Title: Re: ShopTalk: Backweighting
I still have a copy of the article. Some of those
sets are MOI matched as well. There is a 0 handicap, a 1,6 handicap, a 2
handicap,a 12 or so and a 14 I believe. I have never tried backweighting
but apparently it helps the golfer with quick hands or the
Title: Backweighting
GS also recommends cutting the shaft a 1/2 shorter
if using the CForce grip.
http://www.golfsmith.com/products/181750
And here is more on the topic:
http://www.balance-certified.com/pages.php?page=02/11/19/0150711
Take some leave some.
A 1/2 inch bolt also fits the ID of most graphite shafts and a 9/16 bolt
fits the ID of steel shafts. As you said, a couple wraps of
electrical tape to tighten the fit works great. Cut the bolt to the
length to get the weight you want. I use long bolts to get
unthreaded shaft weights.
Regards,
At 08:44 PM 8/14/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think back weighting is all about feel.
I have to believe this is the case. That's
because there's nothing in physics that says
there will be a big difference in result, given
the same swing. I've run Max's SwingPerfect
program, which uses
I was asked to take part in a club fitting session. An individual was
setting up a custom club fitting business (henry griffin). The mentor
was there to show and assist him in club fitting. Long story short is
my 5 iron is 61 deg. and after expertmenting I was hitting one with a
lie of 63
In a message dated 8/15/06 10:25:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would like to come up an alternative in getting the lie changes. I play 5-pw only
Go to a clubmaker and have him adjust your present clubs after doing a lieboard test before bending them. The cost should
I had a Henry-Griffitts fitting and bought the clubs,
back in ~1998. That experience got me interested in
clubfitting and clubmaking.
HG sets are quite unique in ways not worth going into
now. Anyway, there is a problem with your assumption
that changing your lie angle to 63 is going to get you
--- Dave Tutelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is your belief based on? I'm not baiting you,
I'd simply like to know.
:-)
Fair enough. It's just a gut feeling. I guess it's
based on the fact that even among good golfers, a
specification or feature that helps or is liked by one
golfer,
As a FYI, 1 of the chapters in Jorgenson's book notes that possibly a better
club set would be one that matches in Swing Weight, MOI and Total weight. He
nuts out how to do this. If you want to get real specific on the
measurements (he recommends a Looser fit), he notes backweighting as the
What's difficult to do in the models is to accurately model all of the
possible variations in muscle contraction that are possible. Most of the
force/torque models in the physics models are relatively simple (constant,
triangular, square, sloped, etc.). Whereas we humans can apply a very
At 02:10 PM 8/15/2006, Don M wrote:
I guess it's
based on the fact that even among good golfers, a
specification or feature that helps or is liked by one
golfer, hurts or is disliked by another. The human
element seems to play such a huge role that attempts
to reduce it to science seem to me to
At 04:22 PM 8/15/2006, Alan Brooks wrote:
What's difficult to do in the models is to accurately model all of
the possible variations in muscle contraction that are
possible. Most of the force/torque models in the physics models are
relatively simple (constant, triangular, square, sloped,
Hi Dave,
At 06:22 PM 8/15/2006 -0400, you wrote:
At 04:22 PM 8/15/2006, Alan Brooks wrote:
What's difficult to do in the models is to accurately model all of the
possible variations in muscle contraction that are possible. Most of the
force/torque models in the physics models are relatively
13 matches
Mail list logo
