Not to make this thread longer that it should be, but I will take an "Arnie
type" view and say:
This appears to be solid sales data. Bottom line- sales are being made to
satisfied customers. Now if the FitChip is either:
A: decreasing your cost of business (the dollar value of time spent on
]
Subject: Re: ShopTalk: X flex shafts
TFlan
After hearing all the comments on this subject I find your comment was right
on. It sounds like there are a lot of players out there that are not fitted
properly by Swing speed as the examples given have suggested. Since Dave
seems to be in love with the shaft
So Arnie
Can you share the details of your handy dandy cleaner/brush gizmo ?
Thanks.
Bob Sielski
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:37:07 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
two and he pops off the old o-ring and bore thru plug, blows off the
grip, cleans it in his handy dandy cleaner/brush gizmo, and
: ShopTalk: X flex shafts
Alberto:
It is the old axiom (axiom's, axia?) that I always wonder
about...I've mentioned before my favorite book is How We Know What
Isn't So.
I've always followed the longest/softest theory and never tried
shafting up the ol' telephone pole and simply wondered
When I was a young bull, I played X100's in my old First Flight
irons. Control was excellent and predictable, but the distance was
probably not what I could have gotten by going a bit softer.
Now that I'm an old(er) fart, I no longer have the desire to crank like
hell on every shot. I play
and their bearing on ball flight.
Al
At 01:13 PM 11/7/2002, you wrote:
Isn't this essentially a rehash of the Lloyd Hackman theory of shaft
fitting?
TFlan
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: ShopTalk: X
, the softer the shaft.
TFlan
- Original Message -
From: Al Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: ShopTalk: X flex shafts
I don't think so. Since no one has come up with an exact and provable
theory on shaft fitting, I
At 10:13 AM 11/7/02 -0800, you wrote:
Isn't this essentially a rehash of the Lloyd Hackman theory of shaft
fitting?
TFlan
Not at all, though the results are familiar. Lloyd has a much more elegant
way to get to even more extreme results.
DaveT
At 11:16 AM 11/7/02 -0800, you wrote:
Well sure. I agree. As you are no doubt aware, I've complained long and
often about the letter designations for shaft flex. I have, over the past 6
years, installed roughly a dozen different flex shafts in a few driver
heads, measured them on my freq meter,
Dave,
Good way to describe it...kind of elegance like Weiss' spine finder. :-)
Bernie
Writeto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Dave Tutelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: ShopTalk: X flex shafts
At 10:13
John,
There is an old axiom in fitting that says put them in the longest softest
shaft they can hit properly. First of all, what ball flight are you trying
to change? A mandatory part of fitting is that it feels good. Going with
XX shafts will have to feel good and the golfer will have to
Alberto:
It is the old axiom (axiom's, axia?) that I always wonder
about...I've mentioned before my favorite book is How We Know What
Isn't So.
I've always followed the longest/softest theory and never tried
shafting up the ol' telephone pole and simply wondered if the
longer/softer theory was
Of course there is another axiom that says never test a new club in cold
weather. Therefore, you must go south to test the new club. I am available.
Al
At 11:27 PM 11/6/2002, you wrote:
Alberto:
It is the old axiom (axiom's, axia?) that I always wonder about...I've
mentioned before my
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: ShopTalk: X flex shafts
Alberto:
It is the old axiom (axiom's, axia?) that I always wonder
about...I've mentioned before my favorite book is How We Know What
Isn't So.
I've always followed the longest/softest theory and never
14 matches
Mail list logo
