California Golf Technologies

What's new on the West Coast

Golf Equipment Chronicles 2004 (Part 6)

Zone Frequency Analysis: a new way to look at flex

Understanding the flex and feel of golf shafts is about to get more complicated. Maybe that’s because we thought we had it all figured out. But recently, if you’re hanging out on any of the online forums like Golf Equipment Aficionados on Delphiforums.com, you have noticed a lot of clubmakers saying that “Butt frequency doesn’t tell you anything about how a shaft plays.”.I don’t think that’s exactly right; and I’ll tell you why from my personal experience a little later, but that’s getting to be a common opinion.

The Professional Clubmakers’ Society (PCS) has focused on popularizing the PCS Equalizer System. The Equalizer is the result of a lot of work to standardize the interpretation of flex based on shaft frequency. The testing method involves clamping the butt of the club tightly and then oscillating the shaft. A digital counter records the oscillations in cycles per minute (CPM). This reading is referred to as ‘butt frequency” because the frequency of the shaft is measured at a point approximately 14” from the butt of the club. Once you know the frequency and the shaft length, you can determine the Equalizer standard “flex value” which is represented as a number. In the Equalizer System, a 4.5 flex value is a “regular”. All clubmakers who use the Equalizer know how to select and trim a shaft to produce a 4.5 flex value, regardless of the equipment they may have in their shop. The value of creating a standard is that for Equalizer-enabled clubmakers, every regular is really a regular.

Another goal of the Equalizer is to simplify the understanding of flex and the relationship between flex and swingspeed to make a good club fit. Until now, all frequency matching systems have relied on measuring butt frequency only. A detailed description of the Equalizer system is available on the Golf Lab website:.www.calgoltech.com.

Now clubmakers are saying that you can only understand the flex of a shaft if you measure the frequency at several points down its length and then chart the results on a graph. Since this method involves measuring frequency in the middle of the shaft and the tip as well as the butt, it is referred to as “zone frequency”. Analyzing the data to compare two shafts involves laying one graph over another and attempting to discern the difference in the way two shafts might play by interpreting the graphs. As it turns out, that also is easier said than done.

Maybe zone frequency analysis is just a way for clubmakers to stay ahead of their customers. It’s pretty common these days for just about any player to know how to interpret a butt frequency measurement to tell himself something about the flex of his clubs and how they match his swing. There’s nothing that sticks in a clubmaker’s craw more than a customer who comes into the shop pretending to know something about fitting golf clubs. (Worse, if he really knows more than the clubmaker himself.).Maybe zone frequency analysis is the “clubmaker's revenge”.

Zone Frequency Analysis Basics
The essence of establishing a standard is to reach a consensus on method. Recently, the highly respected clubmaker, designer and businessman, Tom Wishon, has proposed a standard methodology that is on the verge of adoption by the Professional Clubmakers’ Society (PCS). The leader of the PCS initiative is Jerry Hoefling, the PCS clubmaker of the year for 2004. There are a few details left to be worked out, including the exact weight of the tip mass.

Since the standard 200 gram tip weight will not flex the tip of a stiff graphite shaft enough to provide a meaningful reading, Wishon proposed using a 1 pound tip mass (455 g.). The resulting graph is more logical than the first attempts at graphing zone frequency. Logical graphs could be the breakthrough that brings zone frequency analysis into the mainstream of clubmaking.

As usual, it’s important to define some of the jargon used to talk about the problem. I thank Tom Wishon for allowing me to reproduce the illustrations and charts from his 2004 PCS EXPO Presentation. A common frequency testing system will look something like this:

The zone frequency measurement standard as presently proposed involves taking frequency readings at specific points along a shaft. If you assume that the wood shaft blank is 46”, the first reading would be taken with the shaft at full beam length. From that point, additional readings are taken at 5” intervals down the length of the shaft. Wood shaft lengths other than 46” in length will be treated slightly differently. If you are REALLY interested in this subject, you can download Tom Wishon’s PCS EXPO presentation from the www.calgolftech.com website.

Iron shafts are measured at similar intervals:

The resulting “Shaft Bend Profile Analysis” graph looks like this:

Interpreting the Graphs
So now we have a nice graph. Where do we go from here?

The first thing you will notice is that the graphs look very similar. The advantage of graphing the zone frequency of two or more shafts that you’re comparing is that you can discover very small differences. It is beyond the scope of this article to display different graphs and attempt to analyze them, but if you want to do that for yourself, I have posted some of Jerry Hoefling’s work with his permission on the www.calgolftech.com website. You need Excel to look at the graphs. I suggest paging through the graphs to get the feel of what they look like and then dig in deeper. Find a shaft that you play yourself and compare it to another shaft that you have personal experience with. Even though at first you will feel like it is a Rorschach test, with time you begin to see how certain shafts differ. Other resources include Wishon Golf’s website on which Tom has posted numerous articles and monographs. www.wishongolf.com.

Current “State of the Art”
Tom Wishon and Jerry Hoefling make no attempt to explain what the graphs show, other than to describe in general terms how variations in frequency at certain points in the shaft could influence launch angle and certain aspects of feel. Zone frequency analysis is clearly a work in progress. To make sense of zone frequency graphs, I think that it is imperative to have personal experience with at least one of the shafts you’re comparing. It’s going to take quite a bit of experimentation, comparing shafts in play while studying the data to fully understand how to make use of the graphical analysis.

The state of the art as of June 2004 is that the methodology has been pretty much agreed and the presentation pretty much standardized. Interpreting what the numbers and graphs tell us is still mostly unexplored territory. In researching this article, I corresponded by email with Tom Wishon seeking his insight on interpreting results and predicting how this new technology will be used when it is fully cooked. He responded with a lengthy and thoughtful description of where we are today, how clubmakers can make use of the current technology, and his vision for the future. I posted my questions and Tom’s responses on www.calgolftech.com. If you are deeply interested in the subject, you will want to see that correspondence.

Wishon’s vision includes making the data available on his website so that a clubmaker or even a player could enter two shafts he wants to compare and plot the graph immediately. Today, zone frequency analysis is a lot of work. It would be great if there were an Equalizer for zone frequency analysis.

Where Butt Frequency Does Work
I mentioned that I don’t entirely agree that butt frequency “has no value” as some clubmakers argue. Here’s why:

For most golfers, the problem is not a shaft that “almost fits” but rather a shaft that is grossly too stiff or too weak. Most amateurs don’t have very consistent swings. In testing on our Achiever launch monitor, if a player takes ten swings, his swingspeed might vary by as much as ten miles an hour. If you are fitting clubs by flex alone, that much variance in swing speed would call for two different flexes. We frequently ask the question, tongue in cheek, “Which swing are we fitting?” For an average player, if you get within a flex, one way or the other, he’s probably going to play OK. (Shaft weight is much more important.).Fitting for flex is absolutely not a science and for most players, precision is not required.

For average players, the problem we’re worried about is when the shaft is two or three flexes (20 or 30 cycles) too stiff or too weak. If it’s too stiff, the player will lose his tempo, swing off balance, wrestle his driver and produce erratic swings. To discover ill-fitting shafts, we look at the swing speed variance statistic on the launch monitor report. It becomes obvious when the player is fighting his club. For a shaft that is too weak, distance suffers, dispersion increases and the launch angle is erratic.

Here’s how I use butt frequency to fit myself. From playing experience, I know that the range of frequencies that I can play well is between 240 and 260 CPM measured at 45”, 5” clamp, and grip off with the actual head dry fitted. At 10 cycles per flex, that’s two full flexes. For most shafts, I have found that I achieve the best balance and tempo at 252 CPM, plus or minus five cycles in either direction. It took me a couple of years and twenty or thirty drivers to gain that knowledge. I know that some shafts are fine if they test to the high end of the range. For example, the Rapport Blue Velvet plays just fine for me even though the butt frequency measures 263. That’s an example where you might hear the explanation “it doesn’t play that stiff”. For years, we’ve been fitting the very popular Fujikura Vista Pro at least ten cycles stiffer than the Equalizer tells us is the correct flex. That is because we know that the tip of the Vista Pro is soft which makes it easy to play even though it tests too stiff. Frequency is a good guide but experience is the best teacher.

Every player should know the range of frequencies that he can play successfully. Then, it’s easy to disqualify shafts that are obviously out of that range. You won’t waste your time and money fooling around with a shaft that won’t work. After you determine your playable range with the assistance of a launch monitor, the best way to make a final choice is to go play the shaft. Then you’ll know how it works for you. Never buy a “pig in a poke”. Work with a clubmaker who will let you try before you buy.

Launch Monitor Fitting versus Frequency Analysis
In my opinion, trying to fit clubs “by the book” is the wrong way to go. At the Golf Lab our method is launch monitor testing. Our view is that the only way you will ever know how a particular club works for you is to hit it yourself. Therefore, we focus on “getting in the ballpark” with an analysis of butt frequency of a player’s clubs and testing his swingspeed. From that point, all we care about is hitting shots with different drivers, with different heads and different shafts. The results are recorded on the launch monitor and compared. We dial in the best performer by optimizing swingspeed, ball speed launch angle, swing path, face angle, carry distance and several indicators of accuracy. It is easy to find the club that performs the best. Relying on frequency analysis alone for clubfitting is a primitive method compared to using a state of the art launch monitor.

On occasion, we find that a player hits a driver very well that is absolutely wrong “by the book”. The only way we would ever find that out is by player testing with a launch monitor. Once the launch monitor finds the best clubs indoors, it is imperative to take them to the range and make sure that the results are confirmed outdoors. The launch monitor is a great way to winnow down your choices efficiently but nothing replaces seeing the ball fly.

Where Zone Frequency Analysis is Important
It is clear to me that analyzing zone frequency is going to be very interesting to avid golfers. (An “avid” golfer need not be a low handicap golfer.).If a player is trying to fine tune his feel, trajectory or shot shape, he may be switching shafts and heads randomly trying to find the one setup that will deliver the magic. Zone frequency analysis can cut a lot of time and effort out of the quest if you’re planning on testing ten or twenty shafts.

When a player is working hard on his game, it makes sense to put a microscope on the shafts and try to figure out the minute differences that can actually give you the results you want. Zone frequency analysis promises to be a big leap forward for players who are inveterate shaft switchers. It will also help clubmakers describe differences in shafts more effectively than is possible today.

Zone frequency analysis will also be important to professional golfers. Using Eric Jones, the REMAX Senior World Long Drive Champion, as an example, when you’re competing to make a check and you break your “gamer”, you need to be able to duplicate it as closely as possible. For players competing for money and fame, zone frequency analysis might make a big difference.

Conclusion: Still Mysterious
Zone frequency analysis is certainly not destined to be interesting for every golfer. If you play infrequently, it probably won’t be worth the trouble. However, if you are still trying to find the Magic Driver, like me, you’ll probably save a lot of time in the quest if you know more about the shafts you’re hitting.

“Sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes the bug” – Mary Chapin Carpenter

I’ve been working a lot with Infiniti Golf irons lately. We had great results with the 302’s building out sets for Heather. I followed up with a couple of sets of the new 422’s and ended up with the best performers out of my eight or ten sets of irons. So it seemed just natural that I’d give Adam Walker’s new AW-3 blades a try.

The AW-3’s are a small cavity back “players’ blade”. The standard definition of players’ blade is that it is smaller and doesn’t have much offset. The AW-3’s are no different. They remind me of the Wilson Staffs of my youth. The blade is very compact. The top line has a little bit of thickness that I’ve come to like better than the traditional very thin top line. They sit absolutely square.

In the last couple of years I’d been going a different direction. I convinced myself that I preferred a slightly oversize blade with a progressive offset. Progressive offset means that there’s a lot of offset in the long irons to help get your hands ahead and make hitting the long irons easier. The mid irons have less offset and the short irons are pretty straight at the hosel. I find it very difficult to hit knockdown shots with short irons that are offset. This has always been a showstopper between me and Pings.

I built out the set of AW-3’s with a set of SK Fiber Tour Track 95 shafts. The 95 gram weight is a new model for SK Fiber and I wanted to try it because it matches up with my previous favorite, the Fujikura Vista Pro 90’s. We have built a few sets of clubs with the new Tour Track 95’s and have been very impressed. When we SST PUREd the first batch of TT 95’s we were amazed to find that more than half of the shafts tested out “A” grade on our patented SST PUREing equipment. SST PURE methodology grades each shaft based on how consistent it is measured around its circumference. Most shafts show a variation of 7-8% from the stiffest (or hard side in SST terminology) to the softest orientation. Any shaft with a 3% variation or less is graded “A”. It is rare to find so many very consistent shafts in a single batch. The average grade is “B”.

I was also interested to try another experiment. For almost three years I haven’t played a shaft that was not SST PUREd. This includes the time before we had the SST PUREing machine in our shop. For my own sets, I always bought PUREd shafts from Golfsmith. But for this set I decided to skip PUREing and just match up the swingweight and frequency put them in the bag.

My first round with the AW-3’s was a grudge match at Shoreline. I took the new irons to the course without hitting a single practice shot – a habit that I don’t recommend. After getting acquainted with the irons for a couple of holes I hit the most perfect pitching wedge of my life on the fifth. As it turns out, that might have been unlucky. I followed up with another almost perfect seven iron on the fifteenth. Despite not hitting many other really solid iron shots, I posted a 75. I was optimistic.

In two more rounds I didn’t hit another really good full iron shot. It seemed like the balance was just off. Or, it may have been that the PUREing made more of a difference than even I would have imagined. It’s going to be a real chore to take the clubs apart, PURE the shafts and then play them again. I’m not looking forward to the work. But they will get one more serious try.

Object Lessons and the Silver Lining
My experience with the AW-3’s points out a sobering truth. No matter how much you think you know about your golf game, how dialed in your specifications may be, or how perfect your clubmaking skills, not all sets will work out. Over the last year, I’ve built at least a dozen sets of irons for myself. Out of that number, three or four were very good, a couple of others OK and others just deserved to go back to the parts bin. When you build or find an extraordinary set of clubs – it’s magic. Unfortunately, few players go to the trouble to several different sets of clubs while they’re searching for the magic set.

The other lesson is that the time comes when you must accept your ability. Alas, I’m afraid I’m sadly beyond the point when I’ll be able to play my best golf with small, square, non-offset blades. I would rather not admit it, but I’ll probably go back to my midsize, progressive offset cavity backs.

I forgot to mention the silver lining. On the third and last round with the AW-3’s I was playing my regular grudge match with Reed. On the back nine, I only hit three greens but chipped up stony four times and made two good puts when other chips were just close. Result:.one over par for the nine and a full Nassau win over my favorite opponent. I think that I may have inadvertently discovered the major benefit of the Infiniti players’ clubs:.the grind and the wedges. Adam Walker has patent applied for features in the sole grind of his wedges. I’m going to give the smaller wedges a very serious try. The great chipping day also made me reconsider my habit of grinding a bounce into the sole of my irons. My next set will definitely have “digger” soles.

Update on Long Drivers
I took a little vacation from the long driver story. I don’t know why, but the one setup that did work out for me ended up getting taken apart. I thought that the trajectory was a little too low so I took the 8* SMT 455 DB head off of the Harrison 50 Lite shaft to replace with something that would go a little higher. Then I lost track of the parts. Since then I haven’t been lucky to find another combination that worked. And misadventures with experiments ended up costing me strokes and money in a couple of Palo Alto club tournaments.

But my fascination with longer drivers won’t go away. Long drivers have absolutely proven themselves to work for seniors. On average, they deliver twenty extra yards with a solid strike. Several of the hardest to please players around happen to be my friends at Palo Alto and Shoreline and those who put long drivers in the bag have kept them there. Long drivers have been less successful for low handicap younger players (up to about 40 years old.).A good player who holds a late release will not increase swingspeed with a longer driver. In fact, swingspeed can actually decrease. But that is never the case for seniors. Seniors always hit long drivers farther.

I have begun to dial in some of the variables of head size, loft, face angle and shaft type by trial and error experimentation. I played a long driver in my last tournament without catastrophic consequences and I’m confident that the breakthrough is about to happen. Maybe by next month I’ll have a new Magic Driver in the bag. For now, here are my findings.

Head size. For me, the right size is 420 cc. or larger. If you’re choosing a head, the current leaders are:.Alpha Reaction 830 series, SMT 450 DB, Ashton X-1, a couple of Bang models and the Maxter 440. For this go-round I chose the Maxter 440. A big part of the reason was that Maxter measures the precise loft, lie and face angle and each head comes with the sticker attached. I am pretty finicky about getting the perfect combination of loft and face angle to dial in trajectory. Second, it is imperative to have a very deep face. A big part of success with long drivers is hitting the ball off of a very high tee. The old saying “Tee it high and let it fly” actually has some truth behind it. We have found in launch monitor testing that a high tee increases swingspeed by 2-4 MPH.

Loft. The loft you choose depends on the shaft. For me, the magic number turned out to be 9* with most shafts. This is where knowing the actual loft of a head is imperative. You can dial in the results you’re looking for. My current gamer is a Maxter 440 on a SK Fiber Lite Revolution shaft. I started out with a 9* head that was measured at 9.4*. I thought that went a little too high. I swapped it out for a 9* head that was measured at 8*. That one definitely went too low. I settled on a 9* head measured at a true 9*. It might just be voices in my head, but that one was “just right”.

Shaft Length. For me, the right length is 46.5” for a club that I will use in stroke play tournaments. After a lot of testing, I found that was the longest shaft I could control. The only way you will know the length that works best for you is to start with a 48” club and cut it down a ½” at a time testing your swing speed as you go. You’ll find the right length. You’ll probably waste a shaft.

Shaft Type. The jury is still out on this one. It seems clear that the lightest weight is the best. That’s Eric Jones’ opinion. He likes the Harrison Striper, despite the fact that it broke in the finals of his first tournament of the year in Tucson – where he took sixth and cashed a check. My best results so far have been the Harrison 50 Lite but I’m working with the new Fujikura Speeder 563, the SK Fiber Lite Revolution and Pure Energy. They are all very good. There are lots of choices.

Sweet Spot. For most of the large heads, the sweet spot is not in the middle of the face. It takes some practice, but you have to find the sweet spot. For the Alpha’s and the Nakashima’s, it’s above the center line and out toward the toe. I’m still not sure about the Maxter. You’ve got to practice hitting the ball off center. That should keep you busy for a few days.

Counter Weights. I always put a Balance-Certified counter weight in the grip. For me, it makes the club feel a lot lighter and contact feels more solid. Be aware, you should test counter weights for yourself.

Watch List: Brief Discoveries, Updates and Predictions
There’s a new shaft that stayed in the bag of two very different players this month. It’s the Blue Velvet from Rapport. Iron Byron (1 index) has had it in his Nakashima 380 for the last month and he won’t even test anything else. Meanwhile, Chuckie (10 index) shot his best lifetime round, a 76 at Paly with his Blue Velvet and Nakashima 420 combination. The Blue Velvet is a very complex shaft manufactured by Rapport. It is flag wrapped for the first few layers then filament wound. The tip is reinforced with nickel mesh. It tests stiff but plays much softer. Rapport is the world’s pioneer in filament winding. We’ll get a bunch of them and try to figure out why this one made such fast friends. This looks like a good project for zone frequency analysis.

The Nakashima story definitely has legs. Players try them then keep them in the bag. The online forums are pretty much universal in their praise of Nakashima heads. This is very unusual because there are usually a few people who want to argue if someone posts a positive review. It’s definitely a honeymoon period. How long will it last?.It’s very rare for a company to come out of nowhere and make it in the big time.

George “The Animal” Slupski has a new Accuflex named after him. The long drive professional who has made the final eight in the National Championships eight times had some unconventional advice for amateurs. “A golfer should hit the softest flex and highest torque that he can control.”.This is exactly contrary to the way most men choose their shafts. Think about it.

Unusual graphite shaft designs are going to one of the “next big things”. I mentioned the UST Irod which tests very soft on the PCS Equalizer but plays extremely firm. The X flex tests soft but plays like a pipe. Tom Wishon introduced his Interflexx shafts, designed to influence trajectory more than standard designs. The Interflexx shafts were designed by Robin Arthur, who launched his career with the Graffaloy Prolite, probably the second most popular graphite shaft in history. There is a lot of innovation and technology going into graphite shaft design.

Hand ground “designer” wedges are going to be a big category in the next few months. You’ll hear names like Scratch, Merit, Phantom Dezign, Pixl and Zodia. It’s about time to break the stranglehold that drivers have had on golfer psychology for the last several years.

If you got this far, you deserve a vacation. How about Ireland?.If you always wanted to play the classic links courses, you’ll have a chance this September. Call the Golf Lab for details.

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.