Dave Good, I am glad to hear you feel as I do that the Brunswick slope is not what we should be building every ones clubs to. Building clubs to a proper slope is just another way to separate custom club building from the OEM's.
llhack > [Original Message] > From: Dave Tutelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <ShopTalk@mail.msen.com> > Date: 5/10/2005 5:22:11 PM > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Clarification needed > > At 04:32 PM 5/10/2005, Lloyd Hackman wrote: > >Dave, your attitude tward the slope in a set of club is rather disturbing > >to me. Very few players play on a Brunswick slope anyway. From a data base > >of about three hundred players of all handicap ranges, I found that an > >average slope was more like 2.3 CPM per club... > > Lloyd, > I'm in complete agreement with you that you have to fit the slope to the > player. I used the Brunswick slope as an example only, because that's what > a lot of clubmakers are used to -- and close to what the major shaft > manufacturers recommend. > > OK, let's use your example. Suppose you have a player that you have fit for > a 2.3cpm/club slope. You have done enough work with the shaft you are using > that you "know" the trim it will take. You determined that trim for a > swingweight-matched set. Now, if you use THE SAME TRIM for an MOI-matched > set, the slope will be more like 1.8cpm/club. > > THAT was my point, not that everybody should use a Brunswick slope and > MOI-matching gives you a too-flat slope. In fact, MOI-matching a set that > was trimmed for a swingweight match will take about a half cpm per club off > the slope, no matter what slope you trimmed for. > > BTW, I agree that most golfers will take a lower slope than the Brunswick > slope. I'm skeptical that it would be as low as 2.3. I'd have guessed (from > my experience) more in the 3.0-3.5 range. > > DaveT > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 5/10/2005 >
