Hey Dave
Yep I was in PGA School in 68 and was tinkering with rebuilding clubs in High
School even. In the early 70s was Head Pro at a local course and the guy that
owned the course also had an off course golf shop. The course was out a ways
and it was hard to secure the pro shop from break-ins so he rented a place in
town for his Pro Shop. We only kept a minimal number of golf balls, tees,
gloves etc at the course and everything else was in town. We also built clubs
and had our on personalized line with our name Stamped in the iron heads. Back
then we had the PGA event The Southern Open in Columbus and we did work for the
touring pros when the tournament was in town.
Anyway a lot of the OEM reps back then were guys I played against in college
and we were into all kinds of experimenting. One of them worked where either
Tony Pena and Tommy Armour worked or there was two Reps for two companies and
one with Pena and one with Armour. (sorry for the memory lapse, old age and it
wasn't as big a deal back then as it is now). We played around with sets of all
types. I had a lot of staff sets because very time someone want to experiment
they came to me. One set was 1/4 inch digressions and 1/2 sw increments and
aluminum shafts too. I guess because I played against them and they knew me and
that I held several course records back then they thought I was a good little
white mouse to experiment with. - lol
We tried stiff shafts for Seniors, 1/2 sw progressions etc.
Still foggy on this but my recollection is that Tommy Armour way back in the
30s thought MOI was the way to go but most didn't understand it back then and
it didn't gain much favor. Pena was his protégé I believe and learned from him
and so it went. The golf companies would build a lot of things back then and
experiment but never developed anything for the public as far as I know. All of
that was back in the late 1960s and it never occurred to me that someday...
I wish I had kept all of that stuff and my notes and all but when I got out of
golf in the mid 70s it didn't seem important. Now I only have memories I can't
recall most of the time. Fun times but I can't tell you for sure what worked
and what didn't except I like the 1/2 SW digressions and continued to use it
even when I got back in the business and before I every heard of MOI again. I'm
not even sure the term MOI was mentioned back then, all I recall is 1/2 SW
digressions.
Roy
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Tutelman
To: ShopTalk@mail.msen.com
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: ShopTalk: 1 1/2 HOURS OF PURE EDUCATION
At 08:01 AM 2/5/2010, Roy - AGCP wrote:
I have been building progressive swing weight matches since the 1970s and
used a swing weight scale to get 1/2 swing weight progressions as clubs get
shorter.
Wow, you got there before I did!
I figured out in 1994 that this was the way to get an MOI match, and started
experimenting then.
I've refined the rules a little since then (
http://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/swingwt4.php?ref=#sw_scale). But a half
swingweight point per club is still pretty darned good.
I find the SpeedMatch is a bit easier to nail it down more accurately than
the sliding weight on the swingweight scale.
Digital measurement of the timing.
That's the ticket!
For PRECISION anyway. Not necessarily accuracy.
The MOI is a function of just the spring constant and the period. So the
precision can be VERY good. The ACCURACY depends on the calibration of the
spring constant as well as the period. I don't know how well GolfMechanix does
that. If they have a calibration "club" of a known MOI and use that to
calibrate the electronics, then it's taken care of. (For the distinction, see <
http://www.tutelman.com/golf/measure/precision.php>.)
And even if it's not, accuracy will not stand in the way of matching clubs to
one another; that's a precision issue -- and the SpeedMatch has that covered.
You only need accuracy to build to a specific number.
Not the same at all for the older digital pendulum method. The very precise
time measurement had to be combined with length (balance point) and mass (total
weight). The resulting precision was no better than a swingweight scale. (Yes.
Honestly.)
Cheers!
DaveT
