.

An Added Dimension in Driver Distance — Angle of Descent

Just when you thought we had all the bases covered for accurate driver fitting, along comes a new page in the book which will enhance the ability of clubmakers to do an even better job of fitting golfers with the longest hitting driver possible. One of the most important aspects of the total distance of any driver shot is the amount of roll the ball generates when the ball hits the ground. No question, there are definite variables involved in the roll of the ball after carry such as the height of the grass, the moisture content of the grass and soil and the slope of the landing area. But thanks to the capability of TWGT’s new Trackman launch monitor to measure and chart the flight of the ball all the way to the ground, the ability of Trackman to measure the ANGLE OF DESCENT of the ball to the ground, it is now possible to address areas of the driver fitting to come up with the best fitting specifications that will ensure maximizing of carry plus the potential for the greatest roll of the ball when it lands.

The secret to fully maximizing driver distance for any golfer is to fit them into the driver that generates the greatest carry distance with the lowest angle of descent of the ball to the fairway. Obviously, when you think about a low angle of the ball to the ground with maximum carry, the two elements most definitely can be hard to combine. After all, maximum carry distance is all about increasing the launch angle to the point it keeps the ball in the air for the longest time for any given swing speed and ball velocity. The higher the launch angle, the higher the ball’s angle of descent into the ground will be. And the lower the launch angle, the shorter the carry, even though the angle of descent will be lower. In other words, there has to be a careful balance between the launch angle that will come closest to generating the most carry while keeping the angle of descent of the ball to the ground as low as possible.

While it would be ideal for clubmakers to possess a Trackman ball flight analysis system, a copy of TWGT’s Trajectory and Ball Flight Modeling software will help to identify what the loft of the driver has to be, to achieve this best carry + lowest angle of descent of the ball to the ground. Pay attention as we guide you through a number of examples to show how this can be done.

Screen Image #1 shows a series of eight driver shots with lofts from 9 to 16 degrees for a golfer with an 80mph swing speed, with a Level (0°) Angle of Attack into the ball. Please understand the flight arcs depicted for each shot are for relative comparison. The Trajectory and Ball Flight software is not set up with the data to show what Trackman can measure – the real flight shape of the shot with real angle of descent of the ball to the ground. However, it is accurate from the standpoint of comparison – the higher the launch angle, the higher the angle of descent into the ground, and vice versa. Therefore it is safe to assume the shots depicted here are definitely displayed in a progressive increase in the height AND, in the angle of descent of the ball.

Take a look at the carry distance for each driver loft for this 80mph golfer. The distance increases in increments of 5yds, 4yds, 3yds, 2yds and 2yds before the increases from 14° to 16° are only 1 yard. For the best combination of carry + roll, this golfer would be better off being fit with a 12° to 13° loft driver. After 13°, the 1 yard increases are insignificant in the face of the increase in the height and angle of descent of the shot. This also assumes a consistent point of impact on the face for each shot. Again, remember this is for an 80mph golfer with a 0°, or level, angle of attack. If the golfer has a downward A of A, the loft would have to be higher, and lower if the golfer has an upward A of A. If you have a launch monitor or a TWGT Launch Mat, for “close enough” purposes, the angle of attack is the difference between the launch angle and the loft at the point of impact. Hence, if the golfer hits test shots on a launch monitor and gets an average launch angle of 13° with a driver that has 11° at the point of impact, the golfer has a 2° Upward Angle of Attack. If the golfer obtains and average launch angle of 9° with the same driver and same 11° point of impact on the face, he has a 2° Downward Angle of Attack. Angle of Attack can be factored into the TWGT Trajectory program for more accuracy in the fitting.

In addition, the results shown in Screen Image #1 include a 0.5° forward bending of the shaft in the determination of the launch angle. This would be typical of an 80mph golfer with average acceleration of the club on the downswing and a slightly early to mid-way release of the wrist-cock angle who is fit with a shaft and bend profile considered to be a reasonable match. Remember, the greater the acceleration and the later the release, the more the shaft will bend forward, of course depending on the fit of the swing speed rating of the shaft to the golfer. While we have not been able to fully verify this in testing, we operate the shaft bending contribution to the launch angle on the basis of 2.5 degs being the most possible, and only for golfers with a high level of acceleration on the downswing with a very late release of the wrist-cock angle. If the golfer unhinges the wrist cock very early to just before midway in the downswing, the shaft bending contribution can be 0. In the future when we get verification of the maximum possible contribution of the shaft to the launch angle of the shot, we will keep you informed. For now, this is a reasonable guideline to follow for inputting the shaft bending contribution to the launch angle in the software.

So remember, to optimize the roll of the ball on the ground, pick the loft that generates within 2-3 yards of the longest carry. Now let’s take a quick look at a golfer with a 100mph swing speed and level angle of attack to contrast.

A couple of differences to point out right away – note how much higher the flight of the ball is for the 100mph swing speed player than the 80mph golfer. This comes as a result of the much higher ball speed the 100mph golfer can generate over that from the golfer with the 80mph swing speed. With more velocity the ball can take off and keep flying higher on the same or similar launch angle to achieve a higher flight. In turn, this also will increase the angle of descent of the ball and potentially reduce roll.

Yes, the speed of the ball for the 100mph golfer when it hits the ground will be greater than for the 80mph player. This can help offset some of the higher angle of descent, but not completely. It is still a fact that the higher swing speed player still needs the same thing as golfers with a lower swing speed – to find the loft that generates within 2-3 yds of the longest carry so the angle of descent can be as low as possible at the same time. Additionally, the shaft bending angle for this golfer is inputted to be 1.5 degs, commensurate with a better than average golfer who retains the wrist cock angle until relatively late in the downswing.

The results in Screen Image #2 are for five shots hit with single degree lofts from 8 to 12 degrees. From 8 to 9, the carry distance increases by 3 yds, then 2yds and then it stays the same for the lofts of 10, 11 and 12*. This means the optimum loft for the golfer with a 100mph swing, level angle of attack and 1.5* contribution of the shaft to the launch angle will be 9 to 10 degrees. Changing to a stiffer flex/more tip firm bend profile will require the optimum loft to be a little higher.

If the fairways are generous in their roll, keeping these points in mind about choosing the loft that just stops short of the maximum carry can increase the golfer’s total overall distance.

to top

______________________________________________________________________________

.

Are the Days of ‘Law Abiding’ Golfers’ Irons and Wedges Numbered?

In case you haven’t heard, the USGA is on the prowl again, and the scorelines on your irons and wedges may very well be the target. In this case, “V” may very well stand for both “V-groove” and a “Victory” by the USGA over the 18 year acceptance of U-shaped scorelines. If enacted, as many industry experts feel it will as based on the information contained in a communication issued by the USGA in August, this time the USGA’s attack on equipment technology is going to cost you and all golfers who play by the rules, the price of a new set of irons and wedges!

What’s going on? Why is the USGA looking at possibly outlawing U-grooves and going back to V-grooves or a variation in between? Statistics is the answer. The USGA is concerned that hitting fairways on the PGA Tour is no longer a guaranteed path to tournament success. In other words, the USGA is upset that too much success is being garnered by players who hit the ball 300+ yds into the rough and are able to hit and hold greens with irons and wedges played from the tall grass. And the blame is being squarely focused on U-shaped, or box groove scorelines instead of these players’ high swing speeds.

In August, the USGA mailed copies of a 104 page interim report the organization compiled which revealed the initial results of their extensive test program to determine the full scope of spin generation. The USGA’s study is comprised of five components:

1. Field Benchmark performance testing

2. Establishment of surrogates for grass

3. Face treatment performance testing

4. Study the effect of face treatment performance on shot trajectory and landing behavior

5. Confirm laboratory testing with field testing

Components #1 and 2 are completed and #3 is presently in progress. From the work the USGA has completed in this extensive study, the organization has made some initial conclusions. In component #1 of the study, a series of player tests were conducted in order to provide a benchmark of performance from various lies under playing conditions. Starting with un-grooved muscleback forged ironheads, the USGA fabricated two sets of irons, one having traditional V-shaped grooves and the other havint U-grooves with dimensions that would be considered at the limit of conformance. The playing properties of the clubs were otherwise identical. Additionally, balls were selected that were representative of the modern era and the era prior to the common use of U-grooves (pre-1988). Players hit shots from both clean, dry lies and from the rough. Data on the clubhead presentation and the ball launch were collected.

The USGA reported that it was clear from the player data that the configuration of modern club faces has significant performance improvements over the traditional V-shaped groove in grassy lies. For some lofts, it was found that spin using the U-groove club in the rough was actually higher than from a clean lie.

The player data and the equipment used for the player testing was next used in the lab to establish that two different materials could be used to mimic the effect of grassy lies on the impact between the club and the ball. Using real grass in the lab was not considered to be feasible by the USGA given the number of tests they planned. Therefore, the use of these grass “surrogates” permits the USGA to efficiently and repeatably conduct their experiments.

Previous work by the USGA and the R&A of St. Andrews has established that the performance of face treatments of clubheads can be reasonably described by a number of parameters:

1. Groove shape

2. Groove edge radius

3. Groove width

4. Groove depth

5. Groove spacing

5. Land area roughness in between grooves

To test these factors in the lab, a series of test plates were designed and made to enable testing of impact situations at a variety of “lofts” using the grass surrogate materials identified by the USGA. Lab tests using these plates and grass surrogate materials have confirmed the same results as obtained in the player testing.

While space limitations in the E-TECHreport limits the inclusion of the vast amount of test data compiled so far by the USGA, in a nutshell, the player and lab testing have revealed that U-groove spin rates from the rough were in the area of 40% higher for the 5- and 8-iron, and approximately 25% higher for the Sand Wedge, than for the V-groove clubheads.

While the USGA still has a lot of their total test protocol yet to complete and has not predicted a date for completion or decision making, the “word on the street” from the golf industry based on the data revealed is that golfers should expect to see the USGA ban U-grooves and either go back to only V-grooves or some other groove shape that may be “in between.” Again, no date for a decision on the testing or for a possible rule change has been made. This is simply the opinion of industry experts and mavens who have read the USGA’s interim report and have evaluated its data in concert with the USGA’s opinion that something has to be done to penalize the PGA Tour players who compete successfully on the playing basis of “smash and gouge.”

Again, no decision has been made to date, but it is felt that the USGA’s interim report stands as “handwriting on the wall.” If the USGA does act at some point in the future to ban U-grooves and go back to V-grooves or some other groove shape that will reduce the amount of backspin able to be generated on shots hit from the rough, TWGT is of the opinion that this will be unfortunate for the game, and represent one more paranoid ruling by the USGA aimed at the game’s elite players with little concern for the tens of millions of golfers who play simply for enjoyment.

While on one hand it could be said that the equipment companies could be the beneficiaries of such a rule change through a huge increase in the sales of new iron sets and wedges to golfers who will have to quit using U-groove clubs, it should be noted that there IS an alternative solution to this “problem” which will not require golfers to buy new irons and wedges to remain in conformity to the rules of golf.

All the USGA and PGA Tour have to do is grow the rough longer than the 4 inch standard that has been in existence for many decades for the primary rough in PGA Tour and USGA competition. Twenty to thirty years ago, tour course greens and fairways were groomed much longer than they are today. Under protest by the players, the PGA Tour and USGA have greatly shaved the length of the grass on the greens and fairways of tour courses. But they have left the length of the primary rough and fairway widths the same today as they have been for several decades.

Twenty to thirty years ago when the average driver swing speed on the PGA Tour was 10 mph lower than it is today, 4 inch rough was difficult for the average tour player to hit the ball solidly enough to get the ball on the green. Today, that is not the case. Players with a driver swing speed in excess of 115mph now have the iron swing speed to hit the ball on the green from 4 inch rough with a mid to short iron, with relative ease.

Yes, the U-grooves spin the ball more from rough than V-grooves. And yes, the higher the swing speed of the golfer, the higher the backspin will be. These are both elements of pure science. The fact that U-grooves do spin the ball more than a V-groove is really a moot point in the game – virtually ALL irons and wedges have been made with U-grooves for the past 15+ years. Therefore, virtually ALL golfers from tour player to hacker play with U-groove irons and wedges. With that being the case, what difference does it make if the U-grooves spin the ball more than V-grooves? In that case the only thing that makes this playing field “un-level” is the fact that players with very high swing speeds can hit the ball from the rough with far more ease than players with lower swing speeds.

If the USGA’s goal in this extensive scoreline study is to come up with a way to penalize the “smash and gouge” players, or more effectively reward the players who hit a higher percentage of fairways, all they have to do is follow their lead in having modernized the grass length on the greens and fairways and simply establish a longer length for the primary rough. There is no question if the length of the primary rough on tour were to be increased to 6 or 7 inches, the practice of “smash and gouge” by the high swing speed pros would end and the USGA would see a shift in playing statistics move in the direction they want. Such a solution would also prevent tens of millions of golfers from having to spend up to $1000 at some point in the future to buy a new set of irons and wedges with a different scoreline design to be in conformance with the rules.

Do YOU want the USGA to tell you that you have to buy brand new irons with different shaped grooves in a few years when all you do is play for fun and recreation? If not, send them a letter or an email and suggest this alternative solution to their “problem” of seeing fairway hit percentage not be a path to success in competition at the game’s highest level.

to top

______________________________________________________________________________

.

560MC Irons Garner Major Attention

It seems evident that the equipment editors for both GOLF and Golf Digest magazines were impressed by TWGT’s new 560MC forged carbon steel irons with fully CNC machined back cavity. In the same month, the two largest magazines in the game featured a prominent mention of TWGT’s newest addition to its family of forged carbon steel irons. To view the Golf Magazine article online click here.

For a company from the custom clubmaking or component side of the golf industry to garner a photo and a mention in any consumer golf publication is rare. For it to happen in one of the two largest magazines in the game is something else. But for it to happen in both of the largest publications in golf in the same month is a testimonial to the eye catching design and the attention merited by the unique manufacturing process of the 560MC irons.

While TWGT always advises clubmakers to impress and establish differentiation to their customers by revealing the many advantages of custom fit over buying standard clubs off the rack, it’s equally advisable for clubmakers to show consumer golfers both mentions of the 560MC irons as a way to establish further credibility for TWGT and its innovative design ability.

 

to top

 

______________________________________________________________________________

.

Search for the Perfect Driver Hits the Bookstore Shelves

.

TWGT R&D Building Nears Completion

Despite the fact La Plata county and the city of Durango, Colorado both did their best to throw up roadblocks and ‘red tape’ that combined to cause a 6 month delay in starting construction, TWGT’s new R&D facility is rising from the ground and is scheduled to be completed by mid-October. When completed, the facility will be more than twice the size of the only other existing R&D building in the custom clubmaking side of the golf industry, and will contain quite an array of high-tech analytical equipment for design and fitting research.

TWGT’s new R&D center is located on the NE corner of the driving range of Dalton Ranch GC. Dalton Ranch is the premier semi-private golf facility in the area, located 6 miles north of Durango, Colorado. Built in 1993, Dalton Ranch is rated in the “Top Ten Courses in Colorado” by Golfweek magazine and has earned a 4 star rating from Golf Digest magazine.

The 1200 square foot facility will feature side by side hitting bays, one for the current TWGT hitting robot and the other for golfer hit testing analysis. Three different launch monitors will be employed, including a new state of the art Trackman launch analysis unit and a SAM PuttLab putting launch monitor which will be set up for regular use on an indoor putting surface. The rear of the TWGT R&D facility will house a clubmaking workshop, computer workstation and seating area.

While the facility will be primarily used for ongoing TWGT clubhead and shaft design testing and fitting research, it will also be used to develop a pilot program for Dalton Ranch GC head professional Fal Wood and his staff to offer high end clubfitting to their members and golfers.

“Everyone is aware that the vast majority of golf course pro shops have lost all hope of competing with the big box chain stores and internet golf equipment retailers,” comments TWGT founder Tom Wishon. “There is no way a golf course pro shop can compete with the volume of a big retail golf store or a large internet golf retailer. We see an opportunity for custom clubmakers to partner with the golf course pro shop(s) in their area in a true ‘win-win-win’ situation for the clubmaker, the head pro and the members/golfers to offer the best clubs for any golfer’s game, along with renewed revenue for the head pro and growth in the clubmakers’ businesses. As a result, we’ll be working on developing programs for the future that clubmakers will be able to inexpensively introduce to the pro shops in their area as a way to help themselves, the head pro and the golfers in their area.”

to top

.

Homework Time for Clubmakers

TWGT has a few suggestions for some “homework” to keep you busy to increase both your skills and your business in custom fitting and clubmaking next season.

1. Common Sense Clubfitting
If you have not yet picked up a copy of Tom’s completely up to date book about custom clubfitting, what better time to do so and spend a little time learning the latest information about fitting than this winter? When you do, focus your initial attention on the following areas to immediately have a positive impact on your fitting skills.

Chapter 2 - Clubfitting Procedures
Chapter 2 is in essence, the common sense of the Common Sense Clubfitting book. In it, Tom leads you through an actual fitting session in spoken dialog form to show you how simple and how logical a fitting session can be conducted to end up pinpointing the exact specifications each golfer needs to end up with a custom made set that WILL maximize the golfer’s play and enjoyment.

Chapter 5 – Common Sense Shaft Fitting
One of the most completely up to date, as well as one of the chapters that alone would be worth the price of the whole book, is Chapter 5. A complete upgrade in technique and information from Tom’s 1997 fitting book, the section in the book on shaft fitting without question breaks through the guesswork too often associated with shaft fitting to teach clubmakers the most accurate way to match golfers with the best shaft for their swing and how they play the game.

Chapter 8 – The Golf Swing as it Relates to Common Sense Clubfitting
There is no question that the people who are at the ‘cutting edge’ of clubfitting are those who have taken the time to read and study Chapter 8 in Tom’s new fitting book. So much of clubfitting in the past has been a matter of “cause and effect”; in other words, to watch the flight of the ball and envision what changes in the head, shaft, grip or assembled specifications need to be made to correct or offset that ball flight. When it comes to a factor like a slice or a hook, fine, ‘cause and effect’ still can pinpoint the need for a different face angle or hosel offset design for the player. But what about the shaft? What about length? What about the swingweight or the MOI of the clubs? What about the total weight of the clubs? The real secret of fitting these parameters accurately to the golfer lies in the clubmaker’s ability to identify various moves in the golf swing which indicate specific parameters in these and other fitting factors for the golfer. Chapter 8 shows these swing moves and includes a very clear explanation for what you have to look for in each golfer’s swing and what these swing moves mean when it comes to making your final fitting recommendations.

2. Planning to Unleash the Power of the Search and 12 Myths Books

If you have not bought and read a copy of The Search for the Perfect Golf Club, 12 Myths That Could Wreck Your Golf Game, or in November, a copy of The Search for the Perfect Driver, this is the time to do so. Why? Plain and simple so you can “talk the talk” about what WILL convince your golfers that custom fitting is far better for their equipment buying needs than staying in the same rut of buying a brand name club in standard form off the rack. We can’t stress this enough – clubmakers who use the message of the Search and 12 Myths will increase their business in custom clubmaking. Period. It’s all about convincing the golfer that all of those brand name clubs are nothing more than standard made clubs, built to some pre-ordained national average that very definitely won’t match with the playing characteristics of 90% of the golfers who play the game. It’s NOT about convincing the golfer that the titanium or the design or the technology of the heads/shafts you offer them is as good as or better than the brand name club. Search and 12 Myths explain why custom fit is better than standard off the rack in a super easy manner that every golfer can understand. So if you haven’t taken advantage of these books this season, take this time to become familiar with them so you can see how they will increase your business next season.

to top