|
What's new on the West Coast
Golf Equipment Chronicles 2004 (Part 3)
Copyright 2004 by Leith Anderson
All rights reserved
Originally appeared in March 2004 issue of Golf Today
Golf Equipment Chronicles: Utility & Hybrid Clubs
I’ve been mentioning utility and hybrid clubs on and off for several months.
Utilities and hybrids have gained acceptance on the PGA Tour. Despite all the
attention that the golf world paid to the Titleist 983, Taylor Made 510 TP and
Cobra drivers in 2003, there is an argument that the real "club of the
year" was the utility club. As usual, I thought about utility clubs a lot
but didn’t really try them out. I think I’m like a lot of players
who would rather not mess with his bag in the middle of the season. It just
takes too long to get used to a new club. I’d almost rather play with a
club that I don’t really like very much than risk a change. But, with plenty
of time when the weather got bad, I decided I’d better pick one for myself
for 2004. As usual, that involved a lot of rigmarole.
The process started a couple of months ago and continued through the PGA Show
in late January. After the work I’ve done in the last month, I’m confident
that I will have a significant and measurable improvement in my game this season.
There’s a new club in my bag.
The Price of Their Toys . . .
But before I get too deep into utility club evaluation, I’ve got a follow-up
from last year’s PGA show. If you were reading Golf Today then, you’ll
remember the story about Bruce Burrows, the billionaire, who started his golf
equipment company, optimistically naming it after himself, intent on inventing
all sorts of new golf clubs that would revolutionize golf.
His first invention was the MAC driver. It’s a pretty conventional club
when you look at it from the top but if you turn it over it looks like a meteor
crater. The idea is that shock waves bounce around inside the head and propel
the ball longer and straighter. The most interesting part of the story from
last year was how Burrows could keep his $30 million dollar project secret.
When he unveiled his creation on the show floor in 2003 the display would have
done the Museum of Science and Industry proud. It was full of all sorts of apparatus
that proved that Burrows had the most expensive portable R&D operation in
the industry. And, it was a complete surprise.
Fast forward to 2004. Burrows was back with a slightly smaller booth but just
as much intrigue. Upon arrival we were notified that Burrows would hold a press
conference on Friday afternoon when his new "Tour Partners" would
be revealed. Just to see if security was still locked down, I made a few inquiries
around the press room. No one knew which players would be announced. Just like
big business, no leaks. Another thing you couldn’t find out was how much
the price tag had gone up. The punters in the press room were willing to bet
on $50 million and counting. That’s a pretty expensive driver.
So I got a cookie, a coffee and a second row seat at the press conference.
The stage was made up to look just like the men’s grill at a private club.
After a brief product pitch, Burrows introduced Ken Venturi who in turn introduced
Ben Crenshaw, Bruce Lietski, Bill Rogers, Steward Ginn and Thomas Bjorn (in
absentia). Each in turn described what a swell gentleman and wonderful golf
partner Bruce was. The one question the audience was dying to ask was "How
much of the company did you get for endorsing the product?" But we were
all too intimidated by the show of force on the stage and frankly, the golf
press isn’t well known for its investigative journalism. The "conference"
ended without a single question from the floor. I left meekly, knowing I had
missed a chance for my 15 minutes of fame. One question would have done it.
Burrows introduced two new products: A wedge that was designed to reduce spin
so all of his tour playing friends wouldn’t spin the ball back off the
green so aggressively. As of now, Burrows owns the "low spin wedge"
product category. He also introduced a new putter with a neon-blue pipe around
the back that placed it squarely in the Futura-inspired class. I wonder how
that color scheme will be received at the conservative green grass temples like
the Olympic Club.
Last year, the distribution strategy was "green grass" only. That
means you only sell to golf shops located at golf courses. It’s what you
do when you want to get the club professionals on your side. But on-course pro
shops sell a small percentage of golf equipment, so you probably haven’t
had a chance to demo Burrows clubs. I have, but it was a single round with the
MAC and it wasn’t longer than my trusty LFE with the Speeder 757 -- the
Magic Driver at the time -- so I gave it back.
After spending 25 years in the high tech, I have a great deal of sympathy for
anyone trying to launch new technology. You think it should take weeks and it
takes years. But I’m dying to find out if the Burrows creativity is going
to start a revolution. I’d like to ask every Golf Today reader who has
the time to find a pro who has Burrows equipment and try a demo. After you’ve
taken your test drive, send an email to Leith@calgolftech.com and I’ll
compile the results and report back. Take a close look at the Burrows "quick
fit" system. This is a patented method of attaching a shaft to a head and
a grip so you can "demo" any combination of the Burrows heads, shafts
and grips prior to ordering your custom club. It seems to me that the fixture
that attaches the shaft to the head has to stiffen up the shaft a flex or so.
As innovative as the fitting system is, I wonder if the club they’re going
to make for me is going to play exactly the same as the one they screw together.
But there’s only one way to find out and that’s to try it yourself.
Let’s make this a project.
Background on Utility Clubs
Maybe the reason that I’ve not tried utility clubs seriously is that the
choices are too confusing. I needed to think through what I was trying to accomplish.
I’m pretty happy with the consistency of my 4 iron. Psychologically, I
want to keep my 3 iron in the bag but I can only remember two or three times
all summer I hit it stiff. I think I fly my 4 iron 190. My 3 iron takes a very
solid shot to fly 200. I’d like a club that I could consistently fly 210
without jumping out of my shoes. That became my goal.
We’re on the cusp of a massive change in set make up. When I was younger,
I never bought a set of clubs without a 1 iron. Hitting a 1 iron was the trademark
of an accomplished player. In later years, I gave up on the 1 iron but always
ordered a 2 iron with my custom sets. But today, if you look in LPGA tour players’
bags, you won’t find many long irons. Most women start with a 5 iron. In
the near future, I won’t be too surprised to see men’s bags start
at a 5 iron and women’s bags start at a six iron. That’s about where
irons become reliable for most amateurs. At the lower end, the bag is going
to be full of high loft woods and utility clubs. It’s all about consistency.
You are a candidate for this kind of change if your long irons all fly about
the same distance. If you don’t know for sure, you should arrange to test
your "gaps" on a launch monitor.
The utility club product category was "reinvented" this time around
with the TaylorMade Rescue series. The first one out was an ugly little thing,
basically a chunk of stainless steel painted bronze to match the rest of the
TM line. For historical continuity, I bought a couple of original Rescues off
of eBay and a couple of the original Snake Eyes heads from Golfsmith. I couldn’t
face having that bronze colored club in my bag so I sent it off to Custom Club
Coatings for a stylish black powdercoat. I fitted the Rescue with a Nippon lightweight
steel shaft. For the Snake Eyes Quickstrike I chopped off a Harrison driver
shaft that was too stiff for its original host.
On mats at the range, the Snake Eyes seemed to go awfully high. The Golfsmith
folks concentrate on selling the benefits of a lot of extra tungsten in the
sole. I took it to the course with little hope for success. But on the course
the trajectory was totally different. It went nice and straight and not too
high, overall very encouraging. That was until the sixth hole at the Palo Alto
muni. If you’ve played Palo Alto, you know that’s a pretty long par
4. I hit a decent drive into the left rough about 190 from the green. That should
have been perfect for the 21¡ Snake Eyes. I teed it up on a flier lie
(winter rules) and hit what I thought was a dead solid perfect shot. I was thinking
about my birdie putt when the shot fell about 20 yards short of the green. That’s
the last shot I ever hit with that club -- back to the parts bin.
The Rescue was better. I put it in the bag for the first time on a chilly day
at Monarch Bay. I’ve played that course three times and have three double
bogies on the very tough par 3 seventh hole. This time we moved up to the white
tees which put us at just the right distance for another Rescue shot. I didn’t
hit it very solid and pushed it right into the bunker. But when I got to the
ball it was pin high and only about 40 feet from the hole. Unusually good results
from a bad swing. The good luck continued an I got it up and in for my first
par on that hole. I hit it several more times for lay-ups on the par fives and
on 17 which was playing into the wind. I thought I would have to hit it hard
to get to the green which was by now playing into the stiff northerly afternoon
wind. It flew to the back of the green. That’s clearly better distance
than my 3 iron and easier to hit. It’s been in the bag ever since.
Then I set out to test the newer models and see if I could improve the results.
If you’re in an economical mood, you can pick up a TM original rescue on
eBay for $50 to $75.
Getting Complicated
You can try utilities very cheaply. All of the "do it yourself" catalog
houses offer stainless steel heads for between $20 and $40. Add a shaft and
grip of your choice and you can put a utility club together for under $100.
That’s what I did when I got started. After watching the online forums
for a few months, one of the leading designs was the Snake Eyes Quickstrike
from Golfsmith. Over time, I ordered samples from Golfsmith, Golfworks, Wishon,
Dynacraft, Infiniti, and others I can’t even remember. I even bought a
few random clubs off of eBay.
I must have seen 30 models in every shape, size and length at the PGA Show.
The word is out that the utility club is destined to be "The Next Big Thing"
for 2004 so every manufacturer has rushed their version to market. Here is an
outline of the questions for you to consider in making your own choice.
Head Shape
There is a fundamental question: Is the utility club a fairway wood on a diet
or an iron with an attitude? There are three basic shapes.
The Taylor Made progression from version one to version two (the Rescue "Mid")
illustrates a change in design thinking. The Rescue 1 looks like a stubby iron.
The Rescue Mid looks like a small, squarish fairway wood. I favor the iron derivative
models. To me the question is going to revolve around "workability."
I have a hard time working a fairway wood. Sure, I can usually make it fade
and sometimes draw, but I have a hard time controlling the distance. I think
that distance control is highly dependent on controlling trajectory and that’s
very difficult for me with a fairway wood. I also want to get my hands ahead
and hit a "knock down" on those lay-ups out of thick rough. That’s
another shot that doesn’t usually come off well with a fairway wood.
It would take half the summer to test every model available but I can sum up
what I saw at the PGA show and let you know what worked best for me.
The iron look-alike shape is represented by MacGregor and Tour Edge. They both
look like irons that have been inflated -- or "pooched out" as we
used to say in Indiana. My friend John Norris who handles the MacGregor line
in Northern California has been playing the new Mac hybrid with good success
for a couple of months. If you want a utility that looks like an iron, you can
start with MacGregor and Tour Edge.
The mini fairway wood shape. I don’t have any sales figures to prove what’s
selling, but I think that the current leader is the TaylorMade Rescue Mid. The
online buzz has been that the club tends to go too high (that’s what our
testing showed) and TM has already responded with a "Tour" model that
reduces offset and presumably keeps the trajectory down. Also in the wood derivative
class is the Sonartec TRC.
The "in between" shape. One of the first hybrid clubs to have success
in the market was the Mizuno Fli-hi. I borrowed a few shots out of partners’
bags with good results and even bought myself a couple of test clubs off eBay,
but got hung up with reshafting questions and never got them to the course.
I think that my final choice is going to come out of this class. I still like
the look of the Fli-hi. Also, the new Sonartec MD has a look that suits my eye.
KZG has a slightly smaller model with a relatively shallow face height. Finally,
I thought the new Hogan utility looked great. To me, the "in between"
shape is the true hybrid.
You should concentrate on the radius of the face. Some utilities have a straight
face, like an iron. Others are curved like a fairway wood. I have a strong preference
for the straight face. It seems to me that low index players who play long iron
with confidence will prefer the straighter faced utilities. Higher index players
may prefer the radiused faces to help get the ball airborne.
Loft
Appropriate lofts are confusing. You are replacing your long irons so you would
expect lofts to be the same. The conventional wisdom is that it takes a little
stronger loft in a utility club than whatever long iron it is intended to replace.
This is because the utility clubs have a lower center of gravity and probably
a little more loft than stated, as is common with all "woods." Consequently,
the trajectory is higher. In our testing, we found that utility clubs delivered
the same carry distance as standard irons. It may be that the perception that
you need a stronger loft in a utility club is because they fly higher and may
come down softer with less roll. Consequently utility clubs deliver a little
less total distance than an iron with a corresponding loft.
For the record, traditional lofts for irons are based on a 28¡ 5 iron.
The loft progression is three degrees as the irons get longer, hence:
 5
iron 28¡
4
iron 25¡
3
iron 22¡
2
iron 19¡
If you are going to start with one test club, I recommend a 21¡ or 22¡
loft. This should give you a good comparison of distance with your 3 iron. If
you go with the Rescue Mid, you might have to drop down to a nominal 19¡
loft to get the same distance as your 3 iron.
Club Length
There are two schools of thought. Most of the original utility clubs were made
at least 1" longer than the equivalent iron. This is the usual method that
manufacturers use to convince you that you get more distance from whatever club
they are touting. They make it longer; swing speed goes up a couple of miles
an hour and the ball goes farther. The other school of thought is advocated
by Tom Wishon. He says the utility clubs should be more like the irons that
they’re intended to replace. He advocates playing the utility at iron length.
However, if you are just starting to experiment, I recommend starting with a
length that is an inch longer than the iron you intend to replace. This holds
the length down a bit, but gives you a little more club to work with. You can
always cut it down.
One small warning: Not all utilities are going to be playable at different
lengths. You’re going to have to check the head weights, particularly if
you intend to play the club a little longer than its design length. The head
might be heavy and the swingweight too high. Beware of utility clubs that are
too long.
Shaft Type
You will find that about half of the hybrids require shafts that are .335 tip
wood shafts and the rest require .370 tip iron shafts. The companies recommending
wood shafts generally emphasize distance while the companies recommending iron
shafts emphasize control. It seems to me that if your preference is for shorter
clubs, you should go with the .370 diameter irons shafts.
However, Adam Walker, the creative designer behind the Infiniti line, likes
a .335 tip shaft in graphite. He advocates playing a utility at ten cycles firmer
than a player’s driver. That’s quite a bit softer than flexing a utility
on a standard slope. You will probably find that the head weight and playing
length will dictate whether you choose a graphite or lightweight steel shaft.
I don’t think I’ve seen a utility wood shafted with a conventional
weight steel shaft.
I couldn’t test them all, so I took a random selection of the models that
seemed to be promising. I’ll be the first to admit that this wasn’t
too scientific. The shafts were all different, lengths different, flexes different,
swingweights different. In the future, I’ll come back and try other shafts
on the best performing heads. Also, I haven’t had a chance to confirm the
testing results extensively on the course. Most of our work was performed indoors,
with our Achiever launch monitor. I still think that’s the best and most
efficient to narrow the field when you’re trying to compare the performance
of golf clubs. But once you do that, you have to see the ball fly outside.
I enlisted a little help from Patrick Boyd, our human "Iron Byron"
to put the clubs through their paces. For the record, Patrick holds several
distance records at the Palo Alto muni (unofficial ones that I witnessed). That
tells you something about his swingspeed and his scratch game.
The Finalists (this month) Are:
Some of the test clubs were stock length. Others were reshafted to suit a player
who prefers 1" over length.
- The Original TaylorMade Rescue 21¡ fitted out with a 40" Nippon
Steel 95 gram shaft. The shaft flexed at a PCS 5.5 (stiff). It was out of
my bag. Swingweight was heavy at D-6.
- Sonartec MD 21¡ fitted out with a new Irod shaft in "stiff"
flex at 39.5". This club was straight stock from the PGA Show for the
review. The shaft tested out to PCS 3.5 (senior) flex. Nevertheless, it held
up well even for Patrick. The Irod is a new shaft and obviously has some unusual
characteristics. D-6 swingweight.
- Sonartec TRC 22¡ fitted out with an Apache 65P shaft at 40.5"
at PCS 6.2 (soft X) flex. D-5 swingweight.
- Mizuno Fli-Hi 22¡ fitted out with an Apache 40+ shaft at 40.5"
at PCS 6.3 (soft X) flex. D-5 swingweight.
- Taylor Made Rescue Mid at 22¡ with a stock steel shaft. The flex was
a PCS 5.0 (soft stiff). 39.5", D-4 swingweight.
Patrick and I each tested the utility clubs against our current "gamer"
3 irons. In my case, the Joe Model forged cavity backs. Patrick is playing Dunlop
blades, one set fitted out with Project X shafts, the other with Apache 40+.
The results: The following charts show some of the data collected by the Achiever.
For me, the clear winner was the Mizuno Fli-Hi. Patrick hit the Fli-Hi a little
farther, but he preferred the feel of the Sonartec MD. He also liked the TRC.
For both of us, the carry distance was indistinguishable between blades and
utilities. The launch angles were lower with the blades suggesting a hotter
trajectory and more roll. We both felt that the utilities were easier to hit
and the Achiever showed that the dispersion was better with the utilities. The
"accuracy" indicator on the chart indicates the average distance to
the pin set at 200 yards. The only reason that my accuracy was better was that
Patrick hit it too far.
Outdoor Testing Results
You can only do so much indoors. After you winnow down your choices, you have
to take a club to the range and hit it off of grass. Eventually, it will have
to go to the course. Here’s how the outdoor testing played out.
The
Original TaylorMade Rescue
The TaylorMade Rescue version 1 was the second best performer outdoors for
me. However, felt like a heavy hammer. I think it will be improved with a graphite
shaft. I’ll install an Apache 40+ and see if that improves the feel. If
you’re looking for a cheap club to experiment with, this would be a good
choice.
Sonartec
MD 21¡
I thought that the most elegant design was the new Sonartec MD. It borrows
some inspiration from the Fli-Hi but it is a sleek design with an adjustable
hosel. Outdoors, the Irod shaft started to show some weakness. Solid shots wanted
to drop a little right, for me a sure sign of a weak shaft. This is a good example
of why you need to test outdoors, the pattern did not show up on the launch
monitor. Also, it was stock length at 39.5". I’m going to reshaft
it with an Apache 40+ at 40.5" and see what happens. I’m optimistic
that this will be a good performer.
Sonartec
TRC 22¡
We both liked the Sonartec TRC, but its performance might not have been helped
by fitting it with a recycled driver shaft. The TRC has a face that is reminiscent
of a fairway wood with a strong radius and sharp leading edge. I have never
been able to get along well with 7 woods. The TRC looks like a compact 7 wood.
It went well, a little higher than the other clubs but acceptable.
TaylorMade
Rescue Mid
The TaylorMade Rescue Mid was a good performer for accuracy. I think it suffered
from the stock steel shaft. I’ll want to come back and test it with an
Apache 40+ graphite shaft. I think that will bring the ball flight down. I’ll
also keep my eyes out for the "Tour" model. This is a promising club
even though it performed poorly in its stock configuration.
Mizuno
Fli-Hi 22¡
The winner and new champion. In the last two years, there have only been two
clubs that gave me a rush of excitement the first time I hit them. This was
one, the other was a Sonartec 16¡ 4 wood. The ball flight just drilled,
toe hits held their line. I’m excited to take it to the course.
Conclusions
My original goal was to find a club that would fly 205 yards. Alas, I was dreaming
a little. Based on testing, my reasonable expectations for a 21¡ club,
whether it’s a 3 iron, 7 wood or utility club is 195 yards, and that’s
on a solid hit. It looks like if I want to get it over that 200-yard barrier,
I’m going to have to drop down to an 19¡ club. That can work out
OK, I have a 19¡ Fli-Hi ready to go. I think my bag will end up Driver,
19¡ Fli-Hi, 21¡ Fli-Hi, 4 iron and so forth. That’s at least
for next month. I’ll let you know how it works out.
Update on the Long Driver Project
We don’t have a lot to show for the month. I changed out my current "gamer,"
the SMT 455 Deep Bore 8¡ with the Harrison 50 Lite shaft, to a 9¡
head with a nice improvement in trajectory. I still may have to go to a 10¡
head. If you are planning to try a long driver, you simply can’t tell what
will be the right combination of shaft and loft to get you the trajectory you
want. You can only do it by taking your test clubs to the course you play regularly
and see what your shots look like. Also, each combination of head and shaft
will play differently. You might find that you need a 7¡ head with one
shaft and a 10¡ head with another.
I’ve started to receive a bunch of shafts that should work well at that
47.5" to 48" length. The Graffaloy Pro Launch and the Penley ETA 55
gram are in the shop. The category is drawing a lot of attention. Apache is
coming out with their long drive models, as is SK Fiber. It looks to me like
this is going to be a huge area of interest for all shaft companies as they
try to prove they can compete at the highest level.
That’s enough for now. I’ll be back next month with more on all of
our open investigations.
Leith Anderson is a partner in the Golf Lab in Palo Alto. He will answer all
questions related to clubmaking and clubfitting personally. Contact Leith Anderson
by email: Leith@calgolftech.com.
Cell phone 650-743-2816.
|
