What's new on the West Coast

The Search for the Magic Driver (Part 2)

Copyright 2002 by Leith Anderson
All rights reserved
Originally appeared in August 2002 issue of Golf Today

By Leith Anderson

Last month I suggested a six step method to use when trying to find the "Magic Driver" to fit your game. That was all about "how" to conduct the search. This article is about "what" we are looking for. I make the assumption that since we're talking about drivers; we're looking for more distance.

There are three possible sources of more distance with your driver: a hotter head, a hotter ball and a more flexible shaft. I'm confused by the USGA's position on high C.O.R. heads, first disallowing them, and then allowing them only to disallow them again in a few years. All the while they're complaining about obsolescing classic golf courses. I think most serious golfers will take a pass on high C.O.R drivers. I've found no good data on benefits so far. On the other hand, by trial and error, you will find certain driver head shapes produce higher ball speed and better trajectory, even without high C.O.R. The ball situation is also perplexing. Every ball is "long off the driver and soft off the putter". I can't tell the difference in advertising claims so I take the easy way out and play Pro V's like all my "friends" on the PGA Tour.

That leaves shafts. Over the last few years shafts have been a hot topic. Most golfers have changed the shafts in their drivers looking for the "Magic". Some of my friends have changed the shaft in their drivers several times. Unfortunately, none of those changes has produced the Magic Driver, which is obviously why they kept changing. This experience proves the truth of the old Yogi saying: "If you don't know what you're looking for, it's easy to find it".

It's worth answering the question "Is there a Magic Driver?" Is this a search with an end or is it like chasing the Holy Grail? My friend Craig at the Palo Alto Muni found one. It's a stock Mizuno bought at a Demo Day. It added a good 30 yards to his drive, tolerated his swing and made him competitive with the "Young Bucks" from the Black Tees. Fabulous results for a dedicated golfer in his early sixties. They're rare, but the Magic Driver exists.

I thought it would be a good idea to seek out some scientific opinions to support choosing a shaft for some reason other than the paint job and who won on Tour last Sunday. It just so happens that there are a couple of new books on the market that deal with the "science of golf". Theodore Jorgensen updated his 1994 book The Physics of Golf with a second edition in 1999 and it's now out in paperback. A new title Newton on the Tee by John Zumerchik came out just this year. Both books have major sections devoted to explaining how shafts work.

Jorgenson's book is the more scholarly. Here's the bottom line: he calculates that a flexible shaft can add 8% to clubhead speed and states that it should be "no problem" to get an additional 10-20 yards from changing to a more flexible shaft. Later in the book, he questions his own methodology but still concludes that even with a "new analytic model" a 3% increase in clubhead speed is possible.

There's a catch. A shaft can be too flexible. If a shaft is too flexible a lot of bad things happen. The ball goes right. The ball goes higher. A 20 yard slice turns into a 30 yard slice. The common wisdom calls for a loose shaft to produce wild hooks but that is not supported by Jorgensen's testing. But before we discuss how to find the right flex, it is important to understand the movement of the golf shaft during the swing.

Despite the fact that we called this the "science of golf" earlier, Jorgensen summed up the state of the art in understanding the effect of shaft flexibility on club performance when he said: "At the present time the understanding of the lateral flexibility of the shaft on the character of the golf stroke seems to be clouded by considerable perplexity". He follows this tongue in cheek understatement with a description of the dynamic movement of a shaft during the golf swing. It turns out that the shaft does not behave smoothly during a swing. It does not "load" at the top and then "unload" at impact. Rather, the shaft goes through a multiple step process of loading and unloading.

The actual sequence is a "load" at the top of the swing when the body starts moving forward while the club is reaching the top. The clubhead catches up with the hands at about the midpoint of the swing, roughly when the shaft is parallel to the ground and the hands are at belt level. Then, the shaft "reverse loads" with the clubhead getting ahead of the shaft. At "release" the hands again catch up with the club head and the final "kick" takes place with the clubhead coming through the ball ahead of the hands. If timed correctly, the "kick" adds speed to the clubhead that is directly attributable to shaft flex. In further calculations, Jorgensen proves that a more flexible shaft produces higher club head speed at impact than a very stiff shaft.

Needless to say, "flexible" and "very stiff" are relative concepts. In my experience, golfers tend to choose shafts that are too stiff, mostly for psychological reasons - the macho factor - and partly out of fear of "wild" shots. It is clear that any golfer can choose a stiff shaft and receive no help from the shaft. For pros, this might be quite OK since the strongest tend to be north of 120 MPH in swingspeed. It's hard to imagine Tiger trying to time a "kick" in his 130+ MPH swingspeed. Do we need to remind ourselves? Tiger is different from us. But Jorgensen introduces the notion that there's a perfect flex for every golfer, and that it will likely be more flexible.

A Quasi-Scientific Experiment
So I built myself four drivers, almost identical. The only difference was shaft flex. Here are the specifications: Accuflex Icon V.2 shafts, Ruger mid-launch (9.5*) heads and Winn grips. D-3. The frequencies were 242, 248, 255 and 260, all at 45" total club length. This translates into 5.0, 5.5, 6.2 and 6.8 on the Professional Clubmakers' Society calibrated frequency chart. It is worth a brief digression to explain that the PCS chart is based on the original Royal Precision chart but dials down the flex ratings. The consensus among PCS members is that a 5.0 is a (soft) stiff shaft. The 5.5 is considered (hard) stiff, 6.0 between stiff and "X" and a 6.8 a good, solid "X". This system diverges somewhat from what we have come to remember from the Royal Precision Company which originally stated that 6.0 was "stiff" and 7.0 was "X". Recently, the Royal Precision folks have also dialed down their "interpretations" to more closely match the PCS numbers. Consequently, think as 5.0 as (soft) stiff and 5.5 as a (hard) stiff. 6.2 is an "SX" and 6.8 is a solid "X".

A little personal data is relevant. I'm 57, play to a 4 handicap at the moment and measure my swingspeed at 105 with a driver. In my memory, I'm still a pretty long driver even though I find myself hitting first into the greens more frequently. Nevertheless, I still think of my overall profile as pretty strong and my swing speed requires a shaft on the high end of stiff. I still think that my swingspeed and tempo requires a shaft in the (hard) stiff or (soft) X range. I've been playing that 255 CPM driver.

However, I'm an advocate of using data, not "feel" and imagination to determine performance in golf clubs. I took my four test clubs to the range. I hit five balls with each club. The Distance Caddy recorded carry distance, average length, longest and shortest drive. There was no obvious difference in feel or ball flight. In fact, before uploading the data to my computer, I thought that the 260 club felt better. Here is the data:

Here's my interpretation of the data: I'm shocked. The 255 CPM club has been in my bag for the last two months. I've never had a better winning streak although I have to admit that I've not been too happy with the driving distance. But it's not even close. This data shows conclusively that if I dial down a full flex plus a couple of cycles, I'm going to pick up fourteen yards. Plus, my consistency is going to be better.

This small test also points out the futility of trying to test drivers at a range without some electronic help to determine how far the ball is flying. Without the Distance Caddy, I would not have known that the 242 CPM driver performed the best.

I think that this is a good place to leave the story. Obviously, there's a little soul-searching and some more experimentation that has to take place. I definitely need to verify these results. All I know is that on Saturday I'm playing the 5.0 driver in the Team Match Play at the Palo Alto Muni. It looks like Jorgensen is on to something. Fourteen yards would be about a 6% improvement. Meantime, look for an update next month as I delve into even softer flexes in my search for the "Magic Driver".