This has been asked to death.....

[Big Johnny69]

but looking for some more replies.

Clubmakers and fitters, based on your experiences, if someone plays a shaft that is much too weak for them would their ball flight tend to be high and way right? Really curious

[Chieflongtee]

High and left. If too much torque high and right.

[Big Johnny69]

Ok, so by too much torque do you mean low torque (2.2 and the likes) or high torque (4.0 and the likes)?

And what relevance does the torque have on whether the ball goes high and left or high and right?

[Chieflongtee]

Ok, so by too much torque do you mean low torque (2.2 and the likes) or high torque (4.0 and the likes)?

And what relevance does the torque have on whether the ball goes high and left or high and right?

depends on swing speed . Talking graphite. Steel is always 2.2 or so. Anything higher than 4.5 will keep the face open. Have not read the book yet?

[Big Johnny69]

depends on swing speed . Talking graphite. Steel is always 2.2 or so. Anything higher than 4.5 will keep the face open. Have not read the book yet?

Nope, but the V2 in my Hi-Bore has low torque.

Here's the specs on the shaft:

Flex: S
Weight: 67 gms
Torque: 2.9*
Butt Stiffness: 267
Mid Stiffness: 7.0
Tip Stiffness: 28
Tip Parallel: 4.0"
Tip OD: .350"

I'm thinking of stepping up to an X flex. The Blue that was in the Launcher 460 I had played close to an X, and hit it a ton and a mile. Not having any luck with this V2 right now. Two rounds with it, and ball seems to be going way high and way right. I know the swing isn't top notch right now, but I'm not usually that far right no matter what.

I am putting a Bimatrix Proto in it, but was seriously contemplating big easy's Bassara.

[mcgoo]

My experience this year has been, with my very slow swing speed;

Low torque (2.0)-right
High torque (4.0)-left
Low flex-high trajectory
High flex-low trajectory

Is not 2.9 mid torque?

[Big Johnny69]

Most shafts under 3.0-3.5* are considered low torque.

[Chieflongtee]

Not an easy task picking the right combo unless you have a launch monitor and the quick connect system like Don at Artisan has. That being said it could be partly due to the head as well. You could have an open face driver with a very low and rearward centre of gravity.

[Big Johnny69]

Very low and rearward COG yes. But its a retail Hi-Bore and they're know for having closed faces.

[Chieflongtee]

Could be. But then again this would have to be measured with a club measuring gauge to be 100% sure. I went to see Don a couple weeks back. One driver I have hits it to the right consistently while the other one is pretty darn straight, I knew that before going in. The achiever confirmed it.Again I don't know all the answers. However this trial and error club hoing could turn out to be quite expensive and/or rather time consuming while trying out different combos with the connector will not lie

[Big Johnny69]

But does he have OEM heads to demo? If not, no point in going in and trying shafts. The Hi-Bore is a unique head, and demoing shafts in the same head won't get me any farther because no head performs quite like a Hi-Bore.

[Chieflongtee]

I don't think he has OEM. However he has fitted many people with OEM drivers(Denny for instance) As for the Hi-bore it may perform well for some golfers but not all. Check the distance claim thread and the posts by Tour IQ. For his son the Callaway is the best.

[Chieflongtee]

what is your driver swing speed Geoff?

[Big Johnny69]

108-112 on average.

[BC MIST]

I use the V2 S in my Encore and it is not a high right shaft. At 2.9* the torque is reasonable for a golfer with a higher swing speed, say 105 mph or so, but to a great extent, it also depends on HOW the golfer swings.

A high torque shaft (5.0 or >) MAY leave the face open a little, but only if the golfer has a strong transition move and delays the wrist unhinging until very late. The reality is that a very low swing speed should not have a low very torque shaft and a very high swing speed should not have a very high torque shaft. Otherwise torque does not matter. Plus, if you believe Tom Wishon, and I do,the affect of torque takes place BEFORE impact. It ain't the torque.

It has been written and reported that the shafts contribution to a shot is trajectory and feel, NOT distance and accuracy. Moving from an "S" to an "X", whatever those two designations mean for that shaft line, won't change the trajectory or feel very much. Using an "A", an "R" and an "S" V-2 this summer, showed 0 difference in performance (distance and accuracy) a slight difference in trajectory, and a stiffer feel.

An on plane downswing with a square club face at separation, eliminates having to make a decision about what flex, torque, weight, colour, make and model to choose.

[Chieflongtee]

The instruction part is another story altogether. Want proof? The pros with all their talent go through a bunch of shafts and different configurations until they find find the right combination. So yes talent has a lot to do with it but they just don't pick up any club at random. I have built and bought and sold my share of drivers and all I can tell you is the following: If you find one that fits hang on to it with your dear life and don't f get tempted to buy or get another one in hope for better distance or accuracy unless the exact specs can be matched. It is good to shoot out stuff(we all think we know it all) but it it's also good to listen. I spoke to someone yesterday and he built 3 different drivers with 3 different frequencies and get this the frequency that brought him the best resuts was 210. The pros have an efficienty factor of 150%(smash factor) With this combo he got it up to 146% while the stiffer combos were considerably lower. The only set back to his method is that he set the driver head with different shafts. I just wished he could repeat with the same shafts Food for thought.End of rant.

[BC MIST]

It is good to shoot out stuff(we all think we know it all) but it it's also good to listen..... End of rant.

True. And after 45 years of playing golf and almost 20 years of sticking them together I have probably listened/read more than my share of club making and instructional stuff, put much of it into effect for both others and myself, and from all of this I believe that I have learned to discern between the fact and the BS. Two of these brilliant observations, and not original, are that: 1. a perfect club used by a lousy golfer, yields a lousy shot, and 2. and a lousy club used by an excellent golfer yields very good results.

Another observation is that the majority of golfers still believe that they can buy a better game, and forget that, "To gain a fine golf swing, man must work." The proof of the former is that the sales at Golftown continue to exceed expectations and the evidence of the latter is that the average male golf score has dropped less than a stroke in 20 years. 94!!!! So how will changing from a "mid stiff" to a "stiff" shaft, going from 2.9 to 3.5 degrees of torque, and from 63 g to 71 g weight, are going to help Joe Average score lower than 94. Compare this to spending $1000 on instruction instead of clubs and tell me this won't help him.

We both know that if a 210 cpm frequency works for a particular golfer, that it MAY not be the 210 butt frequency that is important. It could be that the 875 tip frequency, and one could have a 875 tip frequency with a 210, 230, 240 or a 250 cpm butt frequency, is why it works. Discounting club length, loft and particularly lie angle, most of the other fitting factors create mouse fart changes in performance. How the clubs FEELS to the golfer is important in developing confidence, but not in performance.

While I may "shoot out stuff" that makes it appear that I "know it all," I do "listen," and because of that I have learned a lot. Having some critical thinking skills, I don't believe everything I hear and discount most of the marketing claims. There is no doubt in my mind that any golfer's success or failure is based on what he does and not on his clubs. However, as long as most golfers stay in denial, Steve Bebbis (sp), owner of Golftown, will continue laughing all the way to the bank. Some see my views as negative and cynical, while some appreciate the honesty. Go figure.

[Chieflongtee]

I have always appreciated your honesty.

[Powerdraw]

Geoff, maybe we should just trade drivers??? you know you want it...lol

[TourIQ]

While I may "shoot out stuff" that makes it appear that I "know it all," I do "listen," and because of that I have learned a lot. Having some critical thinking skills, I don't believe everything I hear and discount most of the marketing claims. There is no doubt in my mind that any golfer's success or failure is based on what he does and not on his clubs. However, as long as most golfers stay in denial, Steve Bebbis (sp), owner of Golftown, will continue laughing all the way to the bank. Some see my views as negative and cynical, while some appreciate the honesty. Go figure.

Hi BC MIST

Your posts are always 'FULL of GEMS' so I too appreciate your honesty and insight.

The golfing public is a gullable lot. Can you point me to where they post the average score for guys and gals. I had heard it was 97 and 114 but not sure?

[BC MIST]

Hi BC MIST
Can you point me to where they post the average score for guys and gals. I had heard it was 97 and 114 but not sure?

From the National Golf Foundation site, for 2004:
Average for men - 95
Average for women - 106
Overall average - 97

The golfing public is a gullable lot.

Yes, we are. I am sure that some of the gullible lot will take offense to that statement, too.

The marketing of golf products is brilllantly done enhanced by the Touring professionals who supposedly play the same clubs that we play. Another illusion.

It will NEVER happen but IMO, golfers need to become much more materialistic. If they were more materialistic the marketing BS would not work. Instead, golfers would buy clubs based more on science than emotion, meaning that the components would suit their individual game and swings. They would get quality and value for their money versus the illusion that they can buy a better game. Seeing Tiger playing amazing golf with blades sucks many into thinking "if I play blades, I will play like Tiger. Or, the back of a shiny blade is prettier than a cavity, so I want blades, when we all know that a cavity is better for your game, when you miss, and we all miss. Completely illogical.

Talk to the sales folks at Golftown, for example, about what consumers are buying, and calling many golfers gullible, is a gross understatement.

If you want to play better, swing better. No marketing BS there.

[TourIQ]

From the National Golf Foundation site, for 2004:
Average for men - 95
Average for women - 106
Overall average - 97

Yes, we are. I am sure that some of the gullible lot will take offense to that statement, too.

Thanks for the real numbers BC MIST ...