Mark, My thanks to you and all who replied. The last few days have been pretty hectic around here with lots of work and relatives visiting. Extra highest is something I don't need on any of my irons, so I may have to forego the flatline. However, I may look at going on a 2cpm slope rather than the four. Also I may play around as you suggested and come up with an even different variation. I don't think this will be just another set of swingweighted and frequency matched (4cpm slope) set of irons. I have too many of those in the closet and shop already. So it is time to experiment.
This is a little odd but I don't have a favorite iron. I feel comfortable with all but my TPS 5-Iron. It is hell bent on missing target no matter what I do to it. My 944Cs, on the other hand, play great throughout the set. Thanks again for all of the comments and feedback. I'll be sure to let you know how this comes out. Cub ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark A. Patton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Flatline > Steve > > Have read the responses through this evening, but how about this: > > Presuming a std iron set of 3-9 > Determine your preferred middle iron (lets use a 6 for this example) as well as > the freq for your preferred shaft (I have a good thought this is a known fact to > you) > > Build some demo 3s and 9s with the same shaft. Make one of the 3s and one of the > nines the same freq as the 6. Make another 3 and 9 on a slope of say 2 cpm. > Another on 3cpm and yet another on 4. (you can handled this however you would > like, it might be that demos on a 2cpm and 4 slope might work best for this and > limit the amount of demo clubs). > > Now hit the range. If you have access to a distance caddy or some other similar > the device, that much better. If not, get a knowledgeable friend to accompany > you to observe and take notes on performance. > > This has been my practice for establishing slope preference for a while now. > Unfortunately, one of the items taken when I was robbed was my bag of demo irons > for determining this (heavy damn bag and I hope they dislocated something. Bet > they are surprised at the set though of only 5 and 9 irons.) . I have observed > most people prefer a slope between 2.5 to 3.5. I know I like 3.0 on a std > swingweight matched set. > > As far as all irons being the same length, I am curious if you are interested > also in Jorgenson's total match as well. > > Mark > > > Steve \"Cub\" Culbreth wrote: > > > I've discounted flat-line freq matching in the past but had a little time to > > ponder it lately. Besides the fact that the short irons may hit longer and > > higher, wouldn't you lose control all the way around? I mean, using a 4cpm > > slope we try to maintain the feel and playing flex throughout the set. If > > you flat-line a set based on your current 7-Iron freq, because you hit it > > the best, wouldn't you end up with long irons that are way too stiff and > > short irons way to soft? Seems a no-brainer to me, but I have to wonder. > > > > Have any of you played a flat-line set? Have any of you played a set with > > only 2cpm of slope throughout? > > > > I'd like to hear your thoughts before I get too tempted to test the > > principle. > > > > TIA, > > > > Cub > >
