|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jun 5, 2014 13:13:37 GMT -5
Very good piece found at: www.leaderboard.com/GLOSSARY_SWINGWEIGHTThe only part that the author needs to clear up is the last part where he discusses that why don't ALL clubs work well being MOI matched (driver, fairway woods, irons) He does make a good point about the different swings. But, the other part is that the shafts are usually much longer in the drivers and usually much lighter. A standard spec modern 3-iron is 39 inches long. Usually the entire iron set has the same shaft model and type of shaft (graphite or steel). You go to hybrids and now the 3-hybrid is roughly 40 to 40-1/4" long, with a graphite shaft. The typical 4-iron is 38.5" long. 3-woods are usually 43 inches long with a light graphite shaft. And drivers are at least 45-inches long (OEM specs). So, part of the reason is the change in the shaft specs from the iron specs. Typically irons are in 1/2" increments with a 1/4" increment between the 9-iron and PW. Clubmakers that use MOI matching prefer to use 3/8" increments for their irons. The only problem I have with using strict 3/8" increments is the 8-iron thru LW can get a little too long and now the club can be higher than your MOI goal. For example, I prefer to start off with my 6-iron at 38" long. That is 1/2" longer than standard. So if I go to the 9-iron based on 3/8" increments, my length will be at 36-7/8" long. Because golf club head weights are designed with the 'standard specs' in mind and the 'standard' length of a 9-iron is 36 inches long....I have a club that is +7/8" long. So, my target MOI for my irons is 2,725. I may assemble this club together with the +7/8" shaft and it may come out to 2,750. The main issue is that the head weights are designed according to standard specs. For me, I try to not allow my shafts to go more than +3/4" long and would like to keep that more like +3/8" to +5/8" long. So, I prefer the +3/8" increments. BUT, given I play with clubs +1/2" longer than standard because of my height...I have to be careful with how long the shorter irons can get. Anyway... The author is correct, MOI matching does not work on the irons AND woods. I've found that this is what generally works: Hybrids = Add +50 MOI points Fairway Woods = Add +75 MOI points Driver = Add +100 MOI points 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 19, 2014 3:42:30 GMT -5
Both SW and MOI are procedures allowing a clubmaker to find the possible specifications for a full set of clubs based on a single club being measured. It's a shortcut allowing to gain time in the fitting procedure nothing more nothing else.
MOI being worse then SW because it's based on pseudo-science and that pseudo-science is then feed to the public while SW was nothing more then an observation made into a instrument.
|
|
MattF
Apex II's
Posts: 78
|
Post by MattF on Jul 19, 2014 17:26:16 GMT -5
Hi Franz,
I can only speak from what I've seen: most of the time a well fitted MOI translates in clubs that feel better, and a ball striking that is a lot more reliable because of the more centered impacts on the clubface.
But MOI or SW are just a part of the fitting process ...
What is your point of view regarding MOI vs SW?
And how do you proceed during a fitting?
Thank you
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 19, 2014 22:20:22 GMT -5
Both SW and MOI are procedures allowing a clubmaker to find the possible specifications for a full set of clubs based on a single club being measured. It's a shortcut allowing to gain time in the fitting procedure nothing more nothing else. MOI being worse then SW because it's based on pseudo-science and that pseudo-science is then feed to the public while SW was nothing more then an observation made into a instrument. MOI is a scientific measurement that has been around for centuries. I feel it applies here in equipment because the golf club requires force to be applied to its rotational axis as the golfer's wrists un-cock and the clubface 'releases' into hopefully a 'square' position at impact. OTOH, swingweight has been posed as a scientific measurement of the dynamic heft of the club and uses a lorythmic formula as its measurement. It's something that countless golfers have been obsessed with (myself included pre-MOI matching days) with countless golfers adding or subtracting weight from the head or the grip in order to get the swingweight to match throughout the set. When I first got my MOI machine, I didn't know the most up-to-date method of fitting for MOI. I knew that my best clubs in this particular set (Wishon 555M irons) that I hit the 4-iron and 7-iron the best and the 3-iron and 9-iron the worst. When I measured that set the MOI measurements were between 2,625 to 2,700. The 4-iron and 7-iron had practically the same measurement at 2,700; highest of the entire set. The 3-iron and 9-iron had the lowest MOI of the group, right around 2,625. At that time I used the 'best club method' where you find the 'best club' in your bag and match the entire set of irons to those clubs. I saw an immediate improvement when I matched the set to 2,700. Particularly in my 3-iron and 9-iron. Eventually, I discovered what is considered the most current method to fit for MOI. This has been explained in my videos. At this time I had built a new set of Wishon 555M's as the old ones were getting worn down and I wanted to try a different shaft. I fitted with my 6-iron and found my optimal MOI was 2,725. However, I also wanted to do my entire set just to see if there was possible differences. Without measuring the MOI of each club before doing the fitting...I ended up with each club within 2,720 to 2,730 using the MOI fitting method. I've also done this for a handful of clients (mostly friends) and found the same thing. MOI doesn't promote a centered strike. It promotes a smaller impact dispersion. I have an 8-iron that has an ill-fitted lie angle and the impact dispersion is tight, but it is towards the toe of that club. I'm fairly confident that someday we'll find an even better method of getting the dynamic heft of the club more accurately and apply that to our golf equipment. But, I think the current MOI fitting methods and the MOI machine does an excellent job. I have seen the impact dispersion in ALL of my clubs improve with proper fitting. I've seen this happen to the people that I have MOI fitted for. We have scientists and researchers like David Tutelman that agree with MOI matching. Tom Wishon came up with the idea and the GolfMechanix engineers created a machine to determine MOI. The engineers of Golfsmith agree with it (admittedly, Wishon used to work for Golfsmith, but that was long ago and the Golfsmith club designers and engineers still agree with it). And there is one major OEM that I have talked to 2 of their designers that fully agree with MOI matching and have been told that the company wants to go to MOI matching, but is struggling to find an economically feasible way to do so. In the meantime, we see people implement versions of MOI matching. We see wedges at higher swingweights than iron because if they are not at a higher swingweight...they will feel too light. We see many golfers use some form of progressive swingweight which is really just an attempt to MOI match. In fact, I got to measure Nick Faldo's old Mizuno T-Zoid irons that he used when playing competitively. They were located at the Mariott Golf Academy in Orlando which used to be known as the Faldo Golf Institute. I had found out that Nick used the method that most Tour players use. They will hit a dozen or so clubs of the same shaft, fool with the head weights, etc. and pick the one club they like best for each club in the set. After measuring Nick's clubs...they were basically MOI matched at 2,750. The only club that was off was his PW that was at 2,710. I think the term 'pseudo science' or 'junk science' is a popular buzzword being used these days. But, I have yet to see somebody logically and reasonably dispel MOI matching. And most golfers don't care about scientific accuracy if 'it works.' I've shown it does and that one of the greatest players in the history of the game unknowingly used MOI matching in his own irons. I think legitimately dispelling MOI matching could lead to a better understanding of the subject, so I'm all for it. I just don't see it. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 20, 2014 6:47:32 GMT -5
swingweight has been posed as a scientific measurement of the dynamic heft of the club and uses a lorythmic formula as its measurement. No it was never a scientific measurement and never even dynamic! It has been made into that by people that like to imply that science had anything to do with it. Swingweight was an observation made by a clubmaker (Robert Adams) that found out that most pro's at that time (early 1930) somehow played with golfclubs that seemed "balanced" at 14" It was an observation and based on that observation he made an instrument to make that measurement easier. In his patent he made it very clear it was an static measurement! It was much later that other tried to explain the science behind it, claiming it to be a "scientific measurement of the dynamic heft" So it where others making the claim somehow they needing some "sales pitch" It's something that countless golfers have been obsessed with (myself included pre-MOI matching days) with countless golfers adding or subtracting weight from the head or the grip in order to get the swingweight to match throughout the set. Not using the tool as it should be used it not a reason to claim it's not working... Tom Wishon came up with the idea and the GolfMechanix engineers created a machine to determine MOI. And there is one major OEM that I have talked to 2 of their designers that fully agree with MOI matching and have been told that the company wants to go to MOI matching, but is struggling to find an economically feasible way to do so. I have put these two quotes below each other. Now start try to connect the dots between these two statements. A sales person selling clubmakers components comes up with an idea that OEM can not follow...Just let this combination sink in.... But, I have yet to see somebody logically and reasonably dispel MOI matching. Theodore P. Jorgensen good enough for you? And most golfers don't care about scientific accuracy if 'it works.' in fact they even don't care if it works. Thinking that it works is enough. There is some serious observational studies being done with putters. It seems that the placebo effect has a interesting effect on how people perform. I talked to some high level competition athletes and they have told me that they will copy whatever the winner is doing "just in case" So wearing plastic "ionic wristbands" or "ionic vest" or "MOI" they really don't care...
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 20, 2014 6:59:26 GMT -5
I feel it applies here in equipment because the golf club requires force to be applied to its rotational axis as the golfer's wrists un-cock and the clubface 'releases' into hopefully a 'square' position at impact. I made a new post just for this quote. I personally thought the same thing, or better believed what others wrote about this subject and then copied their words in my writings and clubfiting\making procedures. The same way you do in this quote. Let me ask you the following : is your MOI machine measure the MOI around the swing's rotational axis? I've asked this question also on the TW site and as usual not a single reply (http://wishongolf.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13046&p=97539#p97535)
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 20, 2014 18:09:36 GMT -5
FransatFrance,
I don't mean this in a condescending way but then what do you propose for fitting a person into clubs?
In my own personal experience I hit clubs much more consistent that were built using the MOI method versus the SW method. Scientific or not, it's an effective way of building clubs in my experience.
As far as my thoughts MOI works better than SW building method and until someone comes up with a better way I will stick with clubs being built using the MOI method.
If you have a better idea please share it.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 20, 2014 18:47:45 GMT -5
swingweight has been posed as a scientific measurement of the dynamic heft of the club and uses a lorythmic formula as its measurement. No it was never a scientific measurement and never even dynamic! It has been made into that by people that like to imply that science had anything to do with it. Swingweight was an observation made by a clubmaker (Robert Adams) that found out that most pro's at that time (early 1930) somehow played with golfclubs that seemed "balanced" at 14" It was an observation and based on that observation he made an instrument to make that measurement easier. In his patent he made it very clear it was an static measurement! It was much later that other tried to explain the science behind it, claiming it to be a "scientific measurement of the dynamic heft" So it where others making the claim somehow they needing some "sales pitch" That's like putting horns on a duck and calling it a rhino. Adams tried to make it a scientific method of 'balancing' the clubs for a golfer and came up with a measurement tool and formula to back up his purported scientific method. If it was an 'observation', he would have never come up with the formula and the tool to measure swingweight. It's something that countless golfers have been obsessed with (myself included pre-MOI matching days) with countless golfers adding or subtracting weight from the head or the grip in order to get the swingweight to match throughout the set. Not using the tool as it should be used it not a reason to claim it's not working... You're missing key points to what I'm saying: These pair of engineers that work for a major OEM (easily top-5) *believe* in MOI matching and have told me personally they feel it is valid. The OEM's can follow this fine if they wanted to. But, it has to do with the economic feasibility. The OEM's are trying to come up with quick-n-easy 'custom fitting' methods. We see this all of the time with adjustable heads, the Mizuno Shaft Optimizer, fitting carts, adjust weight screws, the variety of custom shaft options, etc. Those are all ways that OEM's can give the market 'custom fitting' that is popular now. Regardless of how valid that type of 'custom fitting' is, the perception from the market is that is important and worth the money. But, those types of custom fitting are economically feasible. They don't drive up the price point too much. The type of custom fitting that does drive up the price point is usually the custom shafts (say, wanting some UST Recoil shafts in a set of Titleist irons), but that is a small niche and that demands it and the overhead costs are low. The engineers told me, point blank, that the company is eager to create MOI matching but it's an issue of having to raise the price point or make their margins smaller. And these days corporations will not lower their margins for anything. Still...the engineers told me that MOI matching is valid and valuable in their opinions. 1. I don't know what Jorgensen said against MOI matching (I know Tutelman is all for it. I also know the 2 engineers that have PhD's are all for it. 2. Just throwing out Jorgensen's name doesn't mean he was automatically right. Same guy that didn't exactly get the D-Plane completely correct. Sure, I've been leery of the placebo effect. But, I've had too many experiences where I have tested it specifically with the placebo effect in mind. In my MOI fitting video, I had assembled the Ping 6-iron and had not measured the MOI after assembly. After I did the fitting, I *then* measured the MOI and it came to 2,726 which is directly on my fitted MOI for other clubs. I've done the same thing for a set of Wishon 555m's that I installed Wishon Stepless shafts from (the original set had KBS Tour shafts) and then a set of Wishon 575MMC irons. After I removed the weight after the fitting and THEN measure the initial MOI after assembly, each 6-iron had a different initial MOI. So, it wasn't like I could tell what the MOI was with the 6-iron and figure out how much weight to add and the placebo effect kicked in. I had no clue how much weight to add and got the same fitted MOI *each* time. I also did this with the 555M and 575MMC's 3-iron and PW. I did it with a few other irons, but I can't recall exactly which ones they are. I do recall the 3-iron and PW because ever since I was a junior golfer the 3-iron and PW usually gave me the most trouble. And I was curious to see if perhaps the MOI needed to be different. Same process... Assemble the club, *no* measuring of MOI. Fit for MOI and come right out to...2,725. Later on I discovered the MOI Balance Index with the 575MMC irons and decided to install a lighter shaft. I made good contact with a tight impact dispersion with the 575MMC 3-iron with the Wishon shafts installed. The issue is the ball flight was a bit low-ish. I then installed a True Temper DynaLite Gold SL s300 shaft and again...the fitted MOI came right out to 2,725. My wear mark on my 575MMC 4-iron has a fairly tight impact dispersion that I couldn't make with a 4-iron just a few years ago...before my knowledge of MOI matching. And I've tried similar methods with other golfers...fitting for MOI by *not* initially measuring their club's MOI and doing it with their 6-iron and their longest iron in the bag and I have yet to *not* find the MOI match. For myself, I am confident that MOI matching is not affected by the Placebo Effect. Even if it was, I can't see it as a negative for my game because my impact dispersion and ballstriking is better with MOI matching that it is without it. But, I believe in the science because I've had scientists and people that actually design equipment for a major OEM believe it is valid and I have yet to see anybody disprove it. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 20, 2014 19:04:53 GMT -5
I feel it applies here in equipment because the golf club requires force to be applied to its rotational axis as the golfer's wrists un-cock and the clubface 'releases' into hopefully a 'square' position at impact. I made a new post just for this quote. I personally thought the same thing, or better believed what others wrote about this subject and then copied their words in my writings and clubfiting\making procedures. The same way you do in this quote. Let me ask you the following : is your MOI machine measure the MOI around the swing's rotational axis? I've asked this question also on the TW site and as usual not a single reply (http://wishongolf.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13046&p=97539#p97535) It doesn't measure the swing's axis and nobody that I know of said it did. And Tom Wishon has answered all sorts of people with all sorts of questions and criticisms for years. I've heard and seen him go above and beyond the 'call of duty' when it comes to helping answer questions, helping clubmakers and golfers that don't buy his products. He does this on GolfWRX all of the time, even with people that vehemently disagree with him. I resent you implying Tom is somehow dodging your questions and is somehow an unethical 'salesman' because I've seen Tom help people, take on critics, etc. in a completely professional manner and it's baseless accusations like yours that drive good people in the business like Tom Wishon away from the internet and trying to help people out. Keyser asked you a question in that thread and you didn't respond. Are you dodging him as well? Criticisms and skepticism are welcomed here on this forum. But, what's not welcome is baseless accusations. I'm not trying to put you down, but this is how your posts come across...bitter, hypocritical with sloppy and unfounded accusations with the intent to attack Tom Wishon's character. There's a better tact to being critical and skeptical of something without resorting to this way. And if you want a reply to your questions and skepticism, I would recommend e-mailing Tom Wishon himself. 3JACK
|
|
MattF
Apex II's
Posts: 78
|
Post by MattF on Jul 20, 2014 19:56:26 GMT -5
Richie,
I think Franz is not trying to demonize Wishon as an individual, but rather refers to a context and just says something like 'business is business'
To my mind, his questioning sounds more like - let's take a metaphor: Trackman is the best fitting tool / best launch monitor right now, but the 'pseudo-science' which is behind isn't the last word to say on the subject: we can go further, there is a future and it's beginning right now.
Maybe my reading is a bit too positive or naïve, but it's that way that I want to think. MOI or SW are just processes. What's the next step? If we've found something better with MOI, can we also found something even better?
Probably, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 21, 2014 3:03:37 GMT -5
It doesn't measure the swing's axis and nobody that I know of said it did. I think you are so angry with me that you misread the question : I did not ask if you MOI machine measures the "swing's axis" I'm asking if the MOI machine is measuring the MOI of the golfclub around the same "axis" as the one that is present in the swing. And about TW : Yes extremely nice guy, does everything in this power to help people, golfers and clubmakers alike. But at the end of the day he also has a business to run. Is responsible for the families that rely on the income that comes from working for his company. And as not being financially independent he has to accept the rules of doing business meaning get a as large as possible potential group of buyers. And because of the pressure to sell he will accepted that some procedures he promotes are not correct.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 21, 2014 3:58:37 GMT -5
I'm not trying to put you down well to me it seems you are very angry with me and do try to put me down. I can defend any point I made in my posting and back them up with either quotes from engineers/books or the math. I'm more then willing to listen to any argument and will even change my mind when arguments make sense. Adams did NOT came up with "a formula" (note: please post the formula you think he came up with) he knew from his engineering standpoint that he was measuring a moment and know the math to calculate that moment. That formula was know some 40 years before. To dismiss Jorgensen because you think his d-plane is wrong is a weird as claiming Einstein was wrong because they improved his relativity theory. Again please post what you think is wrong with his d-plane math and we can talk about it. If you read his "matching golf clubs" you will see that he makes it very clear that for an object to feel the same three things have to be the same : Mass, first and second moment. If you talk to any engineer they will inform you that that theory is correct and without any doubt.......unless you find a engineer with some serious golf knowledge he will explain what should be added to this basic theory in order to apply it to golf. So the TW MOI method will not make the clubs swing the same. In fact in his latest posting on his website will now accept that while in the early beginning he was not. He will now even mention Jorgensen That the way you use MOI works for you and others is fine but there are as many golfers to be found where it will not work. The same for SW. You will find the same for freq. matching or shaft weight. If you go back to my original statement "Both SW and MOI are procedures allowing a clubmaker to find the possible specifications for a full set of clubs based on a single club being measured. It's a shortcut allowing to gain time in the fitting procedure nothing more nothing else." you will see why it sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't Let's take a set of irons. One club is measured and then the rest of the set it extrapolated to that one club. So if the clubfitter works SW based all irons will then have the same SW (flat line SW), the same for freq. he will build all clubs to the same freq (flat line FREQ) and he will follow the shaft weight as provided by the manufacturer. However shaft weight is funny because depending on the design now suddenly you will either get a flat line shaft weight or an increasing line shaft weight! How weird is it to measure 1 (one) club in a set and then using one point extrapolate the other clubs? Would it not be more logical to fit at least 3 clubs and then using those three clubs to determine if the golfer needs - increasing\decreasing MOI - increasing\decreasing FREQ - increasing\decreasing WEIGHT Please note that if the fitter does it like this any discussion about whether or not you should be using SW or MOI doesn't apply anymore. Problem with this procedure : a) It takes a long time to do the fitting, so it's expensive b) you need a serious amount of clubs But it's the only correct way I can think of how to do it correct.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 21, 2014 8:15:02 GMT -5
You've claimed:
1. MOI matching was based around 'pseudo science.' Wishon is the main driving force behind MOI matching and the MOI machine (although he didn't design the machine).
2. That Tom Wishon was A sales person selling clubmakers components comes up with an idea that OEM can not follow...Just let this combination sink in....[/b]
3. That when you posed a question on Tom Wishon's forum he 'didn't answer as usual' which implicates.
The claims are in order in which you made them. So, #3 implies that Wishon is 'dodging your question.'
I have no problems with somebody making claims like this if the person is indeed guilty of it. What I have an issue of it is that Wishon has an incredible track record of going above and beyond helping golfers out at no benefit to him. I've seen him answer criticisms and skeptics countless times. Take a look at his post on GolfWRX.
Am I angry at your post?
Absolutely.
Because Tom Wishon is 'one of the good guys' out there and you're acting like he's a 2-bit carny. And just this past week I had a reader tell me a story about dealing with Wishon where Tom, once again, went above and beyond helping this golfer with no benefit towards Tom. If I didn't know any better I would assume that couldn't be true because your feelings of 'Tom is a sale person selling clubmaker components with an idea that OEM's cannot follow...so just let this combination sink in.'
If you really feel that way about Tom, the MOI machine and his matching process...I would suggest e-mailing him to hopefully get the answers you're looking for.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 21, 2014 8:20:04 GMT -5
... he 'didn't answer as usual' no, it did not say "he" meaning TW but in general no answer from anyone especially clubfitters or clubmakers when asking difficult questions. Again somehow you seem very angry about my statement that TOM is a sales person and it makes you misread what I wrote!
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 21, 2014 8:42:05 GMT -5
Stop being angry and just read what I have written and try to think of the possible answers for the questions I ask. Asking questions is the only way to improve understanding....I posted these questions here because of the fact that you seemed to me a person that would accept being critical. It's that behavior that I like in you and that's why I tried to defend you on the BM forum.
I'm sure that you are aware that TOM can NOT answer those question as freely as he would like to or even question them because it will hurt his business. Just like TM will not tell you the full truth about their machine or TOMI or Zelocity or Flightscope or PuttLab just to name a few others.
You have to do your own research with feedback from other independent people to get some real answers! That's what I thought to find here. You mentioned MOI and I provided some counter-arguments. If you're angry about that because you like TOM as a person that's fine but don't be angry because I question things.....
|
|