit the road.
BTW how cold is it in Québec city these days?[

[Chieflongtee]

RoyalQ. Floing is the last step of the process and should be done after finding the spine for final tuning

To really understand what it's all about please read the following article. I had to read it many times over but I finally got it through that thick skull of mine.
http://www.clubmaker-online.com/spines.html

BTW: Golfworks and Golfsmith now offer pre-pured shafts.

http://www.golfworks.com/item_disp.asp?pn=2201WR

http://www.golfsmith.com/ppage.php

[RoyalQ]

Thanks, but no thanks! Been there, read it all long time ago & realized it's not for me.
3 years ago I was shoothing 70-75's and knew nothing about a shaft's torque, its Neutral bending point, 1, 2 or 3, Moment of inertia, all that stuff. This is stuff for the pro clubmaker and technically oriented, not me.
Now that I've spent all this time at the computer trying to decipher all that info, my hdc has gone way up. I'm still maniac about my golf clubs, but for me it's time to concentrate on my swing again!
Buy quality clubs that I like to look at in my bag and that fit me, that's about it.
And, if you don't mind, me think you think you understand it all but you don't. You need to read more to realize that
Finally, in another post you provide a link
http://www.customclubshop.com/accessories.html

where they advertise a $149. device. What a joke, a $2.50 laser you can find in any drugstore, a $8 chuck drill, hmmm, go for it if you have a lot of cash to spare... (I know, I showed my clubmaker how to build one & now he does it for me!!)

[Chieflongtee]

RoyalQ. Me don't know it all, me learning, me a hobbyist. Me like to find out more about it. Me student and me never shot 70-75 and most of all me no cash to throw away
Below is part of an email I received from an experienced clubmaker about Floing:


quote:
This device permits you to FLO(Flat Line Oscillation) golf shafts, as in their photos and will allow to be able to align the shaft in the head in its most stable position. This is great. However, a shaft may have more than one FLO plane and you don't know whether you have found the spine plane or the NBP plane. I want to know this so if I have a choice as to how to align the shaft, the NBP plane will face the target. End of quote.

The link you mentionned was amongst other links as well so we all could be better informed. As I recall I also mentionned I was confused. I am not as confused now and I will keep reading about it and experiment. I did not buy the item from the customclub shop. I appreciate the tip about the drill chuck although after my post someone else basically replied the same thing. Any good links that I am not aware of that you could suggest.These are the links I was refering to in the battle between ParT and Natgolfer.
http://www.spinefinder2.com/


http://www.clubmaker-online.com/spinefinder.html

http://www.peacefulstreet.com/HalesAssociates/Index.htm

http://www.golfmechanix.com/APN-text.htm

http://www.customclubshop.com/accessories.html

http://www.skfiber.com/kaufman.htm

http://www.accumade.com/neutralizer/neutralizeme.html

You can also make a shaft puller for a fraction of the cost

[golfdoc]

I have played my entire life with off the rack clubs. No bending, no changing lies and lofts, no aligning the spines of the shafts.

Develop a good golf swing. Something fundamentally strong. Unless you are really tall or really short, you don't need big adjustments.

I have 3 sets of irons that I use. They are all different. One is regular steel, one is regular graphite, one is stiff steel. One is oversize with an offset on the long irons, one is a cavity back forged set and one is a progressive forged set. The lofts are all different I am sure. They all work for me. One hits it longer, one hits it higher.

My point is, good golfers can play with any set of clubs. Stop worrying about all this technical crap. Work on your swing!

[Chieflongtee]

Golfdoc I understand where you're coming from but this debate is much like the chiro vs the doctor. The clubmaker vs the retailer. Who's right who's wrong?
Amongst your three sets there is certainly one that you prefer over another and there is surely one club that you like more or have more confidence in.Why is that? If you had to play in a tournament today which set would you pick? If you had to play a whole round with only one club which one would you choose?
How many times have you heard the following complaint: I can't hit that 8 iron for the life of me. Yet the same golfer hits the 7 and 9 iron from the same set quite well. How do you explain that?
I agree that a good sound swing is part of the equation but if you can have superior tools as well I say why not.
Although golf is a lot different than tennis I at one time owned 2 or 3 racquets of the same make with different feels although strung by the same guy with the same pressure.
Spining/puring may be a lot of bologna but the object is to make each club in the bag feel like your favorite club.
If all clubs and all makes get the job done so why not buy Northwestern off the rack and invest the rest of the money saved elsewhere?

[golfdoc]

I agree, if you get the job done, why not buy Northwestern. The fact is, a cheap set of clubs will not perform, because the shafts are weak and the materials in the clubface are weak.

A good set of clubs off the rack will do just fine. Maybe the length needs to be adjusted, or the lie slightly.

In my opinion, if you are anywhere from 5'7 to 6'1 tall, the length should be ok.

If you can hit one club better than another, odds are it is completely in your head. You probably hit some bad shots with that club and have no confidence in it. If you are a golfer who shoots in the 80's or higher, you probably never put two identical swings on the ball in a row. If you use your 8 iron 4 times in a round and only hit it well once, it's not because the spine of the shaft is wrong.

It is your swing and lack of consistency.

[RoyalQ]

I feel like we're coming to a clear conclusion here.

Having your shafts pured, spine aligned and flo'ed, having all the clubs in your bag "blueprinted" will help you feel more confident standing over the ball.

And it will definitely make you feel helpless & miserable if you shank, slice or duckhook one into some bush! No more excuse!

[Chieflongtee]

Miserable indeed. I totally agre with you RoyalQ on that one. However given the choice I will build my own set of clubs for less than $400. and the shafts will be floed/pured etc.. As you said if I screw up then well then I'll have to blame the fellow on the tractor who distracted me .
There will always be a market for both that is retail(off the rack) and components(clubmakers).
But could you just see it. So and so just won his first major with Canada cup balls northwestern clubs and zellers tennis shoes?
Have a great day

[el tigre]

Every time I hear a clubmaker say "Ever wonder why your favourite club is _______? Don't you want all your clubs to be like that?", then I know I'm being conned!

The majority of golfers I've met would say their favourite club is their 7-iron. The reason for that is because ...

...it's a 7-iron! A short-iron that you can hit for some distance - a scoring club with the right combination of length & loft for most golfers, who are often in a position to hit a 7-iron after their average drive on an average-length course. There is no amount of spining, puring or blueprinting that will make me hit a 3-iron as well as a 7-iron. I believe that the benefits, if any, of these techniques would be imperceptible to the vast majority of golfers.

OTOH golfdoc, equipment DOES make a difference - and off-the-rack is not for everybody. The human body comes is all different shapes and sizes, and the benefits of clubfitting (i.e., choosing proper shaft material, length, flex, weight, etc.) have been proven. As you say, developing a good swing is far more important - but having clubs that are too long/short/stiff/heavy will hinder that process because you are making swing adjustments to compensate for ill-fitting equipment.

BTW, shaft length is generally determined by distance from your wrist to the floor - not by total height. Off-the-racks clubs make work just fine for a tall person with long arms, but not for someone of medium height with long arms. Even this is only a guide - i.e., someone with a shallower but consistant and repeatable swing may benefit from slightly longer clubs.

[golfdoc]

I agree. Proper length is based on distance from wrists to floor. Having done clubfitting in the past, I understand.

The fact is, off the rack clubs are made for the average person.

The fact is, a good golfer could walk into any golf store and play well with almost any set off the wall.

I am not talking about cheap sets. I am talking about standard length, standard loft quality golf clubs, because these are made for the average person, and that is most of us.

We all have a favourite club. It is because we have confidence in it and its length is ideal for our swing. I can stand and hit my Adams i-wood all day long right down the middle. Why? Because I am comfortable with it.

Do I know how the shaft is aligned? No
Do I know the swingweight? No
Do I care? No

Do I hit a 3 iron? No
Why? Because I find it long and awkward, and have no confidence, not because of the spine!

[el tigre]

Golfdoc: Totally agree with you. I am only saying that a good golfer would play BETTER with clubs that were fitted to their game.

Andre: When I screw up, I know who's fault it is. I also know why I screwed up, and how I can do better - and none of this has anything to do with my golf clubs. It's the golfer.

[natgolfer]

If I had the option of buying a set of off the rack Mizuno irons from CB's for $1100 with TT DG S300 shafts, that are too short for my long arms and with the heads too upright for my swing, versus making myself a set of Proforged blades that I have extended .75" and lies flattened 2 degrees, which gives me the greater probabiility of hitting a good shot?

If I had the option of using shafts that have been spined and oriented correctly into the head versus ones that have been thrown into the heads like darts, which gives me the greater probability of hitting good shots?

If golfdoc and other naysayers had the option of using steel shafts that are bent versus those that are straight, which gives them the greater probability of hitting good shots? (Boys-they are all bent. But my NF2 spinefinder can find out which ones are bent and by how much. Can CB's tell you that?)

Will the off the rack Titleist 9 whatever's all perform the same if the weight difference between the heads is not consistent, if all lofts do not increase by a constant amount, if all shafts are not trimmed in the same manner? I have diassembled a set of these and you would not believe how out of whack this set was. And for that I am to pay for $1000 for clubs that look pretty? Never!!!
BTW: 3 of the shafts tips were not "sanded" before assembly.

My research has shown that spining and proper orientation of the shaft in the head is beneficial. There is obviously biased research, ie., Golfsmith, however, there is also independent research that confirms the benefit. Howard Butler of True Temper, has proven that spining helps significantly, regardless of ability or handicap level. Just FLO one shaft in the improper plane to see how quickly it goes off plane and at least it should make you ask the obvious question.

I agree that working on you swing is paramount and making all the technical adjustments will not make you a scratch player, but it will increase the probability of better results. Why are PGA Tour pros having their clubs PUREd in increasing numbers, if it does not have merit? And please don't give me the obvious inane answer.

If you percieve/believe that off the rack clubs are all that you need, then that is your reality, go play golf and have fun. However, my reality, based on experience, proves otherwise and I don't appreciate being told by those who obviously know very little and who have not experienced the benefits of spining, that we are wrong. If after doing extensive "homework" on the topic and experiencing spined and unspined clubs, you still disagree, I can respect that, otherwise an opinion based on ignorance is just that.

I appreciate golfers like Andre whose minds are open and who are curious and willing to become informed first, before passing judgement.

[golfdoc]

Maybe it makes a big difference.

The fact is, if you can't hit the ball, you can't hit the ball. I can see why the pro's and low handicap players worry so much. If you shoot in the high-80's and up, the clubs are not the problem.

I do not believe that a golfers shooting in the 90's is consistent enough to even consider changing lofts and lies. Their swing speed will be almost as inconsistent as their scoring. Spending extra time tinkering with all of this is time wasted until you have a consistent swing.

If you start making changes to your clubs, you will never stop, unless you fix your swing!

I can admit that I do not know the specifics and flaws of off the rack clubs. That is all I have used, and I am a 5 handicap. They are not top of the line clubs and they are not cheap clubs.

[natgolfer]

Golfdoc said
1. Maybe it makes a big difference.

The differences may be subtle, however, the sum total of these may be significant

2. The fact is, if you can't hit the ball, you can't hit the ball. I can see why the pro's and low handicap players worry so much. If you shoot in the high-80's and up, the clubs are not the problem.

If the clubs don't fit properly, they are part of the problem, regardless of the player's level. The differences are more obvious, however, with the better player.

3. I do not believe that a golfers shooting in the 90's is consistent enough to even consider changing lofts and lies.

If a poor golfer happens by chance to make a perfect swing, he will never know it, if the lies are not properly adjusted. During the summer I installed a new set of shafts in my blades and went to the 19th Tee to dynamically check the lies. I was hitting balls over two 100 yard signs that were adjacent to each other and all clubs hit the ball straight except for one, that started the ball over the left edge of the sign and then curved left a little. Every time I came back to it the same thing happened. I went home, flattened the lie 2 degrees and when I returned there 2 days later the ball with that club went straight. IMO, having the correct lie angle is the fitting characteristic that is the most important. When you but an off the rack set at CB'e do they offer to check the lie angle for you? Thought so.

4. Spending extra time tinkering with all of this is time wasted until you have a consistent swing.

Getting clubs properly fitted at the outset makes it significantly easier to improve, because you know that it will not be because of a poorly fitted club, that you hit lousy shots.

5. If you start making changes to your clubs, you will never stop. unless you fix your swing!

As I said above, get properly fitted clubs first, then work on your swing.

6.I can admit that I do not know the specifics and flaws of off the rack clubs.

If you did, you would go to a knowledgeable club fitter right away. But because most golfers want to play the clubs that ______plays, they buy off the rack, thinking that if they are good enough for _____, they are good enough for me. When most golfers look at a new set of clubs, where do they look? At the back of the head. If they look pretty, they must be good. However, I agree that you must like the way they set up to the ball at address. Before learning about spining I had 10 graphite
shafts PUREd by Golfsmith. The worst of the bunch was a UST ProForce 65, a very popular, expensive, highly marked, but crappy shaft. The next two poor ones were Graffalloy Pro Elite and Prolite 35, again popular shafts. If inexpensive, "poor/cheap" shafts are aligned properly, they will play as well as an expensive one.

7. That is all I have used, and I am a 5 handicap. They are not top of the line clubs and they are not cheap clubs.

As a 5 you are better than 98% of all those who play golf and you also know what a good shot/swing feels like, particularly if you play with forged clubs. I would wager that that if I took your present clubs, pulled the shafts, spined them, reassembled them correctly, then checked your lie angles dynamically and adjusted them if required, that your jaw would drop because of the improvement in feel and performance. But if I did that I would not have to give you 4 shots.


Regardless of whether we agree on spining, lie checking, etc., or not, it's obvious that we just love to play and that is the most important thing.

[Chieflongtee]

Well spoken Natgolfer as always and not to take anything away from you I'd like to ask Golfdoc a few questions.
Golfdoc: You mentioned in a previous post that you had three sets.
Which one do you prefer and why? Isn't it confusing to choose amongst 3 sets on a given day as to which one will allow you to perform at your peak level?
If spining allowed you to shave off 3 or 4 strokes off your handicap would you be willing to try it?
You also mentioned wrist to floor measurement. I believe the dynamic method is by far better because it reveals how accurate a particular golfer is. I don't believe a taller golfer needs longer clubs especially if he's not very athletic and has a hard time hitting the sweetspot on a regular basis. The decal method reveals it all. For a cheap way to make impact decals please see:
http://www.clubmaker-online.com/stickers.html

As for myself I will take this all the way and start from scratch with this basic cheap assembly and experiment with steel shafts first because there is only one spine and one NBP(neutral bending point).See below.

[Chieflongtee]

I am going to start experimenting with this. From:
http://www.csfa.com/techframe.htm

[Chieflongtee]

And finally with this. Thanks to Natgolfer who provided all those links to me and great advice. I don't know if all of this will help me but one thing I know for sure: Before injectors we had carburators and before curved hockey sticks we had straight blades. If I don't succeed at building the Nf2 then I'll ask Natgolfer to do it for me. BUT I WILL GIVE IT A TRY.

[Chieflongtee]

from:http://dalecki.net/clubdoctor/shop.html

It does it all:


Below shows a Neufinder, a device used for finding and marking the spines and neutral bending points (NBPs) on shafts. The gauge on the left is accurate to 1/1000th of an inch, allowing for exceedingly accurate determination of spines and NBPs.

[el tigre]

Why are PGA Tour pros having their clubs PUREd in increasing numbers, if it does not have merit?

PGA Tour pros do not pay for their clubs, and while their is scant evidence of any noticeable benefits of puring, the theory behind it is plausable and there is no evidence that it would actually do any harm. So if something would a) at worse make no difference to my clubs, b) might improve them, and c) cost me nothing - why wouldn't I try it? When one these pros starts telling us how PUREd clubs made a noticeable difference in his game, then maybe I'll consider it. Maybe.

The point is, golfers are being asked to shell out hard-earned $$$ for this stuff, based on a theory and some anecdotal evidence from the guys who sell it. Let's face it, no other sport has more has more gimmicks, gadgets, systems, techniques and "voodoo" science than golf (well, maybe fishing, but I digress...) - and all of this stuff is "absolutely guaranteed" to provide better golf through technology. Most of this stuff is untested and pure baloney. You can't blame golfers for being skeptical about the "latest and greatest" discovery on puring.

I have no problem with people tinkering on their own clubs in their basement workshop. But when Golfsmith and Golfworks start selling this stuff without any evidence that it actually works - I have a problem with that. You are supposed to do the product testing FIRST - then roll out the PR and marketing.

Maybe it actually works. But until the merits of puring or spining have been thoroughly tested and shown to make a noticeable improvement with a wide range of golfers, then you're just selling sizzle without the steak. Meanwhile, I'll improve my game the old-fashioned way - practice, lessons and experience.

[Chieflongtee]

El Tigre.

please read this:

http://www.sstpure.com/butler.html

[RoyalQ]

Hi Natg,

I'm not sure if I'm part of those "other naysayers", but my thoughts are quite contradictory on all this and I'd just like to put things into - what I think is - their proper perspective here.
It's a proven, well established fact that major OEM's put sets of clubs on the rack that are completely, way out of their advertised specs.
Incomprehensible if you ask me considering prices at which they are selling those. Even Ping, so far considered one of the most quality-conscious companies, is reported as being a little sloppy recently.
No way I'm going to hand out $100 or more to a clubmaker to fix a $1200 set (which I won't buy anyway!)
I'd be better off handing out that $100 to my teaching pro.

In the last years I have read and even corresponded with respected clubmakers such as Mr. Tom Wishon, D. Upshaw, C. Dick & many others who have had no trouble convincing me that a properly fitted golf club definitely enhances the pleasure of striking a golf ball.
So, I just can't figure out why companies like Mizuno, Titleist, Taylor Made don't provide their faithfull customers with proven quality clubs. And why aftermarket shaft companies abound.
One question: Is shaft spinning an expensive process?
No? Why then shaft companies aren’t doing it themselves?
Also, four years ago, with no puring, spining, flo'ing anywhere in the golf stratosphere , how was Tiger W. playing? Pretty good if you ask me.
You ask:""Why are PGA Tour pros having their clubs PUREd in increasing numbers, if it does not have merit? And please don't give me the obvious inane answer.""
Well, IMHO El Tigre just came up with a pretty good and valid "obvious inane answer".

Summerizing:
1° Golf is meant to be fun
2° It's more fun to shoot a 72 than a 87
3° An unfitted golf club won't help you shoot a 72
4° Too much emphasis on that spining gizmo is no fun, mind boggling (for simple minds that is), and of zero help when it's time to grip the club properly, turn those shoulders, chip it close and putt it in.

You say it's better to buy quality fitting components, I agree
And I do know you’re in very good company, and I do understand the points you're trying to make... as a clubmaker, and I do understand that Mr. Weiss is entitled to a good living.
But IMO too much of a good thing is no good. And if you engage on that shaft tweaking stuff, it’s VERY easy to go overboard.
Conflicting thoughts, hmmm

Now, one thing I'm sure you'll agree with me on : Time for me to go to bed!

[el tigre]

Andre, you've got to be kidding me!

All of this hoopla goes back to one study commissioned by the patent holder over 5 years ago, involving 3 golfers hitting 3 clubs 30 times each in a lab, measuring some newly-invented statistic called "the repeatability change"?

In the 5 years since, nobody has thought to go to a driving range to test 30 golfers hitting 300 balls each over several days with 10 different clubs, measuring something that really matters like "average distance" or "deviation from the target line"?

REAL product testing involves hard work and exhaustive research, backed up by third-party data that is not paid for by the patent holder.

A few years ago, Wilson Sports had a theory that perfectly-balanced golf balls could improve putting performance for both pros and amateurs. They did exhaustive research involving over 11,000 putts BEFORE the product was ever unveiled to the public, and then invited competitors and golfers to do their own testing AFTER the product was launched. Many golf magazines and sites like GolfClubReview.com took them up on their offer and did their own testing which validated Wilson's claims.

That's REAL product testing and PROVEN technology. I may still not want to spend the extra $$$ to buy Wilson Staff True golf balls (after all, there's more to golf balls than putting performance), but at least I can make an informed decision.

[Chieflongtee]

el tigre.You got a point but I am still going to go ahead with this. By the end of the 2003 season or before I'll be able to tell you for sure either way if the process worked for me. I won't give you any b.s just to prove my point. What have I got to lose? One thing for sure. I can build a whole spined set for less than the cost of a brand new Big Bertha or any other OEM which is supposed to make me hit the ball miles longer and straighter into the woods.
You also mention Tiger. Please note he is still using steel shafted clubs.(Type 1) shaft and those only have one NBP and besides we don't know for sure what Le tigre has in his hands. I am sure his clubs are tweaked in more than one way. They are certainly not your off the rack clubs.
Fellow forum member Big easy tells me that Vijay adds all kinds of leads to his clubs.
And I must agree that the golf industry has more gimmicks than any other sporting industry. So many shafts and heads to choose from.
RoyalQ: I must apologize because you know a heck of a lot more than I thought you did. Never underestimate...I do have a question for you though: Did you go through the whole process of having your clubs spined/floed and if so did what kind of results did you get?
But thanks to all for sharing your thoughts. Isn't this forum great?

[natgolfer]

The picture that is posted above is that of an NF1, a device that will accurately find and measure the spine(s) and soft areas. It cannot, however, do the same for a finished club, ie., with a head and grip on.

The NF2 model does measure finished clubs, although it is questionable whether I would put a short iron in it for fear of breaking the shaft. All clubs will work if the grip is removed. To negate the effect that gravity would have on the head in a horizontal position, the NF2 has can be rotated into a vertical position to find the spine and the NBP.

Also, with an NF2 it is easy to match a set of clubs at least as close as a frequency machine. I had 10 Rifle shafts, all raw frequencied at 228 CPM. But on my NF2 there was a range of almost .060" showing just how "accurately" they were actually frequencied.


Andre: If I can make both of these devices, anyone can. And for less than $100.

[el tigre]

Andre:

Good luck with the clubmaking - I hope they work for you. But beware, you still won't know FOR SURE at the end of the season unless you do head-to-head testing of spined vs unspined clubs.

I wouldn't think it would be that difficult. Make two clubs that are identical in every way (I would pick the driver, since it has the longest shaft), except one is spined and one is not. Go with a fellow golfer to the range, and have them hit at least 100 balls each at a target with the two clubs, alternating between the two every 5 balls or so. Make sure you DO NOT tell them which club is which, since that could influence their swing. Record the exact distance and deviation from the target for each swing, and tabulate the results.

The tough part would be that you would need exclusive use of the range for the test. Perhaps running the test indoors on the simulators at Ottawa-Carleton Discount Golf might be an alternative - you would get more stats regarding impact but I think you would need to hit a lot more balls to factor out some of the quirky readings you get from the machines.

This is so easy that I can't believe somebody from SST Pure has not done it over the past 5 years. In all liklihood, they have done it but the results were not significant enough to brag about.

Natgolfer:

I count lie angle adjustments as part of the clubfitting, and as I said in a previous post - the benefits of clubfitting have been proven. The onus for providing this service on OTR clubs should fall on the retailer as well as the manufacturer, though.

When you buy a new car, you can take one off the dealer's lot as is, or you can order one direct from the factory with exactly the features you want (you might have to wait a while, but c'est la vie). You usually have to ASK for the second option, but it exists. You should be able to do the same with a set of golf clubs.

[natgolfer]

From RoyalQ

(1) "So, I just can't figure out why companies like Mizuno, Titleist, Taylor Made don't provide their faithfull customers with proven quality clubs. "

Good question. Golfsmith charges about $15 per club for PUREing a shaft on its million dollar machine. Eight shafts in a set of irons increases the price of Mizuno blades from $1200 to about $1320. Perhaps they feel it's too much. With only one machine they cannot PURE very many shafts in a day. someone wrote somewhere that they can only do about 80 a day. Too slow.

(2) "Is shaft spinning an expensive process?"

By Golfsmith? Very. In an NF2. Very inexpensive.
Why then shaft companies aren’t doing it themselves? True Temper is the largest producer of shafts in the world. Would they be able to keep up with their orders if they had to spine and mark every one of the hundreds and hundreds of shafts they produce each year? No way. The cost of of these shafts would go up significantly so perhaps their volume sales would plummet. Some shaft companies are spining some of their product line and charging you, too. I know Penley is doing it, a new line of Rifle graphite shafts are PUREd and there is at least one other, the name escape me at the moment.


(3)" Also, four years ago, with no puring, spining, flo'ing anywhere in the golf stratosphere , how was Tiger W. playing? Pretty good if you ask me."

True, but you and I will never know what is done to fit Tiger with his clubs. If anyone thinks that he just threw any Dynamic Gold X300, at 43.5" into a driver head and whamo, 300 yards and straight, they are somewhat naive. My guess is that things are done to his shafts including spining, frequency calibration, MOI matching, etc., that will never be revealed to the general public. Is Tiger playing with bent shafts? But, you and I are.

There are many reasons why Tour players suddenly show significant improvement. Scott Verplank and Padrig Harrington are two that come to mind who improved their ball striking stats by a significant margin. Is it a coincidence that this happened immediately after they put PUREd shafts in their clubs? Perhaps, but it sure did not hurt them.

(4) "1° Golf is meant to be fun"
It’s PURE joy.

2° "It's more fun to shoot a 72 than a 87"
Haven’t shot 87 in over 40 years so I don’t remember what it’s like, but I can imagine.

3° "An unfitted golf club won't help you shoot a 72."
Very true. But a fitted club increases the chance of that happening and IMO spining is part of the/my fitting process, at no extra charge.

4° "Too much emphasis on that spining gizmo is no fun,"
(Au contraire, mom ami. I enjoyed making mine I believe that it will make a difference in the quality of the set that I will provide)
-"mind boggling (for simple minds that is),"
Hey, I have simple mind and it’s quite easy to understand.
-"and of zero help when it's time to grip the club properly, turn those shoulders, chip it close and putt it in." Very true. But if I miss one less fairway, hit one more green and turn a 25 foot putt into a 20 footer because of it, I have an increased chance of scoring better, not guaranteed, but just better.

[el tigre]

Natgolfer:

FYI - When surfing around the SST Pure site that Andre provided earlier, I noticed two recent press releases that stated both Royal Precision and UST have recently signed a licensing deal with them.