MOI Matching

[downhillslider]

"MOI matching is based on the concept of the same ball position for every club. Matching the MOI allows the golfer to release every club at the same point during the swing. So if you have different ball positions for every club, MOI matching probably won't work well for you."

Found this post on BSG. With all the Wishon fans we have on this forum, I thought it might warrant some feedback. My training in MOI Matching did not touch on this angle, nor was I aware of it. Any insightful comments ??

[jvincent]

I've seen that mentioned before, probably first by Dave Tutelman, but as with all things golf related I don't think that is a hard and fast rule. It will work for some people but not for others.

[BC MIST]

"MOI matching is based on the concept of the same ball position for every club. Matching the MOI allows the golfer to release every club at the same point during the swing. So if you have different ball positions for every club, MOI matching probably won't work well for you."

Found this post on BSG. With all the Wishon fans we have on this forum, I thought it might warrant some feedback. My training in MOI Matching did not touch on this angle, nor was I aware of it. Any insightful comments ??

I am not sure if one has to, but I have been using one ball position for all my irons when I began using Swing Sync, MOI matched irons in the early 80's and continue now with my home made MOI matched clubs.

If it is true that the "club gets released," versus the golfer releases the club, at the same point, it should improve shot consistency. Another uneducated guess is that a golfer who swings down with similar tempo with all clubs may be better off with MOI matched clubs while a golfer who is smooth with the short clubs but swings a lot harder with the longer ones, may not be a candidate for this and the one ball position.

[Chieflongtee]

Hi Les.
You might find the following quite interesting. Where did you take the training?

http://tutelman.com/golf/design/swin...p?ref=#release

[BC MIST]

Hi Les.
You might find the following quite interesting. Where did you take the training?

http://tutelman.com/golf/design/swin...p?ref=#release

Tutelman's stuff is always fascinating and an excellent resource for scientific information.

One point with which I disagree is that in the RED position, the angle between the club shaft and the left arm is acute. While it appears to be acute, it is an illusion. It is similar to standing on railways tracks and seeing the PARALLEL rails converge down the line. (perspective)

Because the left hand is behind the left shoulder, and because the club head is behind the butt end, the angle appears to be acute (perspective). But, if the left arm AND the club are on a vertical plane, the angle would be a RIGHT angle. Many golfers APPEAR to increase the wrist cock angle on the way down, but it is really the flattening of hands/club head moving behind the shoulder/butt that gives this illusion. Ben Hogan and Moe Norman flattening their swings as much as anyone ever did. Sergio does this, too.

This may not be relevant or important to anyone, but this increasing of the angle for many, is another golfing myth that exists and can easily be demonstrated. More extraneous informattion.

[Chieflongtee]

Hi BC. I just pointing the article to Downhill. That being said I sent a copy to Dave T. We'll see what he says

[BC MIST]

Hi BC. I just pointing the article to Downhill. That being said I sent a copy to Dave T. We'll see what he says

What!!! You don't believe me???

If I had you on front of me I would demonstrate this illusion to you and you would have the greatest "Eureka" moment of your life. Ben Hogan had one of the flattest downswing plane angles of any player ever and he also had one of the smallest "ACUTE" angles as he began his downswing. I wonder if there is a connection.

If Dave does not "SEE" this then I guess that parallel train tracks, straight angles, don't appear to converge into one small acute angle.

Try this yourself. Stand in front of a full length mirror and take a classic 3/4, upright back swing, where the angle between your left arm and the shaft is 90.* STOP and HOLD. Now, without moving anything else, rotate your wrists/forearms clockwise. Bring your hands down to shoulder height only. Look at the angle in the mirror. It looks like a small acute angle. Now bring the hands in front of your right thigh. Look at the angle. It's 90* and you have not adjusted your wrist cock angle at all. You've gone from 90* to 30* to 90.* Convinced yet? Flattening the downswing creates this illusion.

Show me a golfer, besides CHARLES BARCLAY, whose downswing is not flattened.
I should write a book.

[BC MIST]

This is the flattening move that causes the illusion. See how far the hands are behind the left shoulder. Magically rotate Tiger 90* and the shaft arm angle would appear very acute at this point, but...not really the case.

[Chieflongtee]

Lyle. Perhaps another tread (or contact him privately)should be started as this thread was about MOI matching and the concept of the same ball position for every club.That being said here is what he has to say.

Here is Dave Tutelman's reply:

BC Mist is quite right about perspective being
capable of creating such an optical illusion. I
think he happens to be wrong this time, but (a)
there isn't enough additional evidence to tell
for sure whether he's right or the caption is
right, (b) whether it's actually acute or a right
angle doesn't interfere at all with the point I'm
making, and (c) anybody who thinks it's
impossible has never gotten a good look at John Daly's swing.
If, as BC Mist thinks, the left hand is behind
the left shoulder, then it certainly could be a
right angle masquerading as acute. Personally, I
think that at that point in the swing the left
arm is nearly parallel with the film plane. Maybe
a little behind or in front, but pretty close to
parallel. If so, a right angle would look like a
right angle. As I said, it will be hard to argue
either way, given the limited info we have.
BTW, this is Bobby Jones, and his swing was built
for hickory shafts. (I don't know whether he was
still using them at the time of the picture, but
his swing was a hickory shaft swing.) You can't
muscle a hickory shaft the way you can steel or
graphite, you have to "pull the cord" and avoid
bending them. If you do that -- and don't use the
"right angle stop" we are taught today -- an
acute angle is not only feasible, but likely.

[BC MIST]

Lyle. Perhaps another tread (or contact him privately)should be started as this thread was about MOI matching and the concept of the same ball position for every club.That being said here is what he has to say.

To stay on topic then, would using MOI matched, one ball position golf clubs, eliminate the illusion that Dave agrees exists? If you do what I suggested above, you will see what I mean. For no illusion to be "seen," the club shaft would have to be vertical and the hands above the shoulder.

Angles are two dimensional creatures but the motion of the left arm and club shaft is in three dimensions. Jim Furyk, Scott Hoch, Jack Nicklaus (John Daly) have almost vertical(2 dimensional) golf swings so the arm shaft angle will be what it is. But flat downswings like those mentioned above use the third dimension and in so doing the angle appears to be something that it is not.

[danscustom]

"MOI matching is based on the concept of the same ball position for every club. Matching the MOI allows the golfer to release every club at the same point during the swing. So if you have different ball positions for every club, MOI matching probably won't work well for you."

Found this post on BSG. With all the Wishon fans we have on this forum, I thought it might warrant some feedback. My training in MOI Matching did not touch on this angle, nor was I aware of it. Any insightful comments ??

I'm not quite sure where you got the 'same ball position' as a prerequisite for MOI fit clubs. I know thru discussions with Tom Wishon and Matt Mohi that this is not necesarily true.

The MOI theories are to bring a very similar feel between clubs, but that does not mean that we do not change the angle of attack or remain constant at address.

Even TLT / MOI clubs you still play the ball in various foreaft positions to alter the angle of attack, increasing compression and spin on the ball.

Your thoughts?

[Hivee]

I'm a little confused. I was of the belief that short irons down to say 6 iron was played in the centre of your stance so that you hit the 'small' ball before the 'large' ball (turf) to promote a down and through swing.

Playing the more difficult irons (for me anyway) 5, 4 and 3 irons, woods and Driver (yes I said driver) you placed the ball more forward in your stance, so you promote a 'sweaping' action only brushing the the truf after contact with the ball.

Who going to shot me first!

Hivee

[jvincent]

You always want to hit the little ball first.

I take a divot, granted a much smaller one, with my 3 and 4 hybrids as well.

[Hivee]

jvincent,

Do you place the ball in the same position i.e. centre and because you are using a longer iron your natural swing arc will be flatter, or do you place the ball slightly forward, thus taking less of a divot.

Hivee

[jvincent]

I try to play my irons from the same spot in my stance, just ahead of middle, assuming I'm hitting a normal shot.

I'll change ball position for different types of shots.

[downhillslider]

Thanks for all the pertenant replies. As I suspected, a plethera of opinions.. My goal was to determine if MOI Matching was a viable alternative to swingweighting for the average to better than player as I am currently pursuing my certification in MOI Matching. But when I discovered the "same ball position" theory, it derailed my thought process. I believe strongly in Tom's / Matt's direction on this but Tutleman and B.C also have a good arguement. A typical golf scenerio, more than one school of thought !

[Chieflongtee]

found the following:
http://www.leaderboard.com/glossary_swingweight

The driver, woods and long-shafted irons are struck with a sweeping motion, with the ball placed up in the stance (closer to the left foot for a right-handed golfer). The wedges and short-shafted irons are struck with a more pronounced downward motion with the ball positioned at the rear of the stance (closer to the right foot of a right-handed golfer).

These differences emphasize the need for distance with the long-shafted clubs and the need for accuracy, spin and control with the short-shafted clubs.

If all the clubs in a set were truly matched for moment of inertia, a golfer would have to strike all the clubs the same manner with the ball located the same place in the stance regardless of club. While that is not necessarily a bad thing, the golfer will quickly find that clubs are not designed to be struck that way. You sure don't want to take a divot with a long-shafted club.

So realize that Adam's swing weight invention was the result of empirical results gained through trial-and-error after beginning with a sound scientific principle.

</B>

[BC MIST]

The driver, woods and long-shafted irons are struck with a sweeping motion, with the ball placed up in the stance (closer to the left foot for a right-handed golfer). The wedges and short-shafted irons are struck with a more pronounced downward motion with the ball positioned at the rear of the stance (closer to the right foot of a right-handed golfer).

If all the clubs in a set were truly matched for moment of inertia, a golfer would have to strike all the clubs the same manner with the ball located the same place in the stance regardless of club. While that is not necessarily a bad thing, the golfer will quickly find that clubs are not designed to be struck that way. You sure don't want to take a divot with a long-shafted club.

To get the ideal launch angle it is generally accepted that a slightly downward angle of attack with more loft or an upward A of A with less loft will achieve this, and so playing the driver more forward in the stance is necessary.

However, anyone who sweeps or picks the ball with all the other clubs breaks one of the three most important fundamentals of good golf swing and that is to have the hands ahead of the ball at impact. Not doing so in an indication of the leverage angles extending too soon resulting in power loss and probably an accuracy loss, as well. The ground should be scraped (divot) with the FW woods/hybrids and a divot of some kind taken with all of the irons. Playing the ball progressively farther back, to a point closer "to the right foot"??? is just wrong, and detrimental to consistent ball striking.

Ironically, the author explains exactly why MOI matched clubs are actually better for golfers, even though he is really suggesting that this is a fault If all the clubs in a set were truly matched for moment of inertia, a golfer would have to strike all the clubs the same manner with the ball located the same place in the stance regardless of club. Wouldn't the same swing AND ball location help us all be more consistent?