|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 25, 2014 9:35:35 GMT -5
You know I could care less what you want to call SW or MOI. I care about the practical use of the method.
Something that I have experienced is that I can build an iron. Then hit the club adding a gram of weight at a time until I get a tight impact on the club face. Then check the MOI and it comes out at 2695 +/- 5 MOI units. It's amazing how this happens every time. I cannot say the same about SW.
I cannot explain why this happens and could care less of the science behind it. What I do care about is, this method is the best way for me to build clubs for myself that I can hit on the sweet spot more often. This is just what I have experienced and I thank 3Jack for the info he has provided. I am not writing this to defend 3Jack. I am writing because the MOI method works.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 25, 2014 14:20:54 GMT -5
You know I could care less what you want to call SW or MOI. I care about the practical use of the method. Something that I have experienced is that I can build an iron. Then hit the club adding a gram of weight at a time until I get a tight impact on the club face. Then check the MOI and it comes out at 2695 +/- 5 MOI units. It's amazing how this happens every time. I cannot say the same about SW. I cannot explain why this happens and could care less of the science behind it. What I do care about is, this method is the best way for me to build clubs for myself that I can hit on the sweet spot more often. This is just what I have experienced and I thank 3Jack for the info he has provided. I am not writing this to defend 3Jack. I am writing because the MOI method works. I think Frans didn't say it doesn't work, at least I didn't. I have always took the clubs they give me and start to play with those, so I really don't know if those help or not. The point is that to be scientific, method has to be proven scientific way, no matter how it affects. SO the formula in calculation have to fit with every possible situation and if it doesn't it's not scientific.. but can still work in 90% of cases. That's why balance boards and TM/FS shouldn't be used for scientific purposes and to prove some theories. They are more based on those theories.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Jul 25, 2014 15:15:24 GMT -5
I am not mad at Frans.
It's apparent that he has never tried to contact Tom thru e-mail and just assumed that Tom wouldn't answer his question. I think he had been told by others that they asked Tom that question and Tom didn't answer that person.
Personally, I prefer to see for myself.
And that was my point. Some people don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have proven time and time again that they will be evasive, make things up or just be plain wrong about their claims and having 'science' back them up. I do not feel that Tom Wishon is one of those types and he should be asked personally before we jump to conclusions and start 'screaming from the rooftops' that he's just another salesman trying to con the people.
So, I'm not angry at Frans. I just didn't appreciate the tact he used here. Particularly when he kept saying that I didn't answer the question, repeatedly, when I did give him my answer.
Another key point to bring up, again...is that I would be willing to bet that MOI matching is a miniscule amount of Tom's business.
He rarely advertises or even discusses MOI matching. One look at his e-newsletters, marketing campaigns, blog posts and GolfWRX articles and he rarely mentions MOI. When GolfWRX members ask him questions about swingweight...he answers those questions with regards to swingweight.
I don't make money off any clubfitting, club work and MOI matching I do for people. When I was doing it, I eventually got to the point where I said that if they just pay for the shipping to and from my home, we can work something out.
I can tell you that MOI matching is a difficult sell to golfers. They are simply too devout to the swingweight theory. Furthermore, the price associated with swingweight is minimal. That's why I only made people pay for shipping...if I want to MOI match irons all I really need is lead tape.
So to think that MOI matching is a substantial part of Wishon's business and if it were 'exposed' it would crush his business doesn't jive with me. Most golfers have never heard of MOI matching and won't do it for free even if it just consists of adding lead tape to the head which can always be removed.
I would imagine that most of Tom's business revolves around the 919THI driver and the fairway woods. Then the rest, and a much smaller amount, revolves around the irons, wedges and putters.
Eric brings up another good point. So many people look at science and go by what the science tells them in a lab, but there is an application part to the game of golf. While I have my issues with Trackman and FlightScope, I do think they are quality tools because I have had owners tell me that they get some large improvements with many students once they get on TM or FS. I just think that using those for scientific research is generally a poor idea because they are not nearly as accurate as they claim they are.
I believe some better things will come along when it comes to how clubs are weighted that will help golfers in the future. And perhaps we'll see some major flaws to the MOI concept. But, it does work. And from measuring Nick Faldo's clubs and knowing how he went about coming up with those clubs...I am more confident that MOI matching is at least on the right track and how the public is being sold a bill of goods on the swingweight principle.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 25, 2014 23:07:06 GMT -5
You know I could care less what you want to call SW or MOI. I care about the practical use of the method. Something that I have experienced is that I can build an iron. Then hit the club adding a gram of weight at a time until I get a tight impact on the club face. Then check the MOI and it comes out at 2695 +/- 5 MOI units. It's amazing how this happens every time. I cannot say the same about SW. I cannot explain why this happens and could care less of the science behind it. What I do care about is, this method is the best way for me to build clubs for myself that I can hit on the sweet spot more often. This is just what I have experienced and I thank 3Jack for the info he has provided. I am not writing this to defend 3Jack. I am writing because the MOI method works. I think Frans didn't say it doesn't work, at least I didn't. I have always took the clubs they give me and start to play with those, so I really don't know if those help or not. The point is that to be scientific, method has to be proven scientific way, no matter how it affects. SO the formula in calculation have to fit with every possible situation and if it doesn't it's not scientific.. but can still work in 90% of cases. That's why balance boards and TM/FS shouldn't be used for scientific purposes and to prove some theories. They are more based on those theories. I appreciate your post but would like to clarify a couple things. I was following the post because I was interested to see what Frans felt was a better method. I may have missed the point that he was just bringing up what is scientific and what is not. I did email him asking for the better way to fit clubs. I was seriously wanting to see if I could learn something new. Unfortunately he did not respond. If he has a different method I sure would like to hear about it. Just my hope for learning. And to be fair if all his responses are more about a debate over what is the proper scientific way between SW or MOI then fine. I missed his point. But my opinion is if you are going to argue what is better or not you should point out better methods. Just my opinion. frans did point out SW is better then MOI. I adamantly disagree as my own experiences are that MOI works better. I will leave it at that for now but I can give examples and not just of my own clubs. I will end with this. As I said I could care less what is scientific or what ever you want to call it. To me it's practical experience of a method that has a process that works.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 27, 2014 4:38:51 GMT -5
... I did email him asking for the better way to fit clubs. I was seriously wanting to see if I could learn something new. Unfortunately he did not respond. ... first page second to last posting. frans did point out SW is better then MOI. No I did not. I adamantly disagree as my own experiences are that MOI works better. I will leave it at that for now but I can give examples and not just of my own clubs.... As I said I could care less what is scientific or what ever you want to call it. To me it's practical experience of a method that has a process that works. SW worked for 90 years before MOI appear. SW doesn't always work neither does MOI. That a golfer doesn't care about the scientific background of a certain procedure is fine with me. But again only Tapio seems to understand the reason for questioning MOI and so should any person using this procedure when fitting(!) others then himself. And yes that includes you Richie, btw I find it a very weak response to tell me that you don't understand MOI good enough to discus about it but then again you use it to fit others! It seems the difference with me and most others in this thread is that I do care why certain golfers I fit for money do NOT benefit from a flat line MOI in their set (be it as set of irons or wedges or hybrid or woods) but do benefit from flat line SW in their set. I do care that when the defenders of MOI say "you will swing all clubs the same" but then the woods have different MOI then the irons and most will have a every hard time playing their w5 with the same MOI as their Driver! It worries me when defenders of MOI suddenly need MBI or COP or whatever to keep defending that the basics of MOI are correct but it needs some tweaking.... As Tapio stated correctly : any method claimed to work should always work. It's clear the MOI doesn't do that nor does SW. However unlike SW MOI claims to have a scientific background defending it making it more pseudo-science then SW in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 27, 2014 6:56:49 GMT -5
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. Hey Frans could you clarify your statement " MOI being worse then SW? I take that as you saying SW is better than MOI. by the way, I am not angry or in anyway being demeaning in my posts. This is just a clean debate for me with the thought I may learn something.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 27, 2014 7:00:35 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. Sorry Frans this is the only post I found close to explaining club fitting. Can you explain in a little more detail how you fit golf clubs?
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 27, 2014 7:51:58 GMT -5
... I did email him asking for the better way to fit clubs. I was seriously wanting to see if I could learn something new. Unfortunately he did not respond. ... first page second to last posting. frans did point out SW is better then MOI. No I did not. I adamantly disagree as my own experiences are that MOI works better. I will leave it at that for now but I can give examples and not just of my own clubs.... As I said I could care less what is scientific or what ever you want to call it. To me it's practical experience of a method that has a process that works. SW worked for 90 years before MOI appear. SW doesn't always work neither does MOI. That a golfer doesn't care about the scientific background of a certain procedure is fine with me. In my opinion SW has been a method used for 90 years and was the best method known. What I would argue is it worked in the sense that it was the only real method known and it was a logical process. In my opinion it does not mean it really works. I have yet to find one golfer who has a SW matched iron set or entire set have a tight impact on the face of all those clubs when checked. Every time I have helped someone out, I get the same result. Several clubs always need to be adjusted. Look I have limited experience but what I have experienced is a straight SW set does not give a consistent face impact across an iron set. That is what I have experienced 100% of the time. I want to give you an example of a golfer I helped out. He had 4 drivers all with a SW of D2. He would have told anyone he has to have a D2 SW driver or he cannot hit it. He would not let me touch his gamer so I took apart the 3 other drivers and removed any tip weight which they all had. Put them back together and did not measure MOI or SW. Then he hit them at the range and I added weight a little at a time. Once he had good face impact we would go a little further on weight. Then we would go back to what was best. Here is the interesting thing. Once each club was tested on the MOI auditor. All 3 had an MOI of 2740 +/- 3 MOI units. The SW was D1 to C10. Now If I had to build this guy a new driver what method would you use? Now would I say MOI is the perfect method. No I would not. My thought is it's a step in the direction to find the best way to fit clubs. To clarify the example above I added weight in various places to find the best face impact and shot dispersion. So each club had weight added to the head and some on the shaft balance point. That is why I say MOI is not a perfect method. Just a better method than SW. You do need to get the weight in the right places to not only get good face impact but also tighten up the target dispersion. Frans if you want to debate that is fine, but I want to learn more as I am always in search of how I can build my next set even better. I am in search if that nirvana set of golf clubs. Only a few people have been very helpful and 2 of them are Tom Wishon and Richie3Jack. I don't think either one of them have ever not responded to my messages and all my questions. If you have a SW fitting method that really works great please share it.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 27, 2014 11:14:43 GMT -5
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. Hey Frans could you clarify your statement " MOI being worse then SW? I take that as you saying SW is better than MOI. I'm so lost here : Is it because I use some weird English sentence constructions? "MOI being worse then SW because it's based on pseudo-science" where "It's" related to MOI. Then as a follow up I wrote this: 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) Seems to me that that is very clear? The supporters of MOI claims it relate to the "force to be applied to its rotational axis as the golfer's wrists un-cock " and I kindly ask them if their MOI machine is indeed measuring MOI around an axis that is the same as the swings rotational axis?
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 27, 2014 11:26:06 GMT -5
I have yet to find one golfer who has a SW matched iron set or entire set have a tight impact on the face of all those clubs when checked. Well.....I did see tight impact on flat line SW clubs more then once but then again tight impact doesn't mean consistent club data so "tight impact" in itself is not a meaningful fitting objective where consistent club data is. ...so I took apart the 3 other drivers and removed any tip weight which they all had.... So it was not SW that was the problem but the clubmaker that somehow thought that fixing an issue should be done by using tip weight...has no relation at all with SW or MOI but everything to do with misunderstanding what SW is and is not.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 27, 2014 11:29:41 GMT -5
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. Sorry Frans this is the only post I found close to explaining club fitting. Can you explain in a little more detail how you fit golf clubs? Not only do I explain how most clubfitters fit and the consequences of the procedure used but I also explain how that procedure can be improved and immediately solves any SW / MOI / FLEX / WEIGHT assumptions that the fitter might included in his procedures. What part you feel is missing?
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Jul 27, 2014 13:31:35 GMT -5
The supporters of MOI claims it relate to the "force to be applied to its rotational axis as the golfer's wrists un-cock " and I kindly ask them if their MOI machine is indeed measuring MOI around an axis that is the same as the swings rotational axis? That's really a great question Frans and also can be explanation why MOI works for many and not for some. I see huge difference between players how club works "around" the wrists. Many of nowadays players got not at all free release and rotation around the shaft axis
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 27, 2014 20:28:45 GMT -5
Hey Frans could you clarify your statement " MOI being worse then SW? I take that as you saying SW is better than MOI. I'm so lost here : Is it because I use some weird English sentence constructions? "MOI being worse then SW because it's based on pseudo-science" where "It's" related to MOI. Then as a follow up I wrote this: 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) Seems to me that that is very clear? The supporters of MOI claims it relate to the "force to be applied to its rotational axis as the golfer's wrists un-cock " and I kindly ask them if their MOI machine is indeed measuring MOI around an axis that is the same as the swings rotational axis? I think I understand your opinion on MOI and as I have said I could care less if it's proven science, pseudo-science, or whatever you want to call it. As far what is better I think we both have our opinions and until someone explains how I can get the results I get with MOI using SW as a fitting method I will stick with MOI. As far as MOI and the rotational swing axis question. Your probably right. I don't believe it measures around the swings rotational axis. Does SW work or is it measured around the rotational axis?
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jul 27, 2014 20:47:18 GMT -5
Sorry Frans this is the only post I found close to explaining club fitting. Can you explain in a little more detail how you fit golf clubs? Not only do I explain how most clubfitters fit and the consequences of the procedure used but I also explain how that procedure can be improved and immediately solves any SW / MOI / FLEX / WEIGHT assumptions that the fitter might included in his procedures. What part you feel is missing? It may be better for me to just ask a couple questions. As far as building a set of clubs to a flat line SW. How do you do it if you don't add weight to the head? Are you weight selecting all the components? What I have learned in the past couple months is you do need to build one club at a time. While I can build a set to a specific MOI number and I get very good results from face impact dispersion. You still have slight differences in some of the irons and you will see wider target dispersion. This is why I have been playing with weight at the balance point of the shaft and at the butt of the grip. What I will share with you is 3Jack and I had a correspondence recently and he mentioned balance ratio. This is a lot easier then balance index. Not that I prefer easier, just simplifies things and if it works. Then great for me. What I can tell you is I currently am building up my favorite iron set and checking against a test club I built and my other irons set that is in play now. My balance ratio is 66.1 to 66.9. Hey I am still learning and trying to find that best setup. By the way I did the math and the 3 drivers I built for my friend are 55.1 to 55.6 for balance ratio. To me you follow are certain process and see where it leads you. If the results are better than what I have been doing then I feel I am going in a better direction. If the results are not as good then you step back to the original process. This is what has lead me away from SW.
|
|
|
Post by fransatfrance on Jul 28, 2014 4:11:21 GMT -5
To me you follow are certain process and see where it leads you. If the results are better than what I have been doing then I feel I am going in a better direction. If the results are not as good then you step back to the original process. People pay serious money to get fitted by me, I can not afford the luxury to try, re-try, step back etc. So any procedure new or old should definitely not be based on BS or pseudo-science bla-bla
|
|