Mike Tait's opinion of forgiving heads

[Chieflongtee]

CUP FACE DESIGN
More forgiving or just more hype?

</IMG>

There are basically three methods of manufacturing clubfaces in the industry today.


1. Traditional face ( forged 3 or 4 piece ), where the face is welded along the edge where the face turns into the crown, toe, heel and sole. It is a full piece of titanium or steel and is most popular method of manufacturing style in the industry.


2. Cup Face Design ( forged 3 or 4 piece ), where the face is actually formed where it could hold water if turned upside down on a table. This requires a weld line that is back from the edge and on the crown, sole, face and heel.


3. Cast clubheads, made in a two piece format, where the face is really oftentimes much smaller that the other two and is more of an insert. The weld line is actually right on the face itself in many cases.


There are a few of OEM companies and a couple of component companies that profess and will lead us to believe that their cup face design driver is "a much more forgiving feature than a traditional welded face design". They go on to say that, "because the face is welded back from the edges of the face that the "sweet spot" is somehow larger making their clubhead more forgiving".

If we were to believe these claims, it could be equally and quite effectively argued that cast clubheads, oftentimes with the much smaller face "insert" style of manufacturing, would be considered in effect, much less forgiving due to the fact that the face is actually quite often completely smaller than both the cup face design as well as the traditioanl face welding style of manufacturing because the weld lines are actually right on the face itself, instead of back from the face as on the cup face design clubhead.

Of course, if anyone were to make any sort of a statement regarding an "unforgiving cast clubhead design", it would immediately be considered complete hogwash and would not be believed for a minute by anyone in the industry on either side of the counter, yet we somehow believe just the opposite when the marketing folks tell us that "welding the face to the body of the driver back away from the striking surface makes the club much more forgiving".

Think about it realistically before dropping your credit card on the counter after reading a slick sales ad or discussion forum post from an "expert", for it just doesn't make sense if you look at it from both sides. To say absolutely nothing of the fact that the "sweetspot" cannot get "bigger" in any way due to the method of adhereing the face to the rest of the clubhead.



Mike Tait
President, Club Designer

SMT Golf
"The Winningest Component Clubheads In Golf History"

www.smtgolf.com

[goto10]

Hmmm. 2 questions come to mind...

I wonder if Mike makes any cup-face designs?

I wonder why Wishon states cup-face designs 'maximize face deflection'.

[spackler]

I'm not getting this, it might be the lack of sleep, but where does Mike Tait provide evidence of ANYTHING in this post? This is as useless, information-wise, as any TaylorMade ad in Golf Digest.

[goto10]

This is as useless, information-wise, as any TaylorMade ad in Golf Digest.

IMO, most of his drivel is.

[downhillslider]

IMO, most of his drivel is.

Anyone else thinking of jumping on the the Mike T. Bandwagon !

[Chieflongtee]

Anyone else thinking of jumping on the the Mike T. Bandwagon !

Or KZG

[SMT]

Spackler,

I was just alerted to this thread, and would like to reply.

This, as many of my thoughts put out in my email blasts are simply to get people to thnk about what they are being fed by advertisers in this industry. As with virtually all of my articles, you notice that I ask people to "think" about things before acting.


I have no axe to grind, but through education rather than advertising, I just hope to get some folks to stop and think logically for a moment.

Thanks for the space.

Mike

[SMT]

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Do you mind expanding on that thought. Perhaps with why you feel it is "drivel"?

Perhaps you would like to post something that might try to help golfers at large in a more positive way, and I think that would be great, and I applaud anyone who takes the time to share their thoughts and experiences.

But arguing absolute facts and truth, or in this case, wiping the entire slate with a rag entitled "drivel" with nothing to back up your opinion is a difficult and dangerous game to play.

Hope you are having a nice weekend.

Mike

[SMT]

Goto...

I used to, but with new materials and designs, there is simply not a need for it in my work any longer. If the clubs made with a cup face design were to test out somehow better, ar provide faster ball speeds, better spin profiles or launch conditions... or even were cheaper to produce, you can bet I would be utilizing that technology.

Personally, through my testing, I simply have not found that to be the case.

Mike

[spackler]

Hey Mike, I appreciate you coming on this forum, it's great to have first hand information and interaction with a respected club designer. My only complaint with that e-mail blast is it doesn't really get to the point. I have an open mind and in the same way that TM telling me 'inverted cone technology is superior' doesn't register without any back up, you telling me that 'cup faced welding is not superior' doesn't mean much unless you indicate why. I am happy to believe you, I just want to know why it isn't superior.

Dave

Spackler,

I was just alerted to this thread, and would like to reply.

This, as many of my thoughts put out in my email blasts are simply to get people to thnk about what they are being fed by advertisers in this industry. As with virtually all of my articles, you notice that I ask people to "think" about things before acting.


I have no axe to grind, but through education rather than advertising, I just hope to get some folks to stop and think logically for a moment.

Thanks for the space.

Mike

[SMT]

Thanks for the post Dave, and the kind words.

I appreciate that.


In that same vein, has anyone ever told you exactly why cup face design is "better" ?

If the anser is yeas.... perhaps the story I shared might take on a new meaning. My point is exactly that. The fact that it is not better, or stronger or more stable or gives your golf ball any advantage in terms of spin profile, launch angle or flight characteristics.

It really is just an advertising ploy, as stated in the story, one that if believed by anyone, would then make the cast design heads that have a smaller "face" equally worse for the golfer in retrospect. Which is simply a falsehood.

The article is really nothing more than to get people to think about both sides when listening to a sales pitch. For if it sounds outstanding for one method, as in this case... would it not sound equally poor for the other, as the image shows?

Thanks again.
Mike

[Kona Golf]

Have you recovered from Jamaica Mike?


Thanks for the visit!

To all... if you have any questions at all regarding Mike's designs he will tell you exactly why he does things the way he does. SMT not only tests the initial design, but each and every loft as well. The fairway wood offering is an example. It was one thing to finally get the design, look and feel right, but each loft required complex changes. They had to be Right before they were released.

[SMT]

Thanks Jim,

Now that I know this firum is here, I am checking it ach day. I am much more than happy to answer any questions or share ideas with the folks on theforum.

The SMT Customer Appreciation Event in Jamaica was a blast, since I was the only one there that does not drink, I had no problem recovering... oddly, I was the only one that got beat up as much as I did, thrown into the rocks snorkling, A goophy trapeze stunt 40 feet off the ground on a dare, went to the doctor finally yesterday and they confirmed a hairline fracture in my coccyx ( tailbone ) from a wipeout on the Dunns River Falls waterfall walk........ Other than that.... LOL

Hope you had a nice weekend
Mike

[BC MIST]

IMO, most of his drivel is.

As a 20+ year clubmaker if there are two people in the industry whose ideas, research and opinions are to be respected, they are Tom Wishon and Mike Tait. Their products are as good or better than any OEM, their guarantees/warranties are the best in the business (SMT lifetime warranty on all heads - name an OEM who can beat that), the technical information they make available to help golfers understand aspects of fitting and the honesty with which they deal with all their customers, put them at the top of the business.

What is truly drivel is the flow of marketing BS that many OEM's use to separate golfers from their money and what is sad is that so many golfers actually ltake at a lot of the claims as gospel. Of course, they are often the ones who slam those that have the guts to tell the truth.

Let's have the naysayers provide evidence that the information that Mike and Tom have written, is wrong.

[Kona Golf]

Well said !

[danscustom]

There's the small fact of
Over 150 world Long Drive titles, 2 Guiness book of world records titles, longest drive on any tour - and the beat goes on

I think Mike understands what makes a clubhead work.

[cldale]

Isn't this something which can be objectively tested? Could you not test COR at points slightly away from the known sweet spot, to see how the different designs respond to off-center hits?

For example: define an "effective hitting surface" which includes not only the sweet spot, but all points on the clubface for which the following are both true:

[1] COR is no less than 90% of maximal COR (so the area in which you only lose 10% power).

AND

[2] Lateral dispersion is not more than 20yds from "perfect" centered flight line.

Since the "average" fairway is ~40yds wide, this would mean that the effective hitting surface is the total area on the clubface in which your off-center hit still makes the fairway and only loses ~10% distance.

It would be pretty reasonable for someone to test this for each club, given the appropriate equipment.

I would presume that clubmakers do something similar to this to validate their designs before production.

[SMT]

Thanks for the post Cldale.

But this is not about C.O.R or CT numbers. This article was about outrageous claims and if we believe these claims we would be forced to believe the polar opposite when in fact it is not true at all.


Rebound effect of the golf ball is not on the table here.

[cldale]

SMT,

I might have misinterpretted (if so, I apologize) but the article speaks to the forgiveness of different designs. I would think forgiveness can exactly be defined in terms of changes in COR around the face and the loss in accuracy when striking off-center.

With the exception of "feel", the claims I see made about golf clubs of varying designs is always a matter of "better control", "more distance", or "more forgiving". All three of these (in my opinion) can be objectively tested.

[SMT]

SMT,

I might have misinterpretted (if so, I apologize) but the article speaks to the forgiveness of different designs. I would think forgiveness can exactly be defined in terms of changes in COR around the face and the loss in accuracy when striking off-center.

With the exception of "feel", the claims I see made about golf clubs of varying designs is always a matter of "better control", "more distance", or "more forgiving". All three of these (in my opinion) can be objectively tested.

Never a need to apologize at all.

Forgiveness has nothing to do with COR.


COR is nothing more than the rebound or speed of the ball coming off the clubhead in relation to the speed in which it was struck by the clubhead.

Fiorgiveness... like color of head, or player size, handicap or hair color, is not an issue at all. And is not applicable to this discussion.

When a company says that "cup face is more forgiving, BECAUSE of a cup face design. It is a ridiculous comment.

When a company says that their clubhead is longer BECAUSE of their cup face design, they are also making a ridiclulous claim as the rules of golf limit distance through design as well as through ball manufacturing tolerances.

When a company states that their club has "better control" due to their cup face design, they clearly have not spent a single moment looking at the physics of what makes a golf ball do what it does. the 4 ball flight laws preclude "control" due to manufacturing technique.

[cldale]

I was speaking to the fact that there are ways to quantitatively back up the claims made by manufacturers.

I would agree with what you've said, except I "believe" your arguments are predicated on a perfect strike (striking exactly on the "sweet spot" of the face)? In that case, physics would suggest that the collision is as elastic as possible, with perfect momentum transfer to the ball from the club (at the ratio of COR) without loss of power due to side-spin.

However, physics also suggests that a collision off that "sweet spot" must suffer through either decreased energy transfer (lower COR at that spot) or the generation of side-spin, or both.

I would think that the "forgiveness" of a club is the degree to which the club supresses both those effects when you miss a perfect connection.

To be honest, I would assume that (clubhead speed, loft at impact, weight of clubhead, etc) held constant, there should never be a difference between any clubs in terms of distance, accuracy, etc, if the ball is struck perfectly on the CG. Since the same momentum (velocity*mass) is being applied, the outcome should be identical.

Again, I could be talking out my rear. I am not an expert clubmaker, but I do have a decent grounding in mechanics to be able to understand the physical concepts which apply.

Never a need to apologize at all.

Forgiveness has nothing to do with COR.


COR is nothing more than the rebound or speed of the ball coming off the clubhead in relation to the speed in which it was struck by the clubhead.

Fiorgiveness... like color of head, or player size, handicap or hair color, is not an issue at all. And is not applicable to this discussion.

When a company says that "cup face is more forgiving, BECAUSE of a cup face design. It is a ridiculous comment.

When a company says that their clubhead is longer BECAUSE of their cup face design, they are also making a ridiclulous claim as the rules of golf limit distance through design as well as through ball manufacturing tolerances.

When a company states that their club has "better control" due to their cup face design, they clearly have not spent a single moment looking at the physics of what makes a golf ball do what it does. the 4 ball flight laws preclude "control" due to manufacturing technique.

[goto10]

Mike, it's not my ultimate agenda to 'help golfers at large', and I don't feel any pressure to do so in my posts. Sure, that'd be cool, but it's not why i'm here. Nor do I think i'm necessarily qualified to be that guy who 'helps golfers at large'. Maybe I am, maybe i'm not, that's not why i'm here. I'm just a golf nut. That's why i'm here. Take that FWIW.

Did you write that article to 'help golfers at large', or to sell more SMT drivers? Are you responding to my posts to 'help golfers at large'? Or, is it to attempt to salvage reputation, stick up for you brand? Why?

All I will say is that you support my 'drivel' comment when you say things like 'forgiveness has nothing to do with COR' and that 'rebound effect is not on the table here'.

I've been around golf forums long enough to know the type of stuff that comes out of your mouth (keyboard). Hey, it's JMO. You can be a flake, and still make great drivers. Sorry, sad but true. The 455DB is one of the greatest clubs in component history IMO. Unfortunately, that doesn't change my opinion of some of the stuff I read that comes from you... Because you own/run SMT, does that make you an ultimate authority? I don't think you know as much as you would like others to think you know. Again, JMO.

So, ball speed has nothing to do with forgiveness? Nothing. NOTHING? Really? To be clear, you are saying that how fast a ball travels off the face is irrelevant when it comes to forgiveness? True?

cldale is right on. To extrapolate, COR on off center hits is key when talking about forgiveness. Ball speed off the toe... or heel... or high... or low... I think it's pretty fair to say that the closer a toe-hit resembles a sweet spot hit, the more forgiving the club is. Ball speed is one of the key components in that equation, if not the most significant variable.

I would like to see the results of your 'personal testing'. Specifically, I would like to see the COR results accross the entire face of your clubs vs. a cup face design. To be even more specific, I would specifically like to see these measurements on your new fairway wood. It would be fun to compare those to, say, the Wishon 949MC fairway wood, which utilizes a cup face design.

I wonder what Wishon means when he says that the cup-face design of his fw 'maximizes face deflection'. I don't think he meant on the sweet spot. Do you?

What does Wishon's comment mean to you Mike?

[mcgoo]

Goto10; I have been following this quality thread, but your last post depreciates your contribution, because it is poorly composed; IMO.

[goto10]

lol oh well.

[Weirfan]

As a 20+ year clubmaker if there are two people in the industry whose ideas, research and opinions are to be respected, they are Tom Wishon and Mike Tait. Their products are as good or better than any OEM, their guarantees/warranties are the best in the business (SMT lifetime warranty on all heads - name an OEM who can beat that), the technical information they make available to help golfers understand aspects of fitting and the honesty with which they deal with all their customers, put them at the top of the business.

What is truly drivel is the flow of marketing BS that many OEM's use to separate golfers from their money and what is sad is that so many golfers actually ltake at a lot of the claims as gospel. Of course, they are often the ones who slam those that have the guts to tell the truth.

Let's have the naysayers provide evidence that the information that Mike and Tom have written, is wrong.

I totally agree.....I have ultimate faith and trust in what Mr Wishon and Mike offer as information. why because they tell the truth and do not try to mislead the consumer with garbage technobabble that holds no truth or is such an abberration it.

Sure they sell products big deal I trust what they have to say and offer and pretty much exclusively utilize their product.

Mike can be a very opinionated , passionate and defensive SOB.........I've seen many , mant a thread that demonstrates his passion.

Goto, you and I are buds but I dont think that he shares info to promote sales other than if his calling out a marketing claim results in an attraction to his product.

both adamantly support the fact that people are wasting their money with the moveable weight BS marketing........to which I completely agree.......they wouldn't jeopardize their principles and jump on that bandwagon by making a moveable weight head even though it could have been a real cash cow. good for them !!! ( although Tom did do some research and built a smaller sized head with a quite heavy moveable weight that based on his research worked) but not the minimal 2,8,10, 12 weights

we as consumers owe alot to guys like Mike and Tom Wishon for stating the facts as they are so we don get so sucked into the advertising and marlketing BS that most consumers get caught with

oh and I play SMT and Wishon

[Kilroy]

goto10, I find your posts in this thread unnecessarily challenging and aggressive. You are entitled to your opinion, but this is not open season here. Please tone down your aggression and ask your questions politely. We treat each other with respect here.

Thanks for your co-operation

[SMT]

WOW.

I will try my best to respond respectfully, knowing full well that my thoughts and comments do not make everyone happy, but as your goal is not "total enlightenment", mine is not to "befriend the world", but I do my best to be polite, and to only to offer up another point of view based off experience. What each chooses to do with it, is certainly up to them, and I thank you in advance for your post.

As is my custom.. LOL I will reply to your post in RED to hopefully make it easier.




Mike, it's not my ultimate agenda to 'help golfers at large', and I
don't feel any pressure to do so in my posts. No worries, say what is on your mind.

All I will say is that you support my 'drivel' comment when you say
things like 'forgiveness has nothing to do with COR'. Theories are like email addresses.... everyone has one, now we just have to quantify each for what they are worth I guess. I've been around
golf forums long enough to know the type of stuff that comes out of your
mouth (keyboard). Hey, it's JMO. You can be a flake, and still make
great drivers. Sorry, sad but true. Thank you for the kind words, if not for your opinion. The 455DB is one of the greatest clubs
in component history IMO. And again, my thanks for the accolade. Unfortunately, that doesn't change my
opinion of some of the stuff I read that comes from you... Not a problem, again, I am not a politician. Opinions a right afforded to all, and I have had my share. LOL Because you
own/run SMT, does that make you an expert? Uhhhh, in and of itself... no. But in the same vein, and upon re-reading your own post... because you have "been around golf forums long enough" is also not the litmus test I was hoping for either. LOL I don't think you know as much as
you would like others to think you know. Again, JMO. Again, an opinion that you are welcome to, and I appreciate your right to it, but if you don't mind, I will let my record stand on its own.

So, ball speed has nothing to do with forgiveness? Nothing. NOTHING?
Really? To be clear, you are saying that how fast a ball travels off the
face is irrelevant when it comes to forgiveness? True? Ummmmmm, "BALL SPEED" has to do with HOW FAST THE BALL IS TRAVELING, it is a simple definition! It has NOTHING to do with forgiveness, and I share the definition straight from Webster.com for you.... "allowing room for error or weakness <designed to be a forgiving tennis racquet>". Just for fun, can I go back and put in golf club where it says tennis raquet? I don't see anything about "fast tennis balls" or..... "if your tennis ball travels too fast, you will have conquered forgiveness" anywhere in the definition. While you evidently have not noticed in your zeal to point out your disdain... you slipped off topic. The article was about MARKETING CLAIMS due to manufacturing styles..... nothing more, nothing less. I used to have a cup face club. In fact, I had two, but never in any catalogs or articles was forgiveness or ball speed mentioned.

cldale is right on. To extrapolate, COR on off center hits is key when
talking about forgiveness. Of course I respectfully disagree. Clubhead center of gravity, in relation to the golf balls center of gravity, in conjuction with two of the 4 Ball Flight Laws.. ( clubface and clubpath at impact ) ... throw in a dash of bulge and roll of the clubhead design...... and you get FORGIVENESS, some choose to paint it with a cool new phrase... MOI. COR is a number limited by the USGA in how fast a ball CAN rebound off a clubface. It is NOT a measure of 'forgiveness" at all. Ball speed off the toe... or heel... or
high... or low... I think it's pretty fair to say that the closer a toe-hit
resembles a sweet spot hit, the more forgiving the club is. Perhaps to some small degree , again, in my evidently unqualified opinion... but clubhead center of gravity location will affect the ball and its intended flight path greater than COR... again, COR is a number as to how FAST the ball can leave the face... not how STRAIGHT the ball will leave the face.

I would like to see the results of your 'personal testing'.
Specifically, I would like to see the COR results accross the entire face of your
clubs vs. a cup face design. To be even more specific, I would
specifically like to see these measurements on your new fairway wood. It would
be fun to compare those to, say, the Wishon 949MC fairway wood, which
utilizes a cup face design. I feel , after seeing the results that the conclusions are of little interest. It is kind of like saying that a red corvette is clearly faster than a white corvette because red is a hotter color. Of course it is not true, and of little interest when comparing the two. All I can tell you is that if the clubhead would have worked better, lasted longer, had a better or more preferrable spin profile, been easier to manufacture, cheaper to manufacture, more durable, held paint longer, or just been "cooler" ... I would have done it that way. But MY testing did not show me that information. That is all.

I wonder what Wishon means when he says that the cup-face design of his
fw 'maximizes face deflection'. I don't think he meant on the sweet
spot. Do you?

What does Wishon's comment mean to you Mike? Well, since you asked me, a supposed unqualified person such a technical question, I would have to guess that he meant that since the weld likes are further from the edges of the face, the material at the weld or seams are not quite as thinck as a traditional welded head, and thusly he could "maximize face deflection".... but since there is a limit, or will be in 2008 on fairway wood designs, I can only assume. Tom is a great guy. I have stated that publicly and privately, but of course, this is also not about Tom either, but.... that somehow didn't stop you. LOL

Again. My thanks for your post, and I hope to continue to share my own thoughts on these topics in the future..... It is hard to knock the SMT record, and oddly, I am absolutely not knocking anyone else, but rather trying to get golfers, the people who are paying money based off ADVERTISING, to think for a moment. If it is not your cup of tea.... no worries, but no need to attack me personally and professionally for trying to share information that I have paid for and acquired through many years in this industry.

Mike

[goto10]

First of all, to Mike, Dan, and the forum, I apologize. Re-reading my posts, I did come off more aggressive than intended. I should have taken my valium first, posted later.

I am sorry if I offended anyone. Honest. However, in my defense, these so called 'personal attacks' were pretty mild IMO...

Anyway, that's the first time I've ever been given the SMT red treatment...

My intention was not to compare qualifications with a well-known manufacturer of clubheads. I can't win, nor do I care to.

You can quote Websters all you'd like. I (obviously) have my own (unqualified?) opinions about what defines 'forgiveness'.

"How fast the ball is travelling" impacts distance, regardless of direction.

How bout this: Does the "ball travel faster" on off-center hits with a cup-face design?

[Weirfan]

First of all, to Mike, Dan, and the forum, I apologize. Re-reading my posts, I did come off more aggressive than intended. I should have taken my valium first, posted later.

I am sorry if I offended anyone. Honest. However, in my defense, these so called 'personal attacks' were pretty mild IMO...

I'll forgive you......and folks you need to be aware that this man is already feeling the stress from his anticipation of the beating his home town Bluebombers will take versus the Green Riders this weekend.

and before you say it....I am a Riders fan not an Argo fan