What's new on the West Coast

Golf Equipment Chronicles 2007 (Part 6)

Copyright 2007 by Leith Anderson
All rights reserved
Originally appeared in June 2007 issue of Golf Today

OEM Custom or True Custom?

By Leith Anderson

By June, most golf nuts would like to be finished with setting their bag for the year. Maybe not real golf nuts – just disciplined golf nuts – the rest of us are going to keep trying out new things whenever they come up.

There are a couple of iron models that I wanted to try this season. The Mizuno MX-25’s and Nike CCI’s are two of the most interesting new styles for 2007. It’s also high time for a mid-season checkup on some of my recommendations from prior articles. Among the best: High MOI drivers and the Balance-Certified counter-weighting system. Meantime, ball-fitting software is still "in development".

"OEM Custom" Versus "True CUSTOM"

It’s axiomatic for serious golfers that it doesn’t make sense to buy golf clubs off the rack. Everyone is getting into the business of "custom fitting". That includes the major golf equipment manufacturers. (Major golf equipment manufacturers are referred to as "OEMs" for Original Equipment Manufacturers.).Every major OEM has its own custom department. Most don’t charge much extra for custom builds. At the Golf Lab we work with OEM custom departments to make sure that our customers who favor specific brands get clubs that fit their swing and their game.

The problem is that it’s never certain what will arrive after you order a custom set of clubs from an OEM. At the Golf Lab, we test and measure every set of clubs that we receive so we know exactly what showed up. Over time, we learned the idiosyncrasies of every club company so we can usually order a set that will fit. But if clubs that arrive don’t match the fitting specification, back they go.

The two sets I ordered for myself specified custom shafts at custom length. The MX-25’s came with the new Mizuno 105 gram graphite iron shafts in stiff flex. I wanted to know how Mizuno shafts compared to my favorite brands. The Nike CCI’s were ordered with the new True Temper Project X shafts in 5.5 flex. Since Royal Precision folded and True Temper took over their product lines there has been quite a bit of discussion about what the "new" Project X shafts would be like when they started coming out of the True Temper factory. I also wanted to know if Nike finally figured out how to get a good players’ iron into the market.

The MX-25’s came in first. Even though Mizuno is known as a company that makes forged blades for good players, their best selling iron of all time was the Mizuno MX-23. In a company of blades, the MX-23 was a "game improvement" design. The MX-23 is a mid sized forged blade with an extreme cavity, a thick top line, a little offset in the long irons, less in the short irons and a pretty "bouncy" sole grind. Overall, the MX-23 was a great model for any player who wanted a forged iron with a little more forgiveness. After a long run with the MX-23, Mizuno brought out the "new and improved" MX-25.

I’m like a lot of senior players—constantly worrying about declining physical ability and thinking that more forgiving irons would be the answer to my perceived problems. The MX-25 still has an extreme cavity, is slightly shorter heel to toe, slightly thinner on the top line, slightly deeper in the face and has a little less offset through the set. Those are all modifications that favor a low-index player’s taste. Mizuno kept the wide sole and pronounced bounce. I hoped it would be a good model for low handicappers who are looking for a little more forgiveness. That was me.

Head Weights and Balance

There are some really good things about the Mizuno custom department. Mizuno understands head weights, swing weights and club balance. Also, they finish their custom clubs with little touches that gain the respect of other custom clubmakers.

I’m 6’5" tall. I play irons that are at least an inch longer than standard. When clubs get longer, they get heavier. One inch of length means an extra six swing weight points. If you’re not careful with weight and balance, over length clubs can get heavy. Heavy clubs are like heavy hammers. They’re good for pounding the ball, but bad for finesse.

When you order over length clubs from Mizuno, the custom department can choose light or heavy heads to hit a target swingweight. Standard iron heads from most companies are based on a five iron weight of 255 grams – plus or minus a gram or two. From there, each successive iron head is designed to a seven gram progression. The six iron will be 262 grams, and so on. Only Mizuno offers a second range of head weights—lighter by four to six grams.

The design specification for most iron sets today is a D-0 to D-2 swingweight at standard length with a 125 gram shaft and 52 gram grip. Standard length is usually defined as a 38" five iron with a half inch progression between clubs. The "one size fits all" mentality is great for retailers and manufacturers. It keeps costs down. But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that one size does not fit all golfers.

If you add an inch, unless you have access to lighter heads, you will end up at the top of the swingweight scale – around D-9. After years of experience building and playing over length clubs for myself, I think that is too heavy. One fix is to use a lighter weight shaft. That’s a good option. For every eight grams that you save in a shaft, the swingweight comes down by one point. With head weights, a few grams make a big difference. An iron head that is four grams lighter will cut swingweight by two points. Instead of a D-9 swingweight, Mizuno over length clubs come in two to three points lighter.

The MX-25’s were delivered with spot-on D-6 swingweights and hand finished polished ferrules. So far so good.

Shafts and Shaft Performance

If you’re ordering your custom clubs with conventional steel shafts, there isn’t much to worry about. Most forged blades require discrete length "taper tip" shafts. There is no tip trimming to adjust flex. All an OEM has to do is to get the right shaft epoxied into the right club. That covers most of the True Temper line – S-300, R-300, S-400, X-100, Rifles and Project X. All of those shafts are relatively heavy—ranging from 115 grams to 140 grams in weight. That list covers about 99% of the PGA Tour and most amateurs sporting indexes of 5 and under.

OEM custom departments are less predictable when you’re thinking about high performance and exotic shafts made from lightweight steel, graphite and Scandium. Many players, especially seniors, gain performance and feel benefits from playing light weight shafts.

Mizuno is unique among major OEM’s. They make their own graphite shafts. While it is presumably more profitable to make your own shafts than to buy them from other companies, it is going against the trend. For years, OEMs have fitted their clubs with "proprietary" graphite models. That practice had two benefits: first, the single choice cut inventory for retailers who were not obligated to stock multiple shaft models in multiple flexes. Second, manufacturers could put a cheaper shaft in their clubs.

That practice has earned the distrust of most players, who found that proprietary graphite shafts were mostly cheaper, low-performance models painted to look more expensive than they were. Today, proprietary graphite shafts are viewed skeptically by most good players. I was wondering if Mizuno could buck the trend and deliver home-made Exar shafts that would compare favorably to the best of the after market offerings.

I really wanted to like the stiff Mizuno 105 gram Exar graphite shafts. When the clubs arrived, I tested the flex with our Mitchell Digiflex frequency meter, 5" clamp and consulted PCS Equalizer system to interpret the results. The "S" flex shafts tested very stout, a flex value north of 6.5 on the Equalizer. That frequency rates as an "X" flex. It was unusual for proprietary shafts to test stiffer than the manufacturer’s letter rating.

I played three rounds with the 1" over length MX-25’s. While I posted decent scores, I was not happy with my iron play. I noticed a tendency for my iron shots to "stall" toward the apex of the shot. That result was contrary to what I expected. Stiffer shafts normally impart less spin, fly lower and a little flatter. An explanation might be that the Exar shafts are butt stiff but tip soft. It’s impossible for us to prove that theory by "shaft profiling". Graphite iron shafts are too stiff for us to profile reliably, even with state-of-the-art electronics at the Golf Lab.

I also felt that I was not making solid contact. I got the feeling that every shot was struck one groove too low. I blamed too much sole bounce for that problem.

To be sure that the anomaly was not simply attributable to length, I cut the shafts down to standard length, adjusted the lies and gave the M-25’s to a PGA professional who tests a lot of our experimental golf clubs. He gave them back after one round. "I don’t like them, they don’t feel stable enough" was his evaluation. That’s only two strikes but I don’t think that we’re going to see many low index players with Exar graphite shafts in their Mizuno irons. It may be that Mizuno builds its graphite shafts for the "average player" who needs a soft tip and a little more torque. We have found that Exar shafts perform well for mid and high index amateurs in lighter weights.

In the last few months, we have reshafted several sets of Mizuno irons with lighter weight Exar shafts. In those cases, the Mizuno graphite shafts tested softer than the listed flex and were replaced with stiffer flexes from other makers. If you want to order Mizuno Exar shafts in lighter weights, order a flex stiffer than you normally play.

Head Size, Shape and Sole Grind

To me, the major factor in iron "forgiveness" is head size. The better the player, the more consistent his swing. The best way to define consistency is how close to the sweet spot a player strikes his shots. Every once in a while, you run into a very good player who has been playing the same set of irons for a long time. His irons will have a dime-sized wear spot in the middle of the face. When you see a set of irons like that, be careful with your bets.

I have thought about carefully removing the chrome from that dime-sized sweet spot so my blades would have that unmistakable look of a well-used set of irons owned by a great ball striker. That would surely start a buzz at the bag drop. "Who is that guy?" Alas, that would also lead to the embarrassment caused by clubs that are too good for the player when he gets to the course.

Most of us hit a low percentage of our iron shots dead center. A little bigger face – especially in the heel to toe dimension—offers a bit of "forgiveness". Forgiveness is measurable. Companies test their clubs with robots that strike the ball at precise locations on the club face. By comparing center hits with hits that are a quarter or half an inch off center you can measure how much ball speed (distance) is lost. More forgiving irons lose a little less distance on off-center hits. Using this method, irons can be compared for forgiveness—the more forgiving lose less distance on off center hits.

But forgiveness has a price. The question you have to answer is if you willing to accept a better "average shot" in return for an exciting "great shot". There is not better feeling in golf than a shot struck dead center on a small, muscle-back players’ blade. You forfeit that feeling with "shovels". That is the reason for the trend to mixed set make-ups from the PGA Tour to the local Muni.

Even PGA Tour players are willing to accept a better average shot with a three iron, hence you find cavity back irons or hybrids in their bags. They are also willing to accept a better average shot with mid irons; hence cavity backs in their four, five and even six irons. But when you get to the scoring clubs, the irons that you aim at the flagstick, you frequently see muscle back blades. Virtually all wedges are muscle back. That is a good way to set up a bag. Matched sets are out of style.

The last consideration in iron heads is the sole shape and grind. In the old days, irons were all pretty much alike. Turn them upside-down and you’ll notice that the leading edge is thin and sharp. Sharp leading edges require a player to hit the ball first. If not, the irons "dig". Fat shots come up way short.

The MX-25’s maintain the broad sole shape of the MX-23’s with quite a bit of bounce. That is definitely a "game improvement" feature. That sole shape is good for a player who isn’t a great ball striker. If you come in a little heavy, the bounce sole will "skid" into the ball. You get pretty good contact from a mediocre strike. That’s the essence of game improvement irons.

After playing several rounds with the MX-25’s I’m sorry to say that they’re not going to make it into my bag. I’m still yearning for my best good shot. In the Mizuno line, that means sticking with blades. Last year’s MP-60’s are the most forgiving in that class, but there are a lot of good players who picked up the MP-32’s a couple of years ago and never let them go. If you like pure custom, you can mix the 32’s in the short irons and the 60’s in the long irons.

To some extent, the "failure" was good news. I found that I don’t really need "game improvement" irons. Nevertheless, I’m going to reshaft the MX-25’s with lightweight steel, looking for a little crisper feel. You never know where you’ll find the "magic". My recommendation: Don’t sell yourself short.

Nike CCI Forged Blades

Nike is a relatively new company in the golf industry. They made a bold move when they signed Tiger Woods to an astronomical endorsement contract before they even had clubs he could play. Since then, Nike has taken the primary marketing method of the golf industry to extremes. "What wins on Sunday, sells on Monday" is the mantra that defines golf club marketing. Signing Tiger, Michelle Wie, K.J. Choi, Rory Sabatini, Stewart Cink and dozens of other top PGA Tour players to endorsement contracts demonstrates Nike’s commitment to bet on red, black, odd and even. Lately, they’re covering zero and double zero to boot.

Nike has done a great job with woods, but they haven’t cracked the iron market. The original Nike blades didn’t stay in many players’ bags. Despite the Nike swoosh on Tiger’s irons, no one I know thinks that they come from the Nike foundries. Insiders remember that Tiger has a taste for Miura blades. And they assume that he can get what he wants from Nike just like he did when he played the Titleist "T Stamp" blades—made by Miura. "T-Stamps" frequently bring over $1000 in used condition on eBay. Meantime, if you want to try a set of original Nike blades, they are common on eBay at roughly half of the original wholesale price. The market has spoken.

Nike has had some near misses. When they hired Tom Stites, he brought the Slingshot design that he had been working on for years as an independent designer. The first Slingshot model that Nike introduced in 2005 was pretty good. It just suffered from a sole grind that had too much bounce and limited shaft selections. Good players had trouble hitting the Slingshots from tight lies. The original Slingshot didn’t make it.

In 2006, Nike split the Slingshot line into the "Tour" model and the "Charles Barkley" (OSS) model. The Tour model came out with a redesigned sole grind aimed at satisfying better players. There were other modifications to the final product. The hosel was beefed up and who knows what happened to the face material? The result? The Tour version of the Slingshot bombed, a victim of "lack of feel". Nike planned to discontinue the Tours after a single season. But Tour Slingshots are still in the line. My guess is that Nike is just trying to clean up the inventory without suffering the embarrassment of flushing leftovers on Rock Bottom Golf. The Charles Barkley version? It’s great for 20 handicap players—and up.

For 2007, Nike brought out the new CCI model –in two versions – cast and forged. The "CCI" stands for Composite Cavity Insert. The design gimmick is a little shard of "composite" glued into a lower cavity in the back of the iron head. The claimed benefit is that the space age material will soften the feel of impact. It’s a pretty common feature. Graphite inserts are found in Callaway Fusions, and many other lines.

I think that the cast version of the CCI is worth ignoring. The cast model is a little bigger than the forged, but it has none of the common "forgiveness" features, like extreme cavity design or lower center of gravity. A player looking for a Nike iron that is cast, with forgiveness, at bargain price, and with a PGA Tour pedigree should buy a set of Nike Ignites. That’s an unlikely model played on the PGA Tour by Rory Sabbatini.

A Golf Snob’s View of Nike Styling

Nike is a company that is not afraid to get out on the leading edge of style. They gave us flashing lights in the soles of our sneakers. They gave us the SUMO2 – a "toaster on a stick" – Nike is definitely not afraid of radical styling.

I’m a proud golf snob. I have a collection of over 200 sets of classic forged irons dating back to the late 50’s. One of my thrills is to play a set of classic blades, updated to modern standards with new shafts, fitted to my specifications. When it comes to forged blades, I don’t think there’s been much improvement in playability in fifty years. A good player can take 1969 Wilson Staff "Bulletback" forged blades, properly fitted with modern shafts and match shots with any current model.

All of the classic iron designs have one thing in common – there are no glued-on labels. In recent years, manufacturers have adopted a method of decoration that is anathema to a golf snob. They paste colorful labels inside the cavity or on the back of their blades. The problem? It doesn’t last. Glued-on labels discolor, peel and fall off. In ten years, the clubs look awful.

I have forged irons in my collection that are sixty years old and look almost new. There is no metal foil – just hard chrome and hand painting. I don’t believe that any current iron model will ever reach classic status if it has phony decoration.

The Nike CCI has a telltale stick-on. It’s the Nike "swoosh" and it looks okay – this year. Will the CCI become a classic? I don’t think so. I’m not picking on Nike. Taylor Made and Callaway are even more egregious users of superfluous flashy decoration.

That’s just a golf snob’s opinion about how to make irons that last.

Nike Custom Shafts

Shaft options have always been limited with Nike irons. They offer the usual S-300, proprietary lightweight steel and a proprietary graphite. There are a few more choices from the Nike custom shop. For 2007, Nike added the Project X. I wanted to try the "new" Project X after the hullabaloo around the Royal Precision blowup.

When the Nike forged CCI’s showed up, I noted how they were finished. They were ordered 1" over length and 3 degrees upright. That’s my litmus test for custom shops. Many will not deliver irons more than 2 degrees upright. I checked the lengths, lofts, lies and swingweights. With the exception of a couple of lie angles, the specifications were spot on. It was a minor disappointment that Nike doesn’t bother to finish the ferrules like Mizuno.

Swingweights were a predictable D-9. That shows that Nike has only one weight range for their iron heads. With the 110 gram PX shafts, swingweights were high but acceptable. I would not buy Nike irons over length with standard weight (125 g.) steel shafts. They will be too heavy for most players.

The surprise was the Project X shafts. When they were manufactured by Royal Precision, PX shafts had the reputation of playing at least half a flex stiffer than similar frequencies of standard Rifle shafts. Readers of the Chronicles will remember that there are several different methods of interpreting flex, all using similar nomenclature but meaning different things. At the Golf Lab, we have standardized on the Professional Clubmakers’ Society Equalizer system. It is expressed in a scale of 2.0 to 8.0 – just like the original Royal Precision frequency scale that it was modeled after. The problem is that a 4.5 or "regular" on the RP scale is going to test out to a 6.0 or "stiff plus" on the Equalizer system. When I performed a frequency test on the new PX shafts, I was expecting them to come in at 7.0 on the Equalizer. They topped 8.0. It’s a small sample, but that’s quite a bit stiffer than the PX shafts that Royal Precision used to make.

We still have very little experience with the "new" PX shafts by True Temper. Some clubmakers think that the PX has been "dumbed down" to be more playable for amateur golfers. (That means longer and more flexible tip sections.).Former Royal Precision Tour players seem to be sticking with the older version that has a satin finish. You can tell the difference. The new True Temper PX shafts are bright chrome. We can all keep an eye on Phil and know when he makes the switch.

Head Size, Shape and Sole Grind

The CCI is slightly bigger than a players’ blade and slightly smaller than midsize. From the business end, the toe is a little squared-off. The sole is narrow and has a little radius. Overall, the shape is just about perfect to my eye. With most iron sets, there is usually one club that doesn’t seem to fit the set. Not so with the CCI’s. They all look like brothers (or sisters).

On the Course

At 1" over length with the PX shafts, the CCI’s seemed quite a bit heavier than I’m used to playing. Swingweight was a marginal D-9. Every once in a while it’s a good idea to return to a setup that you don’t think will be all that great, just to make sure.

On the positive side, the CCI’s were the straightest hitting irons that I’ve played in recent memory. Sometimes I hear players describe certain clubs as "point and shoot". Several times over the course of two rounds with the CCI’s I surprised myself with how my shots covered the pin. Direction and distance control were great.

On the negative side, the irons were short. Not just short-short; really, extremely short. I found myself hitting eight irons from 130 yards with the wind at my back. For a guy who thinks he should be able to step on an eight iron and fly it 150, that was unacceptable. The reason? I’m sure it was the overall club weight and very stiff flex.

(BTW: In subsequent rounds with forged blades and Aerotech 110 shafts set up to a PCS Equalizer 5.5 I confirmed that I really can fly an 8 iron 150 yards.)

There will be two follow-up experiments with the CCI’s. The first will be to get a set of 4.5 Rifle PX shafts and try them at the same length. If I could keep the accuracy, I’d give up half a club in distance. The second experiment will be to set the CCI’s up with my current favorite Aerotech 110 gram Steel Fiber shafts. Was the uncanny accuracy due to the PX shafts or the CCI heads? You’ll have to stay tuned to find that out.

Why Didn’t I Think of That?

There’s a simple solution to curing Nike’s troubles with irons. Nike could own the forged iron market if they sold "real" Tiger irons. Just let customers buy exactly what Tiger plays. It won’t matter what they cost. Nike could sell a million sets the first year. Besides, Nike can buy Miura for a lot less than it costs to rent Tiger.

Defining "True Custom"

No matter how good any custom department is at any OEM, the only customers that get unlimited choices are PGA Tour players.

The OEM’s will never be able to offer more than a few of the most popular shafts as custom options. Popularity is determined by market acceptance. For players who want to try the newest shaft designs, or who need flex adjusted from standard parameters, or who want the balance of their clubs tweaked, the only option is a custom setup from a custom clubmaker. Most of the time, fitting exotic and high performance shafts will require the clubmaker to drill out the club head to accept parallel tip shafts. At the Golf Lab, we favor parallel tip shafts because it gives us the option to fine tune shaft flex to affect feel and ball flight. We achieve "custom flighting" by mixing shaft weights and flexes within a single set.

Some second-tier OEMs are beginning to offer their clubheads as components to a select group of highly qualified custom golf shops. Their objective is improved customer satisfaction and increased sales. If a customer wants a specific shaft option, there is no reason he should have to buy a completely finished set of clubs, take them apart, discard the shafts and start over. That makes his custom set more expensive than need be. Companies that have selected the Golf Lab to provide custom fitting and clubmaking services include: Adams, Miura, Bobby Jones, Nicklaus and Sonartec. Sooner or later, even the larger OEMs will follow suite. It’s a competitive advantage for any company to make their products available in customized form. Customer satisfaction—and lower prices for custom clubs—will ultimately rule.

More advanced thinking in modern clubfitting is related to club weight, length and balance. Swingweight is the traditional ways of matching golf clubs for "feel". Dating back to the early 1920’s swingweight is just one of those habits that manufacturers adopted as a way to prove that their clubs came in matched sets. Recently, forward-thinking clubmakers have begun to advocate "moment of inertia" (MOI) as a better way to match irons. The theory is that MOI matches the club as it swings, rather than standing still. MOI matching is accomplished with electronic gizmos that are made for the purpose. Rather than identical swingweights, MOI-matched irons gradually increase swingweights through the set. One shaft manufacturer—Aerotech—produces shafts in progressive weight sets to aid in MOI matching.

A "quick and dirty" way to MOI match irons is to increase the swingweights by half a point through the set. You’re not going to get that that from OEM custom departments.

If a player chooses standard heads and standard, heavy weight steel shafts, there’s not much reason to discuss feel. But many custom clubmakers have obtained great results by altering the traditional balance of irons. Our favorite technique is to pair lightweight steel or graphite shafts with heavier than standard heads. For players who like a "heavier head feel" without increasing the overall weight of a club, that’s a great way to go. Some premium companies provide heads in custom weight ranges – Miura is the prime example. Others utilize internal weight ports to control head weight. One head weight does not fit all golfers.

Traditional club lengths are also drawing fire from clubmakers who argue that there’s no good reason for the half an inch progression in club lengths. They argue that club lengths should be customized to help a player be more comfortable and consistent in setup. The main proponent of that theory is a Canadian named Dan Connelly who has invented a system that he calls "True Length Technology" (TLT). The essence of TLT is that long irons should be shorter and short irons should be longer. That idea has gained the support of one of the most influential personalities in the clubmaking world—Tom Wishon. One shaft length scheme does not fit all golfers.

Finally, club balance can be altered by adding weight under the grip. Counter weighting increases ball speed for a majority of golfers. Changing the balance of clubs can also improve consistency – the ability to hit the ball on the center of the clubface. These are not unfounded claims. Performance improvement can be measured by launch monitors and swing analyzers. One club balancing method (swingweight) does not fit all golfers.

The Mixed Bag—Thoroughly Stirred

Any player who wants to get the best setup in his bag must be prepared for relentless testing. Unless you’re cashing checks from a major OEM, there’s no reason to stick with a single brand. No company that I know has the best clubs in every single category. On course testing is the most reliable way to choose your clubs. There is no substitute for hitting your own balls off of grass to targets that you recognize. A good partner in that effort is a custom clubmaker who can supply you with a never-ending array of measured and tested high performance clubs.

Short Strokes
The Battle of Sole Plate Artwork

On display in pro shops and retail stores, the "business end" of the new drivers is the sole plate. I can’t pass a display without having a look at the new shapes and colors. The OEM’s have realized that bright colors and interesting designs sell drivers. It used to be the way they looked from the other side. Oh well . . .

High MOI Drivers are Here to Stay
We’re a few months into the season of "HIGH MOI". It opened with Nike releasing the SUMO2 "Sonic Toaster". Then, others got into the game. Adams with the BUL "Portobello". Callaway with the FT-I "Chicklet". Titleist with the 907 "Conehead". All of the companies that didn’t have a high MOI driver piled on to complain that the new generation did not look or sound the same. Traditionalists were threatening to cancel their Golf Magazine subscriptions—claiming the High MOI driver photos were obscene.

The next bubble to pop will be price. The new Nickent "square" is out at $199 retail. The bad news for the doubters? High MOI drivers work. They are more reliable to get the ball in play. We’ve have enough customer experience to report a very high level of satisfaction from the "early adopters". That goes for both low-index, Tour-bound pros and high index amateurs.

I had a chance to play one of my favorite courses in early May—Pasatiempo in Santa Cruz. It’s a dangerous golf course where triple bogies and "mega-others" are common. Unfortunately, Pasatiempo left me with more bad memories than good – reminders of college tournament disappointments and blowup holes. I chose the Adams BUL shafted with a Mitsubishi White Board 73, stiff flex, SST PUREd and trimmed to 44". To make up for the short length, I used enough lead tape around the perimeter of the mushroom to bring the head weight up to 208 grams. The result? A great driving round and a smooth 76. I wish I could have done that in 1966.

Do yourself a favor. Demo a high MOI driver.

Balance Certified Counter-weights

There are very few things that we can do to modify golf clubs that always work for every player. Sometimes I think that, like baseball, a .300 batting average is pretty good. That’s pretty good except for the other seventy percent. The Balance-Certified weight system may not hit for a 1.000 average, but it’s pretty close.

The problem is that you’ve got to be ready to spend some time. You might need the help of a clubmaker with good electronics who can detect small increases in ball speed. You have to be satisfied with relatively small incremental improvements. But keep in mind; three miles an hour of increased ball speed can get you ten more steps down the fairway. That’s a club closer to the green.

Counter-weights are very effective in putters. Once again, some testing is required to determine the exact weight that gives the best results. Our method is to use the Balance-Certified chart to record putting performance. Half an hour is enough time but you need a little help to change the weights and record the results. As a reward for reading this far, we’ll waive our fitting fee for Balance-Certified putter weights for the month of June. Call ahead 650-493-1770 to make an appointment. All you have to lose is your three putts.

Ball Fitting Software

This is getting embarrassing – but a less for me since I was in the software industry. The two ball fitting systems that I have mentioned in past Chronicles are still in development. They will be great – when they get here.

Leith Anderson is a Partner in the Golf Lab, Palo Alto, CA.
He will answer any and all questions relating to club fitting and club making. Contact:  Leith@calgolftech.com.